A person did not have to live on the land to obtain the patent - but he had to settle the land within three years and pay the taxes in order to keep it. Bev *** or pay someone else to "put it under the plow" and construct a habitable cabin and occupy it. Many speculators from VA (and elsewhere) never saw their patent land, yet "seated" it as said, and by sale, land contract, or otherwise developed the land and sold it off.

Good advice, Bev. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ms2001@aol.com To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:33 AM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Kentucky became a state in 1792 - up to that point it was part of Virginia. It's hard to track legal documents if you do not know the formation of Virginia cities and counties and thr states that spun off from Virginia. Virginia started with 8 'shires' or counties. Those developed into 100 in the 1950s but has been reduced as some of them have incorporated and become independent cities. Many families lived in 5 or 6 different counties and never moved! If a patent says 'adjoins his own land', then obviously he did own land ther before the patent. This land could be been purchased or it could have been a patent - some pages of the old patent books are illegible or destroyed. You might check county records to see if there is a purchase recorded. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 11:18:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:rex@tyler.net">rex@tyler.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul, You have been most helpful in helping unravel just what these records mean or should I say what they don't tell us about our very early ancestors. But there are two more puzzling items about these records, patents and/or grants or conveyances by other means such as deeds or the certificates you mention: I noticed the description of the property in a number of instances referred to land which "adjoins his own land." If that means what I think it means, then it would indicate that the grantee in this particular patent or grant already owned land adjacent to this land. Logically, I would then surmise there was an earlier grant or patent to this same grantee. If so, why can't I find the earlier grant or patent indexed in the records? What part of the records am I overlooking? The second item that puzzles me- and again at the risk of showing my ignorance of VA and KY history (which I admit) - there are any number of grants or patents recorded in VA which refer to land in KY. One in particular, a grant to Samuel Kirby 26 April 1792 of 584 acres located in Jefferson Co, KY. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jefferson Co on the opposite side of KY from the VA/KY line? If I am reading that correctly does that mean that either the colonial land office of VA or the Commonwealth of VA issued patents and/or grants to land lying in KY? If so, did the grantee live in VA or in KY? How would VA be able to dole out land lying in KY? I haven't located or looked at an old map of colonial VA just yet but did it extend all the way to the western side of KY. If so, why would the description of the land refer to a particular county in KY. Or could it be that the location of the land shown on the VA land site was supplied by someone long after the original patent or grant? I was unable to access the actual document since I don't have the TIFF reader (but will solve that problem today -maybe) I guess my real question is simply whether or not a person found as a grantee in the VA land records actually lived in VA on the date of or at about the time of the patent or grant? In other words where did Samuel Kirby live in 1792 - VA or KY? Or did he live in VA, move to KY and then apply for the grant in VA? Does this mean that just because a person is listed as a grantee of a patent or grant in VA land records that person may not have lived in VA? Straighten me out here Paul. This is crucial to my search for ancestors. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:51 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Many Virginians, including my ancestor, Martin, Baker, received land grants in KY. (KY., remember was part of VA. until 1792.) Many received the land for their service in either the French and Indian War (by the British beginning in 1763) or later for service in the Revolution (beginning in 1782; only 11%, however, of grants went to veterans.). Officers received much more land than did the enlisted men. Also a man could purchase a land grant either from the VA. government ( 400 acres for $2.25 per hundred under the law of 1779) or from grantees who wanted money rather than the land. Because many did not realize that their land both had to be lived on (usually for a year) with a crop raised, and also had to be registered, they lost their land. There were many tangled law suits. See Kentucky Ancestry by Roseann R. Hogan, Ancestry, S.L.C., 1992. Or for a list of soldiers' names in the War of 1812: Calendar of Warrants for Land in Kentucky, by Phillip Taylor, Gen. Pub. Co., 1967. E. Kaspar

Kentucky became a state in 1792 - up to that point it was part of Virginia. It's hard to track legal documents if you do not know the formation of Virginia cities and counties and thr states that spun off from Virginia. Virginia started with 8 'shires' or counties. Those developed into 100 in the 1950s but has been reduced as some of them have incorporated and become independent cities. Many families lived in 5 or 6 different counties and never moved! If a patent says 'adjoins his own land', then obviously he did own land ther before the patent. This land could be been purchased or it could have been a patent - some pages of the old patent books are illegible or destroyed. You might check county records to see if there is a purchase recorded. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 11:18:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:rex@tyler.net">rex@tyler.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul, You have been most helpful in helping unravel just what these records mean or should I say what they don't tell us about our very early ancestors. But there are two more puzzling items about these records, patents and/or grants or conveyances by other means such as deeds or the certificates you mention: I noticed the description of the property in a number of instances referred to land which "adjoins his own land." If that means what I think it means, then it would indicate that the grantee in this particular patent or grant already owned land adjacent to this land. Logically, I would then surmise there was an earlier grant or patent to this same grantee. If so, why can't I find the earlier grant or patent indexed in the records? What part of the records am I overlooking? The second item that puzzles me- and again at the risk of showing my ignorance of VA and KY history (which I admit) - there are any number of grants or patents recorded in VA which refer to land in KY. One in particular, a grant to Samuel Kirby 26 April 1792 of 584 acres located in Jefferson Co, KY. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jefferson Co on the opposite side of KY from the VA/KY line? If I am reading that correctly does that mean that either the colonial land office of VA or the Commonwealth of VA issued patents and/or grants to land lying in KY? If so, did the grantee live in VA or in KY? How would VA be able to dole out land lying in KY? I haven't located or looked at an old map of colonial VA just yet but did it extend all the way to the western side of KY. If so, why would the description of the land refer to a particular county in KY. Or could it be that the location of the land shown on the VA land site was supplied by someone long after the original patent or grant? I was unable to access the actual document since I don't have the TIFF reader (but will solve that problem today -maybe) I guess my real question is simply whether or not a person found as a grantee in the VA land records actually lived in VA on the date of or at about the time of the patent or grant? In other words where did Samuel Kirby live in 1792 - VA or KY? Or did he live in VA, move to KY and then apply for the grant in VA? Does this mean that just because a person is listed as a grantee of a patent or grant in VA land records that person may not have lived in VA? Straighten me out here Paul. This is crucial to my search for ancestors. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:51 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Thanks, Bev The Samuel Kirby grant is dated 26 April 1792 according to the VA land site but specifically states in a Note that the land was located in Jefferson Co, KY which suggests to me that by April KY was a state. If so, at that point, how would VA be able to issue a grant for land lying in KY? Or could the transaction have been somewhat earlier and the "date" shown is the date it was recorded rather than the date of the grant? Or if the land was actually part of VA at the time of the grant does that mean that someone after the fact of KY becoming a separate state sat down and plotted out each track to be able to state the location as being Jefferson Co, KY? One other detail...did a person or family have to live on the land (or contiguous land) to get the patent or grant? My problem is simply that I'm trying to figure out where Samuel Kirby lived -- VA or KY or perhaps neither? I didn't realize until I started this research that I was so deficient in my education concerning colonial America... It's back to the books for me...but really you and Paul have been very helpful. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Ms2001@aol.com [mailto:Ms2001@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:33 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Kentucky became a state in 1792 - up to that point it was part of Virginia. It's hard to track legal documents if you do not know the formation of Virginia cities and counties and thr states that spun off from Virginia. Virginia started with 8 'shires' or counties. Those developed into 100 in the 1950s but has been reduced as some of them have incorporated and become independent cities. Many families lived in 5 or 6 different counties and never moved! If a patent says 'adjoins his own land', then obviously he did own land ther before the patent. This land could be been purchased or it could have been a patent - some pages of the old patent books are illegible or destroyed. You might check county records to see if there is a purchase recorded. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 11:18:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:rex@tyler.net">rex@tyler.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul, You have been most helpful in helping unravel just what these records mean or should I say what they don't tell us about our very early ancestors. But there are two more puzzling items about these records, patents and/or grants or conveyances by other means such as deeds or the certificates you mention: I noticed the description of the property in a number of instances referred to land which "adjoins his own land." If that means what I think it means, then it would indicate that the grantee in this particular patent or grant already owned land adjacent to this land. Logically, I would then surmise there was an earlier grant or patent to this same grantee. If so, why can't I find the earlier grant or patent indexed in the records? What part of the records am I overlooking? The second item that puzzles me- and again at the risk of showing my ignorance of VA and KY history (which I admit) - there are any number of grants or patents recorded in VA which refer to land in KY. One in particular, a grant to Samuel Kirby 26 April 1792 of 584 acres located in Jefferson Co, KY. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jefferson Co on the opposite side of KY from the VA/KY line? If I am reading that correctly does that mean that either the colonial land office of VA or the Commonwealth of VA issued patents and/or grants to land lying in KY? If so, did the grantee live in VA or in KY? How would VA be able to dole out land lying in KY? I haven't located or looked at an old map of colonial VA just yet but did it extend all the way to the western side of KY. If so, why would the description of the land refer to a particular county in KY. Or could it be that the location of the land shown on the VA land site was supplied by someone long after the original patent or grant? I was unable to access the actual document since I don't have the TIFF reader (but will solve that problem today -maybe) I guess my real question is simply whether or not a person found as a grantee in the VA land records actually lived in VA on the date of or at about the time of the patent or grant? In other words where did Samuel Kirby live in 1792 - VA or KY? Or did he live in VA, move to KY and then apply for the grant in VA? Does this mean that just because a person is listed as a grantee of a patent or grant in VA land records that person may not have lived in VA? Straighten me out here Paul. This is crucial to my search for ancestors. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:51 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

<A HREF="http://eagle.vsla.edu/lonn/">Virginia Land Office Patents & Grants/Northern Neck Grants & Surveys</A> There ya go! With thanks to Paul for sharing it. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 11:03:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:NALLA602@aol.com">NALLA602@aol.com</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Would someone please list the web adddress again for the Land Patents. Thank you, nalla602@aol.com ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Would someone please list the web adddress again for the Land Patents. Thank you, nalla602@aol.com

Here is some information for you on this. "November 1, 1780, as the settlements in Kentucky grew and population increased Kentucky County Virginia was divided into three counties of Virginia. Fayette was formed from the territory lying north of the Kentucky River and extending to the Ohio and Big Sandy rivers. Jefferson County embraced the land between the lower Kentucky River, the Ohio and Green Rivers. A line from the head of Benson creek, which empties into the Kentucky at Frankfort, run due south to Green River, separated Jefferson from Lincoln County. Lincoln then included the remainder of Kentucky north and east of the Cumberland River. These three counties were called the District of Kentucky in 1780." http://www.cynthianaky.com/History2.html Kentucky was admitted June 6, 1792. So, the land could easily have been in Jefferson county. You will want to go to that website, which shows what land Jeff county covered at that time. When you say a "note" states. . . Was this note "contemporaneous"? In other words, does it appear to have been put on the original document, in the same hand? Or, was it apparently added later? If so, it would make sense that a later clerk was "cleaning up the records", perhaps as part of the Kentucky statehood. Or, was this a note added after the records got to the LVA? Pat (in Tucson) -----Original Message----- From: Rex Kirby [mailto:rex@tyler.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 10:29 To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Thanks, Bev The Samuel Kirby grant is dated 26 April 1792 according to the VA land site but specifically states in a Note that the land was located in Jefferson Co, KY which suggests to me that by April KY was a state. If so, at that point, how would VA be able to issue a grant for land lying in KY? Or could the transaction have been somewhat earlier and the "date" shown is the date it was recorded rather than the date of the grant? Or if the land was actually part of VA at the time of the grant does that mean that someone after the fact of KY becoming a separate state sat down and plotted out each track to be able to state the location as being Jefferson Co, KY? One other detail...did a person or family have to live on the land (or contiguous land) to get the patent or grant? My problem is simply that I'm trying to figure out where Samuel Kirby lived -- VA or KY or perhaps neither? I didn't realize until I started this research that I was so deficient in my education concerning colonial America... It's back to the books for me...but really you and Paul have been very helpful. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Ms2001@aol.com [mailto:Ms2001@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:33 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Kentucky became a state in 1792 - up to that point it was part of Virginia. It's hard to track legal documents if you do not know the formation of Virginia cities and counties and thr states that spun off from Virginia. Virginia started with 8 'shires' or counties. Those developed into 100 in the 1950s but has been reduced as some of them have incorporated and become independent cities. Many families lived in 5 or 6 different counties and never moved! If a patent says 'adjoins his own land', then obviously he did own land ther before the patent. This land could be been purchased or it could have been a patent - some pages of the old patent books are illegible or destroyed. You might check county records to see if there is a purchase recorded. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 11:18:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:rex@tyler.net">rex@tyler.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul, You have been most helpful in helping unravel just what these records mean or should I say what they don't tell us about our very early ancestors. But there are two more puzzling items about these records, patents and/or grants or conveyances by other means such as deeds or the certificates you mention: I noticed the description of the property in a number of instances referred to land which "adjoins his own land." If that means what I think it means, then it would indicate that the grantee in this particular patent or grant already owned land adjacent to this land. Logically, I would then surmise there was an earlier grant or patent to this same grantee. If so, why can't I find the earlier grant or patent indexed in the records? What part of the records am I overlooking? The second item that puzzles me- and again at the risk of showing my ignorance of VA and KY history (which I admit) - there are any number of grants or patents recorded in VA which refer to land in KY. One in particular, a grant to Samuel Kirby 26 April 1792 of 584 acres located in Jefferson Co, KY. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jefferson Co on the opposite side of KY from the VA/KY line? If I am reading that correctly does that mean that either the colonial land office of VA or the Commonwealth of VA issued patents and/or grants to land lying in KY? If so, did the grantee live in VA or in KY? How would VA be able to dole out land lying in KY? I haven't located or looked at an old map of colonial VA just yet but did it extend all the way to the western side of KY. If so, why would the description of the land refer to a particular county in KY. Or could it be that the location of the land shown on the VA land site was supplied by someone long after the original patent or grant? I was unable to access the actual document since I don't have the TIFF reader (but will solve that problem today -maybe) I guess my real question is simply whether or not a person found as a grantee in the VA land records actually lived in VA on the date of or at about the time of the patent or grant? In other words where did Samuel Kirby live in 1792 - VA or KY? Or did he live in VA, move to KY and then apply for the grant in VA? Does this mean that just because a person is listed as a grantee of a patent or grant in VA land records that person may not have lived in VA? Straighten me out here Paul. This is crucial to my search for ancestors. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:51 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Paul, You have been most helpful in helping unravel just what these records mean or should I say what they don't tell us about our very early ancestors. But there are two more puzzling items about these records, patents and/or grants or conveyances by other means such as deeds or the certificates you mention: I noticed the description of the property in a number of instances referred to land which "adjoins his own land." If that means what I think it means, then it would indicate that the grantee in this particular patent or grant already owned land adjacent to this land. Logically, I would then surmise there was an earlier grant or patent to this same grantee. If so, why can't I find the earlier grant or patent indexed in the records? What part of the records am I overlooking? The second item that puzzles me- and again at the risk of showing my ignorance of VA and KY history (which I admit) - there are any number of grants or patents recorded in VA which refer to land in KY. One in particular, a grant to Samuel Kirby 26 April 1792 of 584 acres located in Jefferson Co, KY. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jefferson Co on the opposite side of KY from the VA/KY line? If I am reading that correctly does that mean that either the colonial land office of VA or the Commonwealth of VA issued patents and/or grants to land lying in KY? If so, did the grantee live in VA or in KY? How would VA be able to dole out land lying in KY? I haven't located or looked at an old map of colonial VA just yet but did it extend all the way to the western side of KY. If so, why would the description of the land refer to a particular county in KY. Or could it be that the location of the land shown on the VA land site was supplied by someone long after the original patent or grant? I was unable to access the actual document since I don't have the TIFF reader (but will solve that problem today -maybe) I guess my real question is simply whether or not a person found as a grantee in the VA land records actually lived in VA on the date of or at about the time of the patent or grant? In other words where did Samuel Kirby live in 1792 - VA or KY? Or did he live in VA, move to KY and then apply for the grant in VA? Does this mean that just because a person is listed as a grantee of a patent or grant in VA land records that person may not have lived in VA? Straighten me out here Paul. This is crucial to my search for ancestors. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 7:51 AM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

All should be careful; the land to which one was entitled for each headright varied from time to time from as little as 1/2 acre in New England to as large as 160 acres in early GA.

When land escheated for whatever reason (usually for failure to "seat"it) the regranting of that tract quite usually was by "certificate" and not again by grant. You will find many such certificates mentioned in Nugent and in the works by others following her efforts. Notice that assignments or patent rights usually only appeared in the records of the county in which the land was situate.

Paul, Thanks much for the clarification. I gather that "transportation" was a rather general term that did not signify any particular event or occasion or relationship between the person receiving the land patent and the person for whom "transportation" was provided. Other than perhaps the person "transported" , if an indentured servant, may have still owed someone some amount of "time or labor" which could be sold or traded to someone else. If that is not a reasonably fair statement, please let me know. ***Yep, and you could go a step further and state categorically that the only fact that may be established from the appearance of a named person in a list of headrights is that at some date previous to that appearance that person did seek passage OR took the place of someone else who had done so. Nothing further may be proved by such records. Perhaps the most obviously flagrant abuses of the system occurred when seamen claimed a headright for having made the voyage across the ocean. On one instance I found that such a man claimed 16 headrights for his trips as a crewman. Bear in mind, however, that these abuses were for the very most part ignored, since there was plenty of land to be settled, and by permitting such evasion of the "letter" of the law (it was not illegal), the land became productive. Through that increase in commerce the Crown gained additional tax revenue.

From the Land Office site - "A land patent is a land transaction during the Colonial period from the Crown to an individual. A land grant is a land transaction from the Commonwealth to an individual. A deed is a land transaction between individuals or private parties." In reading the Introduction to C&P, I found that these lands could be escheated if the person who received the patent died intestate or if he was convicted of a felony or if he did not settle the lands. Considering the possibility of escheat, maybe they were not claiming the same headright mutiple times as often as I originally thought. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/5/2003 12:02:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:rex@tyler.net">rex@tyler.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul, Thanks much for the clarification. I gather that "transportation" was a rather general term that did not signify any particular event or occasion or relationship between the person receiving the land patent and the person for whom "transportation" was provided. Other than perhaps the person "transported" , if an indentured servant, may have still owed someone some amount of "time or labor" which could be sold or traded to someone else. If that is not a reasonably fair statement, please let me know. In my earlier post I tried to say that I was fishing in unknown murky waters without bait. The website you gave for VA land patents, etc is a fascinating site. I will be the first to admit I need to learn how to navigate that site a little better but what I found and didn't find didn't exactly clarify matters for me. I found the grant to Symons in 1637 but did not find the assignment to Kirbye in 1642 or at least have not found it so far. However, the list of patents and grants to Kirbys was a lot longer than I would have ever suspected, including a patent to a John Kirby on July 2, 1624 issued by the "Secretary of the Colony serving as the colonial Land Office." I am not familiar with VA history but I noted the VA land website designated land transfers as "patents" or "grants" with the later being issued by the Virginia Land Office and patents issued as noted above. I assume - correct me if I'm wrong- the difference being colony vs. state. Certainly, others researching their families in the earliest days of VA would do themselves good to visit this site. And I certainly thank you for unraveling some of the kinks in my inferences and assumptions. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:37 PM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Rex; some of your inferences from what Mrs. Nugent (C&P) SEEMS to say are slightly in error. As often as not, the person who claimed the headright did not transport anybody at anytime ever; he purchased or traded for that headright sometimes soon after the voyage of a servant, but also sometimes years after the actual voyage of passage. The best illustration of this fact perhaps is that of the passage of Owen Griffith (c1635-1698). Though he shipped from Bristol to I of W Co, VA in 1658, his headright was later used by no less than three (3) separate men to claim 50 acres of land. Indeed, were that not enough, the last time his headright was used appears in 1703 - 5 years after his death, and 45 years after his emigration from Britain. The reason for such activity was simple. The law did NOT require that you transport anyone in order to own a headright and trade it for land. It was only required that you gain title to such a "right" by paying or otherwise dealing or bargaining with someone who had already transported or had paid still someone else for the transport of the servant(s), be that an owner of a headright who had previously purchased it, an entrepreneur/speculator who dealt in indentures (there were many in the 17th- and early 18th-centuries), ships' captains and owners who regularly brought such folks over at their own risk and sold those headrights at the wharves or through brokers, or a headright might be purchased from the person/servant himself who had paid his own way over and then wanted to sell himself into servitude to a tradesman or artisan, since jobs were quite scarce from time to time and he might learn a trade in that way. Many indentures passed through 4, 5, or 6 or more hands before land was claimed for that "right". Recording of such documents was almost unknown. Thus, good research does not permit us EVER to infer WHEN a person arrived based upon the date his or her headright was exchanged for land - "cashed in". The subject is not complicated, but we must remember that the person who owned the headright may have never even seen, known of, much less been acquainted with the person who actually transported the servant. Paul Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Paul is correct - one of the reasons that the headright system went out was the number of violations which occured. Many times, the same headright was claimed for several parcels of land. Some people actually traveled numerous times (usually on business) and a different headright was claimed on them each time, but just as many only traveled once in spite of several claims. It was intended as a way to populate the colonies. A person paid for the transportation of an individual and claimed the 50 acres allowed for that person shortly afterwards. Often the headrights actually traveled with the person who paid for them and worked for them when they arrived. And it worked that way at first. But then, as now, people found loopholes and the system no longer worked that way. It was a legal land grab. Rex, the term "transportation" meant to pay to bring someone to the colonies. The patents say "for transportation" - but that transportation expense could have passed through several hands first. You cannot assume that Popely owned a ship at all - let alone owned the one that brought Kirbye here. The names of the individuals should be on the land patent - which you can find on the website we have already sent to the list. I have seen some that mentioned the name of the ship but not usually. There are some ships lists that have been published and they are available at the VSL too - don't know if they are online too or not. As for a date - while assuming a date is not good research, I don't know how a headright could be claimed before the headright arrived, so I would look for records prior to the date of the patent. An indentured servent could own land. Kirbye could have purchased his land before his indenture was over. This did not happen often since legitimate indentured servants usually did not have any money or they would have paid their own way here. They also had certificates of indenture that stated the terms of the indenture. A person could agree to be indentured in exchange for training in a skill or trade in addition to exchanges for transportation. I hope this helps. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Date: 9/4/2003 10:41:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:pauldrake@charter.net">pauldrake@charter.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Rex; some of your inferences from what Mrs. Nugent (C&P) SEEMS to say are slightly in error. As often as not, the person who claimed the headright did not transport anybody at anytime ever; he purchased or traded for that headright sometimes soon after the voyage of a servant, but also sometimes years after the actual voyage of passage. The best illustration of this fact perhaps is that of the passage of Owen Griffith (c1635-1698). Though he shipped from Bristol to I of W Co, VA in 1658, his headright was later used by no less than three (3) separate men to claim 50 acres of land. Indeed, were that not enough, the last time his headright was used appears in 1703 - 5 years after his death, and 45 years after his emigration from Britain. The reason for such activity was simple. The law did NOT require that you transport anyone in order to own a headright and trade it for land. It was only required that you gain title to such a "right" by paying or otherwise dealing or bargaining with someone who had already transported or had paid still someone else for the transport of the servant(s), be that an owner of a headright who had previously purchased it, an entrepreneur/speculator who dealt in indentures (there were many in the 17th- and early 18th-centuries), ships' captains and owners who regularly brought such folks over at their own risk and sold those headrights at the wharves or through brokers, or a headright might be purchased from the person/servant himself who had paid his own way over and then wanted to sell himself into servitude to a tradesman or artisan, since jobs were quite scarce from time to time and he might learn a trade in that way. Many indentures passed through 4, 5, or 6 or more hands before land was claimed for that "right". Recording of such documents was almost unknown. Thus, good research does not permit us EVER to infer WHEN a person arrived based upon the date his or her headright was exchanged for land - "cashed in". The subject is not complicated, but we must remember that the person who owned the headright may have never even seen, known of, much less been acquainted with the person who actually transported the servant. Paul Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Paul, Thanks much for the clarification. I gather that "transportation" was a rather general term that did not signify any particular event or occasion or relationship between the person receiving the land patent and the person for whom "transportation" was provided. Other than perhaps the person "transported" , if an indentured servant, may have still owed someone some amount of "time or labor" which could be sold or traded to someone else. If that is not a reasonably fair statement, please let me know. In my earlier post I tried to say that I was fishing in unknown murky waters without bait. The website you gave for VA land patents, etc is a fascinating site. I will be the first to admit I need to learn how to navigate that site a little better but what I found and didn't find didn't exactly clarify matters for me. I found the grant to Symons in 1637 but did not find the assignment to Kirbye in 1642 or at least have not found it so far. However, the list of patents and grants to Kirbys was a lot longer than I would have ever suspected, including a patent to a John Kirby on July 2, 1624 issued by the "Secretary of the Colony serving as the colonial Land Office." I am not familiar with VA history but I noted the VA land website designated land transfers as "patents" or "grants" with the later being issued by the Virginia Land Office and patents issued as noted above. I assume - correct me if I'm wrong- the difference being colony vs. state. Certainly, others researching their families in the earliest days of VA would do themselves good to visit this site. And I certainly thank you for unraveling some of the kinks in my inferences and assumptions. Rex -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 9:37 PM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Rex; some of your inferences from what Mrs. Nugent (C&P) SEEMS to say are slightly in error. As often as not, the person who claimed the headright did not transport anybody at anytime ever; he purchased or traded for that headright sometimes soon after the voyage of a servant, but also sometimes years after the actual voyage of passage. The best illustration of this fact perhaps is that of the passage of Owen Griffith (c1635-1698). Though he shipped from Bristol to I of W Co, VA in 1658, his headright was later used by no less than three (3) separate men to claim 50 acres of land. Indeed, were that not enough, the last time his headright was used appears in 1703 - 5 years after his death, and 45 years after his emigration from Britain. The reason for such activity was simple. The law did NOT require that you transport anyone in order to own a headright and trade it for land. It was only required that you gain title to such a "right" by paying or otherwise dealing or bargaining with someone who had already transported or had paid still someone else for the transport of the servant(s), be that an owner of a headright who had previously purchased it, an entrepreneur/speculator who dealt in indentures (there were many in the 17th- and early 18th-centuries), ships' captains and owners who regularly brought such folks over at their own risk and sold those headrights at the wharves or through brokers, or a headright might be purchased from the person/servant himself who had paid his own way over and then wanted to sell himself into servitude to a tradesman or artisan, since jobs were quite scarce from time to time and he might learn a trade in that way. Many indentures passed through 4, 5, or 6 or more hands before land was claimed for that "right". Recording of such documents was almost unknown. Thus, good research does not permit us EVER to infer WHEN a person arrived based upon the date his or her headright was exchanged for land - "cashed in". The subject is not complicated, but we must remember that the person who owned the headright may have never even seen, known of, much less been acquainted with the person who actually transported the servant. Paul Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Rex, so suppose that I buy your headright from the ship owner who brought you from Britain to VA. I then have an exclusive right to your labor, time, service, and skills - virtually your very life - for a term of years. Let's suppose you came here at age 18 and, as usual, you would have to serve me till age 25. Then suppose that when you were 22 I no longer needed you for whatever reason - I died, retired, gave up farming tobacco or whatever, took up the cloth, was thrown in jail, or ran off West with the neighbor's wife. Since you still owed me 3 years (25-22), I or my estate could sell your remaining term of service for whatever amount I could bargain from a buyer. If I did that, and then that new buyer found he could make a profit by selling your 3 years of servitude to still yet another person, he well might do so. On and on. Notice that each of these 'owners' of you in theory had reimbursed the previous owner for your transportation, and accordingly, under the ill-drafted law, each was entitled to land for having "transported" you. The main reason the practice continued without interruption was because there was a seemingly limitless quantity or land available for settlement, thus the law was not amended for MANY decades. Notice too that Britain collected more taxes since more land had been settled, more crops raised or products made, and more money was flowing, and so they were as pleased as government is today when they steal our money in the form of taxes. :-) Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Rex Kirby To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 8:53 PM Subject: RE: [VAROOTS] Cavaliers and Pioneers Bev and Paul, Thank you both for the information and the web site... Now for a couple of questions... Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:28 PM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] HULETTS IN VA Here are the VA patents visible on line in photocopies of the original, thus open to you and more complete and accurate than are Nugent's Abstracts, where there are many errors and misinterpretations. You can search VA Land Office Patents by name of ancestor from the bottom of this page if you do not know the Vol. and page numbers. Paul http://eagle.vsla.edu/lonn/ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Rex; some of your inferences from what Mrs. Nugent (C&P) SEEMS to say are slightly in error. As often as not, the person who claimed the headright did not transport anybody at anytime ever; he purchased or traded for that headright sometimes soon after the voyage of a servant, but also sometimes years after the actual voyage of passage. The best illustration of this fact perhaps is that of the passage of Owen Griffith (c1635-1698). Though he shipped from Bristol to I of W Co, VA in 1658, his headright was later used by no less than three (3) separate men to claim 50 acres of land. Indeed, were that not enough, the last time his headright was used appears in 1703 - 5 years after his death, and 45 years after his emigration from Britain. The reason for such activity was simple. The law did NOT require that you transport anyone in order to own a headright and trade it for land. It was only required that you gain title to such a "right" by paying or otherwise dealing or bargaining with someone who had already transported or had paid still someone else for the transport of the servant(s), be that an owner of a headright who had previously purchased it, an entrepreneur/speculator who dealt in indentures (there were many in the 17th- and early 18th-centuries), ships' captains and owners who regularly brought such folks over at their own risk and sold those headrights at the wharves or through brokers, or a headright might be purchased from the person/servant himself who had paid his own way over and then wanted to sell himself into servitude to a tradesman or artisan, since jobs were quite scarce from time to time and he might learn a trade in that way. Many indentures passed through 4, 5, or 6 or more hands before land was claimed for that "right". Recording of such documents was almost unknown. Thus, good research does not permit us EVER to infer WHEN a person arrived based upon the date his or her headright was exchanged for land - "cashed in". The subject is not complicated, but we must remember that the person who owned the headright may have never even seen, known of, much less been acquainted with the person who actually transported the servant. Paul Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby

Bev and Paul, Thank you both for the information and the web site... Now for a couple of questions... Bev, you mentioned land patent to Lt. Richard Popeley "for the transportation of 25 persons including Thomas Kirbye" and then Kirbye was assigned the land of Thomas Symons ...who received the land for the transportation of 9 persons on Nov 25, 1637." Correct me if I am wrong but would "transportation" mean bringing folks over from ? by ship to America? Am I to infer that Thomas Kirbye was a passenger on broad Popeley's ship and he could have been a "freeman, slave or indentured servant"? I assume further that Lt. Popeley did this sometime before June 10, 1635 perhaps as far back as two years or more. Is there anyway of knowing when Lt Popeley transported these 25 individuals. How would I find the name of the ship and the list of those 25 individuals and the classification of Kirbye as a passenger? As to the assignment of land to Kirbye in 1642 which had earlier been patented to Symons for transporting 9 people on Nov 25, 1637...Would that mean that Kirbye, if an indentured servant on Lt. Popeley's ship, was no longer indentured by 1642 which then enabled him to own land? I couldn't help but notice that 1642 minus 7 equals 1635. Would that suggest that Kirbye got here in 1635 as an indentured servant, served his seven years and then was able to own land in his own name by 1642? Can you refer me to any website or article discussing how a person became "un-indentured" so to speak? Who kept up with who was and who wasn't indentured? Were there any papers, certificates or whatever issued by any governmental agency? In other words, how would anyone know when an indentured servant was no longer indentured? I am somewhat lost on this little "ship" and will appreciate any help either or you or anyone else can provide that will light my way to shore... Thanks, Rex Kirby -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:pauldrake@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:28 PM To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] HULETTS IN VA Here are the VA patents visible on line in photocopies of the original, thus open to you and more complete and accurate than are Nugent's Abstracts, where there are many errors and misinterpretations. You can search VA Land Office Patents by name of ancestor from the bottom of this page if you do not know the Vol. and page numbers. Paul http://eagle.vsla.edu/lonn/ ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Indentured servants served for 7 years. Once their indenture was over, they could do anything they wanted. Many other people came for other job opportunities - preachers, lawyers, farmers, doctors, teachers, carpenters, blacksmiths - anything that was needed here. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: Re: [VAROOTS] HULETTS IN VA Date: 9/4/2003 4:14:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: <A HREF="mailto:lindarogers6330@sbcglobal.net">lindarogers6330@sbcglobal.net</A> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> To: <A HREF="mailto:VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com">VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com</A> Sent from the Internet (Details) Paul , thank you for that info.. Please forgive my ignorance when I ask this and keep in mind that I know squat about VA's history . How long does one become a indentured servant for?Is there a set time or what ?What happens after one is no longer a indentured servant ?If he wasn't a I servant what other possibilities are there for him coming to VA? Linda Rogers Paul Drake <pauldrake@charter.net> wrote:I very much doubt that he arrived as a servant and yet but a few tears later owned land and seemed to be legally active. ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Rogers To: VAROOTS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] HULETTS IN VA Paul,you had to ask . I was told this ,from who you might ask : Someone read it in a book and told me . Not to accurate , I know but I'm grabbing for straws or crumbs of info. on this one . Paul Drake wrote:It would appear that your Lawrence Hulett was not an indentured servant. Why do you think he was? << I am looking for info. a LAWRENCE HULETT and family . He arrived in VA abt 1659 , a indentured servant I believe . I have no info. on his children or grandchildren etc. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 Linda Rogers Eureka , CA ADVICE : The wise person doesn't need it ,the fools won't heed it ! ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

The terms of indentured servants were determined by bargaining dictated by the value or those people to the prospective colonial buyers. Bargains were made by the servants-to-be either with the ships' owners or whoever else was the procurer in the Old Country, and upon arrival here those people were sold - hopefully at a profit - by those who had procured them in Britain (or wherever). Kids usually were servants to age 25 and ordinary untrained men and women often for 7 years, but for as little as two years if they possessed knowledge of a trade or calling that was needed by their purchasers in the colonies. Such servants, if not pre-arranged for a planter here, often were sold at the wharves to planters who needed such folks/laborers. It has been estimated (by Bruce) that the price to a ships' master or other procurer in Britain was about L7 for the passage and an additional L3 for the meager housing and food for those people who waited near the ships till that ship had a full load to carry across the ocean. If that ships' master or British entrepreneur could sell the person and term of service for a higher price here, he made a profit (and they quite usually did). It was a simple matter of a person bring willing to give over a number of years of labor as a servant in order to gain passage, and then that procurer finding a willing buyer at a price higher than he had to pay for that term. A brisk and no-nonsense business, and the bargaining was quite similar to the economics by which Slaves were gained by those who needed that labor force. ----- Original Message ----- .... Please forgive my ignorance when I ask this and keep in mind that I know squat about VA's history . How long does one become a indentured servant for?Is there a set time or what ?What happens after one is no longer a indentured servant ?If he wasn't a I servant what other possibilities are there for him coming to VA? Linda Rogers