What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth In a message dated 7/7/2010 10:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Good question. Anyone know? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth In a message dated 7/7/2010 10:57:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The 1783 Assessments are being a little misunderstood here, perhaps because of the misleading emphasis on land in the on-line indexes. They are household assessments, in which every male above age x (I think 16, as in the colonial period, but I realize at this instant I can't say how I know it) is listed, and female heads of household. Each such individual, whether landed or not, or in someone else's household or not, is assessed according to a county-wide rendtion of assets, as well as a census headcount. Sometimes an unlanded party is listed as "paid for" or the like by someone else , by which one might well infer "living in household of"; others unlanded but not so flagged would include tenant farmers (or tradesmen sans land or townspeople), living wherever they did. The lists are alphabetic by surname, so there's no evidence there as to location. The statistical categories collected are different in each county. In Worcester, they are: Taxpayer Names of Lands (if any) Acres Slaves Males and Females under 8 / Value Males and Females 8 -14 / Value Males from 14-45 /Value Females from 14-36 /Value Males above 45 + Females above 36 / Value Plate Ounces / Value Horses Black Cattle Value Value of other Property Total Amount Assessment thereon White Inhabitants Male Female In Somerset, the Assessments are finer-grained and well, just better. But you take what's dealt. As a statistic, Queponco Hundred in Worcester, the subject of the original inquiry here, had 211 named individuals, of whom 73 had no land, sort of an average ratio across the county as a whole. The 138 land owners had one or more parcels credited. In Somerset, but not in Worcester, one got a lot of details on land use and breakout by cultivated, forest, swamp, etc.., per tract, and even soil type (the absolute earliest rundown of this kind); in Worcester, the assessors were a little more casual. With respect again to the original query, the HOG QUARTER in question was the 200 ac tract laid out for John Cropper on 20 Feb 1681/2 and patented by him on 10 Aug 1683 (Patents 21:393 and CB#3:462). In 1783 100 acres of this was charged to William Cropper (son of Ebenezer), who had received his rights by his father's 1743/4 (proved 1752) LW&T (MD Wills 28:262 and Wo Wills JW2:098), and 100 to David Bowen, who was asked about. When I saw the query I looked at the title history I have for this, for which my data only goes up to the Revolution, and I don't see Bowen acquiring any of it by then. You may want to look at the Wo Deed Index from 1776 to 1783 to see how he got it. I also noted that my rundown of the tract history had a seeming parallel thread of conveyances in conflict with Ebenezer's bequest to William above, but all in-Cropper-family, which is a little mysterious. As William is shown with the 100 ac in 1783, I infer that the other deed thread is somehow a red herring, though I don't see how. I have no idea what Ruth Dryden said; I never touch the stuff. John -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:03 am Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Liz wroge >when someone is listed in 1783 - e.g., Levin Bowen with no land name attached does this mean they were perhaps renting or using land owned by someone else?< It's possible he was renting/leasing, but usually the rent/lease agreement specifies that the tenant would pay the taxes. This does not always mean that the assessor was told to assess the tenant directly, or that the assessor wrote it into the 1783 roll in timely fashion (if the agreement was in 1782 or 1783, the assessor might not get it into the roll until, say, the list for 1784 - which regrettably does not survive). Sometimes lease agreements are recorded as deeds. It is equally possible that he was a hand living on someone's land, or worked around as a laborer and rented a room or a small domicile that was not on land he was working for himself. Good hunting, Judy *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message *************************************** QUESTIONS about POSTING GUIDELINES, SUBSCRIBING or UNSUBSCRIBING? Visit The Lower DelMarVa Roots Mailing List FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I can't say with certainty that I have the answer but I offer my guess that the black cattle may have been the Welsh Black, cattle bred in Wales and so highly prized for their efficacy as both beef and dairy cattle that they were used as currency in the British Isles.  It would be logical that colonists would import such cattle.  Thus, if the cattle were so prized, of course it had to be taxed. Becky ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 2:17:05 PM Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. Good question.  Anyone know? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 1:58 pm Subject: Re: [LDR] Hog Quarter David Bowen 1783 Worcester Co. What was so special about black cows? Elizabeth

> What was so special about black cows? > > Elizabeth __________ Elizabeth, I recently got into this discussion with my cousin who says our moms' taught us to call root beer floats "black cows," when we were growing up, but I seem to remember using the term "brown cow" more often. I think the difference in terms is mostly regional, but that probably wouldn't explain two sisters calling them something different. I'm going to check with my (older) brothers to see what they remember -- my guess is that my cousin's memory is better than mine. But whatever we called them -- brown cow or black cow -- they indeed were (and still are) very special, especially on hot days. :-) See, some things never change! ;-) Dave K

Black cattle were beef cattle --those raised for their meat, as opposed to dairy cattle, or working cattle (oxen). Liz J On 7 July 2010 13:58, <[email protected]> wrote: > What was so special about black cows? > > Elizabeth >