The following is the work of Joyce Hetrick.  All persons mentioned are our ancestors also.

Giles Carter of Virginia & His Wife Hannah

Giles Carter-1; Theodorick-2; Theodorick-3; William-4; Joseph-5; Elizabeth-6

Regardless of his ancestry, the man we know to be our ancestor, GILES CARTER-1 of Virginia, born about 1634, somewhere in England, came to Virginia before 1653. He gave a deposition in 1680, stating his age as 46. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1677-1705, pg. 148.]

We can be sure that our GILES-1 was in the colony before 1653, when he is listed as among those imported by Mr. William Fry, who claimed land for GILES’ importation, along with 15 other persons. [Virginia Colonial Records, patent book 3, page 192.] In the year 1653, many claims were filed for head-rights for persons who had probably been imported several years previously, so we don’t know the exact date of GILES’ importation. It is quite likely that he was fleeing the problems created in England by Cromwell’s rise to power. It is also quite probable that he was seeking his own fortune as a younger son with few prospects at home, but with good family contacts

The Colony granted 50 acres to each person who imported a colonist at his expense, or brought in a slave or indentured servant. If a man paid his own passage, he would receive the 50 acres of land. This policy resulted in great lists of imported persons, when they were imported, and by whom. The imported person must stay in the colony for three years, or die in the colony, for the land grant to be valid. Thus, we may be reasonably sure that GILES was actually in the colony by 1650 or before. If his birth date of 1634 is about right, then he would have been 16 years old, or thereabouts, when he came to the colony. This is consistent with the customs for indentured servants at that time, most of whom were very young males. These lists are a great help to genealogists.

If a man is listed as imported by another man, it is fairly conclusive that he was imported as an indentured servant or family member. At this time in Virginia’s history, many former indentured servants rapidly moved into the ranks of land owners. In one study of the records, the term of years between importation and owning land varied, but averaged about 12 years.

In Genealogical Evidence, the author points out on page 23, “The terms “indentured servant,” and “bond servant” may be confusing. The term “indenture” actually refers to the document or contract between the master and the apprentice or servant. The indenture actually means the wavy line caused when the two copies of the contract written on one piece of parchment, vellum, or paper was cut in two—one copy for each party.”

The fact that GILES CARTER-1 never claimed land for the importation of his wife or children means that they were either transported by others or born in the colony. GILES’ wife, HANNAH, was most likely, imported by someone else or born in the colony. Since we are not sure of her maiden name, we are unable to find a record of her importation or birth. GILES-1 may have worked as a “servant” [employee] for Mr. Fry, or the indenture could have been sold to another. Labor was dear in the colony, and land cheap, so it was not difficult for a man to rise in the financial scheme of things, especially if he came from a family connection with some influence in the mother country. Even though he might have been an impoverished younger son, having “family connections” to help him would have been a great benefit in advancing financially. There were many opportunities in the colony to make financial advances, but they were greatly assisted by “connections” which could give a person a leg up and put them in a position to benefit from the opportunities.

GILES’ friends and associates seem to have been better “fixed” than he was, and left him legacies in their wills, as if they were related or were very close family friends. The legacies speak well of his family connections in England.

It is possible that our ancestor, GILES-1, may have returned to Britain after he first came to Virginia, and then returned to Virginia again. It was not uncommon for men to make the crossing several times, though we have no proof that he did. The lists of people that GILES later imported as immigrants to Virginia, whose names are shown on the court land grants, are not found on any published lists of persons sailing from ports in England, according to General Carter. He also states that those lists are intact. This strengthens the evidence that GILES came from Gloucestershire and sailed from Bristol, as did the first Giles Carter in 1620. There are only two passenger lists preserved from Bristol. He could have returned home to recruit these settlers and his name be on the missing lists from Bristol.

Our GILES-1 probably served out an indenture of from four to seven years working for someone else. We find no mention of GILES between 1653, when he is on the headright list, and the next item nine years later, in 1662, in the will of John Rowan [Rowen], written May 1, 1662. John Rowan leaves items to his son, his nephew, and his brother, in addition to a bequest to GILES CARTER of “a cow and gift of a house and land on this plantation for one year, then to brother Henry.” This was a substantial bequest, and probably meant that GILES was living on Rowan’s plantation, or very near by. It also indicates that GILES may have been working for Rowan or renting a place from him.

John Rowan was obviously the guardian for the Price orphans. He also mentioned that his brother, Henry, was to have the upbringing of the John and Daniel Price, who were orphans of John Price. Daniel Price would later marry Susannah Carter-2, the daughter of GILES CARTER. One of the witnesses to the will was a woman named Margaret Crewes.. She may have been the wife of Captain James Crewes, who was later executed after Bacon’s Rebellion. Daniel Price was left the clothing of James Crewes in Crewes’ will in 1676. He also owed a debt to the estate for which he was sued by the heirs. Daniel Price [Sr.] was probably born at least by 1655, which would mean he was a few years older than Susannah Carter-2.

By Rowan’s bequest we know that GILES-1 probably did not have land of his own yet in the colony. He may have been working for Mr. Rowan in some capacity. GILES had probably been in the colony for more than 12 years at the time of John Rowan’s will. The next mention we have of GILES CARTER-1 and his family is fourteen years later, in 1676, in the will of James Crewes. By 1676, GILES CARTER had been in the colony at least 23 to 26 years, but still apparently did not own land outright.

By the time of Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, GILES and his wife, HANNAH, lived in an area called Turkey Island in Henrico County, Virginia, on the plantation of James Crewes. GILES still apparently did not own land of his own and was renting land from Crewes, and by this time, had several children. [Will of James Crewes.] This land was located in Henrico Parish on the James River between Shirley and Bremo, the later residence of the Cocke family for 200 years. The area was named for the large number of wild turkeys located there by the first party sent up river from Jamestown. William Randolph, acting as an attorney, bought the property in 1684 from the heirs of James Crewes. GILES and HANNAH transferred their [life] interest in 50 acres of the land in 1684/5.

The history of Henrico dates back to the very earliest times of the settlement of Virginia. It was the second established settlement in Virginia, after Jamestown. Sir Thomas Dale founded the settlement in September 1611, lading 350 men, chiefly German laborers. It was called Henricopolis after Prince Henry, the eldest son of James I. John Rolfe and Pocahontas lived there until she and her husband went to England. In 1622, when the Indians attacked the settlements, the survivors of the massacre fled to Jamestown. In 1624, the Virginia Company was dissolved by the King. From this time on to 1730, the annals of Henrico Parish are more fragmentary and uncertain. We do know, though, that the Reverend James Blair was rector from 1685 until 1694. He was a determined Scotsman who had been educated at Edinburg University. Mr. Blair was later the first president and founder of William and Mary College. [History of Henrico.]

In 1695, the Reverend George Robinson became the rector, but little else is known about the man besides his name and position. A report in 1724 mentions that the minister present had been minister for fourteen years, but his name is missing from the records. The report stated that in 1724 there were 400 families resident and 1,100 tithables within the parish which had two churches. The remaining records of the vestry commence with the vestry book in 1730. Goochland County had been cut off from the Parish in 1727.

We aren’t sure about everything that happened to GILES during the 23 years between 1653 and 1676, but we do know that during that time he acquired a wife, named HANNAH, and that they had several children. We don’t find any record that GILES owned land up to this point, and he may have been working as an “overseer” for the plantations of John Rowan and then James Crewes, or simply renting lands from them to farm for himself. Crewes mentioned in his will, in 1676, that he had “lett” [or rented] a plantation to GILES and gave use of it to him “rent free” for life, except for a “grain of Indian corn yearly” for the rest of his life. He also gave GILES the oversight of his house, servants, and plantation, with specific instructions to live there, run the plantation, make crops, and give account to Crew’s administrator. The 50 acres that GILES sold his interest in might have been the lands that he had been renting, that James Crewes had given him rent free for life. The heir[s] of James Crewes did not live in Virginia, but were residents of London. That Crewes gave only a “life interest” in his lands, while giving generously of his personal property, again underscores the probability of there being no close blood relationship.

There has been much speculation among researchers of this line about the kinship and/or relationship of HANNAH and James Crewes, who willed a significant portion of his Virginia personal property estate to HANNAH, GILES, and their children. Many researchers think HANNAH was a sister of James Crewes or he was her father. The legacy and mention of HANNAH in the will is used as “proof” that she was the daughter of James Crewes in published accounts. This myth, without substantial foundation, found its way into print and has been impossible to stamp out with the truth of the matter. This author has received many “pedigrees” attesting to the relationship of HANNAH and her “father” James Crewes. Many of these false pedigrees are presented with all sincerity and pride in being descended from this early revolutionary.

The way the will is actually worded, however, implies that there was no close blood relationship. He named the blood relationship to other heirs, but no kinship relationship was mentioned concerning GILES or HANNAH. James Crewes’ leaving his property to his nephew precludes his having children. First, a man in Virginia was precluded by law from cutting his children entirely out of the estate. If he had children, a man could leave only one-third of his real estate to anyone outside his immediate family. That one-third was called “the dead man’s third.” [Reference: Women and the Law of Property in Early America, by Marylynn Salmon.]

Court records mention that James Crewes was “unmarried at the time of his death.” That didn’t mean he was never married, but that at the time of his death he had no living wife. There is a theory that “Margaret Crewes” [who witnessed some deeds] was the wife of James and was deceased before 1676. There is some evidence that this Margaret Crewes was nee Llewelyn. Much work needs to be done on these lines, however, to clarify several theories. [Henrico County Wills and Administrations, part 1, pg. 7]

Later lawsuits over the estate, and suits in an effort to collect debts owed to the estate, indicate that there was no blood relationship between our CARTERS and James Crewes. The only surviving children of James’ two [and only] brothers were Matthew Crewes and Sarah Crewes Whittingham. If James Crewes had had living children, his nephew and niece would not have inherited his lands.

Other researchers think that HANNAH’s surname might have been Sewell. William Sewell, who also left legacies to the family, and was guardian of Giles Carter-2, a minor child, after GILES’ death, might have been HANNAH’s father or brother. There was obviously some close relationship, and probably blood, between either GILES or HANNAH and William Sewell. The fact that William Sewell left his entire estate to Giles Carter, Jr., and was allowed to do so [i.e. it was more than the “Dead Man’s Third.”] indicates a blood relationship.

After GILES’s death, a note about William Sewell was “it ordered that the clerk take bond with secty of William Sewell for that estate he hath in his hands belonging to Giles Carter an orphan of Giles Carter late of this county, decd.” [Orphans Court Book, 1677-1739 of Henrico Virginia, page 91.]

This did not necessarily mean that HANNAH __?__ CARTER was deceased. Frequently, when a man died, his children were given appointed [male] guardians, even though their mother was alive.

William T. Sewell in his own will, recorded February 7, 1725, willed his entire estate to Giles Carter, Jr. William Sewell had given Giles [Jr] a mare before GILES [Sr.] died about 1699 and GILES [Sr.] mentioned this mare in his own will. In 1699, a gift of a horse was a princely gift indeed. February 1, 1708/9 [OS/NS] a deed given by William Sewell, witnessed by Giles Carter-2, mentions the wife of Sewell, named Elizabeth.

It is logical to assume that there was some close relationship between the CARTERS and both William Sewell and James Crewes, as well as John Rowen, but we are not sure just what it was.

General Carter makes the circumstantial case that the Crewes and Carters were close in England before coming to America. Though we may never know the exact relationship[s], we do know that GILES and HANNAH lived on the plantation of James Crewes prior to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676, and had a close relationship. GILES may have been the overseer of the plantation. The mention by James Crewes that GILES was to control the plantation seems to indicate this. James Crewes was one of the leaders in the Rebellion. However, we do not find any proof that GILES was actively engaged in the fighting, though he very well could have been. In any case, he was well aware of what was going on. Almost all of the local planters were involved in the fray to one degree or another. This author believes it is highly unlikely that James Crewes would have left such large legacies to someone who did not agree with his political views, or to someone who was not a close friend.

James Crewes was executed for his participation in the rebellion. He was a merchant and business partner of Daniel Llewelyn, the last husband of Ann__?__ Price Hallom Llewelyn, the mother of Daniel Price and John Price, Jr., and the widow of John Price, Sr., mentioned in the will of John Rowan. Her son, Daniel Price, would marry Susannah Carter, daughter of GILES and HANNAH.

James Crewes’ brothers, Francis and Edward, were also merchants in London. Francis was a grocer and silkman by trade. Their father, Matthew Crewes, had been a leather seller of London.

James Crewes apparently was a bit hot-headed. A suit prior to the rebellion brought before the “two houses” by Captain David Peibiles concerned some sort of debt. The quarrel had resulted in a physical fight, as well as an exchange of words. Crewes ended up being fined 2,000 pounds of tobacco, and the court said that Piebiles’ assault on James Crewes was justified and was occasioned by the “unworthy and uncivil provocation” of Crewes. In other words, James Crewes got what he deserved for acting a fool…”stabs and blows.”

The next petition to the court was from James Crewes, “humbly” requesting that the 2,000 pounds he owed Piebiles for the fine be deducted from the 2,300 owed him by Piebiles. The members of the court and council were made up of James Crewes’ near neighbors.

Bacon’s Rebellion

Bacon’s Rebellion was the most serious civil disturbance experienced by Virginia during the entire history of its existence as a Colony. According to some historical reports, Nathaniel Bacon, “Jr.” was a young aristocrat who led his friends through the dense woods to “protect defenseless farmers against the hostile natives.” However, there are at least two views by historians about Bacon. One side says that he was a defender of the helpless against the tyrannical Governor Berkeley. The other side says that he was a hot-headed fool who defied lawful authority. From reading the history written about this event, this author is of the opinion that he was both. One reference, written by his enemies, says that James Crewes and two or three others got Bacon drunk and got him to agree to lead the colonists against the Indians. Whether the ill-fated decision was made sober or drunk, the rebellion cost the colonists much. The Governor seems to reserve particular malice toward James Crewes, however. [History of Henrico County, pg. 44-47.]

Nathaniel Bacon “Jr.” was a young Englishman still in his twenties when he arrived in the Jamestown area and settled on a plantation near Crules Neck on the James River in 1674. He was of good English family and the only son of Thomas Bacon, a wealthy man of Suffolk, England, and the grandson of Sir Robert Brooke. Bacon had attended University and toured the Continent. He had married the daughter of Sir Edward Duke, who did not like his new son-in-law and had disinherited his daughter. Bacon had a nice fortune of his own, but soon became involved in financial difficulties in England and ended up coming to the new world to “start afresh.” His father furnished enough funds to settle him comfortably in the new world. Nathaniel Bacon was well-connected in the Colony. A kinsman, Nathaniel Bacon, “Senior,” was a member of the Governors’ Council and a leading citizen. Soon, the younger Nathaniel was also a member of the Governor’s Council and admitted to the inner circle of society.

William Berkeley, the governor for many years, ruled Virginia as his own private country, rather than for the king’s benefit. He extorted taxes from the common men and used them for his own personal enrichment. His cronies on the Council were exempt from the taxes. He extracted more taxes from the people to build “forts” and to “protect” the people, but these forts were additional scams to put more of the colony’s riches into his own pockets.

The domestic taxes alone amounted to something between one-quarter and one half of the average planter’s income. They were extracted from men who, the drought year of 1676, could not grow tobacco enough to buy clothes for their families. Perhaps they could not feed them. These ordinary planters had been close to starvation as recently as 1674... In the next two years, Indian attacks prevented upcountry planters from making anything like a full crop of corn.

“Even in good years, peaceful years, the ordinary planter subsisted mostly on hand-mortared Indian corn and water. Occasionally beef was available after midsummer, when the beasts have some meat on their backs... without money enough to buy food for themselves, the planters could not afford to pay their ruler’s taxes. [Webb, 1676, pg. 19.]

Shortly after the younger Nathaniel Bacon settled in the new world, the Susquehannok Indians swarmed down on the Potomac because they had been driven from their homes by other Indians. Friction developed between them and the local Indians. The Virginia militia carried out an unsuccessful campaign against the intruders and the farms and plantations along the James River suffered. Bacon’s plantation overseer and numerous other whites were killed by the savages.

Not only were there Indian problems, but the autocratic rule which Governor Berkeley had instituted during his later years had already produced serious discontent among the colonial population. He had allowed no election for Burgesses for 15 years and all public officials were subservient to the Governor. The Indian raids and Berkeley’s refusal to let the settlers take revenge set off the spark that fired Bacon’s Rebellion. The taxes which he extorted also kindled the fire.

One possible reason that Berkeley wouldn’t allow the colonists to defend themselves was that he was engaging in the Indian trade to his own advantage. At first, he ordered forays and retaliatory expeditions against the Indians, but for some unknown reason, called them off. Four of the leading planters in the area, Henry Isham, James Crewes, William Byrd, and Nathaniel Bacon [Jr.] held a consultation. Whether this “consultation” was done drunk or sober, it was decided that young Mr. Bacon would lead the men against the Indians. Some records indicate that James Crewes and a few others got Bacon drunk and sort of “put him up to it.” Other records canonize Crewes for his “brave stand” against injustice. The truth probably lay somewhere in between these two poles. There is ample evidence, however, that both Bacon and Crewes were hotheads.

The colonists sent a message to the governor requesting a commission [permission] to go against the Indians. Instead of a commission, after Bacon had already marched, Berkeley sent a message ordering him to return, and threatening to declare him a rebel if he refused. Some of Bacon’s men turned back, others proceeded with Bacon. Bacon and the friendly Indians in the area found and dispatched about 30 of the savage Indians in an “inhumane” manner. Later in the same episode, for reasons not clearly understood, Bacon’s men attacked the friendly Indians’ fort and killed them, men, women and children. He took some captives and returned to the plantations a “hero” to the neighbors.

Part of the colonists’ problems arose from the fact that they could not tell the “good” Indians from the “bad” Indians. To the colonists, the Indians all appeared the same.

The governor become alarmed and realized that the situation was getting out of hand. Berkeley dissolved the Burgesses and ordered a new election. The new delegates were not his friends. The defiant Bacon and Crewes were elected from Henrico County to the House of Burgesses. Since Bacon had been declared a rebel, he was not eligible to take his seat, but he decided to go and try to be seated anyway. He and about 40 of his friends and supporters went in his sloop to Jamestown. He sent a messenger to inquire if he would be seated in peace. The answer was a shot from the fort’s cannon.

Sometime later, when Bacon was captured and brought before Berkeley, he was expecting harsh punishment, but instead received a parole and his seat in the council. Bacon made his apology on bent knee before the governor. Berkeley was aware that Bacon had the upper hand politically and had many followers in Jamestown and in the new House.

According to the History and Present State of Virginia, by Robert Beverly, the oath that Bacon’s followers took was:

The oath was Word for word as follows: Whereas the country hath raised an army against our common enemy the Indians, and the same under the Command of General Bacon, being upon the Point to march forth against the said common enemy, hath been diverted, and necessitated to moved to the suppressing of forces, by evil disposed persons raised against the said General Bacon purposely to stir up civil war among us, to the ruine of this his Majesty’s Country, and whereas it is notoriously manifest, that Sir William Berkeley Knight Governor of the Country, assisted, counselled and abetter by those evill disposed persons aforesaid, hat not only commanded, fomented, and stirr’d up the people to said civil war; but failing therein hath withdrawn himself to the great astonishment of the people, and the unsettlement of the country... it hath been thought fit by the said General to call unto him all sober and discreet gentlemen as the present circumstances of the country will admit, to the Middle Plantation to consult and advise of re-establishing the peace. So we the said gentlemen do resolfe, first that we will at all times join the said Bacon and his army against the common enemy in all points whatsoever.

Secondly, that whereas certain persons have lately contrived and design’d the raising forces against the said general, and the army under his command, thereby to beget civil war; we will endeavor the discovery and apprehending of all and everyone of those evil disposed persons, and secure until further order from the general.

Thirdly, whereas the governor hath inform’d his majesty that the said general ... is under rebellion, and removed from their allegiance, our allegiance is to his most sacreed majest.

Bacon continued to demand a commission to go against the Indians which Berkeley refused. Bacon then disappeared from Jamestown because he had received information that Berkeley had planned to arrest him. He rashly entered on a course from which there was no turning back. He collected an armed force of his neighbors and forced the Governor to grant the commission. He was apparently prepared for extreme measures, but the majority of Virginians were still loyal to their king, and to the King’s representative, their governor.

The fighting was hot and heavy, with 29 of the 30 colonists being on Bacon’s side. Bacon’s faction even burned the richest section of Jamestown to the ground, so that Berkeley’s faction could not refortify it for a refuge. Some of the richer planters, who were with Bacon, actually set fire to their own homes. James Crewes was Bacon’s “chief” follower, and though we have no documentary proof that GILES CARTER marched with this band of men, it is probable that he did.

When Bacon became suddenly ill with a fever and died, the rebellion was delivered a mortal blow. The revolutionary leaders continued to push their cause for reform, both politically and with force of arms, but before long it was over. With Bacon gone, the momentum of the movement died.

The governor arrested, tortured, and tried several of the chief followers. He harassed others of lesser status unmercifully.

Several of the ringleaders were executed or died of ill treatment in prison before they could be executed. It isn’t known exactly what part James Crewes played in the rebellion, but when a pardon was granted to the participants later [after his death by execution] he and about 50 others were specifically excluded. From the comments made by the governor, it is apparent that James Crewes was one of the top leaders.

A pamphlet published in 1677 in London was called “More News From Virginia, being a True and Full Relation of all Occurrences in that Countrey since the Death of Nath. Bacon With An Account of the Thirteen Persons that have been tryed and executed for their Rebellion There” printed for W. Harris in the year 1677. [A replica can be found at the University of Central Arkansas Library, Conway, Arkansas]

General Carter, in his Memoir of GILES CARTER, says;

Viewed in the light of documents since made public, Colonel Crewes was a patriotic, self-respecting gentleman. He was officially slain by the verdict of a court-martial assembled to do the bidding of an irascible and vindictive governor, who appeared willing to sacrifice the lives and property of the English Planters that his own interests in the Indian trade might continue undisturbed.

After the collapse of Bacon’s Rebellion, James Crewes, the man on whose plantation GILES and HANNAH lived, was hastily court martialed at Green Springs, the home of Governor Berkeley, January 24, 1676/7.

Present Sir William Berkeley, Knt. Governor and Captain General of Virginia ... James Crewes being brought before the court for treason and rebellion against his most sacred majestie, and pleading nothing in his defense, and the court being very sensible that the said Crewes was a most notorious actory, aydor [aider] and assistor in the rebellion therefore the court are unanimously of opinion and doe adjusdge him guilty of the accusation: sentence of death, therefore past upon him to returne to prison from which he came and from thence [on Friday next] to be carryed to the gallowes, there to be hanged untill he be dead.”

“Condemned at the house, and executed at the havitation [habitation] where Bacon usually lay, the first one was Crewes, Bacon’s chief parasite and trumeier to him, whoo continually imploy’d his little parts [tongue] in extolling all Bacon’s actions, and justigying his Rebellion. [More News from Virginia, 1677]

If Berkeley had been “fortunate” enough to have had access to a “trained” executioner he could have “hanged, drawn and quartered” the rebels, but unhappily for him, he had to make do with untrained executioners. Berkeley made the executions as painful as possible, though, with the pitiful untrained help he had to accomplish the task. At that time in history, there were special executioners who made the executions as drawn-out and painful as possible, and kept the victim alive for quite some time. The person would be hanged, but not long enough to kill them, then cut down and revived, and the abdomen cut open and the entrails extracted, then set on fire. After the poor person finally expired, the body would be cut into four pieces which could be displayed in four different locations. The head might be placed on a pike and set in the city walls. The governor expressed his regrets that he did not have executioners capable of this form of execution.

However, he had one man hanged in chains, instead of a rope, so that his death would be as slow as possible, and the bodies were left to hang until putrefied. Others were so mistreated in prison that they died before they could be hanged, much to the Governor’s displeasure.

King Charles sent a new governor to replace Berkeley and recalled Berkeley to England, but Berkeley chose to ignore this summons by his own “interpretation” of the wording of the summons. During this time, he stalled going back to England so that he could seek revenge upon the rebels by confiscating their property and executing some of them even though the King had pardoned them. He even wanted to execute the entire populations of some parishes! His excesses became so outrageous that he had the gall to totally ignore the King’s general pardon to all the rebels and continued to execute more of his enemies and plundered their plantations of all of value. He even used this time to arrest and demand ransoms from as many of the planters as he could lay hands on. He seized the property and persons of free blacks and allowed the rape of the wife of one free black planter, that directly caused the death of the pregnant woman. He took entire estates of some people, and even extorted notes on future crops, when they had nothing else with which to ransom themselves! The governor was in such a fit of rage at the colonists that he was almost insane!

A proclamation of Sir William Berkeley dated February 1, 1676/7 granted “pardons” to all followers of Bacon provided they ask within the next twenty days their justices of the peace and take before him the oath of obedience of James I.” The pardon was not to include about fifty men, among whose name was James Crewes, mentioned as already deceased. The pardon did not include the property of several of those excluded from pardon, as well. Property seemed to be the operative word with the governor.

A communication from John Berry and Colonel Moryson to Thomas Watkins bearing the same date as the above proclamation of Berkeley said “the Governor is seizing the rebel’ estates, but he has no legal power to do so, much less to dispose of the estate, if any are to be exempted from pardon, the King has to mention them.”

King Charles II later commented that Berkeley had hanged more men for the rebellion in Virginia than he had hanged for beheading his father!

Governor Berkeley eventually returned to England in disgrace, but with much of his plunder intact. The colony was now a royal colony and continued to be ruled by the British elite. The cause of the common man was not advanced by the late rebellion. The seeds were sown, however, that would flower in a 100 years’ time with the colonies’ rebellion against King George and the American Revolution. The descendants of GILES-1 and HANNAH CARTER would fight another day.

The ultimate result of Bacon’s Rebellion was that the progress made in the colony since 1607 was markedly set back due to the destruction of the plantations by the fighting and looting. It is reported that due to the revolution, King Charles lost about 140,000 English pounds in revenue from the loss of taxes for the tobacco crop alone. Many of the planters lost everything. How much our CARTERS lost is unknown, but with their closeness to James Crewes, it can be presumed that they must have lost much, and may have been in some manner victims of Berkeley’s wrath. They must have had some uneasy days, weeks, or months of anxiety until Berkeley left the colony. With many estates entirely seized by the Governor, it is quite curious why the estate of James Crewes was not also entirely seized.

Will of James Crewes

July ye 23d, 1676.

In the name of God Amen. I James Crewes of Turkey Island Planter in Henrico County, being of sound and perfect memory prased be God doe make and ordaine this my last will and testament in manner and forme following first and principle I committ my soule into the hands of Almighty God my creater hoping and assured by believing through the merritts death and passion of Jesus Christ my only Saviour and Redeemer to have and obtaine free and full remission and pardon for all my sins, as touchinge concerninge al my worldly estate, either here in Virginia in England or elsewhere dew either by bill bond or account.


Item I give and bequeath unto Mary Carter daughter to Giles Carter ten thousand pounds of tobo: & cask one feather bed two blankets & one good rugge, this to be paid in three years after my decease, the interest thereof to be towards her cloathinge.

Item I give unto Susan Carter tenn thousand pounds of tobao: & casq: one feather bed two blanketts & one rugge to be payd as above said.

Item. I give unto my man Tero his freedome he serving three years after my decease, and at the expiration of the said tyme I give unto him one cow, one sow, if I have any left, and as much land as he shall tend for him and another [some transcribers interpret this word to be “mother,” but there is no indication that James Crewes’ mother was in the vicinity] during life.

Item. I give unto Hannah Carter, wife of Giles Carter my negroe maid keate forever and her increase.

Item. I give unto Daniel Price [future husband of Susannah Carter] my best suite & cloathe I have.

Item. I give unto Giles Carter what he owes me by bill or booke and further the plantation which I have formerly lett [rented to] him that he and his wife Hannah Carter shall have it during both their lives rent free, only paying one graine of Indian Corne when demanded and further it is my will that what I have given to the said Giles Carter’s children, that if either of them should dye that it should come to the rest of his children. It is further my will that when the said Hannah Carter wife to the said Giles Carter shall die, then the said negroe wench return to Theodorick Carter her son and if she [the slave] hath any children them is to be at her [Hannah’s] disposing who she will give them too.

Item I make my loving Cozen [actually nephew, son of his deceased brother Francis] Mr. Mathew Crews my sole executor of all my lands here in Virginia or elsewhere & all the rest of my estate to him or his heirs forever, my just debts being payd.

Item it is my desire that my loving friend Giles Carter shall live here in my said house and command my servants and make crops or any other thing as shall be convenient and necessary for the said plantacon and soe to give account yearly as my said executor shall order.

Signed and sealed Ja: Crewes.

[Henrico County, VA Wills & Administrations, pg. 6.]

He gave to GILES and HANNAH and their children personal property, which he had a right to bequeath anyway he wanted to. He gave them only the use of lands that they had been renting, not the title or ownership of the property, which would revert to his estate upon the death of GILES and HANNAH. However, as we shall see, they sold this “life interest” in the property at a later date. Crewes also appointed GILES overseer of the rest of his estate, and allowed the CARTERS to live in the house and manage the estate for his heirs.

James’ will was probated December 10, 1677, in Henrico County, Virginia. The 10,000 pounds of tobacco left to GILES’ daughters by James Crewes was a large sum of “money.” Tobacco was the “currency” of the colony, and 10,000 pounds would buy a nice plantation, 12 or 14 nice horses, and the interest from it would support the needs for a young woman. It was about equal to the year’s production of five to 10 acres of tobacco crop. One or two acres was about all a family could cultivate per year. So, essentially, he was giving her the equivalent of five or 10 years’ labor from a family, or half the yearly income of the local minister, whose wages were set at 16,000 pounds yearly. [Henrico County, VA Wills & Administrations, pg. 7.]

In 1679, the list of tithables residing in the old settlements of Bermuda Hundred, Curls and Turkey Island includes for Turkey Island:

Richard Cocke 5

William Randolph 5


Thomas Cocke 8

William Cocke 2

Henry Watkins 3 [Henrico Co. Beginnings of its Families, pg. 731.]

The numbers after each name represent the number of poll taxes each man was responsible for, or tithables. An adult free male was tithable. Indentured servants [male] were tithable, a female indentured servant if they were worked in the fields was tithable, and slaves of any sex after age 16 were tithable. Widows, ministers, old men, injured men, or male children under age 16 were not taxed. We know that, at that time, GILES had only one young son; therefore, the other four tithables must have been servants or slaves.

GILES-1 was appointed by the county court in August, 1681, as one of the persons to appraise an estate, but as far as we know, he did not hold any appointed offices with the courts.

James Crewes’ niece and nephew also sued the creditors of James Crewes for the debts that they owed to the estate in tobacco and deer skins and were successful for several of them. The lawsuits did not overturn the free rent for life to GILES, however, and he retained his interest in the lands until he sold them. [Henrico Deeds.]

Depositions taken in London from several different men noted that a man named Matthew Crewes, a citizen and leather-seller, had three sons.

One of those sons, Francis, a citizen and grocer of London, by trade a silkman, deceased, had a son, Matthew Crewes, Gentleman, citizen and haberdasher. Another son, Edward, also deceased, had an only daughter, Sarah [Crewes] Whittingham. The other son was Captain James Crewes, deceased, of Virginia. A record in Henrico County, April 1, 1681, noted that Captain James Crewes died unmarried.

John Toro, the former indentured servant of James Crewes, who had been left a legacy of “enough land for himself and another,” sued the Crewes heirs for his legacy. A commission was appointed by the court to lay out how much land he should get and where. He was granted 20 acres of the Crewes plantation near the cart path and adjoining Randolph’s land.

In 1684, James Crewes’ heirs [his nephw and niece] sold the Turkey Island plantation to William Randolph. GILES CARTER transferred his interest in the plantation February 25, 1684/5. In 1686, the estate of James Crewes was finally settled. [Henrico County Deeds 1677-1705, pg. 27.]

On April 1, 1685, shortly after they transferred their interest in the Crewes plantation, GILES purchased 50 acres of land from William Cocke. It was this land which he willed to his son, Giles Carter-2. This was evidenced by a deed dated July 27, 1711, where Giles-2 sold the land and stated the “chain of custody” as from Cocke to his father to him by inheritance. At the same time Giles-2 sold this above land, he bought another 94 acres from John Pleasants “on south side of Chickahominy Swamp, next to THEODORICK CARTER-2, White Oak Swamp.” He paid 5,000 pounds of tobacco for the lands. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg. 29.] Giles-2, sold this same land to Ralph Hudspeth in 1717, and the deed noted that the land was bounded by THEODORICK CARTER-2. The price was 20 pounds [money] ]Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 66.] In 1722, Ralph Hudspeth sold the land again, this time to William Willis, of New Kent County, and the deed again noted that the lands were “next to THEODORICK CARTER-2.” The price was 1,500 pounds of tobacco. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 74.] In October of 1731, THEODORICK CARTER-2 bought this same 94 acres of land from Willis for 2,000 pounds of tobacco. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 119.] Since the price of tobacco varied from year to year, and the value of the land also went up or down relative to the price of tobacco, it is difficult to determine whether or not the value of this land was actually decreased over the years. Lands were soon worn out by tobacco cultivation and new lands had to be cleared.

In the 1705 Rent Rolls, John Pleasants, a prominent Quaker, owned 9,669 acres of lands in the Henrico area. His neighbor, probably either a son or brother, Joseph Pleasants, owned 1,709 acres.

GILES must have done well for himself in the colony, because by 1687, GILES and several partners patented 1,780 acres for the importation of 36 persons, and the records start to refer to him as “Mr. GILES CARTER.”. The cost to import [pay passage for] a person was about six British pounds. The indenture could be resold, however, in an auction of sorts at the docks, and frequently the indenture might go for two or three times the price of passage, so the importer could be doubly or triply rewarded, besides the head-right lands. The importing of servants was a very lucrative enterprise. Labor was in very short supply in early Virginia. The first black slaves-for-life were not imported until 1619 and because the “servants-for-a-time” [usually whites] quickly moved into land ownership after their terms were served out and acquired lands of their own, for which they too needed labor, the labor market was a seller’s market.

In 1687, GILES received 800 acres for:

land due for ye importacion of these sixteen [16] persons under writte, being legally proved in court; viz. Jonathan Cocke, John Gren, Philip Marshall, Mary Allen, John Holmes, Elianor Bushell, Katherine Price, Mary Richards, Moses Martin, Jno Cocks, Nicholas Lund, William Wheeler, John Bengany, Thomas Smeethers, and Rachel Lockerson.

He sold some of this land, along with Richard Ferris, William Harris, and Roger Commins, as evidenced by a deed from Robert Woodson, Sr., conveying some of this land, and mentioning that he had patented it from the above mentioned men, along with GILES CARTER-1. [Henrico County, Deeds, 1706-1737, pg 5.]

Indentured servants were given a term of years to serve to pay back the person who imported them, or the person who bought their indenture. They were called “servants for a time” to distinguish them from “slaves for life.” If a servant was by “custom of the country” rather than by indenture, if they were under 19 years old, they must be brought to court and have their ages adjudged. Then, they must serve until 24 years of age. If they were over age 19, then the term was for five years. GILES had been brought to the colony before 1653 by Mr. William Frye. [[avaliers and Pioneers, pg 276.] He had obviously prospered in the colony where he had come before he was 19 years old, so he had probably served some earlier settler in the capacity of servant. The term “servant” did not always mean menial servant. However, in the primitive conditions of the colony, at that point in time, almost everyone was required to perform “menial” labor or perish. The colonists were not ever very far ahead of starvation.

The free immigrant to whom was due fifty acres for his “personal adventure” might not care to settle on the frontier where alone unpatented land could usually be found. At times he sold his right and purchased a plantation in some one of the more advanced counties. It is not conclusively proved, then, that a certain person came as a servant merely because he is listed as a headright. On the other hand, the fact that it was the custom to set forth such transfers clearly in the patent itself, justifies the conclusion that in the cases where no statement of the kind is made, the headright for which the land was granted usually came in under terms of indenture.” [The Planters of Colonial Virginia. pg. 76.]

Male servants and slaves alike were worked together in the fields, and according to Robert Beverly, “some distinction indeed is made between them in their cloaths and food, but the work of both [slave and servant] is no other than what the overseers, the freeman, and the planters themselves do.

Neither is any servant required to do more in a day than his overseer ... generally their slaves are not worked near so hard nor near so many hours in a day, as the husbanmen and day labourers in England.

The white women were rarely put to work in the fields. [Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, pg 100-101.] If a white woman were worked in the fields, she was taxed more heavily. Slave women were commonly worked in the fields, they were also more heavily taxed than white servant women.

Beverly went on to say that masters were required by the courts to provide sufficient and wholesome diets and clothing for their servants and slaves. What was considered a wholesome diet in that day and time would not be considered either by today’s standards. Before the days of refrigeration and “canned” food, and before the days of rapid transportation, for several months per year there was generally not a balanced diet. Scurvy was not at all unusual nor was pellagra. Pellagra is a deficiency of niacin in the diet from eating salt meat without fresh vegetables. Scurvy is a lack of Vitamin C. From November, when the first frost killed off green vegetables, until June, when garden produce would be plentiful, the colonists lived on a diet of corn meal and salt meat, with preserved foods, such as pickled cabbage or turnips and other root crops which would keep reasonably well. Some things could be dried, such as green beans, peas and other beans. At some times and places, the colonists had game in plenty during the winter months. With the colonists having little enough to eat for several months out of the year, and an unbalanced diet at that, the servants’ and slaves’ diets were probably even less wholesome than the “masters’.” Though they may have had enough to fill their bellies, it was far from a nutritious diet, especially for women who were bearing or nursing children.

Servants could complain to the courts and the masters were required to respond to the first court or forfeit the service of the servant. Complaints were received “without process” and “did not delay for form, upon the merits.” No master could renegotiate the contract without going before the court. The master could not confiscate the servant’s money or property. When a servant had discharged his time, he was to receive 15 bushels of corn and two new suits of clothes. There are records of servants suing their masters for holding them illegally, winning the suits, and receiving their freedom, and damages as well. There are also instances of suits where a servant sued his master and was judged frivolous and given additional time to serve to compensate the master for the suit.

Many, if not most, indentured servants became landowners after their time expired. By the middle 1650s, living conditions in the colony had improved to the point that most of the servants were surviving their terms of indentures, rather than dying from disease and starvation or Indian attack before their term was up. Land was relatively cheap and labor dear, so it was possible for a man to gain employment that would pay him enough to purchase land for himself. He might also do as GILES CARTER did and lease or rent lands. The time needed was from two to 20 years from release to land ownership. One study of the records found the average time was 12 years.

A common form of lease was a “three-lives-lease” where a man with more land than he could work or hire or buy labor to work would lease a piece of ground for “three-lives.” The person leasing the ground would put three names on the lease and the lease was good for the lives of all three persons listed. The person leasing the ground was required to make improvements to the land, and the improved land reverted to the owner at the death of the third person. Sometimes these three-lives leases were sublet. This was an excellent way for someone to build up an estate of improved plantations for themselves or their heirs.

In 1687, GILES was also referred to as “Mister” GILES CARTER. The term “mister” denoted social standing in the community, bought not only with financial status but by right of birth. GILES’s financial status had obviously risen since he was imported before 1653, but his status conferred by birth had remained the same. His rise in financial status, coupled with his status by birth, had elevated him to the status of a “mister” in the colony.

Social rank mimicked the mother country, in which social rank was recognized and acted upon by all Englishmen. When De La Warr had arrived as the new governor of the colony, he had insisted on the line of social separation between the gentlemen and the common laborers. Even in the crude conditions in early Jamestown, De La Warr had continued to expect and receive the deference he would have expected from his inferiors in England. It never occurred to any of the settlers that things should be different, just because the conditions were crude or the settlers far from the mother country.

when [The term Mister] was applied in legal documents as a prefix to a name, it signifies that the person so designated was entitled to a higher degree of social consideration than was enjoyed by a mere yeoman, the term seems … to have been reserved in those early times in all forms of written and printed matter, such as records and books, for persons whose claim to be gentlemen in the broad social sense, was admitted by all. [The Social Life of Virginia.]

GILES’ partner in the servant importation business, Roger Comins, died and William Ferris failed to pay his share of the purchase price, so the three remaining partners divided the land. GILES’ share was 552 acres, lying along the main run of white Oak Swamp. They had gotten this land for bringing in more settlers, including John Strong, John Hickson, Geo. Swallow, Moses Reese, Jono Worthy, Antho. Gant, Wm. Norris, Dan’ll Waller, Tho. Adock, Tho. Clark, Ed Davenhill, and others, 36 in all, including one Negro slave. The cost of transporting a person to the new world was about six pounds sterling. The sale of the indenture might be twice that, so a tidy profit could be returned in addition to the land acquired.

In 1688, James II, a son of King Charles I who was beheaded by Cromwell, was reigning monarch in England. Virginia was his loyal colony, but James II had been a selfish and despotic king. In November 1688, James’ daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, came from Holland to England to claim the throne from James by force of arms. William and Mary eventually prevailed and after a decisive battle fought July, 1690, they became joint rulers of England.

The children of Giles Carter-1 and his wife, Hannah

  1. Susannah Carter-2, born before 1676, and mentioned in James Crewes’ will, the first wife of Daniel Price, Sr.-ii, the man to whom James Crewes left his best clothes. Daniel-ii was also the child mentioned in the will of John Rowan in the 1660’s. Her second husband was Thomas Williamson. She was the mother of Daniel Price, Jr.-iii Daniel, Sr.-ii was the son of John Price-i mentioned in John Rowan’s will. His mother had married, as her third husband, the man who was James Crewes’ business partner.

  1. Ann Carter-2, was probably born after 1676, as she was not mentioned in the Crewes will. Married James D. Davis.

  1. THEODORICK CARTER-2, born before 1676, and mentioned in James Crewes’ will, married a woman named ELIZABETH, possibly surnamed WEBB, and they were the author’s ancestors. THEODORICK-2 died in 1736/7 leaving his widow and a child just born. He would have been in his sixties, so his wife must have been several years younger than he was. She died about 1751, when her will was probated.

  1. Giles Carter-2, born after 1681, married a woman named Mary [Henrico Co. Deeds 1706-1737, pg 174] and died in King George County in 1745. Giles-2 and Ann-2 were the only known children of GILES-1 and HANNAH not mentioned in the Crewes will. Giles-2 was a minor when his father wrote his will in 1699. The guardian for Giles-2, William T. Sewell, left his entire estate to Giles-2. William Sewell was probably related to HANNAH or GILES and may have been HANNAH’s brother, or less likely, her father. William Sewell was listed in the 1705 Quit Rent Rolls as owning 59 acres. His widow’s name was Elizabeth.

  1. Mary Carter-2, born before 1676, married Thomas Davis, and was mentioned in the Crewes’ will.

From 1620 to 1720 Henrico Parish was referred to as Varina Parish and the principle church in the parish referred to as Varina Church. In 1680, the Reverend John Ball was the minister of Henrico County, serving Varina Parish and the half of Bristol Parish north of Appomattox. Ball was replaced in 1685. At one point he had been publicly referred to as “fitter to make a hangman than a minister.” Reverend James Blair was the minister from 1685 to 1694. Apparently, the early ministers that came to Virginia were not of the “best” sort and were men who could not find parishes in England. They were certainly not heroic “missionaries” who cared much for their flocks.

In January 1686, the Middlesex County Records contain an order for:

Stephen Cocke having moved this court to assigne certain gentlemen of this countye to meet such as shall be appointed by the court of Charles Citye County to view and receive the bridge over Turkeye Island Creek, it is ordered that Captain William Randolph and Captain Frances Epps doe meete these gents. As shall be appointed.

GILES’ will was written December 14, 1699, and recorded in Henrico County. The proving witnesses were Thomas Smythes, William T. Sewell, and James D. Davis, his son-in-law.

Will of Giles Carter, Sr.-1

In the name of God Amen. I Giles Carter Senr: being of a weake and infirm body yet [blessed be God] of a sound and perfect memory: and Considering the frailty and incertainty of man’s life and not knowing the time of my departure hence: I doe make constitute and appoint this my last will and testam’t: hereby revoaking all other wills by me heretofore make whatsoever imprs: I comend my soul into the hands of my Blessed Redeemer Jesus Christ Relying only upon his merits for Salvation. My body I commit to the earth to be decently therin interred. And for what worldly goods and possessions God hath bestowed upon me, it is my will and desire they may be disposed of in form and manner folowing.

I give and bequeath to my son Theodorick Carter five shillings sterl’g to be paid by my deare wife Hannah either in silver or to the full value thereof as to her shall seeme most convenient. Item I give to my daughter Susannah now ye wife of Thos. Williamson five shillings sterling to be paid as above sd. Item I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary now ye wife of Thomas Davis five shills. Sterl’g to be paid as aforesaid. Item I give to my daughter Ann now the wife of James Davis, one fether bed and bolster, one rugge, one blanket, one cow. Item I give to my son Giles one mare called nanny with her increase forever. It being a mare formerly given to him by William Sewel, she being but a philly.

These legacies being paid as also wt. Debts have or shall be lawfully by me contracted being fully satisfied, It is my will and desire that what Of my estate shall remaine [one feather bed and furniture only excepted] for my wife Hannah which I give unto her may be equally divided into two parts, the one part thereof belonging to my wife Hannah the other to my son Giles. It not being my intent or design’d in any wise hereby to disannul or make voide a deed of gift formerly by me made to my son Giles and entered upon records. But I doe by this my last will and testament rattifie and confirm the same. Item it is my will and desire that what estate shall appertaine to my son Giles that he may receive the same when he shall arive to the age of eighteen years; and also enjoy the benefit of his labour, my wife Hannah not being any wise mollested or disturbed upon the plantacon wee now live during her life.

And lastly I make constitute and appoint my dear and loveing wife Hannah full and sole execx. Of this my last will and testament, the which I own to be my last; all others being hereby disannulled and made voide. As witness my hand and seals this 14th day of December 1699.

Giles Carter [Seal of Red Wax]

Witnesses: Thomas Smythes, William T. Sewel, James D. Davis.

Probated: February 2, 1701/2 in Henrico County Court Virginia [Henrico Co. VA. Will & Deed Book 1677-1692, pg. 256.]

GILES CARTER, Sr., was about 65 years old when he died. The life expectancy in that era was about 40 years of age.

GILES’ will principally conferred a life estate in all his lands to his wife, HANNAH, and the division of the personal property was greater than she would have received by law in her “thirds” or dower. He mentioned “a deed of gift” given to Giles, Jr., and reaffirmed the title to what was conveyed. HANNAH was entitled to at least a dower, or life-estate in one-third of the real estate.

No slaves were mentioned in the will and any that GILES had owned at the time the will was made might have already been divided or given to the children, or they would go with the real estate and other items to Giles-2 when he inherited the estate. GILES-1 had apparently already given real estate to the sons and divided most of the personal property as well. It would not be unusual if GILES-1 only mentioned those things in his will that were special bequests. Since the property laws set out how the property of a man who died intestate would be divided, a person who made a will might only mention those things that he wanted done differently than the law had already set out. The notice that he wanted HANNAH to live on the plantation for her entire life indicates that he had land in fee simple. The other items mentioned in his will were all personal property. It is quite likely that the items mentioned in the will were only the special bequests, rather than the entire estate.

Susannah Carter-2, who was the wife of Thomas Williamson when her father died, first married Daniel Price, the man mentioned in James Crewes’ will in 1676 to receive the clothing of James. Daniel died and she married Thomas Williamson. She had one son, Daniel Price, Jr., by her first husband. Her brother, THEODORICK-2, was called into court to testify that her second husband would take care of the estate of her son. Daniel Price, Jr., later gave a release to the court that he had received all his inheritance from the hands of his step-father. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 40.]

Daniel Price, Sr.’s mother, Ann, whose maiden name is unknown, married a man named Hallom after John Price, the father of Daniel Price, Sr., died. She was widowed again, and was last married to Daniel Llewelyn, who had been the business partner of Captain James Crewes. The Price family, as well as the CARTER family, apparently had some ties with the Crewes family.

In seventeenth-century Virginia, a funeral was an occasion for the gathering of friends and neighbors and family from afar. Many times, the deceased would be buried in a family plot marked off on his plantation. Family and friends would gather and refreshments would be served. It was not unusual for the estate to expend the value of 1,400 pounds of tobacco on food, drink, and gunpowder for a funeral of even modest proportions. The firing of guns was a custom in seventeenth century Virginia that was eventually outlawed due to the waste of powder and lead as well as the many deaths caused by heavily drinking men shooting off weapons at funerals.

The funeral would usually include a funeral sermon as well as the festive affair of the gunfire and the feasting.

After GILES’ death, THEODORICK-2 transferred lands on March 2, 1701, to John Pleasants. The land was called “The Lowgrounds,” laying on the north side of the James River on a Run of Turkey Island Creek, for 10,000 pounds of tobacco. John Pleasants traded the property known as “Round Hills” on the south of the Chicahominy Swamp. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1677-1705, pg 120.] This “Round Hills” land later identified John Carter-3 as the son of THEODORICK-2 to whom it was willed. THEODORICK-2 and Giles-2 also witnessed a deed December 1, 1708, from John Pleasants transferring lands to William Cocke. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 15.]

John Pleasants was an early Quaker of Henrico during the time when Quakers were persecuted and fined, even whipped for their beliefs. Pleasants was a wealthy and influential man, however, and managed to escape the worst of this persecution. Eventually, after the Act of Toleration was passed, his fines and other difficulties with the law were negated and he was allowed to build a meetinghouse for the Quakers in Henrico. [History of Henrico, pg 64-67.]

In 1702, there were 863 tithables in the original county, and this number increased by 52 in 1703. The census of 1703 reported 2,413 souls in the county, excluding the French refugees. Of this figure, 915 were tithables, and 1,498 were women and children. A total of 148,757 acres of land had been patented in the county and 98 horses were reported. This small number of horses in the county shows just how valuable the horse given to Giles, Jr.-2, by William Sewell was. Obviously, with only 915 adult males or slaves in the area very little of the 148,000 acres was actually under cultivation. The average number of acres per tithable was 150, and obviously one man could not cultivate 150 acres by himself. At first the colony tilled the soil with a hoe and mattock. Later, oxen were the primary draft animals used for plowing on the farms in this era. Horses were used more for a mode of transportation. Roads were very poor and few. Even in places where there were roads, carts, buggies and wagons were seldom used due to the roads’conditions. A rough sled, usually pulled by oxen, was the primary method of transporting heavy or large items.

Today, there are millions of pairs of oxen used throughout the world, and even a few thousand pairs of steers are working in the United States. The term “oxen” is a job title, rather than a specific breed of cattle. It simply means “working cattle.” The plantion owner or farmer would pick a pair of young male cattle, neuter them, and train them to work. This was done by first training the animal to lead and respond to voice commands to go forward, left, right, and back. A yoke, or wooden beam, was placed either on the animal’s neck or behind the horns. Traditional English yokes were “neck” yokes, fitting on the top of the animal’s neck, and being held in place by bent wooden bows. Canadian oxen would usually work in a head yoke, or a wooden beam strapped behind the horns of the animal. All oxen must have horns. This is necessary for holding the yoke, of whatever type, onto the head or neck of the animal. The oxen, if fully trained, would not have lines, a bridle, or halter, like a horse, but would respond to cues from a stick, called a goad, or to the owner’s vocal commands. A pair of oxen is called a “Yoke of oxen” and more than two are called a “team.” Any breed of cattle can be used, but dairy breeds were preferred and usually available. Even a cow can be used to pull sleds or wagons, but neutered males, called steers, are the preferred animal. Before the animal is mature, about four years of age, he is referred to as a “working steer” and after age four, as an “oxen.”

William Sewell’s wife, Elizabeth, relinquished her dower in a deed dated February 1, 1708/9 in Henrico which was witnessed by Giles Carter-2. William was transferring lands “in the low grounds” to William West. The lands were also noted as being on the north side of the James River, and “bounded as in a deed from Theodrick Carter to John Pleasants.” This would indicate that Giles Carter, Jr., was born at least before 1688. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 16.]

In 1697, the population of Virginia was estimated at 70,000 people. In 1698, Governor Andros resigned and his successor was Francis Nicholson, the former Governor of Maryland. Nicholson promised “freedom and liberty of conscience” to all religions and the Act of Toleration was passed. Williamsburg was the new capitol of the colony. This act did not entirely release the dissenters from persecution and fines, or even from having their young men conscripted to serve in the militia against their wills, but it did some good in reducing the persecutions such as whippings and bannings against the Quakers. The CARTERS were apparently members of the established churches and had their children’s baptisms recorded in the vestry books. Infant baptism was the established church’s practice and custom.

THEODORICK CARTER-2, son of GILES and HANNAH, married a woman named ELIZABETH. Many researchers think her name was ELIZABETH WEBB, and that she was the daughter of John Webb, born in 1688. The birth of a child named Elizabeth, the daughter of one of the men named John Webb, is recorded in the Henrico Parish records in 1688. If she is that Elizabeth, it would have made her 12 years younger than THEODORICK-2. This is possible, but after looking at all the records available, the author thinks that she may have been the daughter of a Webb family, but not necessarily this one. There were several men named John Web in the area. The daughter of THEODORICK-2 and ELIZABETH married the son of one of the John Webbs, also named John Webb. The land of one of the men named John Webb abutted the lands of THEODORICK-2.

THEODORICK-2 and ELIZABETH both signed as witnesses on the will of the John Webb who died in 1725. Some researchers think that this might be her father or her brother, or that he was the father of her son-in-law, John Webb. Some people have even proposed that the John Webb who married ELIZABETH’s daughter was her brother, i.e. uncle marrying niece. The author is more inclined to believe that the John Webb-ii, her son-in-law, was her nephew, and that John-ii and her daughter were first cousins, and that she was the sister of John Webb-i, the one who died in 1725, and whose will she and THEODORICK-2 signed. Marriages between first cousins in Virginia were very common, and actually encouraged. Marriages between uncle and niece are extremely rare and would have been considered incest! Genealogical Evidence, by Noel C. Stevenson states, on page 77, about prohibited marriages, “a man may not marry his brother or sister’s daughter.”

This standard was established in 1653 by Archbishop Parker. There were other prohibited unions as well. Marriages between first cousins was not prohibited in any group except the Quakers.

Marriages in early Virginia were considered a uniting of estates and families, and so cousin marriages were encouraged to keep the estates “in the family.” In some cases, this resulted in the decreased viability of the offspring, when inherited weaknesses would be perpetuated in the lines when the marriages of cousins continued for several successive generations. This was true in the Randolphs of Virginia, for example, producing insanity in come cases. President Jefferson’s mother was a Randolph, and several of his cousins and nephews were frankly insane.

THEODORICK-2, was an “affluent” planter in early Virginia by the standards of the day, but he was not one of the ruling “elite.” Nor had his father been one of the “elite.” They apparently lived their lives in the quiet pursuit of their business and plantation building. They were members of the established church and their births and baptisms were recorded in the parish registers. However, THEODORICK-2 did associate with some of the “elite” and wealthy planters in the area.

THEODORICK-2 and his brother, Giles Carter-2, lived in Henrico County and raised their families. Some of the birth records are recorded in the St. Peter’s Parish records in New Kent County. The reason for this was that the same minister served both parishes for several years during the 1730s. We find land patents in Henrico for Giles-2 in 1724 and in 1725. In the vestry of the parish, an Act of Assembly was recorded for settling the titles and bounds of the lands and for preventing unlawful shooting and ranging thereupon. Giles-2 witnessed this document on March 1736 in Henrico. THEODORICK-2’s land was processioned the year before and the lands of his neighbors, Gerrard Ellyson, Robert and William Ferris, were also processioned at this time.

Pursuant to an Act of Assembly of this Colony, and in obedience to the order of Henrico County court, made at a Court held for ye said County, this first day of December Ano. 1735; The Vestry do order that John cock, Gerrard Ellison, and Giles Carter, with the Assistance of the neighboring free holders, do sometime before the last day of march Next coming goe in procession and renew the lands of all Lands from Bore Swamp, on Chickahominy Swamp, to the lower bounds of ye parish, thence Southerly to the place where the long bridge road parts with Bottom Bridge Road and that the said John Cocke, Gerrard Ellison and Giles Cocke [sic] [or any two of them] do take and return to their Parish Vestry an account of every person’s lands by them processioned. [Moore, History of Henrico Parish and St. John’s Church, Richmond Virginia 1611-1904, Part Two, pg. 24.]

Page 27 of the above reference gives the following list of signers of the processioning list after it was accomplished: THEODORICK CARTER-2, his land processioned, John Webb, Garrard Ellyson, John Spear, Sam Bugg, Francis Brothers, Francis Amos, John Moss, William Clarke, Robert Ferris, William Ferris, Jr. & Sr., Edward Goode, Ann Austin, John Bottom in behalf of Philamone Smith, Richard Truman, Jr., Michael Hartwell, John Roper Watkins, and Richard More. It also mentions “the lines between John Cocke and Giles Carter that is in the County.” It was dated March 31, 1736.

John Cocke and William Parsons, both agreed in the presence of Giles Carter and Thos. Jolley.” [Moore, History of Henrico Parish, pg 33] and goes on to mention the “line between John Cocke and Thomas Watkins” and the line between “Thomas Watkins and Joseph Woodson processiooned …and the line between Thomas Watkins and Thomas Watkins [Jr & Sr. or the same man?] and William Porter, Sr. And the line between Thomas Watkins, and Thomas Binford and Edward Mosby Page 34 mentions lands of Francis Rowlins not processioned in 1736 because no one would appear to do it for him. [May 3, 1736, the Vestry Book.]

He appears to have been unable to come himself for some reason. At the same meeting in which the above processionings were noted, the parish hired a new minister, the Reverend Mr. William Stith.

Tobacco prices had fluctuated due to the government control and taxing vs. the fluctuating of production. In 1730, Governor Gooch had reorganized the entire tobacco industry. It required the planter to take his tobacco to a warehouse for inspection before shipping it to England. It reduced fraud, raised the quality, standardized weight, and reduced surplus. Taxes were proportionally very high for the planters, and all taxes together took from one-third to one-half of the gross income [cash and produce] that the planter produced. Many years the planters had little left to feed and clothe their families. This also probably caused some hardship and transportation problems.

Since the planters had settled primarily along the “necks” of land in between the fingers of water that they used for transportation instead of roads, frequently ships could tie up at the private plantation docks right in the planter’s back doors, thus saving the planter having to transport the tobacco very far. By having to have it inspected in a central warehouse, however, the planter could no longer ship produce right out of his back door. This did cut down on some of the fraud, however. This was especially important since the tobacco was essentially the currency of the colony.

Giles Carter-2 moved to King George County after 1736, a few years before he died in 1745. His will is recorded there, naming sons William Carter-3, Giles Carter-3, and John Carter-3. His wife was named Mary.

The Children of Theodorick-2 and Elizabeth _?_ Carter

born before 1676-died 1736 born 1688?- died 1751

  1. THEODORICK CARTER-3, born before 1706, married ANN WADDILL. He was mentioned first in his father’s will, and may have been the oldest son. A deed in 1730 witnessed by “Theodorick Carter, Sr., Theodorick Carter, Jr., and John Webb” also indicates his majority before 1730. [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 15.]

  1. John Carter-3, born about 1710, mentioned in THEODORICK’s-2 will as being the child of ELIZABETH.

  1. Ann Carter-3, married a man named Ferris. The Ferris family lived very close to the CARTERS. A man named Ferris had been one of the partners of GILES-1 in his land dealings. [Moore, History of Henrico, Part 2, pg 28.]

  1. Susannah Carter-3, married a man named Scruggs, she was not named in THEODORICK’s will, but is named in her mother’s.

  1. Martha Carter-3, married a man named Gathright, she was not named in THEODORICK’s will, but is named in her mother’s. It has been theorized that the above daughters were not THEODORICK’s children, but were ELIZABETH’s from a previous marriage, and that was the reason they were not mentioned in his will, but are mentioned in hers.

  1. Mary Carter-3, was apparently the woman named Mary who married Drury Scruggs. His will mentions her and their children. It was written in 1782 in Cumberland County and named sons John Scruggs, Theodorick Scruggs, Drury Scruggs, Edward Scruggs, and Carter Scruggs. The daughters were Jane Scruggs Easley, Ann [Nancy] Scruggs Minton, and Fanny [Frances] Scruggs Anderson. Mary is mentioned for a bequest in the will of her father in 1736 as “Mary Carter” so was probably not married at the time of the will. Since she was unmarried at the time of her father’s death and he gave her the “traditional” items given to a daughter at marriage, we may “guestimate” her age as about 16 and think that her wedding was possibly in the near future at the time of her father’s death. Therefore, this author’s estimation of the birth date of Mary, based on those assumptions, is around 1618 to 1620.

  1. An unnamed daughter-3 [Martha?] who married the John Webb, born 1693, who died 1736, and had a son named Cutbord [Cuthbert] Webb [named in ELIZABETH’s will] and sons named Giles Webb, Theodorick Webb, Henry Webb, and Jacob Webb. [There were several men named Giles Webb.] The use of the names Cutbord and Giles in the Webb family predated this connection. This daughter predeceased both parents. One of the earlier men named Giles Webb, was shown on the 1705 Quit Rent Rolls as owning 7,260 acres of land in Virginia. Her descendants state that this woman may have been named Martha. In trying to “date” the ages of the children, this daughter would have had to have married about 1724 if she was to have had time to have several children [all with Carter family names] by the time of her husband’s death, and then herself have died. Assuming that she was at least 16 when she married, this would give an approximate birth date of 1708 for this child of ELIZABETH’s with a CARTER surname. This would mean that this daughter was probably one of the older children of ELIZABETH and THEODORICK-2.

  1. Elizabeth Carter-3, born about August 22, 1736. She may have been a posthumous child of THEODORICK’s, the record of her baptism is in New Kent. She was born near the time of her father’s death. His will was written in July before she was baptized in August. She eventually married a man named Martin. Since we know that her father had to be about age 60 when she was born, this would indicate that her mother was indeed about 12 or more years younger than her father. For ELIZABETH to be much older and still bearing children would be suspect.

THEODORICK-2 and ELIZABETH continued to reside in Henrico County until their deaths. His will is recorded in Henrico and he named some of the children. ELIZABETH’s will names the rest of them as well as some that he had named. A deed dated December 5, 1737, mentioned lands near the “mouth of Round Hill Brach” near lands of “Theodorick Carter, deceased” [Henrico County, VA Deeds 1706-1737, pg 166]

Will of Theodorick Carter-2

In the name of God, Amen. I Theodorick Carter of the Parish and County of Henrico being sick but of perfect memory do this twenty second day of July One thousand seven hundred thirty six [1736] make this my last will and testament, and first and principally I commit my soul to almighty God in whom and by whose Mercy and thro. The Merits of my Blessed Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ I trust and assuredly believe to be saved, my body to the earth to be decantly buryed at the discretion of my Executx. Hereafter named, and as for disposing of my estate I give and devise the same in manner and form following. I give and devise unto my beloved wife, Elizabeth, so long as she shall live sole my plantation land and appurtenances and after her death or marriage, I give unto my son, Theodorick and his heirs forever my said plantation with two huyndred eighteen acres of land thereto belonging I give and devise untoo my son John Carter and his heirs forever one hundred and twenty acres land to be the same more or less within the following bounds, beginning at a corner Beach standing on Round Hill Branch then along a line of marked trees to a corner Hickory on Round Hill Branch thence along a line of marked trees to a corner hickory on the dividing line between John Spears and this land to a corner oak on the farther side of the road thence along the line of John Webb to a corner Tree on Chickahominy Swamp then up the same to ye place began at; my wife is not to be excluded the use of this land so long as she shall remain sole, during which time I give her my negro named Will and after that time I give him to my son Theodorick with a negro child named Dick [Note: Theodorick-2’s will mentions a negro man named Dick.] I give unto my son John and his heirs after the death or marriage of his mother my negro woman Judity and a mullato girl named Lucy with what children they may have when he has a right to the possession of them. I give unto my son John one fether bed rugg and blanket, one gun, my great chist [chest] one pot and hooks and two cows, I give unto my daughter Mary Carter one cow and calf one fether bed rugg and blankets, two ews, one pot and hooks, two pewter dishs and two plates and one poringer, I give unto my beloved wife Elizabeth all the rest of my estate of what kind soever and do make her executrix of this my last will and testament, hereby directing that my estate shall not be inventoryed or appraised. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year aforementioned.

Theodorick Carter [seal]

Witness: Thomas Watkins, John Spear, Will W. Loathan.

[Henrico Co. VA. Will & Deed Book 1677-1692, pg. 606.]

The fact that this will dictated that the estate not be inventoried or appraised deprives us of knowing exactly what he owned.

The names of the witnesses to this will were very significant in establishing the right Theodorick Carter from his cousins of the same name.

Thomas Watkins and the Watkins family were apparently very close friends with THEODORICK-2 and subsequent generations. Thomas Watkins was appointed vestryman in 1773, along with Daniel Price [Jr.]]They were both designated “Gentlemen” in the records. [Moore, History of Henrico.]

of Thomas Watkins of Chickahominy, [Note: he was the son of the Thomas Watkins who signed the will] I have heard very full accounts from my mother. He was a man of the highest respectability, in every point of view, and in particular, a man of indefatigable industry.” [Notes for the History of Henrico Parish, pg. 189].

It goes on to say that Thomas Watkins, of Chickahominy, was the eldest son of Thomas Watkins of Swift Creek , who died in 1760, leaving eight children.

The will of THEODORICK-2 was probated in Henrico the first Monday of April, 1737, and ELIZABETH was executrix. He had not named all of the daughters who were later named in ELIZABETH’s will. The last daughter, Elizabeth-3, was probably not born until either shortly before or shortly after his death. The parish records state “Elizabeth, daughter of THEODORICK and ELIZABETH CARTER, born August 22d, baptized September 26th, 1736.” The mention of John having to wait to get the slaves until the “death of his mother” would indicate that ELIZABETH was the mother of the children named, however, it does not preclude ELIZABETH having other children from a previous marriage.

THEODORICK-2 had been born at least by 1676 [as he was mentioned in James Crewes’ will that year] and died about the first of 1737, so he was at least 61 years old when he died, and maybe several years older. ELIZABETH was probably in her late forties, but was either pregnant or had just had her last child shortly before or after he died. Since ELIZABETH was still fertile, this underscores that there must have been some difference in their ages, and might mean that ELIZABETH was indeed, the Elizabeth Webb, born in 1688, the child of John Webb-i

However, John Webb-i was definitely the father of John Webb-ii, ELIZABETH’s son-in-law, so that eliminates ELIZABETH as the daughter of John-i because her brother could not have married her daughter. A more likely scenario is that John-i Webb might have been a brother to ELIZABETH.

“At a Vestry held for Henrico Parish on the twentieth day of Dec’r anno 1739” [St. John’s Vestry book] the vestry agreed to build a new church “near the spring” on Richardson’s Road. The minutes also contain a note that the undersigned have processioned their lands: it names Thomas Watkins, John Hales, John Speare, Genet Ellison, Samuel Bugg, Ann Austin, Edward Goode, John, Robert and William Ferris, John Cocke, and was certified by Thomas Watkins, Samuel Bugg, John Carter, James Powell Cocke, and James Cocke. This list is almost identical with the 1736 list of processioning, except now THEODORICK-2 is not on the list and John Carter-3 replaces his name.

THEODORICK-3 married about the time his father died, somewhere around 1736 or 1737. John Carter-3 is mentioned in the will of their father to receive several basic household articles that were not given to THEODORICK-3 who appears to be the older of the two men, and was probably already married at the time the will was written. THEODORICK-3 received almost twice as much land as John-3 did, however, again reinforcing our belief that he is the older of the two. THEODORICK-3 married a woman named ANN, who is apparently the daughter of WILLIAM WADDILL. Her birth is recorded in the parish register as “Ann Waddill, the daughter of William Waddill christened 24 January 1713” and recorded in New Kent. Since we know that THEODORICK CARTER-3 was born prior to 1706 we can see that ANN WADDILL was a few years younger than he was.

William Waddell, Sr.

Circa 1670 to 1737

William Waddill Sr.-1; William-2

John Waddell was born about 1640, probably in England, and died September 20, 1709, in St. Peter’s Parish, New Kent County, Virginia.[Vestry Book] He was named in 1689 as one of the men appointed as processioners by the vestry of St. Peter’s, and in 1704 charged with “quit rents” on 40 acres of New Kent Lands.

Several men named Waddell living in the area are thought, but not proven, to be his sons. They include William Waddill, Charles Waddill, John Waddill, Jr., David Waddill, and James Waddell.

WILLIAM WADDELL, Sr., was born before 1670, and was a vestryman in 1704, as well as church warden in St. Peter’s Parish, New Kent County, Virginia. The name is spelled Waddell until 1704, after which it is spelled Waddill. WILLIAM WADDILL was listed for 375 acres on the Quit Rent Rolls of 1704. A John Waddill, Jr., was also listed in the vestry minutes along with WILLIAM.

David Martin, in an e-mail to the author, dated April 13, 1997, says “I have information as follows: John Waddill, Sr., died in 1709. He was the father of John Waddill, Jr., Charles, William, and James. John Waddill, Jr. married Mary and his children were Frances Waddill, born in 1696, John Waddill, born in 1697, Thomas Waddill, born in 1701, William Waddill?, and possibly Charles Waddill.An undocumented citation is that William Waddell’s wife was named Judity.

Mildred Wright Fourniter of Lake City, Florida, also supplied information on this family, along with documentation and research notes, mostly from the New Kent St. Peter’s Parish Vestry books.

The name was supposedly originally derived from “Weddell” which is from the old lands of “Wedale” or “The Vale of Woe,” which is now the parish of Stow, partly in Selkirkshire and partly in Mid-Lothian. Variations seen today in the United States include “Waddle.”

We are fortunate that we have the transcribed parish registry giving the births of many of the children in the parish during the time that ANNE WADDILL was born. These children are listed with the names of their fathers and occasionally, the mother’s name will also be listed. The problem is that ANNE’s date of birth is at the “end” of the list of children born to the older William Waddell, and a few years “early” [though possibly] for William Waddill, Jr.

Children of William Waddell, Sr.

The transcribed parish register lists the following children as being the children of “William Waddell” or “Mr. William Wadell.” Unfortunately, by the time William Waddill, Junior, starts having children, his father is apparently also still having children. They appear to be the only two men, however, named William Waddill and the only men who could be her father, as no other men named Waddill had daughters named Ann, Nancy or Agness. [These are “nicknames” for each other.] Some of the dates given are birth dates and some baptism dates and some have dates for both.

  1. Ann Waddell-2, born June 9, 1691

  2. Elizabeth Waddell-2, born February 24, 1692. Her husband may have been John Sanders, married August 7, 1709, in New Kent.

  3. William Waddell, Jr.-2, Baptized April 29, 1694. Some researchers attribute a wife named Sarah to this man on the basis that in 1738, Sarah was paid 29 pounds of tobacco for “quit rents” on the glebe lands.

  4. John Waddell-2, born August 24, 1697.

  5. Hannah Waddell-2, born August 16, 1699.

  6. Pridgin Waddell-2, born 1704.

  7. Frances Waddell-2, born May 2, 1706.

  8. Nowel [Noel] Waddell-2, born June 1, 1709. In 1744, “Mrs. Judith Waddell’s ‘hands’ were added to Noel Waddell’s levy. Was this woman his mother? Noel was listed as the son of “Mr. Wm. Waddill”

  9. Jacob Waddell-2, born November 7, 1711

  10. Anne Waddill ? born January 24, 1713.

As you can see, Ann, born in 1713 fits very nicely into the “flow” of the children of WILLIAM WADDILL, Sr. It was also not uncommon or unusual for a second child in a family to receive the same given name as a previously born child if the first one had died, especially if that name was “important” to the family. Since there were only the two men named William Waddill in the area, though, it is very likely that ANNE was the daughter of one of the two men, who were father and son. Since she “fits” more closely into the “flow” of children of WILLIAM WADDILL, SR., she will for the purposes of this book, be listed as his child, keeping in mind she may be his granddaughter.

Children of William Waddill, Junior

Baptised 1694

Some of the transcriptions, namely the one on, list a William Waddill, Junior for some of the birth dates. Some are listed as “Mr. Wm. Waddill,” and some have only the designation William Waddell. The problem is, where to draw the line? The dates for the children attributed to William and to William and Sarah make a nice “line” in terms of ages of the children from 1718 to 1738 with maybe a small skip or two for a baby that died.

  1. Sarah Waddill October 13, 1718

  2. William Waddill August 2, 1720

  3. Elizabeth Waddill January 4, 1722/3

  4. Richard Waddill 1725

  5. Noel Waddill October 27, 1730

Children of William Waddill and Sarah

  1. Martha Waddill February 28, 1729

  2. Shadrack Waddill March 4 1738

  3. Jacob Waddill 1732

It appears that the children born to “William and Sarah Waddill” fit nicely into the “flow” of the children of William Waddill, Jr. It is also apparent that the birth of Anne in 1713 is a bit early to fit into that “flow” and especially since William, Jr., would have only been 19 years old at the time of the birth of that Anne.

Charles Waddill’s Children

These children, spanning a period of nineteen years are probably the children of one man named Charles. Charles Waddill Senior died April 9, 1720.

  1. Agnis Waddill baptized 22 Sept 1700, died Feb 8, 1716. Though “Agnis” and “Anne” are essentially the same name, this child is eliminated as being the Anne who married into the Carter family by the death date.

  2. Sarah Waddill baptized 5 April 1702

  3. Charles Waddill baptized May 14, 1704, died Apr 3, 1720

  4. Joseph Waddill baptized 16 Feb 1706/7

  5. Susanna Waddill baptized May 1709 died Mar 7, 1720/1

  6. Frances Waddill baptized Ap r 18, 1712

  7. Elizabeth Waddill born March 31, 1715

  8. John Waddill born Dec 5, 1719

James Waddill’s Children

The children born to “James Waddill” may not be all the children of the same man. James Waddill [an adult] died December 28, 1721.

  1. George Waddill baptized July 20, 1707

  2. John Waddill baptized July 1, 1711, died July 13, 1720

  3. Charles Waddill born July 18, 1720 [This Child may be from a second man named James Waddill.]

Children of men named John Waddill

These children are obviously not the children of one man.. John Waddill, Senior, died in December 20, 1709”.

  1. John Waddill born 27 Oct 1697 by Mary

  2. Frances Waddill [female] d/o John Waddell Junior & Mary 8 Feb 1696/7

  3. Thomas Waddill baptized 27 July 1701, s/o John Waddill Jr.

  4. James Waddill baptized June 25, 1710, died September 3, 1720

  5. Mary Waddill Baptized September 27, 1713

  6. John B. Waddill November 20, 1722

  7. Agness Waddill born Feb 1, 1724/25

  8. Dennis Waddill May 11, 1727

  9. Elizabeth Waddill d/o John and Mary born 1734

  10. Martha Waddill , d/o John & Mary April 1737

  11. Mary Waddill, d/o John & Mary born 27 Nov, bap Jan 1729.

Sarah, a Mullato Girl, belonging to John Waddill, Junior, was born April 12, 1735

WILLIAM WADDILL-1 was appointed vestryman in 1704 [Vestry Book St. Peter’s Parish] and mentioned frequently in the vestry minutes as being present at the vestry meetings. He also was church warden in 1709, and along with George Poindexter, was supervisor of the building of the glebe house. He was among those paid for keeping the poor of the parish, including 514 pounds of tobacco in 1710 for keeping Daniel McDaniel for 15 days. In 1712, he agreed to keep Richard Collam for one whole year for 600 pounds of tobacco. In 1714, Nanny, a Negro belonging to Mr. WILLIAM WADDILL died. As well as a man slave named Will died that same year. Sue, a Negro also died in 1719.

He kept William Gardner for one year for 1,000 pounds of tobacco. In 1717 and 1718, the vestry met at his house. It had been meeting at the school since 1709. In 1722, WILLIAM, Sr., was again church warden.

In 1728, he was a “tobacco viewer,” which was a very important post in the community. His district as tobacco viewer was “along the main road from Mr.’ former store by Colonel Scotts to Martha Pattison’s.” He was present for the vestry meeting in both September and October of 1737 and he was paid for glebe quit rents. This notation about him being paid for glebe quit rents, and in 1738, Sarah Waddill being paid for glebe quit rents might indicate that Sarah was indeed his widow. William and Sarah, however were having children from 1729 to 1738. Could she have been a young wife? Or could she have been the wife of William Waddill, Junior?

WILLIAM WADDIL owned several slaves and in 1729, the vestry register noted that “Patt” a Negro belonging to WILLIAM was born November 17th.

In 1733, Elizabeth Simbler, a mulatto girl was bound to WILLIAM WADDILL for 31 years. She was born January 6th, 1733. It was customary for bastards of any race, but especially for black or mulattos, to be bound out until age 30 more-or-less.

For the September, 1739, meeting, he was not present and Joseph Marston was sworn in to replace him. On October 6, 1739, Daniel Park Custis was chosen as his successor in the vestry. [Vestry Book, St. Paul’s Parish, New Kent.] WILLIAM WADDILL, Senior, would have been a very old man when he died.

William Waddill, Jr.-2, was born in New Kent in 1694 and apparently grew up there. His father, WILLIAM, Sr.-1, as a vestryman, would have been one of the leading citizens of the area to have been included in that august body. We have no record of the name of WILLIAM, Sr.’s wife, but the name of William, Jr.’s wife was probably Sarah. For him to have been ANNE’s father, he would have had to have married quite young and had a child by the age of 19, then skipped five years before having another. Possible. Likely? Hummm?? Males from more affluent families tended to marry younger than males from less affluent families who were less able to provide independent livings for their sons. Girls tended to marry younger than males because they were not expected to provide a living for the family.

ANN-3, baptized January 24, 1713, was probably the youngest child of WILLIAM WADDELL’s children, or the oldest of WILLIAM, Jr.,’s. He would have been only 19 when ANN-3 was born. Mickey Fournier contributed the results of her research showing that that one of the WILLIAM WADDILLs, may have been married to a woman named Sarah. Sarah was paid 29 pounds of tobacco for “quit rents” on the Glebe land in 1738. Was this because her husband was dead? This may be the widow of WILLIAM WADDILL, Sr., whom we know died about 1737 and was paid prior to his death for the “quit rents for the glebe.” In 1744, a Mrs. Judity Waddell’s hands were “added to Nowel Waddell’s”. It is also possible that both Williams died about the same time, somewhere around 1737. The births and baptisms of children to “William Waddell” stopped about this time.

WILLIAM WADDILL, Sr.’s name disappears from the vestry records after the October 8, 1737, vestry meeting. Later meetings mention him as deceased and his replacement in the vestry waschosen. There was a child born to William and Sarah Waddill March 4, 1738, so this child could be a child of either the father or the son, William Waddill. So at this point in time, we can reasonably say that our ANNE WADDILL was the child of or the grandchild of WILLIAM WADDILL, SR.

In 1742, William Randolph’s will was witnessed by one of the men named “Theodorick Carter,” and it was probated in Goochland County. The Goochland tithable list for 1746 lists a “Theo Carter, overseer for Peter Randolph.” This is most likely the son of Giles, Jr.-2, named Theodorick-3. It is only remotely possible, but not likely, that the man who signed William Randolph’s will was our THEODORICK-3, and we know that by the date of that will that THEODORICK-2 was deceased. The connection between the two families had continued for several generations, however. The Randolphs rose in prosperity and importance in the social and political spheres in the colony, while the Carters simply maintained a middle ground, as they seem to have from the beginning.

ELIZABETH [Webb?] CARTER, the widow of THEODORICK-2, wrote her will July 8, 1747, and it was witnessed in Henrico by her son, THEODORICK-3. This is the last document that he signed in Henrico County. He apparently moved to Amelia County shortly after this, where he is found on the vestry records starting about 1747. These lands shortly became Prince Edward County. His mother, ELIZABETH, apparently lived several more years after the will was signed in 1747. Her will was not probated in Henrico until 1751. A woman could not will her interest in dower lands which she had received from her husband. At her death, these passed back to his estate. The personal property she received from him in fee simple, or items that she had received as a bequest from her family, she could bequeath as she chose.

Thomas Carter, who had witnessed a will with THEODORICK-3 in Henrico, was also found in Prince Edward County records, and apparently had gone with THEODORICK-3 from the Henrico area. Noel Waddill, probably the young uncle or brother of THEODORICK-3’s wife, ANN WADDILL CARTER, was also there in Prince Edward County. Noel Waddill, the son of WILLIAM, Sr., was born 1709, so was probably half-way between the age of her father WILLIAM, Jr., and herself. Noel was apparently an “heirloom” name in that branch of the Waddills, so it may have been one of the other men of this name.

ELIZABETH CARTER was probably in her mid-sixties when she died. Most of her children were grown and married by the time she died, except for the three youngest daughters. Elizabeth-3, the youngest, was only about age 14 when her mother died. Although births to mothers over 40 years of age are always suspect, we know that births as late as the late 40s are not impossible, and with additional other evidence are acceptable.

ELIZABETH named more of the children in her will. She named daughters Ann-3 Ferris, Susannah-3 Scruggs, Martha Carter-3, Mary Carter-3, and Elizabeth Carter-3. She willed the great Bible to THEODORICK-3 and some livestock. ELIZABETH also named a grandson, Cuthbert Webb. He was probably the son of her deceased daughter by John Webb, whose will was witnessed by THEODORICK-2 and ELIZABETH in 1736. John Webb’s will named his sons including Theodorick, Giles, and Cuthboard Webb. Giles and Cuthboard were “heirloom” names in this branch of the Webb family prior to any connection with the CARTERS.

THEODORICK-3 and ANN WADDILL-3 CARTER had been residing in Prince Edward several years by the time his mother, ELIZABETH, died about 1751. What is now Prince Edward County, Virginia, was Amelia County until 1753, when Prince Edward was formed. No one knows just who the first colonists to settle in that area were, but it was probably first settled about 1733. In 1747, THEODORICK-3 is first listed in the vestry as being on a crew to work on clearing a “bridle path” from the “road near Charles Anderson’s to Brush River Church.” Each man and his tithables were required to work on public projects such as roads so many days each year without pay.

In 1754, THEODORICK-3 was listed living between the Bush and Buffalo Rivers and voted in the election in 1754 for House of Burgesses. He voted for John Nans [Nance?]

In 1755, THEODORICK-3 offered some of his lands for sale to the vestry for Glebe lands, two other men also offered their lands at the same time. The glebe land was a farm or estate that went to the minister along with the parish church and any salary. Some churches even had slaves that went along with the parish glebe lands and the minister got the income. The minister was paid in pounds of tobacco by the vestry and the salary was set by law. The value of the tobacco warrants that the minister received for his 16,000 pounds of tobacco varied from parish to parish depending upon the quality of local tobacco grown in his parish. The price per pound was set by the government. Many churches in the poorer areas where tobacco was of poor quality had difficulty securing a minister. If the Glebe lands were also poor, the parish might have no minister for years. [Vestry Book.]

The Virginia vestrymen were cagey, however. In the Church of England, the minister would receive effective “tenure” in his parish church after he was presented to the governor. Prior to that presentation, the minister was at the will of the vestry- men. So, the vestry just didn’t “present” their ministers, and kept them on a year-to- year basis. This, effectively, gave 100% control over the minister into the hands of the vestry. Many of the ministers resented this, but had little power to do anything more than to complain.

THEODORICK-3 priced his land at f 90, but the vestrymen decided against the lands of all three men and chose another plot later. The tithe records for that same year show that THEODORICK-3 owned three slaves on whom taxes were due. Slaves were not usually taxed until they reached 16 years of age. In some areas, at some times, slaves as young as age 12 were taxed. Only about seven percent of landowners in Virginia owned even one slave. Owning three taxable slaves put THEODORICK in the “upper middle class,” if it could be so termed, but he was not one of the ruling elite.

In 1760, the title to THEODORICK CARTER’s land boundaries were “processioned.” This was a process where every few years, the committee from the vestry would walk the boundaries of each person’s lands with the owners, if available, and set the marks. If there was a dispute over the boundary, it was settled. It seems the vestry had been slow in catching up on this chore and so all the previously settled lands were presented and bounds set. The vestry also paid THEODORICK-3 one pound, two shillings, for supplying blankets to a sick man. The destitute of the parish were cared for by the planters, who were reimbursed by the vestry. [Ibid.]

WILLIAM CARTER-4, the son of THEODORICK-3, must have married by 1759, as his first son, William Carter, Jr.-5, was born July 9, 1760. This date of birth is from William-5’s Revolutionary pension, so is considered “solid” information, and gives us an approximate date of marriage of his father.

In 1761, THEODORICK-3 was listed in the vestry records with Jacob McGeehee [previously from King William County], as resurveying and reopening a road that had been closed. Thomas Haskins had petitioned to have a road closed that ran though his property, although it had been in use for about 12 years. The court at first granted his petition, then a petition was introduced to reopen it, as there was “no reasonable way around Mr. Haskin’s property.” The court paid him damages for the inconvenience of the road. [History of Prince Edward County, Virginia, pg. 36.]

“Theodorick and Thomas Carter” were listed in 1767 as working on the roads. THEODORICK-3 was about 57-60 years old, so probably didn’t personally work on this road, but probably saw that his slaves and tithables did the actual work. Roads were community affairs and each planter or yeoman was required to supply labor to the community roads for several days each year without pay.

THEODORICK-3 and ANN had a houseful of children and passed on the heirloom names with the addition of the name “Waddill” to several of them. “Waddill” was passed on in the given names of this line of CARTERS. Heirloom names will be significant in tracing our lines of this family.

Children of Theodorick-3 and Ann Waddill Carter

  1. John Carter-4, born in Henrico County, August 26, 1737, the birth was recorded in St. Peter’s Parish, New Kent, however. The Reverend Mossom was minister to several congregations, including Henrico Parish. He recorded the births of many CARTER children in St. Peter’s Parish records though they were born in Henrico, not New Kent. John moved with his father to Prince Edward County as an infant. He moved as an adult to Halifax County, and his wife’s name was Mary. He died about June 18, 1781, leaving a will in Halifax County. The witnesses to the will were Benj. Hobson, David Bates, and Noel Waddill, Theodorick-3 and Charles Carter-4, who was a son of Theodorick-3. Executors to the will were his brothers, Richard-4 and Theodorick-4. Noel Waddill, his mother’s uncle or brother, lived nearby. A deed shows a tract of 183 1/2 acres on the Dan River in Halifax being transferred from THEODORICK-3 of Prince Edward County to his son, John “of Halifax County.” John named a daughter “Ann Waddill Carter.

The date of birth of John-4 [August 26, 1737] compared to the date of the will of THEODORICK-2 of July 26, 1736, almost proves that THEODORICK-3 was probably married before the death of his father.

The children of John Carter-4 and his wife, Mary, were: Ann Waddell Carter-5; Elizabeth Carter-5; Judith Carter-5; Sally Carter-5; Richard Carter-5; Theodorick Carter-5; Robert Carter-5, who was born December 20, 1770; James Carter-5; and Francis Carter-5, who died April 17, 1845. [The children of John Carter-4, courtesy of Dorothy Zongker, in a letter to the author, dated August 16, 1997.]

  1. WILLIAM CARTER-4, was probably the second son, born in Prince Edward County about 1740. He is our ancestor and there will be more about him later. He died about 1810.

  1. Theodorick Carter -4, born 1747, in Prince Edward County was a Revolutionary soldier. Published research states that he married a Miss Towne as his first wife and later married Judith Cunningham on April 16, 1764. He died July 13, 1805, in Cumberland, Virginia. He had a son, Samuel Carter-5, of Halifax County, Virginia, who married Elizabeth Holcombe Bibb and had several children with unusual names: Virginia S. B. Carter-6; John Halifax Carter-6; Elizabeth Cunningham Carter-6; America Bedord Carter-6; Louisiana Franklin Carter-6, Missouri Carter-6, Samuel Carter-6, Philemon Carter-6, Mary Carter-6, and Nathaniel Carter-6. Theodorick-4 was the executor of the will of his brother in Halifax County, Virginia.

  1. Susannah Carter-4, married a man named Stubblefield. She was mentioned in her mother’s will.

  1. Nancy Waddill Carter-4, married Thomas Thompson in Prince Edward County, Virginia.

  1. Waddill Carter-4, died about 1782 in Prince Edward County. He married Mildred Wade and had a daughter, Nancy Carter-5, who married John Bissequ in 1786. Her marriage bond mentioned that her father was deceased. His will was executed April 6, 1782, and probated in July, 1782. His other children were James Carter-5, Theodorick Carter-5, John Carter-5, and at least two other daughters.

  1. Molly Carter-4, unmarried in 1777.

  1. Sally Carter-4, unmarried in 1777.

  1. Samuel Carter-4, who inherited the “home place” and was a Revolutionary soldier who served in the Virginia line and lived until about 1829 or 1830. His children were William M. Carter-5, Edward A. Carter-5, and Margaret E. Carter-5, who married John P. Mittaure.

  1. Richard Carter-4, had sons Richard Carter, Jr.-5, Samuel Carter-5, and daughter, Nancy Carter-5.

THEODORICK-3’s brother, John Carter-3, stayed in Henrico County and married a woman named Elizabeth. He also had a son named Theodorick Carter-4, as well as sons, William Carter-4, John Carter-4, Jacob Carter-4, Sherwood Carter-4, and a daughter Frances Carter-4, who married a man named Walton. John Carter-3 gave a slave each to his grandchildren, John Carter Walton, Mary Walton, and Elizabeth Walton, children of Frances [Carter-4] Walton. He gave to his son, William Carter-4, all the remaining lands adjoining that already owned by William-4 and bounded by other land deeded to William’s brother, Jacob-4. He gave slaves to Jacob Carter-4 and Mary Carter’s children.

The Henrico County Carters were probably all descendants of John Carter-3. William Carter-4 the son of John-3, must have been “something.” In 1769, he was 23 years old when he married an 85-year-old woman named Sarah Ellyson. The account of the marriage in the newspaper states that she was a spritely old tit, with a fortune of 3,000 pounds.” That must have given the community something to talk about and laugh about for quite a while. He must have been an enterprising young man. This reference helps us distinguish this William Carter-4 from his cousin, our WILLIAM CARTER-4, though, so it is helpful, besides being funny. [Colonial Virginia, Its People and Customs. Pg. 185, from The Virginia Gazette of 1769.]

The sons of John Carter-3, son of THEODORICK CARTER-2 who remained in Henrico County were John Carter, Jr.-4, and Sherwood Carter-4. Their wills are recorded there. Wills for John-2’s sons, William Carter-3, Theodorick Carter-3, and Jacob Carter-3, have not been found. They may have left the area. There was a large group of Carters in Middlesex County who named their sons William, but we can safely say that these Carters have been eliminated as our line, even though they frequently use the name William. They don’t use any of the other important heirloom names.

ANN and THEODORICK CARTER-3 lived a prosperous life and acquired land and slaves to pass on to their children. They owned at least 11 slaves [named in the will] but may have owned more. Even 11 slaves was a fairly large estate, so they were apparently of the more “well-to-do” class in the area. From the descriptions of houses in that era, though, only the super wealthy owned anything that we could consider “large” today. Living conditions and possessions were different than today. People owned few pieces of clothing, many had no shoes at all. Forks were rare, with a few of the wealthier people having silver spoons, or metal spoons. The average person might not own a metal spoon. Glass or china plates were rare and expensive. Only those of the better classes might have such objects in their homes.

ANN WADDILL CARTER may have died sometimes before 1777 when THEODORICK-3’s will was written, as she was not mentioned. The failure to mention a wife in a will did not absolutely prove she was deceased, however. Two younger girls were still at home, and possibly destined to be “old maids.”

Will of Theodorick Carter- 3, Prince Edward County, Virginia

Giles Carter-1; Theodorick-2; Theodorick-3

In the name of God Amen: I Theodorick Carter of the Parish of St. Patrick and County of Prince Edward being of perfect and sound mind and memory do make and ordain this to be my last will and testament in manner following.

First, I give unto my daughter Susannah Stubblefield and sons John and Theodorick and William Carter each one shilling sterling.

I give and bequeath unto my son Richard Carter one Negro man named Dick [this slave had been inherited from THEODORICK-2 ] and one feather bed and furniture to him and his heirs forever.

I give and bequeath unto my daughter Nancy Waddil Thompson one Negro girl named Fibb now in her possession, also two cows and calves to her and her heirs forever.

I give and bequeath unto my son Waddill Carter that part of my lands within the following bounds, to begin at the cross branch at the road, to run a straight line by the graveyard to his own line, all the land below this line on the North side of said road, also one Negro man named Tom to him and his heirs forever.

I give and bequeath to my daughter Molly Carter one Negro girl named Agg and one Negro girl named Nanny, also the mare I purchased of Col. Robert Lawson, her own saddle and bridle, one feather bed and furniture, four head of sheep and two cows to her and her heirs forever.

I give and bequeath unto my daughter Sally Carter one Negro boy named Will and one Negro boy named Abraham, the sorrel mare I purchased of Charles Williamson, one feather bed and furniture, her own saddle and bridle, four head of sheep and two cows, to her and her heirs forever.

I give unto my son Samuel the reaminder of the lands and plantation whereon I now live and the following negroes, Moll and her child Neptune, also all the residue of my estate not herein before particularly mentioned of what kind or nature soever, except two-thirds of my pewter and the two Negroes named Jack and Sarah, these two negroes Jack and Sarah I leave to my two daughters Molly and Sally each an equal part thereof, the estate herein willed to my son Samuel I give to him and his heirs forever, and it is my will that so long as my daughters Molly and Sally live single that they have the free use and liberty of their chamber in my dwelling house without the denial or interruption of my son Samuel.

It is my further will that should my son Samuel depart this life without leaving issue, in that case the lands herein willed to him and every part of my estate bequeathed to him, I give and bequeath unto my said two daughters Molley and Salley to be equally divided between them by my executors hereafter named unless my said two daughters should agree on a division themselves, which estate I bequeathed to them and their heirs forever [should it so happen my son Samuel] It is my will that all the negroes I’m possessed of be continued on my plantation the next year to make a crop.

Lastly I do constitute and appoint my son Waddill Carter and friends Nathaniel Venable and Francis Watkins executors of this my last will and testament, hereby revoking and declaring void all other wills by me heretofore made.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this seventh day of December in the year of Christ one thousand seven hundred and seventy seven.

Theo’d Carter [seal]

Witnesses: William Waddill, Elizabeth Clarke, and Agnes Watkins.

Agnes Watkins, the witness to this will, was the wife of Francis Watkins, one of the executors of the will. Thomas Watkins [possibly the father of Francis] had witnessed the will of THEODORICK-3’s father. Thus, more circumstantial proof that we have the right Theodorick Carter. The William Waddill who witnessed the will was probably not ANN’s father by that name, but most likely was her brother, nephew, or cousin. The will was probated January 19, 1778, in Prince Edward County. Francis Watkins, the executor of the will, was apparently a close friend or relation to the CARTER family. John Carter-4, the son of THEODORICK-3 named a son “Francis Watkins Carter-5” and WILLIAM-4 also named a son “Francis-5.” That Christian name has continued as an “heirloom” name in this line of CARTERS ever since. This reinforces the supposition that “our” WILLIAM is “that William Carter.” Agnes Watkins’s sister was married to Nathaniel Venable, the co-executor.

The mention of the Negro slave, Dick, who had been inherited as a lad from THEODORICK CARTER-2 in his will is another piece of evidence that we have the correct Theodorick Carter.

The older children, Susannah-4, John-4, Theodorick-4, and WILLIAM CARTER-4 had apparently already been given their shares of the estate prior to the death of their father, THEODORICK-3, so they received only token bequests.

William Carter-4

Giles Carter-1; Theodorick-2; Theodorick-3; William-4; Joseph-5; Elizabeth-6

WILLIAM CARTER-4 was born and grew up in Prince Edward County, Virginia. We aren’t sure of the date of his marriage, but it was at least before 1760, since his first son, William Carter, Jr.-5, was born July 9, 1760 [per William-5’s Revolutionary pension]. By the time of THEODORICK-3’s death, WILLIAM-4 had apparently moved and settled in Halifax County, North Carolina.

In trying to decide just which “William “ was ours, several things had to be taken into consideration. The family was very particular about continuing the “heirloom ” names that were passed from generation to generation. The Christian name “Francis” for males seems to date from the friendship/kinship? of THEODORICK-3 and Francis Watkins. Two of THEODORICK-3’s sons named their sons Francis. That heirloom name seems to be found only in our line of Carters. While family heirloom names are not always “evidence,” in many cases, it can be almost a preponderance of evidence it itself. Fortunately, for us, this is one of those cases where it carries great weight. Fortunately, also, it is not the only evidence.

The Revolutionary pension record and family Bible record of William Carter, Jr.-5, the brother of our JOSEPH-5, shows that he was born July 9, 1760 in Halifax County, North Carolina, and lived there until 1802, when he moved to Warren County, North Carolina. In March of 1804, he moved to Smith County, Tennessee. This information solidifies our connection to the WILLIAM-4 whose will we have. William-5 also says in his pension that his brother, Francis-5, saw his discharge papers in his father’s trunk a few years before their father’s death in 1810, but thought they were of little value and destroyed them. Francis Carter-5 was executor of the estate of the father, WILLIAM CARTER. [Revolutionary Pension of William Carter.]

Theda Womack did the initial research on the CARTERS. She found WILLIAM-4’s will and it mentioned his children and wife, DEANITA. We assume that DEANITA is the mother of the children, but we have no proof that she is.

Children of William Carter-4

  1. William Carter, Jr.-5, was born July 9, 1760. He was apparently the oldest son. William, Jr., was a Revolutionary veteran and received a pension which contains quite a bit of information about the family and is helpful to researchers. He married his wife, Martha, January 11, 1778. He died about 1840 in Smith County, Tennessee. [Revolutionary pension and Bible records.]

  1. JOSEPH CARTER-5, was born May 7, 1766, probably in Halifax, North Carolina. He died June 14, 1839, in Sumner County, Tennessee. He and several of his siblings moved over to Caswell County, North Carolina, prior to 1790. There he married ANN MALLORY that year in a double ceremony with Stephen Mallory and Stephen’s bride on December 19, 1790. ANN, who was born July 15, 1761, appears to be the sister of Stephen Mallory and the daughter of JOHN MALLORY, Sr., of Caswell County. We are not sure of her birthplace, possibly North Carolina, and possibly Virginia. It is interesting to note, however, that ANN was not only five years older than JOSEPH, but was age 29 when they married. This was quite old, even “elderly,” for a woman to marry in that era. Especially a woman of some family substance. [Will of Joseph Carter, Sumner County, TN; marriage records Caswell Co., NC.]

  1. Theodorick Carter-5, born about 1773, also moved to Caswell County and married Dianah Mallory, another daughter of JOHN MALLORY on April 16, 1793. He died about 1835. [Marriage Records Caswell Co., NC.]

  1. Francis Carter-5, was born about 1770 and married Sally Newel on May 2, 1800, in Warren County, North Carolina. He died after 1810. His name is the heirloom name that helps trace the family. He had a son named William Carter-6.

  1. Mary Carter-5, born sometimes after 1760, married John Sawyer in 1799 in Caswell County, North Carolina, and died after 1810. [Will of William Carter, Halifax Co., NC.]

  1. Lucy Carter-5, married a man named Pike and died after 1810. [Will of William Carter, Halifax Co., NC.]

  1. Nancy Carter-5, married a man named Boston, died after 1810.

[Will of William Carter, Halifax Co., NC.]

  1. Martha Carter-5, married John Baker, died after 1810. [Will of William Carter, Halifax Co., NC.]

This list of WILLIAM-4’s children was taken from his will. Several grandchildren were also listed for bequests and that may indicate that there were some deceased children not mentioned in the will, but whose children were listed for bequests.

By 1775, Virginia had about 550,000 people in 61 counties. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” speech had fired up the rebels. The Revolutionary Government was evolving. Lord Dunamore had infuriated the people by taking the gunpowder out of the public storage, and therefore getting it out of the people’s hands. Patrick Henry married Dorthea Dandridge, the daughter of the spendthrift, Nathaniel West Dandridge. Dorthea and he inherited considerable land and slaves from her father. Many of the men who so ardently fought for “liberty” themselves held slaves, and apparently saw no conflict of interest in their opinions.

Apparently the CARTER family’s sympathies were with the rebels during the Revolution, true to the feelings of the 100-years-dead James Crewes and GILES CARTER-1. William Carter, Jr., was a Revolutionary soldier.

The Mallorys

ANN MALLORY, the wife of JOSEPH CARTER-5, was apparently the daughter of JOHN MALLORY, Sr., born about 1735 to 1745. When JOHN died about November, 1795, he left a will in Caswell County, North Carolina, mentioning some of his children, which included Stephen, who had been married at the same time as ANN and JOSEPH CARTER in a double ceremony December 18, 1790.

Children of John Mallory-1

[Circa 1740-1795]

  1. Sally Mallory-2

  2. Rebecca Mallory-2

  3. James Mallory-2 [Kendall, Caswell County, NC, Deeds, pg 218.]

  4. John Mallory-2 [Kendall, Caswell County, NC, Deeds, pg 218.]

  5. Henry Mallory-2, of Orange County, North Carolina [Kendall, Caswell County, NC, Deeds, pg 218.]

  6. Dianah Mallory-2, who married JOSEPH CARTER’s-5 brother, Theodorick Carter-5.

  7. ANN MALLORY-2, probable daughter

At the estate sale for JOHN’s estate, some of his children were mentioned as buyers and were there. ANN was not mentioned as a buyer, but JOSEPH CARTER-5 and Theodorick Carter-5 were mentioned, but not his wife, Dianah. This is the only circumstantial proof that we have that ANN MALLORY was probably the daughter of this JOHN MALLORY, Sr. The author thinks this is probably the best evidence we will uncover, unless some serious research is undertaken in the original records, coupled with some genealogical good luck .

It is not unusual for a daughter not to be mentioned in her father’s will if she had already received her marriage portion from his estate. Even if married, daughters did share in the division of the estate at the death of their father, it was not unusual for their given names to never be mentioned, but only their husband’s, who received their portion of the estate from their parent. Many years later, when JOSEPH and ANN’s estates were settled in Tennessee, there were several slaves that were mentioned in JOSEPH’s will and estate as if he owned them outright, but were actually ANN’s estate. This is most likely due to the property laws concerning married women. Slaves that came to the hands of a woman’s husband through his marriage to her were usually under the control of her husband, as if he owned them outright. ANN owning or inheriting slaves would indicate that she came from a reasonably substantial family. This would be in keeping with JOHN MALLORY as her father.

Since Caswell County, formerly part of Orange County, wasn’t settled until at least 1750-1775 we can assume that JOHN MALLORY came there from elsewhere. The earliest known [partial] tax record dates from 1759. It does not contain the name of JOHN MALLORY. Virginia is a likely area for him to have moved from. There are several prominent Mallory families in Virginia, descended from Christopher Mallory of England. Memoir of the Lords of Studley by Wallran gives their history. Whether our JOHN is from this group is unknown, but is probably very likely.

JOHN MALLORY was a member of the upper-class financially in his time and place of residence. He was a planter, but not one of the very wealthiest of that class; however, he left a substantial estate to his children.

Children of Ann Mallory and Joseph Carter-5

  1. Mary Carter-6, born about 1792, married James E. Hanna February 3, 1817. They moved to Sumner County, Tennessee and had six or seven children. One of the younger sons was James Allison Hanna, who married Harriet Escue, the daughter of JAMES. Mary Carter-5 probably died before 1839. Many of their descendants were still in Sumner at the time of the Civil War. On the 1880 Census [Microfilm T9 Rolls 1281-1282] they were found in page 180, house number 14, as James A. Hanner age 43, Harriet S. age 40, Joseph A. age 22, James W. age 20, Charles D. age 12, Tobias D. age 9, Thomas B., age 5, and Sarah E., age 2.

  1. Francis Carter-6, was born July 27, 1793, and his wife was named Elizabeth. He remained in Caswell County, where he died about 1827. After his death, his father wrote and invited his wife and daughters to move to Tennessee and live with JOSEPH and ANN. The name Francis was an heirloom name from one particular branch of the CARTER family and helps us distinguish the separate groups. His daughters were mentioned by name in his father’s will. Elizabeth was found on the 1838 Sumner County, Tennessee, Scholastic Census listing the heads of households and the number of children they had in school. Elizabeth was listed in District 13 near her brother-in-law, Joseph W. Carter, who also had one child in school that year.

  1. John Carter-6, was born September 29, 1794, and probably died February 12, 1821. John’s wife was Ann L. Williams. John had a son named Nathan Carter-7, who lived with JOSEPH-5 later in Tennessee. There was also a John M. Carter in Sumner, Tennessee, who had sons named Francis, Joseph, and John. That John M. Carter died and left a will in 1848 [W. O. 404.] This author is not sure who he is, but with the heirloom names, he is probably related to our line.

  1. ELIZABETH CARTER-6, was born April 16, 1797, and married ENOCH SIMPSON December 29, 1818, in Caswell County. She was our ancestor, and moved with her parents and husband to Sumner County, Tennessee, not too long after their marriage.

  1. Joseph W. Carter-6, was one of a pair of twins born October 29, 1799. Joseph married Nancy White in Sumner County, Tennessee, September 20, 1830. The 1850 Sumner County Census shows him living in District 13, page 173, near Nelson B. Turner. Joseph was listed as age 50, owning $2,800 in real estate and as having been born in North Carolina. His wife, Nancy, age 44; was born in Tennessee. Their children listed were Sarah, age 18; William, age 16; Thomas M., age 14; Mary E., age 12; Elizabeth, age 10; Joseph W., age 8; John, age 6; Virginia, age 4; and Elizabeth, age 2. None of the children were noted as attending school. Joseph was listed on the Scholastic Census of 1838 as having one child in school in District 13.

  1. William Mallory Carter-6, second of the twins, was born October 29, 1799. They both moved to Sumner County. William was administrator of his father’s estate. He married Eliza Turner, the daughter of John Turner, and sister of Nathan B. Turner. William died November 26, 1856. William lived on Rockbridge road in Sumner County. In 1838, William and his family were listed on the Scholastic Census in District 12, and he had four children enrolled in school that year.

  1. Nancy Carter-6, was born August 7, 1801, and married her first cousin, George M. Carter-6, son of William Carter, Jr.-5, the Revolutionary Veteran and brother of JOSEPH-5.

JOSEPH’s father, WILLIAM CARTER-4, continued to reside in Halifax County, North Carolina, until his death in 1810. His will is of record there in Book 3, page 500, #768, dated March 17, 1810, and probated May Court 1810. JOSEPH had been gone from Halifax at least 20 years when his father died.

The will abstract of William Carter-4

Lend wife, Deanita Carter negroes, etc. For her widowhood or life and at her decease to go to: William Carter, Theoderick Carter, Joseph Carter, and Francis Carter. Lend wife land whereon Francis Coley now lives Joining William Pike and Wood J. Hamlin containing 50 acres. Daughter Mary Sawyer negroes, and at her death the said negroes to go to her children [names not given] Daughters Martha Baker, Nancy Boston, and Lucy Pike negroes to each. Son Francis Carter land whereon he now lives which was bought of Mark Rickman and Nathan Rickman. Grandson William Carter son of Francis, Granddaughter Louisa Jones Carter, and Thornton Mallard son of John Mallard dec’d one colt. Witness Wood J. Hamlin, Jesse Carter, Benjamin Carter [all made marks] exects. Francis Carter and Wood Jones Hamlin.

A man named Jesse Carter was another resident of Caswell County, North Carolina, whose name is frequently seen on deeds and wills. No connection has been made between this man and our WILLIAM-4. He is most likely not the same man as the above-mentioned Jesse, who signed WILLIAM’s will as a witness.

The mention of “Thornton Mallard, son of John Mallard” receiving a colt raises the question…”is the name “Mallard” a misspelling of the name “Mallory?” Who were Thornton Mallard and John Mallard? This might be an area for more research.

“Granddaughter Louisa Jones Carter,” and “Wood Jones Hamlin” both being mentioned in WILLIAM’s will would indicate some form of kinship.

The Simpsons & the Carters

AARON and CHARLOTTE SIMPSON were both still living on their plantation in Caswell County in the 1820s, when their son, ENOCH, and his wife, ELIZABETH CARTER SIMPSON, decided to move to Tennessee. ELIZABETH’s parents and most of her siblings, along with several of ENOCH’s brothers, migrated about this same time.

The families were obviously comfortable and reasonably well off. What prompted this move is unknown, but most likely they were looking for better land for their plantations. They probably felt that there was greater opportunity in the unsettled lands in the west. Tennessee was no longer a wilderness, and the Indians were subdued.

Tobacco, corn, and other crops, were very soil destructive and it may be that all the good land available in North Carolina was already taken. Several families had banded together for the trip and they may have joined others going that way as well. Just the family members of this group, along with their slaves, wagons, children, and livestock would have made quite a large group. About the only members of the nuclear families who didn’t go were Frances Carter-6, and his wife, Elizabeth. After Francis Carter’s death, however, Elizabeth and their daughters loaded up and moved to Tennessee to live with JOSEPH-5 and ANN.

By 1820, the danger of Indian raids was past in Tennessee and the trails well worn through the mountains by previous travelers. Wagons could now navigate through the rough roads across the Cumberland and the trip did not have to be made entirely by walking or riding horseback. Not that this trip was an easy one, but the worst of the dangers were past.

JOSEPH CARTER-5 had lived in Caswell County for more than 30 years and was a little over 50 years old when they moved. ENOCH SIMPSON had been born and raised in Caswell, so he was leaving the only home he had ever known. The families were leaving a place that had been “home” for quite some time. They were leaving behind some family members that they would never see again. It must have been a bittersweet time as they made their way toward Tennessee, knowing that they were forever leaving behind parents, siblings, and friends.

Francis Carter, of Stokes County, North Carolina, as attorney in fact for JOSEPH CARTER of Sumner county, Tennessee [sells] to John Boswell of Caswell County for $550, 165.9 acres and 6 acres on Stony Creek, adjacent Thomas Williamston. Witness Thomas Williamston, W. J. Nash, December 6, 1824.

In January, 1826, JOSEPH again gave his son, Francis, power of attorney to sell 219 acres on Stoney Creek, adjacent James Haden and Esquire Williamson, John Williamson, Widow Leach, and John Boswell. This sale apparently took place in November 1823, but was not recorded until 1826. This made a total of about 388 acres of land sold by JOSEPH about the time of the move.

The families first went to Giles County, Tennessee, about 1818 and then to Sumner County a few years later. Some few of them, including Roger Simpson, stayed in Giles County. ENOCH SIMPSON bought some land in Giles County in 1821. He purchased land from John N. Smith, and paid $425 for land near John Nelson, James Calwell, and Henry Kerr. [Book E., page 93.] He was listed as “of Giles County.” They didn’t stay long in Giles County, however.

Upon reaching Sumner County about 1825, the group started settling in. The families matured, with the addition of new spouses and new households, and constructed farms in their new area. Though Sumner County is “rural,” even today, it was not a wilderness when they arrived but a thriving community. This author is not totally sure of the exact location of JOSEPH and ANN’s plantation, but Erick Montgomery says that it was “somewhere up past Bransford,” and it was probably near several of their children. They had a large group of slaves, including several old slaves no longer able to work. Their son, Joseph W. Carter, and his wife, Elizabeth, lived in District 13 in 1838 and were listed on the Scholastic Census that year. It is possible that JOSEPH and ANN lived near them.

The Simpsons & the Carters in Tennessee

John Simpson-1; Richard-2; George-3; Aaron-4; Enoch-5

Giles Carter-1; Theodorick-2; Theodorick-3; William-4; Joseph-5; Elizabeth-6

ENOCH-5 and ELIZABETH CARTER-6 SIMPSON were well off by community standards, owning quite a large group of slaves. It would not have been unusual for a father to give his son slaves to help him establish his own plantation. AARON SIMPSON-4 owned quite a large number of slaves, so had possibly helped establish ENOCH.

The first purchase of lands in Sumner County was made on Deshea Creek, but by about 1830, ENOCH had moved to the valley of the Dry Fork of Bledsoe’s creek. The 1838 Scholastic Census listed him as living in District 12, and having four children in school that year.

ENOCH selected a small valley facing a high rocky bluff, across from Dry Fork Creek. His log home still stands there today. Erick Montgomery says that the house was “built in sections.” The first section was log, the second, frame, and the third was a kitchen added to the back. A breezeway joined the log and frame sections. Eventually this dogtrot, or breezeway, was enclosed, making a long hall with doors at each end. The front doors were under a pedimented portico, but in about 1910, this was removed and a long verandah was placed across the front. The house was two-story, but the second story was not a full eight feet high, but closer to six. The log part of the house might have pre-dated ENOCH’s purchase of the lands.

The burial ground across from the home contains graves of previous owners of the land as well as ENOCH’s family. The land behind the house was flat and rolling and good farmland. ENOCH and his slaves worked the land, grew crops and made whiskey. He also was a ”yarb doctor” and had discovered a “cure for cancer.” He was called “Doctor Simpson” in several documents. Erick Montgomery says that the “cure” was in reality a pain-killing medication that made the patient more comfortable, even though it did not “cure” the disease. The “cure” was compounded out of local plants.

Erick Montgomery’s branch of the family had an oral history that ENOCH was well-educated in his youth and had attended William and Mary Medical College in Virginia. Erick says that he contacted several universities trying to verify this but was unable to verify that ENOCH had attended university. During ENOCH’s lifetime, most physicians received their training by apprenticeship.

The title “doctor” in the early-nineteenth century in Tennessee was assumed by a man when he had established a reputation as a physician. This could be done by “reading” medicine with another doctor. The practice of what today is considered “medicine” was divided into two subspecialties, “physician” and “surgeon.” Frequently “physicians” also compounded and dispensed their own medicines. Surgeons, originally barber/surgeons, did the rougher sort of medicine, such as lancing boils and amputations. Very early “physicians” seldom got their hands dirty by touching the patient. They looked down on the “manual labor” of the surgeon. A man could also be both a physician and surgeon, and by 1860, this was usually the case. Two medical books were listed in the items in ENOCH’s estate sale inventory. It’s possible that ENOCH’s practice of medicine was confined to the physician role and did not encompass the role of surgeon as well. This theory would go along with the oral history that stated he had “invented a cure for cancer.”

We don’t know how ENOCH received his title of “doctor” or how much of his time he devoted to medicine vs. how much he devoted to being a planter and mill owner. It was not unusual for physicians to also be planters. Apparently “doctoring” was not a large part of ENOCH’s living, but the practice of medicine in that era and area was not a lucrative business.

“Purge and Puke” medicine, [in which the patient was made to have diarrhea or to vomit], to rid the body of “poisons,” was about all the physician had to offer. There were no antibiotics or other medications to help the body fight infection. Physicians didn’t know about “germs” or practice sanitary medicine. The white coat was to protect the physician’s clothing from dirt. Patients might also be bled to reduce a fever. If a patient was bled enough, it might reduce the patient’s temperature to that equal with the grave!

Physicians had a few medications, including digitalis, and other herb-type remedies that worked, “bark” for malaria, and opium for pain and diarrhea. Many prescriptions and herbal remedies might have been worse than the disease they were supposed to heal. Until the advent of modern antibiotic treatments about the fourth decade of the twentieth century, physicians had little to offer patients except palliative treatments or worse.

Photograph of simpson home

The second family of Enoch Simpson at the Old Simpson Homeplace on Rockbridge Road in Sumner County, Tennessee, pictured with their new Victrola. From left to right: [1] Cinthia Ann Wright [1852-1911], daughter of Robert Anderson Wright and Susan P. Barr, and wife of Joseph Roger Simpson; [2] Joseph Roger Simpson [1854-1920], son of Enoch Simpson and his second wife, Martha Jane Johnson; [3] Susie Ann Simpson [1883-1943], daughter of Joseph Roger Simpson and Cinthia Ann Wright, and future wife of William Howard Elliott; [4] Magdalena Frances Simpson [1849-1929], daughter of Enoch Simpson and his second wife, Martha; [5] Nellie Barr Simpson [1886-1943], daughter of Joseph Roger Simpson and Cintha Ann Wright, and future second wife of John Thomas Hawkins; [6] Penelope Elvira Simpson [1846-1928], daughter of Enoch Simpson and his second wife, Martha, and wife of Robert Barr Wright; [7] Robert Barr Wright [1841-1917], son of Robert Anderson Wright and Susan P. Barr. [Copied from the collection of Lena Barr Elliott Williams, Bethpage, Tennessee, in 1978 by Erick Montgomery.]

Children of Enoch Simpson-5 and Elizabeth Carter-6

John Simpson-1; Richard-2; George-3; Aaron-4; Enoch-5

Giles Carter-1; Theodorick-2; Theodorick-3; William-4; Joseph-5; Elizabeth-6

  1. Aaron “Sanford” Simpson-6, was born November 20, 1819, in Caswell County, North Carolina, and married Mary Frances Johnson, the sister of his brother-in-law, RICHARD EDMUND JOHNSON. He died November 10, 1879, and is buried in Pond Cemetery in Sumner County, Tennessee.

Photo #4 from Erick

Mary Frances Johnson [1824-1897], daughter of Austin Johnson and his first wife, Ann Elizabeth Corley, and her husband, Aaron Sanford Simpson [1819-1917], son of Enoch Simpson and his first wife, Elizabeth Carter. [Copied from the collection of Beulah Simpson Beasley, Portland, Tennessee, in 1978 by Erick Montgomery.]

  1. MARY ANN SIMPSON-6, [called Polly] was born about 1821, probably in Giles County, Tennessee, married RICHARD EDMUND JOHNSON. She died about 1877, and is buried in the Escue Cemetery in Sumner County. Her second husband was JAMES ESCUE, the father-in-law of her son, ROBERT JOHNSON.

  1. William C. Simpson-6, born May 3, 1824, on Richland Creek, Giles County, Tennessee, married Permelia Durham December 17, 1850. He died May 17, 1904, and is buried at Mt. Vernon Cemetery, Sumner County.

Photo # 5 from Erick

William C. Simpson [1824-1904], son of Enoch Simpson and his first wife, Elizabeth Carter, and his wife, Permelia C. Durham [1833-1911], daughter of Thomas Durham and Mary West. [Copied from the collection of Arlene Norman Gilmore Nashville, Tennessee, in 1978 by Erick Montgomery.]

4. Nancy E. Simpson-6, born about 1826 on Deshea Creek, Sumner County, married William West. She died after 1870 in Grayson County, Texas.

5. Katherine Odie Simpson-6, born June 24, 1828, in Sumner County, Tennessee, married James Wilburn West and had a daughter named Amanda. Katherine died May 1, 1860.

Photo #6 from Erick.

Katherine Odie Simpson [1828-1860], daughter of Enoch Simpson and his first wife, Elizabeth Carter, and wife of James Wilburn West. [Copied from the collection of Theda Pond Womack, Gallatin, Tennessee, in 1978 by Erick Montgomery.]

Photo number 7 from erick

James Wilburn West [1823-1874], son of John West, Jr., and Polly Allen. He was the husband of Katherine Odie Simpson. [Copied from the collection of Theda Pond Womack, Gallatin, Tennessee, in 1978 by Erick Montgomery.]

6. Elizabeth M. Simpson-6, born about 1830, married Alfred M. Stuart, February 27, 1850, and moved to Kentucky. She died before 1860.

The year 1839 wasn’t a great year for the family. It brought with it the deaths of JOSEPH CARTER and his daughter, ELIZABETH CARTER SIMPSON. JOSEPH and ELIZABETH had lived in Sumner County about 14 years when they died. This was tiime enough to establish their new homes and for ELIZABETH to raise at least some of her children to adulthood. JOSEPH was in his early seventies when he died.

ELIZABETH died about March of 1839. We don’t know exactly where she is buried, but probably the Carter Family Cemetery on Bledsoe Creek. There is also a small cemetery called “Simpson” Cemetery across the road from their house, perched on the rocky ridge. ENOCH’s second wife is buried in that one, as are several of his children.

JOSEPH CARTER apparently died June 14, 1839, a few days or weeks after his daughter died. She is mentioned in the will he wrote shortly before his death, so we know she was alive at that time, but apparently died before he did. ANN MALLORY CARTER died September 12, 1849, outliving both her husband and her daughter by 10 years. [Thanks to Erick Montgomery for this death date for ANN.]

JOSEPH’s will, probated in 1841, told a great deal about their lives and what they owned. It shows that JOSEPH was a considerate man and responsible for his aged slaves’ welfare. He apparently tried to be fair to each of his children in the estate as well.

Will of Joseph Carter-5

Sumner County, Tennessee, Book 2, page 256

In the name of God, Amen,

I Joseph Carter, Sr. Of Sumner county and State of Tennessee being of weak body but perfectly sound in both mind and memory do make this my last will and testament in manner and form as follows to wit. It is my will and desire that all my just debts shall be paid which are but few out of any money that I may died possessed of or the first money that may come into the hands of my executors.

Secondly, I give and bequeath unto my beloved Ann the tract of land whereon I now live and the tract I purchased of Pleasant Bell containing in the whole two hundred forty nine acres to have and to hold the same with all the rents profits arising therefrom during her natural life and no longer, also twelve negroes namely Buck, Abram, Abba, Hanna, Temperance, Ritter, Lewis, Sally, Davy, Jacob, Dianah, and cuff for her own proper use and benefit. So long as she shall live and no longer. Also she is to have all the household and kitchen furniture and the plantation tools of all kinds, also four of the best cows and calves and all the stock of sheep and hogs and four of the best of work horses and three wagons all which she is to have and to hold for her own proper use and benefit during her natural life and no longer.

Thirdly, I give and bequeath [to the] seven grandchildren of my daughter Mary Hanna the sum of eight hundred dollars to be equally divided among them and to be paid out to them by my executors as they become of age without interest.

Fourthly, I give and bequeath to my daughter Elizabeth Simpson in addition to what I have given her heretofore two negro boys namely Jim and Bob to her and her heirs forever.

Fifthly, I give and bequeath to my son Joseph W. Carter, in addition to what I have given him heretofore a negro boy Statton and a negro girl named Amy and all the land I now own lying north side of Bledsoe for quantity see deeds to him and his heirs forever.

Sixthly I give and bequeath to my son William Carter in addition to what I have given him heretofore a negro man named Blanderman and a negro woman named Chloe to him and his heirs forever.

Seventhly I give and bequeath to my daughter Nancy Carter the sum of fifty and no more.

Eightly, I give and bequeath to my three granddaughters the children of my son Francis, namely Mary Carter, Sarah Carter, and Martha Carter, jointly a tract of land lying on the ridge between the tract whereon I now live and Thomas Taylor’s land called the Wilson containing sixty acres, be the same more or less and forty dollars each to them and their heirs forever.

Ninthly I give and bequeath unto my grandson Nathan Carter one hundred and twenty dollars in money.

Tenthly, It is my will and desire that my property not heretofore disposed of in my will at my death shall be sold, except so much thereof as shall be sufficient for the support of my wife, and her family for the preseent year and the money arising therefrom be applied first to the payment of my debts and secondly to satisfy the respective legates before named in my will and the residue if any to be equally divided among three of my children, namely Elizabeth Simpson, Joseph W. Carter and William M. Carter.

Eleventhly, it is my will and desire that at the death of my wife, Ann, all the property that may then belong to my estate except the land and negroes shall be sold and the money arising thereby to be equally divided among all my own children that are now living namely Elizabeth Simpson, Joseph W. Carter, William M. Carter, and Nancy Carter and the tract of land whereon I now live at the death of my wife Ann I give and bequeath to my son William M. Carter to him and his heirs forever for quantity see deed and the tract of land which I purchased of Pleasant Bell containing seventy five acres at the death of my wife Ann, I give and bequeath unto my granddaughter Mary Carter and to her heirs forever.

Twelve: After the death of my wife Ann, I give and bequeath unto my son Joseph W. Carter a negro man named Lewis to him and his heirs forever and unto my son William M. Carter I give and bequeath a negro man named Buck to him and his heirs forever, and the other negroes not heretofore disposed of in my will at the death of my wife Ann except Abram, Abba and Hannah are to be valued but not sold to any person who is not a member of my family, and the negroes at their valuation to be equally [divided] among all of my children that are now living, and if any of the lot of negroes to be valued higher than the other the deficiency is to be made up in money and the three old negroes, Abram, Abba and Hannah are to be taken care of by my executors who are to be appointed hereafter as long as they live and at their death to be decently buried.

Lastly I do hereby constitute and appoint my beloved sons Joseph W. And William M. Carter the executors of my last will etc. It is my desire resigning my life into the hands of my Makers, that I be decently buried without ostentation or parade.

witness Thomas Gilman, Thomas White and securities Nelson B. Turner and James H. Turner.

Nelson Bailey Turner, and his brother, James H. Turner, who were securities for the will of JOSEPH CARTER, would figure significantly in the lives of ENOCH SIMPSON for several years. ENOCH would later marry the widow of James H. Turner and would be involved in a spite lawsuit with Nelson B. Turner. Nelson Turner was apparently a friend of William Carter’s but not of ENOCH’s. We don’t know what JOSEPH CARTER thought about his son-in-law, ENOCH SIMPSON.

the most direct connection between William M. Carter and Nelson Bailey Turner was that of brothers-in-law. William Carter married Eliza Turner, daughter of John Turner and sister of Nelson. But it gets more complicated since William was ELIZABETH CARTER SIMPSON’s brother, and Eliza and Nelson Turner were siblings of James H. Turner, who was the first husband of Martha Johnson Simpson [ENOCH’s second wife.] Then, there was Frances Turner, who married Ricahrd C. Johnson-3, uncle of Martha Johnson Turner Simpson. RICHARD E. JOHNSON-4 and Mary Frances Johnson Simpson, and son of Austin Johnson. Another Turner sister also married a Johnson. As my Sumner County born and bred grandfather used to say, “They all married up like a bunch of mungrel dogs! [Erick Montgomery, in an e-mail to the author, in 1997.]

After JOSEPH died, an inventory was made and a sale held in September, 1841. Most of the people at the sale were relatives or neighbors. ENOCH SIMPSON was there and was a buyer. He bought a bed and furniture for $34.50. He also bought a “lot of soap” for 75 cents and a “big wheel” [spinning wheel] for $1.25. Four weeding hoes cost 13 cents. William bought two iron wedges for 75 cents, and ENOCH bought five axes for $2. William bought three bee stands for $1.75, ENOCH bought the wagon for $50, a scythe and cradle for $1. A flax wheel brought $3.19, a sugar desk brought $6.67 and a set of spoons brought $6. The spoons were probably silver. A set of knives and forks sold for 94 cents, a jug for 56 cents, a clock for $12, a candle stand for $1.50, a “press” for $7.25 [that was probably a kind of side board]. A flax wheel brought $3.25, and a “looking glass” brought 38 cents. The term “looking glass” according to one history was sometimes not what we would think of as a “mirror,” but was actually a chamber pot! A pot [cooking?] and rack brought $2; a table and bread tray, 59 cents; a washing tub, 75 cents; and a side saddle brought $1. A sorrel horse brought $23 and a bay $32. Another bay horse brought $77 and another sorrel brought $110. His hogs sold in lots for various prices but it did not mention how many animals in each lot, apparently they were about $1 per head. Ten shoats [young pigs] brought about 50 cents each. A cow and calf brought $10; three shocks of fodder [corn leaves to feed livestock] brought $4.12; 50 pounds of bacon sold for $3. Lard sold for 7 1/4 cents a pound and sugar was 10 cents per pound. A yoke of oxen sold for $25. Oxen were usually neutered bulls and were trained to pull a plow. A “yoke” consisted of two animals. A “team” would have been four or more oxen. [Estate of Joseph Carter, Sumner County, TN]

This method of dividing an estate was reasonably fair to the family. This way there should not have been any fighting over a deceased person’s items. Each heir being able to buy what they wanted at public auction and then the proceeds divided to the heirs.

Obviously, JOSEPH’s plantation produced the food and fiber needed for the family, and the women and the slaves did the spinning and weaving of the family’s clothing. They worked the fields with oxen and horses and out of the 18 slaves that were owned by the estate, 15 were of some value to the plantation’s system of labor. JOSEPH’s stock of horses contained several valuable riding or breeding animals. He produced beef, pork, honey, oats, corn, and flax. He probably also raised cotton and/or tobacco for cash crops, but they were not mentioned in the estate sale.

The flax raised and spun for clothing for the family and the slaves was quite labor intensive. First the flax plant had to be grown, then pulled entirely from the ground, dried and then broken on a “flax brake,” which crimps the tough, woody outer fibers of the plant. This is then separated from the long inner fibers of the plant which will be spun and woven into linen cloth. A special spinning wheel, or flax wheel, is used to spin the fibers into thread, which would be woven into the cloth. The fibers may be spun on a wool wheel, but the finest thread can only be spun on the special flax wheel. Bundles, or skeins, of thread prepared for weaving were also used as a form of barter in the 1700s and early 1800s. Commercial spinning mills were beginning to grow in Tennessee by 1820, but until after the Civil War, spinning and weaving continued to be a common household task for the women on the plantations.

Though JOSEPH’s intentions were pretty clear and he intended the bequest to Elizabeth and her heirs, after his death, as is sometimes the case, there were problems over the estate among the heirs. ENOCH SIMPSON, ELIZABETH’s widower, had possession of Jim and Bob, the two slaves left to her in JOSEPH’s will. He also had a female slave named Temperance, valued at $500, who was from ANN’s estate.

County Records show:

An Inventory of the estate of ELIZABETH SIMPSON dec’d by ENOCH SIMPSON the admr. At August Term 1841 of the County Court of Sumner.

Two negro men, Jim and Bob, each worth $800 = $1600

Negro girl Temerpance worth $500 by valuation 500

three hundred dollars in cash notes due 300

from the estate of JOSEPH CARTER decd at

this time about 40

Total value twenty four hundred and forty dollars___________


ELIZABETH’s brother, William M. Carter, the executor of their father’s estate, sued ENOCH SIMPSON for the return of the slaves and cash, because ELIZABETH had died before JOSEPH, and he thought that her part should not descend to her husband or her children. In 1842, the court ruled in William’s favor, calling it a “lapse legacy,” and demanded that ENOCH return $1,173 and the slaves to the estate. ENOCH was pretty upset by the judgment. [[Reference: Letter from Theda Womack in author’s possession, no date.]

There seems to be some “bad blood” between several of the members of these families. The will in 1835 of John Turner, the father of Nelson B. Turner, mentions “Land on which Richard C. Johnson lives.Richard C. Johnson, son of the Reverend RICHARD JOHNSON, married a daughter of John Turner. This woman was a sister to Nelson B. Turner. William Carter had married one of the daughters of John Turner, too. William M. Carter was appointed joint executor with Nelson B. Turner of John Turner’s will. Later, ENOCH SIMPSON would provoke this group again when he married Martha Johnson, the granddaughter of the Reverend JOHNSON and the widow of James H. Turner, and was raising her Turner son. [See: Sources Sumner County Lawsuits.]

ANN MALLORY CARTER having separate property [slaves] is indicative of her being the daughter of JOHN MALLORY, who had a large estate. If ANN received her portion of her father’s estate at marriage, those slaves, and their offspring, would have been under her husband’s control, but still remained her separate property. The slave, Temperance, was listed with JOSEPH’s estate, but was distributed by ANN’s estate.

William M. Carter also tried to get the legacy left by JOSEPH to the daughters of JOSEPH’s son, Francis, nullified. In the lawsuit, the girls testified that they worked for their grandfather and sewed and kept house for him. William initiated many lawsuits over this estate. He was apparently very greedy to receive as much of his father’s estate as possible, at the expense of the rest of the family. His friend and brother-in-law, Nelson Turner, also appeared quite greedy.

This is the single episode of this kind of legal bickering over the estate that this author has found in researching hundreds of estates of our ancestors. There were probably some instances of informal bickering, but William M. Carter seems to lead the pack in pure legal and moral malice and greed. [See: Sources Sumner County Lawsuits.]

Theda Womack relates some stories about the CARTERS. She says in a letter to the author:

“There are many lawsuits after his [JOSEPH’s] death. William M., the executor, apparently didn’t want the other heirs to get too much. The will says ‘seven minor children of Mary Hanna.’ I have found the names of six and know a descendant of the youngest son, James Allison Hanna, born about 1836, who married Harriet Susan Escue 20 June 1857. Son Francis Carter was married to Elizabeth__?___and had three daughters Mary, Susan, and Martha F. Testimony in lawsuit says that after the death of Francis, Joseph wrote the daughter-in-law Elizabeth and told her to come to Tennessee and he would take care of them. She came in 1827 and lived on his land. William said father [JOSEPH] furnished her food, others testified she and daughters sewed for him. Mary [dtr of Francis Carter] married Samuel Stewart in 1849, Sarah married Wm. J. Flemming, about 1840, and died in 1850s, and younger sister married him and reared the children. Then Francis’ widow, Elizabeth, married second James Fleming, probably father of her son-in-law.

The two eldest children of Joseph W. Carter went to Russian River Sonoma, California, in 1850 and married there. Letters from other Sumner Countians noted seeing “William Carter and his party” there in the gold fields. Two other children went to Grayson County, Texas, two sons were killed in Confederate Army, and two daughters married and remained in Sumner County, Tennessee.”

On March 21, 1841, in Sumner County, ENOCH SIMPSON married his second wife, Martha Jane Johnson Turner, the daughter of AUSTIN JOHNSON, and the widow of James H. Turner. Martha Johnson Turner Simpson was the granddaughter of the Reverend RICHARD JOHNSON, who was quite elderly at that time, but still actively riding the Methodist circuit preaching the Methodist gospel.

James H. Turner, the first husband of Martha Jane Johnson, was the son of John Turner who died before August, 1835, when his will was probated in Sumner County. He named his sons and daughters. Nelson B. Turner was his oldest son, and received land near his brother-in-law, Richard C. Johnson, the son of our Reverend RICHARD. John Turner named the rest of his children in the will: son, James H.; daughter, Sally Harris, a widow; daughter Francis Johnston, [This was the wife of Richard C. Johnson] Rebecca Johnston, the wife of Benjamin Johnson, also a son of the reverend RICHARD. Elizabeth Barten, and Eliza Carter [was this William M. Carter’s wife?] and Mary Ann Henley. Executors were Nelson B. Turner and William M. Carter [JOSEPH’s son].

At the time of John Turner, Sr.’s death, ENOCH was still married to ELIZABETH CARTER, and JOSEPH CARTER was still alive. It would be four years later, in 1839, when both ELIZABETH and JOSEPH CARTER died, that the real problems with the Turners and the Carters would start. It is possible, however, that there was “bad blood” between the brothers-in-law before the deaths of ELIZABETH and JOSEPH.

After ENOCH married Martha Jane, Nelson B. Turner started problems with ENOCH for custody of Martha’s son, John Turner. Nelson was the legal guardian of the child, but the child lived with his mother and stepfather. Incidentally, the Turner child had inherited some property from his deceased father, which the deceased father had inherited from his father. Nelson B. apparently was trying to get custody of the estate along with the child. After the child died, Nelson B. tried to get that land rather than see the half-siblings, who were the “legal heirs” of the child, inherit it. [See Sources: Lawsuits of Sumner Co., TN.]

One order, mentioned in the Sumner County Clerk’s Minutes [February 1843-June 1846] Page 14, taken from the TSL &A Microfilm roll #50, states that “John Turner, by his guardian, Nelson B. Turner” and [ENOCH] SIMPSON and wife expartee, on March 2, 1843 found that an equal division of slaves mentioned in a petition, Lucy, age 70, Jesse, age 32, Westley, age 7, Isaac, age 5, cannot be divided between said SIMPSON and Wife and John Turner without being sold, and it was to the advantage of John Turner to sell them. They were to be sold by George F. Crockett at puclic auction January 10, next.

Nelson B. Turner lived “by the Greenfield Tract” which was the “uptown” part of the county. It was actually out in the country, but was the “better” address, according to Erick Montgomery. Nelson contended the schools were better there and he was a more fit guardian to the child than ENOCH was. Nelson was found in District 13, page 173, house number 633, on the 1850 Sumner County Census. He was listed as age 53, a farmer, born in Virginia, and owning $10,000 in real estate. Living at home with him were Joseph D. Turner, age 28, Mary E., age 15, and James N., age 11. The younger two attended school. He had no wife listed.

Each one called neighbors to testify that the other was an unfit parent. ENOCH’s witnesses stated that Nelson B. Turner’s children were allowed dancing and card playing and they were “profane speakers.” Mr. Turner’s witnesses stated that ENOCH had been known to drink “spiritous liquors and [get lost and] take the wrong road home.”

Some of the witnesses in this lawsuit were Benjamin Johnson, age 54 [son of RICHARD]; William Johnson, age 30, son of Benjamin; Susanna Johnson, age 16, a daughter of Benjamin; Elizabeth Buntin age about 50 years [sister of James H. Turner]; Richard Bradley age 28; William M. Carter, age about 50, the son of JOSEPH CARTER, and brother-in-law to Nelson Turner; John T. Carter, age about 23; Frances Lee, about 53 years old; Thomas J. Flowers, age 33; and James Gwen, Senior, about 52 years old. [Sumner County, TN Lawsuit # 135467. Microfilm: TSL & A #A5171, #13461-13692.]

The testimony consisted of depositions and questions to each witness by both Nelson B. Turner and ENOCH SIMPSON. The depositions took place at the house of Benjamin Johnson April 6th and 7th, 1849. ENOCH and his wife, Martha Johnson Turner Simpson, were the plaintiffs and Nelson Turner was the defendant.

According to the testimony from the various witnesses, most of whom were related to Martha Johnson either by blood or marriage and also to Nelson Turner by blood and/or marriage, seemed to be taking sides, but were also very careful in the language in which they spoke, apparently trying not to offend either side more than necessary. Several witnesses said when asked to make a preference of who would provide better for the child that Turner would make the better guardian, but no one said that ENOCH was not nice to the boy.

Several witnesses testified about the night that James H. Turner died. He was apparently at home and very sick. James’ brother-in-law, and also Martha’s uncle, Benjamin Johnson, was with him the last 10 or 15 hours before he died and James apparently called his wife to bring his child to him on one or more occasions. Martha’s brother, RICHARD E. JOHNSON, testified that he was also there, and was actually living at the house with his sister and her dying husband at the time. For some reason Martha was prevented from bringing the child to his dying father’s bedside by her sister-in-law and other women present. Apparently this testimony was thought important because of the dying father’s expressed wishes about who would raise his son. Nelson Turner was not at his dying brother’s bedside due to his own illness, which was brought out several times in the testimony.

Several witnesses testified that the two brothers were very close and that James H. Turner never made any business or personal decisions without consulting his brother, Nelson. Other witnesses testified that ENOCH’s home stood in a poor part of the county and that the facilities and people were at least “twenty-five” years behind the times, and that Nelson’s area was more modern and upscale.

Apparently the child, while in the care of his mother and ENOCH, was sent to live with ENOCH’s son, “Sanford” Simpson, who had married Martha’s sister. He was to attend school with Sanford’s son of about the same age. The local school master was called to testify that Nelson Turner came to the school in an attempt to get the boy and take him with him, but the child refused to go. Sanford Simpson arrived on the scene and told Nelson that if he took the child, he would have to take him along as well, and that they would go to the child’s mother and see what she wanted to be done with the child.

Elizabeth Turner Buntin, the sister of James H. Turner, the child’s father, testified that Martha Johnson Turner Simpson had told her at some time, apparently about the time her husband died, that her father [AUSTIN?] wanted to manage John Turner’s estate but she stated he should not have it in his hands and stated that no person should have his money but Nelson Turner for she believed that he would be a father to that child and stated that James always could take time to go to [visit] Nelson once a weak [sic] or oftener and said as to Nelson Turner and his wife she thought as much of them as she did of her father or more.”

James Gwen, a former business partner of ENOCH, testified that they had once owned a mill together. He was asked to “please state if Mr. Simpson is not a stubborn man in his disposition.” He answered, “He is.”

Thomas Flowers also testified that ENOCH and he and several others had been drinking one “chimus” [Christmas?] morning and that ENOCH had the bottle in his pocket. While they were drinking, ENOCH had been angry with one of his Negroes and had threatened to “tie her up by her big toes and whip the tar out of her” if she had stolen something. Upon cross examination by ENOCH, however, Mr. Flowers admitted that “no harm” had been done by ENOCH’s drinking and the reason he had the bottle in his pocket was that he was the only one of the group with pockets big enough to hold the bottle. He also mentioned that the episode with the slave was not because he was drunk but because he was upset with the slave.

William Johnson, who was identified as the son of AUSTIN’s brother, and also the son of Nelson Turner’s sister, [the son of Benjamin or Richard C. Johnson] testified that he and “Jo. D. Turner” were at a “camp meeting” on Dry Fork and were invited home by Mrs. Simpson [Martha Johnson Turner Simpson] afterwards to eat dinner. Jo. D. Turner had on a pair of new “pantaloons” [pants] that had many buttons from the ankle to the knee. Martha Simpson pulled at one of the buttons on the pants and acted like she would pull it off. Jo. D. Turner, in turn, grabbed her ear and “shuck” it and teased her back. Apparently ENOCH came back into the room about this time and was offended that his wife flirting with the boy and got Jo. D. Turner by the arm and escorted him out the door and told him to leave or be thrown out.

William Johnson then witnessed the quarrel between ENOCH and his aunt Martha about the incident and she stated that she was upset because when her dead husband was alive, Jo. D. Turner had frequented the house and was a favorite of her dead husband’s. Martha apparently threatened to leave and ENOCH told her to go if she wanted to. Then “Mrs. Simpson threw up some woman on this side of the ridge to Mr. Simpson and he than[sic] threw up Mark Moore and Jo. D. to her. She than [sic] told him that she loved Mark Moores little finger better than she did his whole body.”

Richard Bradley also was at the home of ENOCH at the time Jo. D. Turner and Martha were teasing. Richard said that Jo D. Turner said “Aunt Martha you are always trying to play your pranks on me.”

Benjamin Johnson, Martha’s uncle, also mentioned that at the estate sale of James H. Turner, the widow, in buying back the property of her deceased husband was bidding the items at less than Benjamin thought that they should bring, and thus cheating her son out of his rightful share of the property by buying it too cheaply. He mentioned to Nelson Turner about this and Nelson then upped the ante and started bidding against Martha to raise the prices she would have to pay to buy back the property. This probably did not endear her uncle Benjamin or Nelson, her brother-in-law, to her.

B. F. Johnson and James Johnson, presumably children [or nephews] of Benjamin Johnson, testified that they had been at Nelson Turner’s house and that the children played cards and also held a dancing school.

Martha Flowers testified that she was a close friend of Martha Simpson’s and that she was there one day when ENOCH was very sick and he was “vulgar” in her presence. Martha Simpson was apparently trying to get ENOCH to take something to eat and his throat was very sore and he could hardly speak. He told her that “if they get anything in him, they could turn him up and put it in the other end. Mr. Simpson appeared to be in a bad humor and said that he would not die in that place of torment but said he would go up to the mille [sic] and die there.”

The testimony of George C. Markham and Lemeal Sarver contained some of the most damning evidence against ENOCH. George Markham testified that he ran a repair shop and that one evening ENOCH had brought a wagon to him for repair. Afterwards they drank liquor together. ENOCH left about dark to be on his way and went the wrong way toward home. In fact, had had to turn around and pass the very shop where Markham stayed. ENOCH had “lost his leggons” and the next day Mr. Markham helped him find one of them on the road.

Lemeal Sarver testified that he “heard someone hollowing at my gate late at night after I had gone to bed. I opened the window and the person asked who lived there, ...I went out and found Mr. Simpson. I opened the gate and he rode the wagon into the yard and when he got down, I was compelled to help him into the house. It was a very cold night, he appeared to have been [drinking?]. After I got him into the house, I went out and tied up his horse. He got sick and vomited.”

In February, 1853, at the County Court, Nelson B. Turner petitioned the court to let him stand down as the guardian of John A. Turner. In March of that same year, the child, John A. Turner, came to court and because he was age 14, he was allowed to chose his own guardian. He chose John W. Head as his guardian. James M. Head and Pascal Head gave security for $10,000 for the guardian. [County Court Minutes of Sumner County, pages 13 and 21, Microfilm roll #51, transcribed by Jan Barnes.]

John Turner apparently stayed with ENOCH and his mother until his death about age 14. After the death of the child, there was also a considerable body of testimony about the child’s estate. His half-siblings were entitled to part of his estate, but Nelson B. Turner tried to get a share of the estate. Like his friend and brother-in-law, William M. Carter, Nelson B. Turner tried to make himself a part of any will/estate with which he was even remotely connected.

ENOCH and Martha Jane Johnson Turner Simpson had four children together. In addition to the children they had, they raised the three children of her father, AUSTIN JOHNSON, and his second wife, Barrodill White Johnson. [Sumner County, TN 1850 U S Census.]

Joseph W. Carter’s wife was Nancy White. She was the daughter of Thomas White and his wife, Sally. She may have been related to AUSTIN JOHNSON’s second wife, Barrodill White.

Not only did Martha Jane Johnson, the daughter of AUSTIN JOHNSON, marry ENOCH SIMPSON, and her brother, RICHARD EDMUND JOHNSON, marry ENOCH’s daughter, MARY ANN SIMPSON, but their sister, Mary Frances Johnson, married ENOCH’s oldest son, Aaron “Sanford” Simpson. They really “kept it all in the family.” [No, the author hasn’t figured out the blood-relationships of all the offspring of these marriages!]