TB2

Thomas Berry was born in 1718, probably in Northern Ireland, although several undocumented sources suggest that he was born in either Scotland or Pennsylvania. A late 19th family history record that ultimately can be sourced to Thomas Berry’s youngest daughter, Esther (Berry) McCord, noted that his birthplace was Ireland, and this seems to be the most reliable and trustworthy source on this matter. Furthermore, it was probably Northern Ireland, since that is where the bulk of the Protestant Scots settled when they migrated from their native lands. Presumably this family information was originally acquired from a trusted primary source, such as a family bible. This family record also noted that Thomas Berry was married twice, and provides the names of both women. Although the given name of Thomas Berry’s first wife is not known, her maiden name was listed as Buchanan. The genealogical literature is sprinkled with guesses for her given name such as Mary, Esther and Rebecca, but no documentation has been found to support any of these claims. The Esther (Berry) McCord source definitively identified Thomas Berry’s second wife as Esther Ward. Unfortunately, no source material has been found to identify the place and date for either of these marriages. Thomas Berry had twelve children from these two wives – five from his first wife and seven from his second wife, and the Esther (Berry) McCord family data provides the mother’s identification, names and birth order for all of these children. Accurate birth dates from various sources (family records, tombstone inscriptions and a federal pension application) are available for only four of the children, all from the second marriage, but, from an analytical assessment using these known dates, the birth sequence of all of the children and an Augusta County deed record, the birthdates for the rest of the children and an approximation of the dates of Thomas Berry’s two marriages can be accurately inferred.^{7,12,21,22,56,85,96,99,120,125,258,259,408,410}

The Esther (Berry) McCord family record identified James Berry as Thomas Berry’s oldest child, followed, in order, by Barbara Berry and Thomas Berry. Although no birth dates were given, an analysis of a 1763 Augusta County, Virginia deed record can be used to accurately approximate them. In this land transfer, Thomas Berry Sr. sold a recently purchased parcel of land to his oldest son James on 21 June 1763, and the conveyance was legally witnessed by James’ younger brother Thomas Berry. The importance of this record lies in the fact that, in order to legally serve as a witness in a sanctioned county government proceeding such as this, the younger Thomas Berry must have been at least 21 years of age. Consequently, since Thomas was at least 21, his brother James Berry had to have been several years older, and the date of the land sale can be used to calculate a close approximation of not only their birth dates, but also that of their sister, Barbara Berry, who was born between them. Basic biology requires an absolute minimum time of nine months between the births of James and Barbara, as well as between Barbara and Thomas, so, at a bare minimum, the least amount of time between the birth of James Berry and his younger brother Thomas, was 18 months. From a practical point of view, however, new pregnancies probably did not commence immediately after a birth. Some time, perhaps a few months, most likely separated the birth of a child and the onset of pregnancy for the next child. Assuming a minimum interval between pregnancies of three months, which might be an underestimate, the time between the birth of James and Thomas Berry can be extended from 18 months to a bit more reasonable time span of 24 months. Given this assumption, Thomas Berry, in order to have been at least 21 years old in 1763, could have been born no later than 1742, his older brother James could have been born no later than 1740, and, within this logical construct, Barbara Berry must have been born in 1741. If the interval between pregnancies was more than three months, then the birth dates of each of these children could be pushed back in time another year to 1739, 1740 and 1741, respectively. Another critical element in this chronological analysis is the age of Thomas Berry, Sr. The family record noted above provided a birth date of 1718 for him, so, assuming Thomas Berry was at least 21 when he had his first child, James Berry could have been born as early as 1739. The totality of the indirect evidence, thus, provides a logical framework for concluding that James Berry was probably born about 1739, his next youngest sibling, Barbara Berry, in 1740 and his next oldest first brother, Thomas Berry, in 1741.¹²

This analytical process combined with Virginia military data also has some bearing on identifying the timing and possibly the location of the marriage of Thomas Berry, Sr. and his first wife, as well as on the birth places of at least their earliest children. Based on the fact that militia membership in the Virginia colony was compulsory for all free white males, the absence of any Berry males in the 1742 Augusta County militia lists (Table V) strongly suggests that this Scotch-Irish Berry lineage was not yet living in Virginia at that time. If Thomas Berry was not in Virginia, where was he? The answer can, at least partially, be found in the family history of William MaGill, a closely related Scotch-Irish family that married into this Berry lineage, as well as the Scotch-Irish Virginia neighbors of Thomas Berry. James and William Berry, sons of the elder John Berry, who was, most likely, a brother of Thomas Berry’s father, the elder James Berry, each married a daughter of William MaGill.

While not definitive, William MaGill has a connection to the Scotch-Irish settlements of southeastern Pennsylvania through his second wife, Margaret Gass, who was living in that area in the late 1730s. This is probably where her marriage to William MaGill took place after the death of her first husband, John Gass, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania sometime between 1734 and 1738. Since the oldest children from both of these marriages appear to have been born in the late 1730s and early 1740s, the marriages of these two Berry boys to the two MaGill daughters must have taken place prior to 1742, probably near the William MaGill residence, who was not yet living in Virginia. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (and it's predecessor, Chester County) was a temporary stopping point for many of the Scotch-Irish families that eventually moved to the Beverley and Borden Grants in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. (Figure 29) The Buchanan, Walker, Cathey, Houston, Kennedy, Patterson, Patton, Fulton, Gilmore, Anderson and Jameson families all can be documented as passing through Lancaster County. Furthermore, families that married into these Berry families (or, conversely, that Berry family members married into), such as the Cunninghams, Halls, Givens and Campbells, can also be shown to have traveled the same route. All of the families were participants in a well documented mass movement of Scotch-Irish settlers from Pennsylvania to the valley of Virginia in the 1730s and 1740s. While there is no definitive source material placing any Berry family members in Pennsylvania prior to their move to Augusta County, Virginia, the preponderance of existing evidence allows the logical assumption to be made that not only were all of the Berry family members in this Scotch-Irish lineage living in Pennsylvania prior to 1742, but they also made the move sometime, possibly not long after, 1742. The first record for Thomas Berry, Sr. is a tax record from the spring of 1748, which brackets the date of his arrival in the Augusta County area to have occurred between 1742 and late 1747 or early 1748, so his first marriage certainly did not take place in Virginia, but more likely in the Scotch-Irish settlements of southeastern Pennsylvania. If the calculated dates for his first three children are accurate, then his first marriage and the births of his oldest children must have taken place in Pennsylvania.^{12,21,33,129,226,323,353,369,381,382,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392,393,395,423,424,567,866,1151}

From the time they got married, it appears that Thomas Berry and his first wife had children at regular intervals, almost on an annual basis. If they continued this regular succession of births after their first three children, then their next child, Mollie, would have been born about 1742 or 1743 and William would have been born in 1743 or 1744. Sometime after William’s birth, however, Thomas Berry’s first wife must have passed away, since all of the remaining children were products of his second marriage according to the family history records of Esther (Berry) McCord. The second child from Thomas Berry’s second marriage was George Berry, and family records from his descendants document his birth as occurring on 28 June 1756. Likewise, family records from the descendants of Susanna Berry, the next child after George Berry, indicate that she was born in 1757, which clearly demonstrates that the birth intervals of children from the second marriage followed the same general pattern of occurrence as the first marriage. If this birth succession pattern is applied to the first child of the second marriage, Betsy Berry, then she must have been born between 1754 and mid 1755. Consequently, using the estimated birth date of the last child from his first marriage (1743 or 1744) and the estimated date of the first child of his second marriage (1754 or 1755), an approximation of the date of the death of his first wife and of the date of his second marriage can be made. As noted above, during this time period, the first birth after a marriage usually took place within about a year of the marriage, so using this logic, Thomas Berry married Esther Ward about 1753 or 1754, and the death of his first wife must have occurred between 1743/1744 and the early 1750s. Since Thomas Berry’s arrival in Virginia from Pennsylvania can only be bracketed to a five or six year time period between 1742 and 1747 or 1748, the place of death of his second wife, who died sometime between 1743 or 1744 and the early 1750s, cannot be accurately ascertained. She could have passed away either in Pennsylvania or Virginia. On the other hand, if the estimated date of 1753 or 1754 for his second marriage is accurate, then it must have taken place in Augusta County, Virginia, since Thomas Berry can be documented as living there as early as 1748.^{12,545,685,1177}

From an analytical assessment of the birth sequence of Thomas Berry’s children, a reevaluation of the birth order for Francis Berry, the documented birth dates for four of his children (George, Susanna, Francis and Esther), as well as family history records for the spouse of one of Thomas Berry’s daughters (Rebecca Berry’s husband – Caleb Litton), birth dates for the remaining children of Thomas Berry be inferred. Critical to this analysis is a reevaluation of the birth order for Francis Berry. The Esther (Berry) McCord family record listed him as the last child, thus inferring his birth occurred sometime after 1770. In his federal pension application, however, Francis Berry clearly noted that he was born in 1762. Either the Esther (Berry) McCord birth order is incorrect on this point or the birth date that Francis Berry provided in his pension application is incorrect. In his pension application narrative, Francis Berry stated that his military service took place from 1779 through 1781. If he had been born after his sister Esther, who was born in 1770, he would have been as young as 8 years old in 1779 when he was drafted, which is clearly completely implausible. Using his stated birth date of 1762, however, he would have been 17 years old in 1779, which is much more likely. It seems much more logical to assume that the personal information provided directly by Francis Berry is correct, which changes the birth order slightly. Fortunately, the 1762 date fits quite well into the Esther (Berry) McCord family sequence and provides support for estimating the birth date of John Berry, who occurs in the birth order sequence between Susanna, (born in 1757) and the corrected placement of Francis Berry in 1762. John Berry’s birth date is, thus, estimated to be sometime between 1758 and 1761.While there is no direct, primary source information for the birth date of Rebecca Berry, an accurate estimate can be made. According to the family records ultimately derived from her younger sister, Esther, Rebecca married Caleb Litton, and, according to Litton family primary source documentation, Caleb was born in 1768. If it is assumed that Rebecca was about the same age as her husband Caleb, that she was slightly older than her next sibling Esther (born in 1770), slightly younger than her brother Francis (born in 1762), then Rebecca’s birth can be reasonably interpreted to be have occurred sometime between 1763 and 1769.^12,601,694

As noted previously in the report, the absence of any Berry family members from the 1742 Augusta County militia lists strongly suggests that members of this family had not yet moved into the Augusta County area at that time.²⁴⁶ Any able bodied male would have been listed as being available for militia duty, so this date places a lower limit on the time of their migration into this part of the Shenandoah Valley. The first documented record of Thomas Berry comes from parish vestry records in the spring of 1748, when he, clearly, already owns property that was to be measured for taxation by the Anglican Church. The date of Thomas Berry's entry into the area can thus be bracketed as occurring sometime between 1742 and 1748. Thomas Berry's property was included in Francis McCown and John Montgomery's 1748 processioning district, which was described as extending:²¹

from Andrew Baxter's on a straight line to John Hayse's Mill, joining the North Mountain to the Upper line of Beverley Manor

This area is shown on Figure 17, where all of the identifiable processioned properties from this entry, as well as all original Borden land purchasers in this district, can be located. The properties of both John Hay and Andrew Baxter form the southern boundary of this processioning district. John Hays' property lies on Hays Creek, and, from the description, he must have built and operated a mill on this site. The bulk of the names from this entry can be identified as being original Borden land purchasers, but nine landowners, including Thomas Berry, were not (Figure 8/Table II), and must have obtained their land from the resale of Borden lands. In support of this theory, at least nine people in this processioning district, who had purchased Borden lands before 1748, are not found in this entry, which probably means that they had sold their land, and left the area.

The next entry, from the late fall of 1749, records Thomas Berry, along with Elizabeth Berry (widow of the deceased James Berry) and Charles Berry, as bond holders in the inventory of the estate of Elizabeth Berry's deceased husband. In the fall of 1752, William Berry's purchase of Borden land is recorded, and Thomas Berry's property is mentioned as bordering William's tract. A reference to Figures 8, 17 and Table II allows an identification of the location of this particular chunk of land (number 12 on Figure 8). In 1742 John Patterson bought the property (number 13 on Figure 8) that was adjacent to William Berry's later 1752 purchase, and from William Berry's property description and the map references, it can be safely concluded that this was probably the tract purchased sometime later (i.e. after 1742) by Thomas Berry.

The following spring, William Berry sold Thomas Berry a portion of his 1746 Borden purchase, so by this time, Thomas Berry owned at least 245 noncontiguous acres in the northern portion of the Borden Grant. In the spring of 1754, Thomas Berry acquired 300 more acres from Robert Robinson, and reference to Figures 2 and 8 and Tables I and II, allows an identification of the location of these properties. The 82-acre plot lies on the Beverley/Borden Grant boundary across from Samuel McCutchen's land, and the 218-acre segment is part of the 320-acre plot purchased by John Shields in 1742 on the other side of Samuel McCutchen's land (i.e. the Borden side). Identification of the property locations of the adjacent landowners mentioned in the entry, James Lusk and Patrick Cook, allows further verification of the properties Thomas Berry purchased. His total identifiable land holdings at this point were 545 acres.

Thomas Berry's properties, which lay within the district of John Risk and John Shields, were processioned in 1755. The processioning districts had changed, somewhat since 1748, and while a complete description is not available for John Risk and John Shields' district, it was defined as being in Captain James Lockhart's Company, who, apparently, was a local militia leader.²¹ Figure 18 shows the locations of identifiable properties from the names listed in this processioning district, which also defines the approximate area from which Captain Lockhart drew his militia volunteers. The bulk of the names that could not be linked to properties represented surnames that already owned land in the area, so many of these men were quite possibly sons or other relatives of the original owners, possibly living on the original homestead.

In the spring of 1755, Thomas Berry purchased an additional 168 acres, which increased his documented land holdings to 713 acres. This particular plot of land was a portion of the 368 acres purchased by David Kerr from Borden in 1750, and can be identified on the Borden map (Figure 8/Table II). Apparently, Joseph Kennedy had a mill along this creek, and his property can be located a short distance downstream on Figure 8. Two years later, Thomas and Esther Berry began selling off their properties. The two tracts, totaling 300 acres, which they had purchased from Robert Robinson were sold to James Trotter, thus decreasing their property holdings to 413 acres.

Augusta County properties were again processioned in 1759, and the processioning district in which Thomas Berry owned land, was, again, noted as being in Captain Lockhart's Company.²¹ A plot of the documented landowners is quite similar to the 1755 map, so the boundaries of this processioning district probably had not changed appreciably since 1755. In the fall of 1760, the other 200 acres from David Kerr's 368-acre Borden purchase was sold, and Thomas Berry is noted as being an adjacent landowner. The next entry, about two and a half years later represents another land sale. This time, Thomas and Esther sold to their son, James Berry, the 168-acre tract that had originally been a part of David Kerr's land. While Thomas and Esther had shelled out over £56 for this land, they sold it to their son for only £25. In the indenture agreement, the location is further defined as "lying on both sides of Capt. Joseph Kennedy's Mill Creek". With this sale, Thomas and Esther's known property holdings had, thus, been reduced to 245 acres.

Thomas Berry bought (and later sold to his son) 168 acres of David Kerr's original 368 acre Borden Grant property, but the question is, which part of Kerr's land was this ? In 1753 David Kerr and his wife sold 200 acres of this 368-tract to Robert Gray, and, as shown below, this land lay along Kennedy Mill Creek, bordering both McNut's and John Kerr's property lines.²¹

21st March, 1753. David Kerr and Kathrine, to Robert Gray, 200 acres of 92100, in Borden's tract; Joseph Kennedy's Mill Creek; McNut's line; John Kerr's

In Thomas Berry's property description (Figure 19), however, it is noted that his 168 acre chunk borders both Robert Gray and McNutt, but not John Kerr's land, so Thomas' property must be situated between Gray and McNutt's properties. Since Robert Gray's land also abuts McNutt's land, Robert Gray's 200 acres must also have overlapped Thomas Berry's 168 acre chunk. Figure 20 shows all of these properties along with Thomas Berry's boundary as determined from the description in the indenture agreement.

In 1764, Thomas Berry served as a processioner, and along with Andrew Hall, James Buchanan and James Trotter, serviced the area between the North Shenandoah River south to the southwestern edge of the Beverley Grant and from the Great Road to North Mountain. Reference to Figure 15 indicates that this is quite a large area, encompassing nearly half of the Beverley Grant. A reference is made to the courthouse, which must have been located in Staunton. In the spring of 1764, William Berry sold his 210 acres in the Borden tract to John Trotter, and Thomas Berry is noted as being an adjacent landowner (Figure 10). William had made two purchases of Borden land in 1746 and 1752, totaling 275 acres, and the 210 acres he sold to John Trotter combined with the 65 acres he sold to Thomas Berry account for this entire acreage. Two years later, in the late spring of 1766, Thomas Berry along with his neighbor, Robert Gray, and Samuel McCutchen, appraised the estate of William Clark, who owned land nearby. (William Clark was named as an adjacent landowner in the 1764 William Berry sale, noted above.) The next two Thomas Berry entries are related to the death of Patrick Martin, who lived on Back Creek in the Beverley Grant, not far from the homestead of Thomas' brother, George Berry (Figure 3/Table I). Sometime before September of 1769, Patrick Martin passed away, and in late August of 1770, Thomas Berry was named as a testamentary when Patrick's wife, Jane Martin, waived her rights to administer his will.²¹ A week later Thomas Berry was identified as one of the appraisers of Patrick Martin's estate. Samuel McCutchen, another appraiser, lived near Thomas Berry in the Borden tract (Figure 8/Table II).

This August 1770 entry is the last documentation of Thomas Berry's presence in Augusta County, Virginia. Washington County, Virginia land survey records note that, in 1770, Thomas Berry had moved to Wolf Creek, a tributary of the Holston River in what eventually became Washington County, Virginia.⁶⁹ Based on his final Augusta County entry in late August of 1770, Thomas Berry must have made this move in the late summer or fall of 1770. Thomas Berry's name appears in Augusta County records again in the summer of 1771, but only in the context of being the previous owner of the 168-acre tract he had sold to his son.

In the year that Thomas Berry moved from Augusta County, Botetourt County had been formed from a portion of Augusta County, encompassing the entire southwestern portion of present day Virginia, including the area that eventually became Washington County (Figure 21). Two years later Fincastle County was formed from a portion of Botetourt County, and contained the area of present day Washington County (Figure 21).⁸^,³⁰^,²⁶⁰^,²⁶¹ The first documentation of Thomas Berry after his move from Augusta County was in 1772. At this time he signed a petition drawn up by his neighbors, asking that Charles Cummings, a Presbyterian minister back in Augusta County, be sent to the area to serve the religious needs of the local settlers. In 1775, Thomas Berry sold some of his Augusta County land to James McChesney, and while the indenture agreement identifies Thomas and Esther as being from Augusta County, there is abundant evidence they were actually living in Washington County at the time. Most likely this reference merely notes that Thomas and Esther were landowners in Augusta County and not residents.

Due to the fact that there are two individuals named Thomas Berry, living in close proximity in Washington County, Virginia during the late 1700's, it is not always possible to identify which Thomas Berry is being referred to in a particular court record. If the name of the creek where they lived, the name of a known neighbor or relative, such as a spouse or child, or the designation Junior and Senior are used, then a differentiation is possible. However, if none of these clues are present in a record, then there is no basis for accurately assigning the record to a particular individual. In this case, Thomas Berry, Sr. and his wife and Esther can be documented as living along Wolf Creek, while Thomas Berry, Jr., who never has a spousal name associated with his in these land records, lived along Fifteen Mile Creek. (The property locations for both Thomas Berry's can be found on Figure 22 and Table III.) While it is possible and maybe even likely that these two men were father and son, the Junior/Senior designation is not necessarily an indication of such a direct family relationship, since this naming convention was used merely to differentiate between two men living in the same area, bearing identical names.²⁶²

From 1774 through 1797 there are numerous references to Thomas Berry in the Washington County court records, many, of which, do not bear any of the above mentioned diagnostic identifiers. As a result, many of them do not allow a clear assignment to one individual or the other, making any interpretation speculative, at best. The first entry is a Fincastle County court document from the late winter of 1774 in which Thomas Berry is directed to assist in determining the best placement for a road. The other names mentioned in the document, Andrew Miller and William Kennedy can be found in the 1782 tax listing for Washington County. Andrew Miller lives in Major Dysart's precinct, while William Kennedy lives in Captain Joseph Black's precinct. While a map of the precinct locations would be interesting, it would probably not be useful in differentiating between the Thomas Berrys.

The next unassigned entry comes from February 1777, which is not long after Fincastle County was dissolved and Washington County was formed. William Montgomery was ordered to survey a section of the Watauga Road from the forks of an unnamed river to William Berry's land. Apparently William Berry's land had previously belonged to one of the Thomas Berrys. While William Montgomery does not appear as a landowner in Washington County, William Berry's land was listed as being in Captain James Montgomery's precinct. Unfortunately, both Thomas Berry's live also within Captain Montgomery's precinct.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷

The following August, it is noted that Thomas Berry, while serving his country, (probably in the local militia) received a chest wound in a gun battle with the local natives on 4 September 1776. He suffered from the effects of the wound at least until the following June, and the purpose of this entry was to note that he received official recognition for his sacrifice. At the date of the firefight, Thomas Senior would have been 58 years old, which seems a bit old for a member of the militia, although it cannot be eliminated as a possibility. Although the age of Thomas Berry, Jr. is not known, it is certain he would have been somewhat, and possibly considerably, younger, and thus, a more likely candidate for this Thomas Berry entry. The information provided in this court entry does not allow a determination of which Thomas Berry was wounded, although there is a possibility that military records may be available that could shed additional light on this identification.

On the same date (27 August 1777), Thomas Berry, Adam Kerr and Josiah Gamble were ordered to examine the route of a proposed road from the courthouse, presumably in Abingdon, through the Great Knobbs to a proposed intersection with the Watauga road near Phillip's Mill, and report back to the court on their findings. Several days later it is noted that they filed their report. While the properties of both Thomas Berrys, Adam Kerr, Josiah Gamble and James Phillips can readily be identified on Figure 22 and Table III, and the overall physiographic setting viewed on Figure 23, it still cannot be ascertained which Thomas Berry was involved.

In May of 1778 one of the Thomas Berry's is named is mentioned in a list of court cases of individuals in the area against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the following November Thomas Berry was involved in proving the will of Benjamin Gray. While all of the surnames from this entry can be found in the 1782 Washington County Tax Listing in various districts, none of the given names were listed.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷ A few months later, in February 1779, Thomas Berry was involved in the inventory and appraisal of the estate of Michael Montgomery. There are a number of Montgomery families in Washington County, one of which is a neighbor of Thomas Berry, Sr. (Figure 15/Table III). A few months later, in February 1779, Thomas Berry was involved in the inventory and appraisement of the estate of Michael Montgomery. There are a number of Montgomery families in Washington County, one of which is a neighbor of Thomas Berry, Sr (Figure 22 /Table III). One of the other appraisers, Adam Harr, is probably Adam Kerr, whose property can be located on Figure 22 and Table III.

In August of 1779, Thomas Berry and several other individuals (Ann Berry and William McCormack), were designated as administrators of the estate of James Berry, who was recently deceased. Ann Berry is, most likely, the wife of the deceased James Berry. On 18 August 1779, Thomas Berry served on a 12 man jury, eight, of whom, can be identified as being Washington County landowners from the 1782 tax listing, although only two (James and Thomas Berry) lived in the area shown on Figure 22. Two of the jury members bear surnames of Washington County landowners, and only two cannot be identified as residents of Washington County. Thomas Berry served on another jury on the same day, and while the composition of the jury was mostly the same, there were two new members. One can be verified as a Washington County landowner from the 1782 tax listings, while the other has a surname of a property owner. The first jury found the defendant not guilty - the victim of a false claim, while the second jury ruled the defendant guilty and assessed damages of £1200.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷

The following March (1780), several landowners, including Thomas Berry, were selected to appraise the estate of Robert Lowry. All of the men mentioned in this entry are either landowners adjacent to Thomas Berry, Sr. or are sons of an adjacent landowner (Figure 22 /Table III). This association clearly identifies this Thomas Berry as being Thomas Berry, Sr. The following fall, officers for the militia were being selected, and Thomas Berry was recommended for the position of Ensign. Of the 10 men mentioned, nine can be identified as county landowners in the 1782 Washington County tax listings or as landowners on the map (Figure 22 /Table III), while one has the surname of a landowner.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷ Unfortunately, there is not enough information to determine which Thomas Berry this entry represents. Again, the possibility of military records needs to be investigated.

The entry for 17 February 1781 records a summary of the will of William Berry, identifying his wife, Mary Berry, and naming Thomas Berry as one of the executors. In his 1798 will, Thomas Berry, Sr. identified a deceased son by the name of William, as well as his widow, Mary Berry.⁵⁶^,¹²⁰ William was apparently killed during a skirmish leading up to the Revolutionary War Battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina. Based on the connection to Thomas Berry Senior's will, this entry can confidently be attributed to Thomas Berry, Sr.

On the fifteenth of May 1781, Thomas Berry, Adam Kerr and Josiah Gamble, all of whom can be found as Washington County property owners in the area (Figure 22/Table III), examined a road that had been built from the Great Knobs to the Abingdon Courthouse. This is probably the same road (although now constructed and possibly represented in Figure 23 where it passes through the Great Knobs) whose course these same men had determined four years earlier in 1777. Since there are no diagnostic identifiers, it cannot be determined with certainty which Thomas Berry this entry represents. In June of the same year, William Berry's will was probated, and Thomas Berry is mentioned as being an executor. As indicated earlier, based on the connection to Thomas Berry Senior's will, the latter entry most likely represents Thomas Berry, Sr.

The next four entries represent surveying records of properties in Washington County, and in three of these records, Thomas Berry, Sr. is either directly identified, or can be identified based on the location of his neighbors' properties. Apparently the first tax listing was about to be undertaken in Washington County, so all properties were being clearly and accurately defined. In the first entry, dated 6 August 1781, Samuel Duff's property along Wolf Creek is described, and the nearby road, shown on Figure 23, is described as being the Great Road. Thomas Berry was listed as being an assignee, which probably indicates that he was an owner of this property at one time. Unfortunately, Samuel Duff's property is located almost exactly between the properties of the two Thomas Berrys. On 11 August 1781, the property of Alexander Montgomery was described, and from Figure 22, it can be seen that the Thomas Berry mentioned as being an adjacent landowner is Thomas Berry, Sr. A few days later the property of Thomas Berry, Sr. is described and all of the adjacent landowners, as well as Wolf Creek and the Holston River, can be found on Figure 22. For these 400 acres, Thomas Berry is noted as being an assignee of John Ourus, whose identity is unknown - possibly a land speculator. It is also noted in this entry that Thomas Berry settled at this location in 1770. A few days later, Thomas Berry, Sr. is mentioned as being an adjacent landowner of Joel Dryden.

In November of 1781, Thomas Berry was a member of a grand jury. Five of these members, including Thomas Berry, lived in the area shown on Figure 22, while all but one of the remaining are listed as landowners in the 1782 tax listing.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷ The remaining jury member was not listed on the tax list, although his surname was well represented.⁷⁰^,147This entry represents another case where there is not enough information to be able to differentiate between the two Thomas Berrys.

The next two entries containing Thomas Berry references are from March 1782, and represent court proceedings related to the estate of Thomas Hill, whose property lies adjacent to that of Thomas Berry, Jr. Listed as appraisers of the estate are Thomas Berry, John Lowry, Alexander Breckenridge and Samuel Evans. John Lowry is not listed as a property owner, although David Lowry owns land adjacent to Thomas Berry, Sr. The property of Alexander Breckenridge can be found on Figure 22, and while Samuel Evans was not listed as a property owner in Washington County, his surname is represented in the 1782 tax listings.⁷⁰^,¹⁴⁷ This entry is another case in which there is not enough information to distinguish between the two Thomas Berrys. In June of 1782, Thomas Berry, Sr. is noted as owning land adjacent to Joel Dryden's property.

Thomas Berry appears in the Washington County Personal Property tax records from 1782 through 1800, and during that time the Washington County clerks had to differentiate between several men bearing the same name. This was a fairly simple task from 1782 through 1786 as there were only two Thomas Berrys, and, since they were father and son, the two were generally designated as Thomas Berry Sr and Thomas Berry Jr. Starting in 1787, however, several other Thomas Berrys began appearing in the records. From this time until the death of his father in the late summer of 1799, Thomas Berry, Jr. was referred to as Thomas Berry (Jockey), while his father (the Thomas Berry of this discussion) continued to be noted as Thomas Berry Sr. The remaining Thomas Berrys and the methods of differentiating them will be discussed in subsequent segments of the report. For the most part, though, they represent grandsons of Thomas Berry, Sr.

Other than providing a degree of certainty in place and time for Thomas Berry, the Washington County tax data substantiates the fact that Thomas Berry was a slave owner and a stockman. Furthermore, a close look at the tax data also sheds some light on the general population of the county. The 1782 Washington County Personal Property Tax Listing consists of 14 precincts headed in nearly all cases by local militia commanders. There were 1089 property owners enumerated in the county that year, 177, of which were slave owners, which represents nearly 11% of the total. While the tax listing documented the number of tithes (males over 21 years of age in a household), it also listed the number of cattle and horses owned, as well as slaves. A total of 316 slaves, probably all Africans or descendants of Africans, were counted as property. In addition, the heavily agrarian nature of this frontier society is testified by the fact that this enumeration accounted for 4,103 horses and 7,744 cattle.

The 1782 Washington County Personal Property Tax Listing consists of 14 precincts headed in nearly all cases by local militia commanders. There were 1089 property owners enumerated in the county that year, 177, of which were slave owners, which represents nearly 11% of the total. While the tax listing documented the number of tithes (males over 21 years of age in a household), it also listed the number of cattle and horses owned, as well as slaves. A total of 316 slaves, probably all Africans or descendants of Africans, were counted as property. In addition, the heavily agrarian nature of this frontier society is testified by the fact that this enumeration accounted for 4,103 horses and 7,744 cattle. Two Thomas Berrys were enumerated in this tax listing, both of whom, were found in Captain Montgomery's precinct, and both were slave owners. The tax data for both Thomas Berrys is shown below, but, unfortunately, this information does not provide a basis for differentiating between the two men.

Thomas Berry
1 tithe/23 horses/18 cattle/2 slaves - names: Ned, Flora
Thomas Berry
1 tithe/9 cattle/16 horses/1 slave - name: Tony

Two Washington County court entries from May 1783 are intriguing, but not particularly informative about the identity of the Thomas Berry described in the documents. Neither entry supplies any of the diagnostic indicators that would identify which Thomas Berry is being addressed, leaving only the possibility of an "educated guess". The first entry deals with a lawsuit that appears to involve veterans of the Battle of King's Mountain. This was a pivotal Revolutionary War battle fought along the North/South Carolina border in the fall of 1780, in which many Washington County residents participated as members of what was known as the Over-mountain Men. In response to a British military threat, hundreds of male settlers marched for five days over snowy mountains to confront and ultimately defeat the British army in close combat.⁸⁶^,⁸⁹ Three years later, in May of 1783, a lawsuit was brought against Thomas Berry and several others. Since Thomas Berry, Sr. would have been 62 years old at the time of the battle, it seems more logical that a younger man (i.e. Thomas Berry, Jr.) would have participated in these strenuous and deadly activities. The other entry, from 20 May 1783, recognizes Thomas Berry for providing cash, food and horses to the local militia, as well as for the care of British and Cherokee prisoners. This activity seems more in line with a man of 62, and more likely represents Thomas Berry, Sr.

In the next two entries, both from 26 August 1785, Thomas Berry is mentioned as an adjacent landowner of David Lowrey and James Doran. Since both men can be found as neighbors of Thomas Berry, Sr. on Figure 22, there is no doubt as to the Thomas Berry assignment for this entry. About eight months later, Samuel Henry died. Samuel was the husband of Elizabeth (Berry) Henry, who was a granddaughter of the elder John Berry (through his son Charles). Thomas Berry was recorded as a witness when Samuel wrote his will, but there are none of the diagnostic indicators that would allow a differentiation between the two Thomas Berrys. It is interesting to note, however, that Thomas Berry, Jr. lived next door to Elizabeth and Samuel Henry, and this close association may suggest that the witness to this will is actually the younger of the two Thomas Berrys. The next entry, which is from the spring of 1788, deals with the appraisal of an estate, but, again, the identity of the Thomas Berry involved cannot be ascertained.

There are just a few court documents from the 1790's bearing references to Thomas Berry, and most of those can be attributed to Thomas Berry, Sr. In the spring of 1792, Thomas and Esther Berry sold half of their 400 acre Wolf Creek property to John Berry, who is, presumably, their son. Since both Thomas's wife and the Wolf Creek location are mentioned, there is absolutely no doubt as to the identity of this Thomas Berry. Adam Hope and John Wilson, whose properties can be located on Figure 22, were witnesses to this transaction. It should be noted that several years later (in 1799) Thomas and Esther sold the remainder of their 400-acre plantation to their daughter and son-in-law, Esther and David McCord. The witnesses to the latter sale were David Lowery, and Alexander and William Doran, who were probably sons of James Doran. Both the Dorans and the Lowreys owned land adjacent to Thomas Berry, Sr. as shown on Figure 22. There's are several interesting side notes to this series of land exchanges deserving of some attention. First, for some unknown reason, the total acreage of these two sales exceeds the total acreage known to have been purchased by 26 acres, suggesting that either the 400 acre surveying results were incorrect, or there was another, unrecorded, land sale. Another possibility is that, since the land lay along the inside of a point bar of the South Holston River, over the space of about 10 or 15 years there had been a small addition of land as the meander bend eroded it's outer bank and deposited material on it's inner side. It is also possible that one or more islands had become attached to the land, thus contributing additional "accreted" land to the original purchase. The other oddity is in the value of these two adjacent chunks of land. In the sale to their son John, the sale price of £50 for 200 acres boils down to a value of a quarter of a pound per acre. The sale price of the remaining portion that they sold to their daughter, which consisted of 226 acres, however, was £400, a considerably higher sum. A calculation of the land value yields 1 ¾ pounds per acre. Such a difference in value in adjacent plots of land is somewhat mysterious, although it could possibly be explained by geography. The tract purchased by John Berry lay predominantly in the floodplains of the South Fork of the Holston River and Wolf Creek. While such lowland soils are typically rich and produce higher crop yields, they are also prone to the destructive effects of flooding. It's entirely possible that the difference in price of these two properties reflects the degree of relative stability and risk associated with proximity to these streams. While the soils on the higher ground may not have been as rich, they could be consistently farmed. On the other hand, it is also possible that land prices climbed sharply between the two dates, and the higher price of the 1799 sale reflects an increase in general land values.

The final land sale, which can be positively attributed to Thomas Berry, Sr., involves two Thomas Berry sons-in-law, David McCord and Samuel McChesney. This tripartite (three party) deed establishes that David McCord, who had purchased half of Thomas Berry's plantation in 1792, would make his payments over a set period of time to Samuel McChesney, the husband of Thomas and Esther's daughter, Susannah. Samuel, in turn, would use the money to support Esther Berry in her widowhood.

One entry in the spring of 1795 and another in the winter of 1797 are not as clear as to which Thomas Berry is being referenced. Despite the fact that there are no direct diagnostic indicators, the March 1795 entry, which deals with a land sale in the gap of the knobs, probably refers to Thomas Berry, Jr. This Thomas owned land in or near the River Knobs as shown on Figures 15 and 17. The 1797 entry bears none of the diagnostic Thomas Berry indicators, so it cannot be accurately assigned.

The only remaining documents are the will of Thomas Berry and the probate record when his will was proven in court. The will, which was written on 16 December 1798 divided the estate among the heirs, and at least three slaves are mentioned by name. Of particular interest is the fact that he stipulates that a particular slave is to be set free upon his death. While it may not be true in this instance, in many cases throughout the south, it was the practice of many slave owners, upon their death, to set free slaves that they had grown up with and with whom they had been friends and companions throughout life. It was also quite common to set free slaves who had been their mistresses, as well as the children these mistresses had borne from them.¹³³ In this case, a female slave named Tawney is to be set free upon his death, whereupon she is also to be awarded a "milch" cow. This is quite a gift for a person considered only as property. It is quite possible that Tawney was either his mistress or his daughter from an unnamed mistress. Her name, Tawney, also suggests that she was of mixed ethnic origin. Tawny is a term denoting a light brown color, and in reference to a known slave, it suggests that Tawney was the result of white and black racial intermixing. Such racial intermixing in a slave/master relationship is probably indicative of a sexual relationship between master and slave. If this is true, then the descendants of Tawney should be traced, if possible.

In addition to Tawney, Thomas makes note of his wife, Esther in his will, and identifies his sons George, Francis, John, James and Thomas; his daughters Rebeckah, Esther Mary, Barbara, Elizabeth and Susannah, as well as his daughter-in-law Mary from his deceased son William. He further identified one grandson, Thomas Dryden. Thomas' date of death can be pin pointed with some degree of accuracy to within a few months. While he wrote his will in December of 1798, he was still alive on 18 June of the following year when he signed a land sale agreement with his son in law. By 20 August, however, he had passed away, since his will was then proved in court. These two documents, thus, bracket the death of Thomas Berry between 18 June and 20 August of 1799.

Thomas Berry's estate was appraised in September of 1799. In order to make an assessment of the contents and to determine their relative importance, the articles examined in the appraisal were organized into five categories, and the total valuation per category was calculated and converted to a percentage of the total evaluation. Results are shown in Table IV below.

CATEGORY	% OF TOTAL
Slaves	58%
Livestock	23%
Household Items	9%
Farm Equipment	6%
Crops/Products	4%

By far, the most valuable items of personal property were the slaves. These two people/possessions held more value than any other individual appraised item, and combined, they formed over half of the total value of the property items. The next most valuable category was the livestock, which was worth almost one fourth of the entire moveable property, belying their survival value for a pioneer life style. A close look at the appraisal shows that, at the time of his death, Thomas Berry owned a total of 49 animals, consisting of five geese, two horses, 6 sheep, 22 pigs and 14 cows. These were probably animals raised for home consumption in a subsistence farming and ranching operation.

The household items, farm equipment and crops/products account for a small part of his estate, but the information they provide about pioneer life in the backwoods of America at the end of the eighteenth century far outweighs their relative ranking in the composition of the estate. A detailed analysis of all of this data allows a closer look into the everyday life of the Thomas Berry family, illuminating the fact that these were self reliant people that grew or raised their own food and made their own clothes. For example, clues can be obtained in regard to their diet. The meat appears to have consisted, primarily, of pork and beef. There certainly could have been deer and other wild animals include in their diet, but there is nothing in this data to help on that issue. There were also dairy products, probably milk and butter, and possibly goose eggs. The appraisal itemized a churn, which, no doubt, was utilized to separate butter from milk. The butter probably indicates that they enjoyed a high fat diet, which, no doubt, they needed for their labor/energy intensive lifestyle. Furthermore, goose down could also have been used for pillows and bedding (such as feather ticking). The wool of the sheep would have been processed (washed and carded) and run through a spinning wheel (another appraisal item) to make yarn, and if someone in the neighborhood had a loom, then bolts of cloth, and possibly felt, could have been made, which would be quite useful for making all sorts of clothing items The yarn probably would also have been used to knit clothing items, such as scarves, socks and sweaters.

Kitchen items included several kettles, a pot, an oven (quite possibly a Dutch oven), a pot rack, tongs, and pewter dishes, plates and spoons. The pewterware could have been brought over to America from the old country. There were also earthen plates, knives and forks. Furniture items included a chest, several bedsteads, a chair, and a looking glass (mirror). It's a good bet that these were all homemade items except for the mirror, which was probably brought over from the old country. Household items also included dog irons for the fireplace, candlesticks and a book (presumably a bible).

The crops tabulated in this appraisal included rye, corn and flax. Rye would have been used to make flour for bread, not to mention whisky, but first, the chaff had to be separated from the seeds in a labor intensive. Corn, of course, could have been used for corn meal or corn on the cob, and both corn and rye had to be ground into flour in another series of laborious tasks. Flax was grown to manufacture linen in a process somewhat similar to processing wool. First, the central hard shaft of the flax plant must be physically removed, then the strands must be carded in order to orient them in the same direction so they could be run through a spinning wheel (another appraisal item) in order to make thread.

The tools and equipment owned by Thomas Berry are interesting for the clues they yield in regard to his life style. He owned a plough, which must have required a draft animal, such as a horse or ox, to pull. His appraisal lists two horses, a steer and a bull. The bridle, hames, chains and bridle, saddlecloth and saddles, quite clearly show the importance of horses in his life. These animals also pulled a wagon, and there were several wagon boxes. Planting, harvesting and other processing tools included shears (presumably for shearing wool from sheep), several scythes, sickles, a shovel, hoes, and a pitchfork. Wood working tools included an ax, a cross cut saw, a wedge and an auger. There were also three different kinds of knives (a graining knife, a currying knife and a drawing knife), as well as a grindstone to keep them sharp.

The material appraised in Thomas Berry's estate reflects the labor intensive life of a pioneer in the backwoods of America. There is evidence for raising animals (and using some of them as draft animals), planting and harvesting crops, preparing wool and flax most likely for the home manufacture of clothing items, planting and harvesting crops, separating and grinding grain and corn, and various aspects of woodworking. More than likely there was a continuous effort to acquire firewood, and it appears that some, and possibly most of their furniture was home made. This was almost certainly what most 21st century Americans would consider to be a hard life, since it appears that these pioneers spent much of their waking hours ensuring that they had the basics of food, shelter and clothing. In addition, they had the assistance of several slaves, whose basic necessities also had to be provided for.

These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or presentation by any other organization or persons. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material must obtain the written consent of the contributors, or the legal representative of the submitters