Happy good afternoon to all....These two(2) items are worth the visit.... 1. http://www.rootsweb.com/~ldgs/links.htm LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-D Digest Volume 04 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: #1 Re: [LDR] Tax Assessment Records ( [janethunter703@aol.com] #2 Re: [LDR] Tax Assessment Records ( ["John Polk" <jfpolk@earthlink.net>] Administrivia: For information about the Lower Delmarva Roots Mailing List, including list guidelines and instructions for unsubscribing and subscribing, see the LDRoots FAQ: http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ldrfaq.htm ______________________________ X-Message: #1 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:22:26 EST From: janethunter703@aol.com To: LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <3d.39cdd353.2d403982@aol.com> Subject: Re: [LDR] Tax Assessment Records (Women heads of household) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" In a message dated 1/20/2004 11:33:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, jfpolk@earthlink.net writes: > Males became taxable as soon as they turned 16, so their first appearance > on the taxlist is a useful means of determining age. Females only paid head > tax if they the were head of household, e.g. as an unremarried widow. > Slaves of either sex and indentured male servants were also considered > taxable. There are many entries in the Somerset Court records where young > boys or slaves were brought before the Justices to have their ages > adjudged, and recorded for future collection purposes. Not much different > from today, when all newborns are issued social security numbers. Like they > say - nothing certain but death and taxes. > John, I am curious about your statement that " Females only paid head tax if they the were head of household, e.g. as an unremarried widow. " In Virginia, this was not the case at that time. Any female who was head of household was indeed responsible for paying the tax on all male or eligible slave polls in her household (as she was for land/property taxes). However, she, herself, was not counted as a one of those "polled" or tithed on personal tax lists I don't think it made any difference whether she was a single widow, or just a single head of household (aunt, teacher with boarders, etc.). Was it different in Maryland? Were women themselves actually included in the count for poll taxes? Unless the names of the taxable tithes in a household are actually listed by name, it was sometimes misinterpreted in VA by researchers -- ie, she had a son over 16, or a laborer/overseer, etc. Thanks so much, Janet Hunter ______________________________ X-Message: #2 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:22:32 -0500 From: "John Polk" <jfpolk@earthlink.net> To: LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <41200414223223272@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [LDR] Tax Assessment Records (Women heads of household) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Janet - When I wrote my note yesterday I thought that the female heads of households were actually counted as taxables, but your question caused me to go back and take a closer look to be sure, and I now see that this is not the case. I don't want to generalize too much since the only taxlists I have actually worked with are the tax lists of Somerset County MD, but looking at some specific cases in these, I can see that female heads of household do not add to the count. The taxlists of Somerset are mostly extant starting from the year 1723and continuing through the colonial era, with a few missing years or hundreds. I have been very fortunate to see the original documents which are kept at the Maryland Archives. For those of you who are not so lucky, I highly recommend the "Taxlists of Somerset County, 1730-40" if you can find a copy - currently out of print. Jean Elliott Russo compiled her book in a way that preserves the integrity of the original documents, that is she keeps the names in exactly the order they appeared in the original lists as compiled by the Constables of the various hundreds. This is crucial since it gives a good indication of who lived next to who, and as you follow the changes from one year to the next you can get a real feel for the development of the community. It can also provide the essential discriminant in separating individuals with the same name from one another. Just the index to this book, by itself, provides a tremendous amount of insight to the fortunes of individual families as the members appear and leave from year to year. If you happen to have had ancestors that lived in Somerset back in this era this can be a real genealogical godsend. JP > [Original Message] > From: <janethunter703@aol.com> > To: <LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 1/21/2004 10:22:26 AM > Subject: Re: [LDR] Tax Assessment Records (Women heads of household) > > In a message dated 1/20/2004 11:33:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, > jfpolk@earthlink.net writes: > > > > Males became taxable as soon as they turned 16, so their first appearance > > on the taxlist is a useful means of determining age. Females only paid head > > tax if they the were head of household, e.g. as an unremarried widow. > > Slaves of either sex and indentured male servants were also considered > > taxable. There are many entries in the Somerset Court records where young > > boys or slaves were brought before the Justices to have their ages > > adjudged, and recorded for future collection purposes. Not much different > > from today, when all newborns are issued social security numbers. Like they > > say - nothing certain but death and taxes. > > > > John, > > I am curious about your statement that " Females only paid head > tax if they the were head of household, e.g. as an unremarried widow. " > > In Virginia, this was not the case at that time. Any female who was head of > household was indeed responsible for paying the tax on all male or eligible > slave polls in her household (as she was for land/property taxes). However, > she, herself, was not counted as a one of those "polled" or tithed on personal > tax lists I don't think it made any difference whether she was a single widow, > or just a single head of household (aunt, teacher with boarders, etc.). > > Was it different in Maryland? Were women themselves actually included in the > count for poll taxes? Unless the names of the taxable tithes in a household > are actually listed by name, it was sometimes misinterpreted in VA by > researchers -- ie, she had a son over 16, or a laborer/overseer, etc. > > Thanks so much, > > Janet Hunter > > > ==== LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS Mailing List ==== > Handley's Eastern Shore Genealogy Project: > http://www.tyaskin.com/handley/ --- John Polk --- Havre de Grace MD --- jfpolk@earthlink.net ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2. Another good site for this Lower DelMarva location is: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/lower-delmarva-roots Bluchp56@aol.com Jerry