Enter content here
Enter content here
Enter content here
We, as everyone else, always accepted that this was the home that John Fitz Patrick built prior to 1795 because relatives and neighbors had said it, the local newspaper The Union Star, in an article in Feb. 1982, stated "the home apparently was established prior to 1795"; a book titled Eighteenth Century Landmarks of Pittsylvania County, Virginia written in about 1967, states in an article about the place: "presumably the home was well established before 1795", and The Union Star March 10, 1982 reporting on the DAR placing a bronze marker on the grave site of John Fitzpatrick, honoring the man. The article goes on to say " FitzPatrick is buried at his Pittsylvania County home ", "FitzPatrick had retired to the property after lived in Campbell Country on Molley's Creek", "He moved to Pittsylvania County in 1784 where he lived until his death in 1801." This article also states that we are the current owners of this home. Because no one had ever said that John Fitzpatrick actually built this house; I was not totally surprised when Chuck Bradner, presented me with a thorough genealogical report of his ancestors going back to Francis Luck. And, with this, was a copy of the survey dividing this county from Halifax County dated 1767 clearly showing the Luck's Plantation and Chuck thought maybe this place we inhabited could be part the original plantation of Francis Luck and if so, might it have been built as early as 1757 when he bought this land? I was excited with this revelation because most old house owners want theirs to be the oldest. This home could be much older than we thought. I had always suspected the house was built in two sections because of the middle chimney, log foundation on one side and cut timber on the other and the double front doors were not in the center. Because of my suspicions, it could be possible that the log section was the mansion of Francis Luck and John Fitzpatick built on to it. The question now is: can I, decendents of John FitzPatrick, neighbors, local historians, a book about the County's historic homes, Newspaper articles, the DAR and Chuck Bradner all be wrong?
The age of this plantation, built before 1795, was never in question for over twenty years until one day I decided to see what was needed for it to qualify for the National Register for Historic Homes. I contacted Mike Pulice, an Architectural historian who worked for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and was this county's representative for receiving and judging the preliminary report to see if one could possibly qualify for the National Register for Historic Homes. On June 25, 2002, at my invitation, he came to the Buttercup Plantation to investigate it and told me what he thought. I was astonished with one statement he made. He believed the Parlor was built between 1820's and 1830's. He told me that, he thought, I had just enough points to qualify and to mail my preliminary application and, if its approved, then it would be best if I hired a professional architectural historian who specialized in the final submission papers to the state. I called one and after discussing with him what was involved and the cost (between two to five thousand dollars), I immediately put a halt on presenting my application.
Part of the application was to confirm the date. I had no idea how to do this but decided I would try to find out as much as I could about the subject and seek the advise of anyone willing to help. I called Mike Pulice back and asked if he could advise me on many books to read. He was kind enough to give me list and I ordered every one he suggested. Next, I figured that the most knowledgeable people on the subject of historic homes within Virginia had to be the ones who worked at Colonial Williamsburg. I called and asked for an architectural historian and, to my surprise, the gentleman that answered the phone was receptive to a visit with him and suggested that it would be helpful if I brought photos of our place.
On July 5, 2002 my wife and I were in the office of one of the most intelligent, knowledgeable person on the subject of what to look for in historic homes that will help identify its age, that we have yet to meet. As Carl Lounsbury (architectural historian) reviewed the photos (one hundred and twenty five of them eight by eleven inches), the tape recorder was running. Not only was he helpful on the review of the photos, he suggested we go to the library next door to get information on nails and gave us a copy of the book that he had edited: An Illustrated Glossary of Early Southern Architecture and Landscape. After taking him to lunch, we visited with Pete Ross and Ken Swartz, the two managing blacksmiths there for their opinion on the date of a large stock lock from our smokehouse that we had with us. They seemed to be pleased to review the lock for they had just made a smaller version of it for Monticello. The exciting day ended with a visit to the library and returning home with some information on how to identify the dates of nails.
The next day, July 6, 2002, was the beginning of the end. I nervously extracted a nail from the oldest part of the house, the flooring of the dinning room. The result was extremely disappointing, shocking and downright unbelievable. For in my hand was the first sign that something was wrong with everything written and said about the original date of the Buttercup Plantation, the John Fitzpatrick home. This one nail told a story, that even today is hard to believe, for you see, it was impossible for it to exist in 1795 or before because it was a machine made cut nail and this machine was not yet invented.
Not only was the suspected newer part of the house "maybe" not as old as we thought but the older part "seemed to be" incorrect also. My goal to prove that this place was built as early as 1757 could be in jeopardy. I was keeping secret for I knew that this was too little information to be definitive about anything.
While waiting for my books to arrive, especially the ones about the nails, I came upon an article in the Colonial Williamsburg magazine that really intrigued me. It was about a man called Dr. Herman J. Heikkenen a retired Virginia Tech professor and a dendrochronologist (a person who studies wood rings). With his process he was able to help verify the construction dates of some of the old buildings at colonial Williamsburg by studying the wood rings in the structure timber. I called Mr. Heikkenen, who lives in Blacksburg, Virginia and asked if my wife and I could come over and discuss how he does his work and the possibility of him doing a study of one section of my house. We also invited him and his wife to have lunch with us on our visit. Here was the best-known man in his field who just said, "yes" to our visit. We had a great day visiting with him and his wife Jackie. Jack, as he likes be called, showed me his equipment and how it works, discussed what he does and charges. After lunch, he agreed to date my house in the near future. He mailed the contracts and I joyously signed them and paid his fee.
After Jack, Jackie and Hugh Beard (his assistant) spent a day with us, Jocelyne served a delicious meal with wine inside the screened porch of the Summer Kitchen in appreciation for a hard days work of the removing cores from the log foundation of the manor house. We truly enjoyed their company especially Jack's humorous stories that he loved to tell.
Two weeks later I had the results. Logs were cut in 1825. This was confirming what I suspected when I removed the nail. Now it was time to get serious with the nail study and anything else to help me identify the date of the home and outbuildings, for all my books had finally arrived.
This time period of 1795 through 1840 was an exciting time in the nail industry. The hand made wrought nails that everyone used up to at least 1795 was now beginning to disappear as the primary nail because the newer machine cut nails were cheaper. These machines were going through an evolution as newer types came into use. The good news is that one can identify the old and newer types by the iron used, their shear marks, heads, grain structure, points, etc. and with these factors they all are datable. When one does a nail study for the purpose of dating a building, they first need to consider: when did the newer type arrive in their community? In this rural area, I found evidence of the change from hand-made to machine-made to be about 1810.
The hand-made nails with its rose-head were still being used up to ca. 1830 for its clinching ability. I found these wrought hand-made with their rose head being used on a batten door of the small room on the back porch. The reason for its continued use was due to the inability of the newer machine nails to bend without breaking caused by its grain structure in the shank. This problem with the newer nails was resolved around 1830.
After removing numerous nails from different parts of the house and studying them thoroughly, the results were emerging. The walk-in closet upstairs was built after 1830. All the nails found in the attic suggest that the second story was added after 1830. The original house was most likely a one and half story, probably built after 1810 but before 1830. The small room on the back porch was probably built between 1834 and 1848.The first floor where the Parlor is, was added on fairly close to the date of the original house. The front and back porches were added after 1890.
Except for the hand made wrought nails in the batten door, none of the nails in the Buttercup Plantation Manor house were of the time period of 1795 or before. Also it shows that there were at least four different times of construction. The first was the earliest with the one and half story home, the second was the extension with the parlor, and the third was the upstairs bedrooms and roof, and finally the front and back porches.
The conclusion drawn for the nail study firmly confirms that no part of the Buttercup Plantation Manor House was built before 1795, probably built after 1800, and at least three additions which all were of different time periods.
Next I started researching any physical items in the home that could help in the identifying its age.
Looking at the saw marks in the visible wood structure is sometimes a good clue. All the saw marks showed that it was cut with a "sash saw". The earliest found in this county were in about 1795 but I did not research the two other adjoining counties that are within a mile from here. These saws were normally attached to a water gristmill and the sawing action produces even, straight lines, equally distant apart. All of the framing in the house that I could see had these marks. This type of sawmill was replaced when the circular blade started to be used after 1830. This was not a very good clue for precise dating but it did approximate construction dates as being between ca.1795 and after 1830.
The wood screw, as we know it today, with its point to help penetrate the wood was first patented in 1846. Therefore, until that time all early screws were not pointed, somewhat flat toward the end and the slot cut for the benefit of the screwdriver was more often that not off centered. It is believed that the replacement of the older screws was immediate not as other items that had an overlap. All screws found upstairs and down were of the earlier type. I found them in door hinges, door locks and keepers, shutter hinges, jamb hooks at fireplace mantels and wood catches for the windows. So in conclusion, all screws found date the house existence to be prior to 1846.
Cast iron butt hinges for doors were invented in 1775. All hinges on the doors with the exception of the batten door on the back porch had these cast iron hinges. Therefore the house was built after 1775.
All four locks found on the downstairs doors were called Carpenter locks and they were patented in England on Jan. 1830. When the locks were removed for cleaning, the ghost marks and holes of another type of lock were showing. No conclusion of date could be drawn.
It is said that H hinges went out of fashion ca. 1815, except for in outbuildings. There are some on the batten door on the back porch. Conclusion: this room was probably built in the early 1800's.
Until about 1850 most sash windows had fixed top sashes. The lower sash slid up and down and had to be pinned or braced open. This is exactly what is here with a small wooden piece to catch the window. Therefore, the home dates prior to 1850.
The fireplace mantel is another dating tool. Houses in the eighteenth century had paneled walls around the fireplaces while the Adamesque era had delicate pilastered and decorated mantels. The mantelpiece in the parlor is surely of the Adamesque style (1785-1825).
Until about 1825, most lath was hand-split or riven. These pieces of wood (laths) were used to help hold the wall plaster. The stairway to the basement shows these laths about one half inch apart holding the plaster of the wall in the parlor and hallway. I have found it in many places within the home during renovation and repairs. The lath dates the house to ca.1825.
The windows in the first floor are all nine over nine panes, which was common in the nineteenth century.
Things that helped me identify changes in the home other than front double door not in center of house and the chimney in the middle are: the wainscoting in the dining room has been cut under the south window making one think that there was a door there at one time; the wainscoting in the dining room and bedroom is a different height than that of the parlor and hallway and also the molding is different; the doors upstairs are not the same as the cross and bible doors down stairs; the wood in the ceiling on both porches was first used ca.1900; the framing of the two door upstairs going to the porch is newer; and the plaster or ghost marks in the chimney in the attic where another roof existed.
|
|
Since John Fitzpatrick died in 1801 this was not built by him. If this home were built in 1825 as suspected, where could the original home be or maybe this home was built on the original foundation; anyway, who built this one? Maybe, I could find out something at the courthouse in their records.
I knew that I needed to see who inherited his house and seven hundred acres he owned. His will left the house and 700 acres to his youngest son David Fitzpatrick after the death of his mother. So, David must have built it. Wrong again! David died June 20, 1807 at the age of thirty-one. This was really getting frustrating now. When David died he left behind his wife Sarah B. M. and three small children and also he had increased his land holdings by 1341 acres. And his mother was still alive and did not die until September 27, 1812. So did Sarah build it? No! Take a moment and think, "who built it"? Not enough clues? Well, here are some other facts that can help. David in his will left Samuel Pannill, his brother-in-law, as the Executor and Guardian of his children. "I wish my Estate to be divided between my loving wife Sarah and my Children as the law directs." "It is my wish that no division of my Estate in any way be made in less than five years after my Death." "And I do also require and authorize them or him in like manner to purchase the tract of land whereon Sarah Luck now lives in Pittsylvania County when sold under the will of Francis Luck deceased of said county " A question that sill intrigues me today is: Why was this Luck's Plantation so important to David, that on his death bed, he instruct his executors of his Will to purchase the estate of Francis Luck?
Exactly five years later on November 1812, Sarah B.M. Fitzpatrick received her one-third share of the estate. She received one-third of the 1341 acres that David had bought and not the total amount of the 2041 acres estate. It must have been the law at that time. The land she inherited is land she was living on at the time of the division and its about four miles from all the other original land near the river as per court records (the Buttercup Plantation manor house is about a mile south of the Staunton River). So that rules out Sarah B.M. Fitzpatrick as the builder.
Here is the answer. In 1821 as per the dictates of David Fitzpatrick's "Will" Samuel Pannill, at an auction, bought (for the heirs of David) the estate of Francis Luck when Sarah, his wife, died. The complete estate was divided equally between the three children in 1824 and when David Fitzpatrick's son turned twenty one (the age to own land), he inherited this land that this house stands on (the old Francis Luck plantation land) plus land going down to the river. Are you ready for this? His name was John (M.) Fitzpatrick.
To help confirm this, I decided to plot all the land that John Fitzpatrick had bought in this county and all the land David had bought in this county. This was the most complicated thing that I had done yet in the search for the truth. It took me over a month to finally figure it out. Without going into the reasons why it so difficult, I'll just give you the answer. John Fitzpatrick never own this land that this house sits on nor did David. This land was bought in 1821 and it was the Plantation land of Francis Luck. I do not know where the Luck's house is but this Manor house is not it.
Even the skeptics cannot deny these facts: this house was built in 1825 because the dendrochronology study says the logs were dated 1825, the nails and other construction factors verify this as probable, the Will studies and land divisions show you how it happens, John M. Fitzpatrick turning 21 and could own land and last but not least, the land plotting "closes the lid", "shuts the door" "finalizes", and "puts a close to" the question of the age of the Buttercup Plantation. The original construction date of the Buttercup Plantation Manor House was not before 1825 and John M. Fitzpatrick, the grandson of John Fitzpatrick and the son of David Fitzpatrick, built it.
Chapter III
The People
It is not my intention to do a genealogical report of the family but to give an interesting insight into a remarkable American family from late 1700's to just after the civil war.
When I started my research I had no concept or clue of what could be found, if anything. As I fumbled through four different county court records (Wills, Deeds, Marriage Records, Court Cases, Guardianship Records, Tax Records etc), little by little interesting facts started slowly to emerge from these antiquated records. It was not easy but it was exhilarating because almost every evening, after returning home, I would ponder over these tidbits of the enlightenments found that day and was beginning to see minute amounts of the long forgotten past with its people, land and homes. A hidden story of the past was starting to emerge, not all pleasant but true.
My research by following or tracing the descendents took me in all directions, counties and states. All with very interesting histories but my general goal (understanding my home and its people) was somewhat being distracted. I did find that, to understand this Plantation required that I also must understand other surrounding Plantations and its people. For you see, most were blood relatives.
I did realize very early in my search that there was one key element that one must adhere to. And this key research tool was "follow the money". Besides cash, slaves, land being inherited, people married into wealthy families to insure a good inheritance or gifts. A lot of these monies were also given prior to the deaths of relatives as indicated in some of the Wills stating this fact.
To better appreciate and understand this Plantation one needs to see and know the community that she was in.
From here on, try to picture in your mind the time period of 1850's to 1860's just before the civil war and from what I am saying, you will get a glimpse into the past in the State of Virginia of four large Plantations that existed in three counties and all connecting by land if the Staunton River were not there. One has disappeared totally but the Mansion houses of the other three are standing tall and proud. Each Plantation has its own story of grandeur, neglect, disasters and abandonment of families they represented, but at one time in the past, while in their prime, these were extraordinary places on their own but when you understand that the people who built and lived in them were so closely related, it looks as if a empire was trying to be formed.
This is the forgotten story of this family's dynasty.
All four of the owners of these large plantations were blood related. Samuel Pannill of Green Hill was the uncle of the other three. He was also their appointed guardian (by Will) in their youth when their father David Fitzpatrick died. Sarah B.M. Fitzpatrick, the wife of David, was the sister of Samuel Pannill. These three other plantations were built by and lived in by the grown children of David and Sarah B. M. Fitzpatrick on land they had inherited from them.
The children of David and Sarah B. M. Fitzpatrick were:
1. Frances (Fanny) E. born January 22nd 1803
2. John M. born June 3rd 1804,
3. Nancy Ann born 1805.
This, to me, looks like a real close "clan" especially when you consider that John M. and Nancy Ann were married to First Cousins who were also brother and sister and had the last name Fitzpatrick. They had received their one third of the estate in 1824, land and personal property (slaves). Also, as time passed, these children plus their Uncle Sam Pannill, were able to substantially increase land holdings and personal property (slaves) through marriage, out-right purchase, court action, and especially through inheritances. It seems to be particularly true of all wealthy families at this time period that their initial wealth came in the form inheritances and everyone in this clan was able to greatly increase their possessions only up to the civil war especially Uncle Samuel Pannill. Every large plantation was built on the backs of Slavery! This family exemplifies the case in point.
1. Daniel Fitzpatrick (great-great grandfather) a wealthily landowner near Richmond, Virginia, over time and including his Will, gave his only son all of his slaves.
2. John (grand father) had over twenty slaves in the 1760's and when he died in 1801 had already given some to his children but the remainder of personnal estate (this includes slaves) was to be divided between his children when his wife died. She died in 1812 and the slaves were divided.
3. David (father), John's youngest son had already received two slaves at the age of twenty-one in 1797. The next ten years were amazing, for David accumulated on his own another 1341 acres, most adjoining his fathers estate which was established in this county in 1784 and, with the use of all the slaves of his father, slaves and money his wife had inherited, became wealthy. Tragically David died in 1807 at the age of thirty-one, owning thirty-one slaves and in charge of another fifty plus that his mother had, leaving his wife and three children in the care of Samuel Pannill(the guardian)
4. It is not certain but I believe that Sam Pannill, acting as guardian of the estate of David, had use of over eighty one slaves until 1812 when two things happened: the first was the division of Slaves caused by the death of John Fitzpatrick's wife and Sarah B.M. (the wife of David) getting her share of her husbands estate. When it was over, there were about twenty slaves still remaining in the children's estate that Sam was in charge of until 1824 when the division was made and by that time, there were about thirty.
5. Sam Pannill besides being extremely smart, intelligent and ambitious was also born with a "silver spoon": besides receiving four slaves in his father Will, the Will also stated "besides lands already given to him in Kentucky his Uncle William Morton having also made considerable provision for him in his Will". Sam was also the executor and Guardian of his brother William's children. This estate also had many slaves. Did he use them? I don't know. Another interesting fact is he borrowed three hundred Pounds from John Fitzpatrick before 1801, and from his son David he owed three hundred seventeen Pounds before 1807. David was Sam Pannills brother-in-law. The point here is this was very large amount of money being loaned between relatives. The records show that one hundred Pounds in this area of the country in early 1800's could purchase one hundred acres of good land or one good male slave.
When Sarah B. M. died in 1852 the children not only inherited more land and money but also an estimated fifteen or more slaves each. So, with what each child had inherited from the Fitzpatrick side plus what spouses had inherited, it is estimated that each child must have had between forty and seventy-five slave before the war started.
Land was still inexpensive but slaves were not. It seems that land ownership was not as indicative of wealth as slave ownership. It is said that in the 1700's if one owned at least twenty slaves he was classified as a gentleman. John (grandfather) owned twenty in 1760's
These original twenty slaves from 1760's until 1850' over ninety years had grown to a very large number then if you were to count what the wife's and husband had inherited, it becomes staggering. Through documented research and estimates these four related families had between three hundred fifty and four hundred fifty slaves. Samuel Pannill had over two hundred seventeen slaves when he died in 1861. It is said that Fannie's estate had over seventy before the war. The end of the Civil war changed a way of life forever.
. It's hard for me to believe that in this rural area where all the lands of the four plantations are, that at the most 30 people live today, whereas just before the Civil War there were as many as four hundred people existing here.
Today (2004) not a single descendant of any of these families owns any part of these plantations.
In researching the slavery issue concerning this extended family or clan I begin to understand why slavery continued as long as it did. It's as if it were an inherited disease (slavery) being passed from generation to generation that had a sure-cure; the removal of the disease (slavery) by amputation (completed removal of), but no one would do it for fear of a dramatic life style change. Some that felt the pain of the disease would feel somewhat better by giving some slaves their freedom, either then or in the future by way of Wills. But the majority of diseased people (slave owners) who wanted some relief of pain caused by the infection (institution of slavery) resorted to the lesser of the remedies (writing or talking about the wrongs of slavery). You see, most of the people who had this inherited disease did not want the cure. They knew that the cure would destroy their lives and that of generations to come. For them the cure was worst than the diseases. It wasn't until a large percent of the population saw the need to contain this disease for fear of spreading to other areas that the cure was forcibly implemented, but by the time implementation had finally occurred, the infection was so great that it became necessary to amputate both feet (complete removal of slavery by never letting it stand up again). This brought the south to its knees and finally ended the terrible, infectious, inherited, disease of slavery in the United States of America.
For slave owners and the next few generations of these slave owners, the cure was worse than the diseases because monetarily most was gone except for the land and in some situation it too was taken away. A good example of this is Samuel Pannill's "Green Hill" sold at auction only a few years after the war for debt owed. This plantation once had nearly six thousand acres and over two hundred slaves, now it was gone, divided up and sold to outsiders. The once rich and famous were no more, but for millions of others it was freedom from slavery.
At this point in the story, I would like to recognize all the names of the Slaves that were found in Wills, Divisions papers, Bill of Sale and appraisements of the this family. There were many, many more not named.
Will of John Fitzpatrick 1801:
1 George and James to David
William Pannill's Will to his daughter Sarah B. M. Fitzpatrick (1807):
1. Baechus 70 Pounds
2. Grace 30
3. Rueben 40
William Pannill's Will to his son Samuel Pannill (1807)
1. Sampson
2. Silvia
3. Austin
4. Sarah
David's Appraisement 1807:
1. Jim 125 Pounds
2. George 125
3. Simon 90
4. Boy Biccus 75
5. Boy Reuben 50
6. woman Jenny 90
7. 1 child Isbel girl 15
8. girl Letie 25
9. boy Jonathan 30
10. boy Darby 35
11. womand Lucy 90
12. 1 girl child Hannah 9
13. 1 girl Sarrah 15
14. 1 woman Nan 80
15. Boy child George 15
16. 1 girl Bette 15
17. Girl Daney Rudler 45
18. girl Dilre Rudler 5
The division of Slave in 1812 of the estate of John Fitzpatrick(Grandfather) when his wife died. The division was done by drawing of numbers. Value in Pounds.
|
Heirs of William Fitzpatrick...... 1. Biddy....................90 2. Amy.....................25 3. Hannah..................15 4. Bob......................75 5. Fani......................80 6. Mack....................18 7. Lewis....................30 |
John Fitzpatrick II.................. 1. Hannah............ 30 2. Adam............ 120 3.Harry.................80 4.Moses............... 50 5.Mary............... 20 |
|
Edmund Fitzpatrick..................
|
Heirs of Elizabeth Moore.................... 1. Aloe..................80 2. Jack...................20 3. Jinny..................80 4. Bob....................18 5. Joe.................. 75 6. Anthony............ 60 |
|
James Austin (husband of Cathrran-she Remarried Coleman Stone 1807)
|
Heirs of Sarah (she had married Joel Jones) 1. Mary..................50 2. Dafney............... 75 3. Miriah.................27 4. Mary............... 25 5. Charity................75 6. Mat.................. 90 |
|
James Brent (husband of Ann)
|
The Heirs of David Fitzpatrick
|
In April 1826 John Fitzpatrick, acting as trustee for Fannie's husband, sold two slaves:
1. One Negro woman Hanna
2. One Negro lad William
Fanny and her husband sold nine slave to his mother in June 1826:
1. Viz
2. Reuben
3. Milly
4. Winna
5. Bill
6. Homer
7. William
8. Lib
9. Chirity
Appraisement of Slaves for Sarah B. M. Smith: Jan. 1848 The Negroes listed as below: Dollars
1. George 69 years old 00.00
2. Ginny a woman 63 years old 00.00
3. Darby 400.00
4. Charles 550.00
5. Sam 450.00
6. Simon 200.00
7. Isbel 250.00
8. Charity 500.00
9. Linny Jr. 400.00
10. Charles Jr. 500.00
11. Mariah 400.00
12. Ned 275.00
13. David Isbies child 150.00
14. Dick 125.00
15. Amy 400.00
16. John 300.00
17. Mary 250.00
18. Siza & child 550.00
19. Lucy 450.00
20. Sally 300.00
21. Jane 275.00
22. Judith 225.00
23. David Lucy child 180.00
24. Nancy 125.00
25. Peter 100.00
Taken from the Will of Samuel Pannill dated July 1860
Together with the increase of the female slaves, from and after the date of this will, namely: Elisa, Joe Cook's widow, Camny, a man, Winny, daughter of Carnny. John, son of Carnny, Patrick, son of Camny, Carnny, son of Carnny, Clariassa, wife of Carnny the elder, Lizzie Alice, daughter of Clarissa, March, the elder, a man, Sarah, wife of old March, Blair, son Sarah, Carr, son of same, Siny, daughter of same, Betsy, daughter of same, Nicy, daughter of same, and Nicy's child Sarah Ann, Dick, son of Siny, a man, Jerry, son of same, a man, Harry Long, son of same, a man, Aaron Cooper, a man, Julia, daughter of Aaron, Aaron, son of same, Mitchell, son of same , Delphy, daughter of same, Lizzy, daughter of Old March. Saunders, son of Lizzy, Nicy, daughter of same, Granville son of same, Mary Ryal, Margaret, daughter of Mary Royal, Becky, daughter of same, Marshall, son of same, Mary Ann, daughter of same, Rosalee, daughter of same, Harrison, son of many a man, Sarah Ann, wife of Harrison, Jim Singleton, son of Sarah Ann, Henry Clay, son of Sarah Ann, Yellow George, (house) a man, Delphy, wife of Yellow George. Nancy, daughter of Delphy, John Green, son of Nancy, Patsy, daughter of same, Harry Compton, a man, Lucy, wife of Harry Compton. Abram, son of Lucy, Allin, son of same, Elijah Roach, son of same, Amy daughter of same, Nelly, daughter of same, Silvia, daughter of same, Harry Cooper, a man, Louisa, wife of Harry Cooper. Stephen, son of Jinny, a man, Susy, wife of Stephen, Bailey, son of Susy, Anna, daughter of same, Rowena, daughter of same, Jordan, a man, Wilson Miller a man, Sally, wife of Wilson Miller, Young march, a man, Martha, wife of Young March. Bonaparte, son of Martha, Ryal Carpenter, a man, Violet, wife of Ryal, Hartwell, a man, Margaret, wife of Hartwell, Mahaly, daughter of Margaret, Martha Ann, daughter of same, Claiborne Taylor, son of same, Erasmus Johnson, son of same, Hartwell, son of same, Flourney, son of same, Cimon, a man, Rody, wife of Cimon, Lydie, a woman, Daniel, a man, Edward, (house servant) a man, Will Ross, a man, Caroline, wife of Will Ross, Frances, daughter of Caroline, Lewellin, son of same, Mary Ann, daughter of same, Dennis, son of same, Winny, daughter of same, America Ann, daughter of same, Albert, son of same, Robin, son of Sarah, a man, Clara, wife of Robin, Robert Green, son of Sarah. Sindy, daughter of same, William, son of same, Violet, daughter of same, Wirt Gardiner, son of same.Tom, a man, Tish, wife of Tom. Maria daughter of Tish, Salem, son of same. Riddy, a woman, Anthony, son of Riddy. Runell son of same, Charles Compton, a man, Richard Cook, son of mary, Halifax, a man, Patrick Black, a man, Robin, son of Sukey, a boy, Howson, son of same a boy Harrisson, son of same, a boy. David Blacke a boy, Winford, a man, Simon Blacksmith, a man, Jenny, wife of Simon Blacksmith. Henry Rass a man, husband of Lizzy, Old March's daughter. Doctor, a man, Marcia Jane, His wife, Martin, son of Marcia Jane, Fanny daughter of same.Joe Rumpass, son of Lacky, a boy, Pleasant, a man, Silvestor, wife of Pleasant, Elvina, daughter of Silvestor, and Spotswood, a boy
The following slaves, together with the increase of the female slaves, from and after the date of this will namely, Beverly, an old man, Betty, Wife of Beverly, Nancy Armistead, an Old woman, Abram Falling, an old man, Lucinda Black, Louisa, daughter of Lucinda, Coleman, son of same, Henry, son of same, Locky, daughter of same, Lewis, son of same, Lucy, wife of Lewis, George, son of Lucy, Jim Rass , a man, Aggy, wife of Jim Rass, Elvira, daughter of Aggy, Gorton, son of Elvira, Catherine, daughter of Aggy, James, son of Catherine, Stepney, a man, Dicey, wife of Stepney Joe son of Dicey, John Randolph, son of same, Green, son of same, Susy, daughter of same, Jincy, daughter of same, Bertha, daughter of same, Peter Providence a man, Crease, wife of Peter Providence, David Crocket son of Crease, Queen, daughter of same, Henry Sydnot, son of same, Hilary, son of Mary Rass, Christopher, son of same, Jim, son of Celia, a man, Hannah, wife of Jim, Celia, daughter of Hannah
Does the list of Slaves tell us anything? Maybe, maybe not. Did they use light skin slaves as house help? "Yellow George (house) a man", Do the last names imply their trade? Harry Cooper, Aaron Cooper, Joe Cook, Winston Miller, Ryal Carpenter, Wirt Gardiner, Simon Blacksmith? Some many have different last names, does that imply that he bought a lot of slaves? Some say wife of "someone" then name children, other times it gives the name of their mother and her children. Does that imply some were married and others were not? If children are named with only a mother, does that imply the children had different fathers?
The following is taken from a survey taken in 1960 called Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS #VA-419): Green Hill Plantation. "There is still standing a large, partitioned stone tobacco barn in the four corners of which are small, windowless rooms used as breeding rooms for the slaves."
There was not any record of how slaves were treated in any documents found. But there is an indication of what Samuel Pannill might have done with his own "bad runaway Negroes". While he was Superintendent of the Roanoke Navigation Company (1827) he wrote a report to the President and Directors. In this report he states: "We have, however, in some measure, been interrupted by high water, & very much incommoded & pestered by the hands running away". "I further recommend the selling of all the bad runaway Negroes, & vesting the proceeds in the purchase of others".
It is my hope that by listing all the Slaves, anyone wishing to search their roots (Negroes, Blacks, African Americans or Americans) with their last name Fitz Patrick, Fitzpatrick, Patrick, Pannill, Pannell, Harris, Jones, Moore, Brent or Stone, that this will be an aid in their quest.