A recent (for us anyway) entrant into the chase is Dr. Curtis Lane of Statesboro, GA. I have copied the list a couple of times with correspondence to and from Dr. Lane. With Dr. Lane's line of inquiry we are perhaps back to the elusive lady MEAPDO (Mary Elizabeth Ann Poythress Dixon Odum). Dr. Lane's specific interest is accounting for her in his Odom line but more specifically in his case: where did she come from? Dr. Lane's interest and ours coincide in the matter of "Orphans of Thomas Poythress", a winning entry in the 1807 Georgia Land Lottery. If MEAPDO is proven to be a child of Thomas Poythress some needed "identities" could fall into place for us. Prefacing, I have thoroughly checked and eliminated two Elizabeth Poythresses who were roughly contemporary and in the general area. Neither has even a remote chance of being the Elizabeth in question nor of being an "orphan of" Thomas Poythress. When we had Martha Dixon on line a year or so back it was Martha's speculation that MEAPDO was a late-in-life chld of Thomas Poythress and wife Patsey (Martha) ____, Thomas being the father of George Poythress. MEAPDO would have been young enough in 1806 to qualify her along with her presumed two adult brothers George and Edward as "Orphans of Thomas Poythress" to register for the 1807 Georgia Land Lottery. These registrant(s) do indeed win 202 1/2 acres in Wilkenson County but the trail offered by that identifiable piece of land just goes cold (later). According to Dr. Lane, the lady and Mr. Odom (her 2nd and last husband) are buried in Bethany Methodist Cemetery, Girard, GA. On first reading "her tombstone says b. 26 Jan 1798 and d. 5 Oct 1861." That's possible. Presumed father Burke Sheriff Thomas Poythress dies in 1799. And MEAPDO would indeed have been an "orphan" under 21. Dr. Lane now introduces a birth date for "Elizabeth Odom", citing the tombstone as: SACRED to the memory of Elizabeth Odom wife of Laban Odum born January 26, 1778 died October 5, 1861 Dr. Lane continues: "Comment: - Regarding grave marker of Elizabeth - as to the year of birth the second (third?) digit of the year is easily traced in the depression as a figure 8 and then it is also easily traced as a figure 7 and the last is easily traced as an 8. It is obvious the carver made a mistake regarding the year of birth, to what extent is speculation". He continues: "Census of 1850 lists age of Elizabeth as 63 which would put her date of birth 1787. George C. Dixon, her grandson who lived with her in 1850 said in a letter to my mother, Mrs. Julian C. Lane, his grand-daughter, that Elizabeth lived to age of 75. 1860 Census, taken August 9th, lists her age as 74. (MP: this would also indicate a 1788 birth since she was born January 26 and her 1860 census was taken in August). Stone carvers cutting the wrong date is usually a matter to be heavily discounted and more likely is a deterioration of the cutting. At any rate the Burke county censuses are virtually definitive in support of "b. 1788" Elizabeth is cited by name for 1850 and 1860. She fits perfectly into her age brackett in husband Laban Odom's household for the census years of 1820, 1830 and 1840. That string of coordinated evidence convinces me. Dr. Lane continues: "A few feet East from Grave of Elizabeth is a broken grave marker for R. J. Dixon, a son of John Dixon and Elizabeth Poythress. R. J. Dixon born July 13, 1805 (broken) died 1865 (marker) Another correspondent reveals to Dr. Lane a showing of "Elizabeth M. Poythress" in an Odom bible as "Muir." Dr. Lane asked me if that meant anything to us and Diana found several references to Muir in Poythress lines in Virginia. The lines were in the mid-1700's but it should also be noted that Muir is a fairly common Scottish surname. I am reluctant to hang yet another name on this lady or even further disturb her person without some documentation or a significant clue. Prior to any discussion of the 1807 lottery in question, there are some implications for us in the 1805 lottery. The 1805 lottery was unique in that it was the only lottery in which the names of all entrants were published. In the subsequent lotteries into the final one in the 1830's only the winners names were published and the entry lists (with a couple of rare exceptions) destoyed. The 1805 lottery (registration in 1803-4) list of entrants is thus a fairly decent proxy census for adults in Georgia in 1804. Total lottery 1805 entrants from Burke County were: Poythress, Edward # 47 (a likely brother of George and son of Thomas) Poythress, George # 65 (almost surely a son of Thomas) Poythress, Martha # 50 ( wife of Thomas, mother of the other two) None of the above were "fortunate drawers" but the names give us a decent foundation. Thomas had died (1799) and wife Martha (Patsy) will likely die prior to the drawing for the 1807 lottery. Edward and George qualify as "citizen of U. S., resident of Georgia for one year and free white male over 21." MEAPDO does NOT qualify: "member of a family of orphans (under age 21) ; i. e. with BOTH parents deceased or whose father was deceased AND the mother remarried." MEAPDO does NOT qualify in 1803-4 because both parents are not deceased nor has the mother remarried.. Note that this is spelled out exactly for 1805 but the language gets looser by the time of the 1807 lottery (described below). However much of a political boondoggle the 1807 registration might have been, Elizabeth (b. 1788) would STILL be technically a minor of 18 or 19, and she is, by lottery registration time in 1806, a married woman (to R. O. Dixon) with a son born the previous year. All the same, with minimum fudging, MEAPDO could have been eligible for the 1807 lottery: "Eligible for one draw: citizen of U. S., resident of Georgia for one year immediately prior to June 26, 1806, free white male 21 or older, free white female 21 or older, widows, family of orphans under 21 whose father is deceased, family of orphans under 21 whose parents are deceased. Eligible for two draws: meets one draw qualifications above, free white male over 21 with a wife and/or legitimate child or children one of whom is under 21, family of two or more orphans whose parents are deceased. Persons excluded: a fortunate drawer in the previous 1805 lottery." By a strict interpretation of the above, MEAPDO would probably not be eligible in 1806 EITHER unless she was the "ticket" to allow adults Edward and George to be a "family of orphans under 21 whose father is deceased." This is a stretch. However, three external factors must be considered. First, the entry requirements became successively easier as the state was literally trying to find inhabitants for the land and a wink sufficed to register in many cases. Second, remember that MEAPDO's older brother George was a land-hungry immediate ex-Sheriff of Burke County, relatively wealthy, and likely not without some influence. Third, the entire lottery series justly earned a later reputation as something of a political boondoggle. A very high percentage of winners simply (and quickly) sold their land to land speculators for minimal values and demonstrated almost no consideration of a move to the "won" land. Question: why didn't George and Edward also register on their own in 1807 as free, white and over 21? Well, they very likely did. After all, it was potentially free money. But it can be assumed they weren't fortunate drawers. Remember, only the names of "fortunate drawers" were published for the lotteries following 1805. In any event, the Elizabeth in question is of interest to Dr. Lane as well as to listmembers Carole Drexel and Marti Coppes and others. While leaving the reader to his or her own conclusions with respect to this lady's position as an "orphan of" I did spend the entire day of August 17 in the Georgia Archives searching in every corner I could think of to determine the names of "the orphans" by finding a later sale of the land by them. Although I thought I knew the process well, I even enlisted the considerable help of the German lady named Inga who is the GDAH resident authority on the Land Lotteries. If individuals listed in the lottery results cannot be located or otherwise identified, the prescribed search for winners simply "follows the land." Often the winners simply didn't, for one reason or another, even bother to "take up" the land (pay the $40 title fee). That is the worst possible scenario. The land reverts to state auction and a number of previously identified land speculators buy up multiple lots. In the deed process the state is now the "grantor." There is no longer any linkage between the winners and the ultimate owners. However, if the winner "takes up" the land that same winner often appears later in county deeds as a grantor in a deed book or a legator in a will book, either in "his" county or the new county. The problem is that counties were then being so rapidly formed from other counties that even searching in multiple counties is often non-productive. In this instance, another reason might be that both Burke (their home county) and Wilkinson (the county of their won land) are virtually burned out of everything prior to the late 1800's. In this instance, the following search was performed with no success in locating one or more "Orphans of Thomas Poythress": 1) Wilkenson County; ironically enough by the date the orphans "took up" the land (8 May 1809), had itself had pieces of land split off to form Laurens (formed 1807) and Pulaski Counties. Much, much later Bleckley County was created in 1912. 2. all of the above counties were searched with special emphasis on Pulaski because that is the "continuing" identified county ultimately containing the "won" land, grant # 78, lot # 44 in (Wilkenson's, later Pulaski's) 22nd district. Reel 71/36, Pulaski Superior Court Deeds 1807-1811 DB "A" was the focal point of an individual page search. Reels 38/53, 38/54 and 38/55, Pulaski County Superior Court Index to Deeds and Mortgages, Vol. 1, 1807-1899 were extensively searched by individual pages. Will books were also non-productive. Burke County's fragmentary records revealed nothing. Reel 232/14 has fragmentary records of Wilkinson deeds and wills unindexed. An individual reading revealed nothing. 3. Dr. Lane had reported that he found the specific land later in the 1800's to be titled to a Sarah Hinson. It is conceivable that Sarah Hinson could be a later female Poythress decendant but Dr. Lane I think wisely discounts that one. Dr. Lane also reports that queries of the present owners are not productive. Typically when a new county is formed, the matter of hauling the old records of an area to a new courthouse is simply ignored except as documents are individually required and searched out of the "old" county courthouse. In other cases, records ARE moved. And, as we know by now, two of the principle counties are "burned", so it's likely no one knows. I draw three conclusions from all of the above: 1) Mary Ann Elizabeth Poythress Dixon Odum likely is one of the "Orphans of Thomas Poythress and George and Edward Poythress are the other two. This requires a construct of one orphan qualifying two adults as a "family of orphans." I'm willing to make such a construct in the absence of any other evidence. Another supporting circumstance is that there are simply no other candidates and the previous lottery at least suggests two of the three names. 2) Elizabeth Muir Poythress is unidentified for me and I'm reluctant to give Mary Ann Elizabeth Poythress yet another name without leading documentation or circumstances. Disregarding her out of hand is not really fair inasmuch as we didn't even know MEAPDO existed until she appears "as" Elizabeth. Maybe her middle name was Muir. 3) We will likely never find the records of land to find one or more of the orphans as a deed grantor or legator. The likeliest home for the records would be Burke or Wilkinson County, both burned. Wilkinson County is two days travel from Burke. Unless the land was required to be "taken up" in the county of the new land, it is doubtful if the new owners would have even travel that far unless required by the law to do so. Conclusion: this is research with much speculation. I would very much appreciate being proved either right or wrong should one of us find more substantive records.

You are receiving this message from http://www.ancestry.com at the request of [email protected] The sender's comments sent with this message are: Even if the beginning looks simplistic, hang with it until he gets to the new stuff which is very interesting. New Internet Search Facilities New Internet directories, compilations, search engines, and metasearch engines can extend your research. The full article can be found at: http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/columns/george/4424.asp

Poythess List, Please excuse the intrusion if you've already visited the the Thomas Jefferson Papers from the Manuscript Division at the Library of Congress web site. The collection includes approximately 27,000 documents! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjhome.html Document types in the collection as a whole include correspondence, commonplace books, financial account books, and manuscript volumes. The collection is organized into nine series or groupings, ranging in date from 1606 to 1827. Correspondence, memoranda, notes, and drafts of documents make up two-thirds of the Papers and document Jefferson's activities as a delegate to the second Continental Congress, his drafting of the Declaration of Independence, etc. Here you will find archival quality image files of the original documents. I was particularly delighted with the The Jamestown Records of the Virginia Company of London: A Conservator's Perspective by Sylvia R. Albro and Holly H. Krueger. Best, Al Tims

Held Sunday Aug. 19 and all the usual suspects were present except Bud. We missed you Bud. McBride Methodist Church is putting in stained glass windows and one of the cousins has been on a drive to get one in memory of Horace Cullen Poythress and wife Flossie O. Wells, the parents of the eight siblings, now all deceased. Now our generation is reverently (sort of) referred to as "the cousins" and we are about nineteen or twenty. Cousin in question worked us over pretty good and shook the required $1500 buckeroos out of the group of us. It will be installed sometime this winter. No deaths to report and that is a blessing as we are all getting a tad long in the tooth. We went to the out-in-the-boonies wonderful seafood restaurant Sat. nite and later were greeted with a storm which dumped a blessed 2 inches of rain on Screven County for which we tried to take full credit. However, no one would cash the check. Spent Friday in Atlanta archives while Jean went to High Museum for the Michaelangelo drawings exhibit. I shoulda gone to the museum. Will file separate report when I can get my head and my notes together. Maynard

Diana, hey, just keep on swinging for the fences.....you have dug substantive stuff out of corners when most of us didn't know those particular corners even existed. So one gets hit in the dirt once in a while. Big deal. Maynard

Thanks, Maynard. There is no substitute for looking at the primary source. The old admonition about the computer--garbage in, garbage out--seems never more true as I look through the pages on the internet. I still think you put it best when you said I should look at internet information in most cases as "hints." But I have found some mighty good hints, so I guess I am hooked. I try to remain skeptical. Diana

In a message dated 8/17/01 11:46:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~ysbinns/vataxlists/1790index/1790pipy-index.h > tm > > While the admonition to look for variant spellings is not a whit less > urgent and valid, I suspect that in this instance at least the Mr. or Ms. > Binns who compiled the list on the web was/is one of those souls who do not > recognize the "symbol" for "ss" and recorded it incorrectly from the > orginal source (whatever it may have been). > > I first took this identical information from a printed page in the Clayton > Library in Houston. That transcriber apparently had no problem with the > names. Then I transcribed corrolary information myself from source > microfilm in the LVA. In both cases Poythress was clear as a bell, the > only question being a single William with one "s" which is fairly common. > > Both are listed below. I suppose a second admonition might be in order: be > cautious with genealogists sporting masses of what is possible (maybe even > likely) to be indiscriminatly collected information. Obviously, this is > not universally true but it sometimes seems that accuracy is sacrificed for > "volume." From the Clayton: > Prince George County, 1790 Personal Property Tax List (printed page in > Clayton > Poythress, Elizabeth > Poythres, William (sic) > Poythress, Joshua, Est. > Poythress, Mary > Poythress, William > > Notes: > > 1) this list incomplete insofar as rate and amount of tax not included. > (Purely as a guess, personal property will not be itemized when original is > located in LVA either). > > 2) land taxes for 1790 for comparison with above (LVA reel # 255) > Name Acres > Peter Poythress 100-1000-400-225-100-290 > Mary Poythress 100 > Joshua Poythress 404-200 > William Poythres 184-120-850 > Mary Poythress 293 > > Binns shows Personal Taxes on "page 11" and Property Taxes on "page 12". He or she is perhaps correct. In the LVA Personal Taxes is microfilmed on one reel and Property Taxes on another. In comparing the two LVA reels there are numerous omissions of Personal Property tax that would imply that some people paying Property Tax either had no Personal Property (doubtful) or it was not taxable for some reason. The disparity between the two LVA reels would almost imply that the two kinds of taxes were collected on separate "administrative tracks, a matter which Binns' "layout" would disprove. It is also possible that errors arose as a function of trying to make one "ledger" into two microfilm reels as the two were "separated" for the LVA reels. Contradicting the above, it does seem strange that Binns transcribed all the personal taxes with correct spellings and land taxes with incorrect spellings (transcriptions). Just maybe the thing WAS in two books and Binns was transcribing one and a collaborator the other. My guess is that these distinctions are irrelevant anyway. A contemporaneous error vs. an ancient error is an error all the same. Notes to self: Remainder of project (which likely can only be done at LVA): 1. finish the land property records in reel # 255 for the years following 1798. (already have years 1782 - beginning of the tax - thru 1798) 2. record ALL of the years beginning 1792 for personal property taxes. Summation: But, for this instance in any case, Mr. or Mrs. Binns simply seem to be victims of either haste or unfamiliarity with the penmanship conventions of the era. The identical information is very clear in two other sources, one primary and one secondary. > > > > > > > We HAVE recorded (see: Virgina Land Tax Records, Prince George County) the > land taxes from 1782 thru 1798 (microfilm reel 255 in LVA, 1782-1811) > > REMAINDER OF PROJECT (which likely can only be done at LVA) > > a) finish the land property records in reel 255 for years following 1798 > > b) record all of the years beginning 1782 for personal property tax records >

Looking this dangerous I didn't even bother to run them through virus scanner. Maynard

I have received three e-mails from innocous addresses with tantalizing (somewhat) topics (example: "Saint Patrick's Day').. An executable file was attached. The message text on all three read identically: Hi. How are you? I send you this file to have your advice. See you later. Thanks. The first one looked a tad fishy so I skipped it as I went through an accumulation of three day's worth of e-mails received while I was In Georgia. Fortunately, I came to numbers 2 and 3 and, looking this dangerous

Just in case everyone's not gotten the word, Maynard tripped across the latest worm (virus) that's going around. This is supposed to be one that sends emails on your behalf using the addresses in your address book. The key give-away is the message: "Hi. How are you? _____" I've seen variations in the third phrase, but it's always something about needing "your advice." Lou -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Bombs I have received three e-mails from innocous addresses with tantalizing (somewhat) topics (example: "Saint Patrick's Day').. An executable file was attached. The message text on all three read identically: Hi. How are you? I send you this file to have your advice. See you later. Thanks. The first one looked a tad fishy so I skipped it as I went through an accumulation of three day's worth of e-mails received while I was In Georgia. Fortunately, I came to numbers 2 and 3 and, looking this dangerous ==== POYTHRESS Mailing List ==== The Poythress Genealogy List is hosted by RootsWeb. If you'd like to learn more about Rootsweb please visit http://www.rootsweb.com/

Flora, Check out http://www.co.henrico.va.us/manager/pokeypix.htm which says Pocahontas was known by her people as Amonte. You have too many generations for most agreed upon genealogies. To simplify your search, I think it's save to say all of Pocahontas's descendants flow through John Bolling January 17, 1675/76 and his wife Mary Kennon, who married December 19, 1697. Jane Poythress died one after one child, Thomas Rolfe. This child, Jane Rolfe, died young after one child, John Bolling, as noted above, husband of Mary Kennon Just to complicate matters there is a later couple also named John Bolling and Mary Kennon who married in Abt. 1789. Also check out http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1001/poca.html I am doing my own study of Poythress descendants based on the work of R. Bolling Batte. It's still in rough form, but it is somewhat complete for six generations nevertheless. I can't find a Newby among them. Sorry. Mr. Batte does have one Newby, Jesse, who lived in 18th Century at http://image.vtls.com/collections/BA.html. If you're interested it is under Newsbett, Card 12-13. Diana

Hope someone can help us out with this problem Flora ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:15 AM Subject: Re: [BS-L] Okay guys lets discuss Poythress/Newby Ok as Flora Knows ( Glad to see you posting Flora) I am looking to reestablish lines of the Newby family which were lost in a computer crash. These lines went back to the Poythress family, descendant of John Rolfe ( born: 5/6/1585 in Heacham, Norfolk, England ), and Amonte Matoaka (born:9/17/1595 at Gloucester, VA. ) , daughter of the Powhattan Chief, Wahnsonecowk. (Won-son-ah-kuk) Amonte was "invited" to England and was entertained by the Royal Court, where she was known as "Lady Rebecca". She and John Rolfe had one child, and Amonte died at Gravesend, before she could return to Virginia. The son of Amonte and John Rolfe was Thomas Rolfe. (born: 1/30/1613 or 6/30/1615 ( not sure which is right) at Smith's Plantation, VA.) married to Jane Poythress (born: 1620/1634 at Jamestown, James City, VA.) John Rolfe was also an only child, so ALL descendants of Amonte Matoaka come through him, and his wife Jane Poythress. My Newby's were descended from this couple (I just don't know HOW now.) The earliest Newby I have been able to trace is Lance Newby, father of my wife's grandmother, Ruth Newby, (who was born in Longmont Colorado in 1900). There is another BULLOCK connection to the Poythress family which I am exploring. (My wife is a Bullock). She may descend from Amonte Matoaka on two lines. (Amonte is called "Pocahontas" which is slang for "Promiscuous or Precocious in comtempory histories). Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG Flockmaster <http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Blacksheep List Subscriptions Click on the appropriate link, and just send the email form Subscribe Blacksheep LIST UNsubscribe Blacksheep LIST Subscribe Blacksheep DIGEST UNsubscribe Blacksheep DIGEST

Poythress List, I've relocated the Poythress website to Rootsweb. I'm not yet ready to post new material since I hope soon to have a new template with improved navigation. Please remove the old url from your bookmarks and add the following url: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~poythress/ Best, Al Tims

Ah, Bruce, <g> I had completely forgotten about your line's switch from Poythress to Porter -- Certainly easier to spell, but man, there sure are tons of them. I'll stick to the more unique spellings, and leave the Porters for you <g> Barbara

Barbara, You discard the Porters, I am hurt!! (LOL) Some of us Poythress changed to Porters you know? BGP (Bruce)

Good finds, Diana. Yes, & that is why I always try to search on various spellings. If a site allows it, I will just check on all names that begin with "Poyt" and "Port" and then wade thru & discard the Porters. Thanks for the reminder to all of us. Barbara (BPN)

Barbara, here's another reminder that Poythress is spelled more than one way. Diana http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~ysbinns/vataxlists/1790index/1790pipy-index.h tm Name County Tax List Page Poythrep, Joshua Prince George 1790 Land 12 Poythrep, Mary Prince George 1790 Land 12 Poythrep, Mary Prince George 1790 Land 12 Poythrep, Peter Prince George 1790 Land 12 Poythrep, William Prince George 1790 Land 12 Poythres, Elizabeth Prince George 1790 Personal 11 Poythres, William Prince George 1790 Personal 11 Poythress, Joshua (estate) Prince George 1790 Personal 11 Poythress, Mary Prince George 1790 Personal 11 Poythress, William Prince George 1790 Personal 11

Ever wonder what an ancestor's net worth would be in today's dollars. I figured somebody must have worked out a formula, and they have. With all wonderful work by Barbara and Maynard on wills and legal cases involving monetary figures, I thought this might be helpful. The site below only converts money's worth back to 1800, but as an example, $15,000 in 1800 dollars becomes $208,333 in 2001 dollars. This calculation was done at http://www.cjr.org/resources/inflater.asp Diana

See ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/va/princegeorge/wills/pythrs1.txt This is John Poythress, (P-1) DC, in other words son of Francis Jr. He and his cousin, John, both have wives named Mary. The surname of this Mary is unknown. The other John is married to Mary Batte. Diana

http://www.users.bigpond.com/bcrompton/Ausdied.htm