1700s Direct

1600s Direct

1800s Direct

1600s Branches

1700s Branches

1800s Branches

The 1700s
Revolution or Revelation

It had been over 100 years, which is plenty of time to build, grow, learn, establish, develop, and become comfortable with the idea.  Since When? What Idea? – I mean the notion, the need, the very underlying fiber that binds a person, even without realizing it, to one another - the belief that we are - Americans.   Today, that title is still not very welcome in the world abroad just as it was around the early 1700s for many of the same reasons, such as Pride, Freedom, and Liberty, of which all in this world seek and treasure, yet most cannot attain; Americans are shunned as arrogant and even back then as “cowardly dogs” 1 for attaining and living by such prizes.  It seems that no matter how hard Americans try to take care of their own or help others, there are those out there who are either jealous or just plain spiteful; never stopping to study why or how the Americans became the way we are, including some within the ranks.

English Colonies 1763 The world was British, or at least that is what the British thought, in the 18th Century.  They had been the super power for over 100 years and were always seeking to expand their possessions in profit and land, both at home and abroad.  Unfortunately, all the hard work the previous monarchs had done was taken for granted by those monarchs who did not work for their wealth and just became greedy.  This greed caused Great Brittan to spread its power and authority thin; thus, the British were surviving on pure reputation in places.  They just had too many irons in the fire.  And not only greed infected the country, but the instability of those at the helm was quite evident.  Between the years 1702 and 1760, the change of command came four times: Queen Anne, King George I, King George II, and King George III.  Each imposing a different view of how to handle their affairs and getting worse with each one.  Still, the French and Spanish were both holding their own, exploring to expand their wealth and power, and were gaining strength.  Each were at odds with the British as they fought to maintain their homeland and holdings through out the world, especially in the New World, America. 

America had been laid claim to by each of the factions: The English had colonized the entire east coast reaching into the Appalachian Mountains.  The Spanish claimed central and western America as well as the Florida’s.  The French controlled the mouth of the Mississippi at New Orleans as well as trade routes and land from the north around the great lakes.  The British were surrounded already and not to mention, they had trouble amongst themselves.  The Native Americans were not happy with their apparent takeover as they were fighting back with raids and revolts, while the colonists were beginning to feel a sense of independence.  The English colonist since 1606, over coming many obstacles, had basically been left alone, as long as they were profitable.  This “laissez faire” attitude towards government had basically allowed or forced the colonists to govern them selves; thus, creating a sense of unity and self-reliance.  “The American colonists in North America had enjoyed, for the most part, a large amount of Autonomy in at least their daily lives prior to the French and Indian War.  The System of mercantilism that dominated British economic policy affected with whom the colonists could trade and what they were allowed to manufacture, but as long as they were prospering and profitable, the motherland kept her hands off of most of the affairs.  Governors were appointed to head each province, but these titles were mainly honorary in nature.  The governors could have run their provinces if they chose, but most never even set foot on American Soil and therefore it was left to the Lt. Governor, a provincial, to carry out the duties.  The colonial assemblies also had large amounts of power and influence and were largely the ruling bodies.  This structure was to the contentment of the colonists and while they respected England as the head of the Empire, they did not look to her for guidance and direction.  The problem with the colonists’ self sufficiency was that when England did step in…clashes erupted over ruling rights and culture differences….  The colonists were accustomed to self-rule and found it difficult to assume positions of inferiority to the British.  The Britons were highly prejudiced against the provincials (colonists) and thought of them as backwards, ineffective, and entirely inferior….”2

The French soon became allies with the Native Americans, full knowing the hatred they had for the British, and used them to begin attacking the British.  The Colonial Militia were called out to sequester these raiders.  Col. George Washington was given the task to suppress the natives.  He probably would have done so had it not been for the French intervention which ended in the militia’s defeat.  These heavy loses forced the Americans to call upon their parent country for help in this manner.  Once the British troops arrived, they were met with almost contempt. Even though, England was their life blood, the Americans had developed a sense of national pride and resented the fact that they had to ask for help.  The British maintained the colonials as inferiors and treated them as such.  The British troops were even upset that there was no ovation to their arrival after a request had been fulfilled.   They began to attempt to poke fun at the Militia and Continental Army by creating a song about them called “Yankee Doodle”, yes the very one we learned as kids.  In jest, the song began in the French and Indian war as the British attempted to portray the “bumpkin” nature of the colonists (The British called the Americans by the name Jonathan – ‘the Jonathans’.  The word Yankee derives from the Dutch word “jankee” or little john) 3.  It soon caught on and the Americans began to use it for their own.   As one can see, the tensions would have been high amongst the troops of those who were going to fight the natives who were supported by the opposition.  As the English creep into French territory, not only does the hostility for invasion come out, but the high tensions from elsewhere in the world also spilled over in this hostility.  America soon became the proving ground for each country, no matter where the fights were elsewhere in the world.

American Indian These tensions came to a head in the form of what we now call the “French and Indian War” or “Seven Years War” of which there was a huge build up, but officially started in 1755 and lasted till 1763 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris.  The war was over and the waring factions were being peaceful for now.  King George III issued a proclamation as a result not to have any English settlements past the Appalachians – a move that was most unfavourable.  He considered any further movement out of the limits would just cause further damage to the treasury and he had already spent too much on protecting his colony and was going in debt.  How could a King so far away and knew nothing of their plight, give an edict not to pursue that which they felt was rightly theirs.  Yet nothing was as it seemed.  The natives were still upset with the English for taking over the land.  The French were still sore over their defeat here and abroad.  And the British still considered the colonists as inferior.  All the Americans wanted was to treated as normal British subjects and subject to the same rights as all Britons, for they paid taxes and honoured the crown too.  This was not the case.  To make matters worse, the colonists had not only fought under these conditions, they had to supply their own gear.  The militia were to supply their own flintlocks, clothing, ammo, and even small rations of food.  The fighting was gone for now, but the animosity remained.  The feeling of independence remained.    Consequently, over the next 20 years this situation developed into a Revolution.  To pay for the fighting in America from the French and Indian wars as well as abroad, King George III enacted several duties in the form of taxes, such as the Sugar Act, the Currency Act, the Quartering Act, and the Stamp Act to name a few.  The Americans, still betrothed to Great Brittan did not mind paying taxes, but it was in the manner in which the taxes were placed on them and what they were going towards.  This implies that the Americans had most definitely developed a sense of self awareness by not just accepting without question the proclamations from the homeland.  The friction and conflict festering over the years coupled with these new taxes (of which the Americans viewed as “Taxation without Representation”) started riots and smalls skirmishes, where some ended in death such as the Boston Massacre in 1770 and some without death such as the Boston Tea Party in 1773 and even tar an feathering of the royal tax collectors.  There were so many Acts and regulations passed that by 1775 the colonists had taken all they were going to and began to take matters in their own hands.  Still, not all Americans agreed with the fight for independence, especially at the beginning of the revolt.  For many people, England and the Crown represented a stable way of life.  Why should that authority be challenged? In 1776, they Americans issued there Declaration of Independence from Brittan, gained allies with the French by 1778 and defeated the British officially by 1784.  By 1787, a constitution is formed and America is now the United States of America.

That’s the national state of affairs, but what about the state and local circumstances.  As most are aware, there were 13 original colonies.  Of those 13, one of the first settled after Virginia (who incidentally was named after Ms. Virginia Dare, the first English colonist to be born in America on 18 Aug 1587), was North Carolina (whose named derived from the Latin word “Carolus” which stands for Charles in reference to King Charles I who was reigning at the time in England).  Charles had Tar and Feather granted a charter to the eight men who supported and helped him regain his title as King.  The charter basically gave the men rights to certain lands in America, in this case North Carolina.  The land remained the King’s as far as politics and taxes, yet the men could do with the land as they pleased and profit from it.  Now the first official settlement in North Carolina was in 1655, but the first incorporated city of Bath was not until 1705.  The proprietors began to separate their holdings in order to better manage them into counties (or shires as they were called back then).  The word Shire comes from 7th century England when the Saxon Kings began to mark off their kingdom.  By the marking off, the Kings would give sections of land to his loyal subjects to look after and control for him.  In this it was considered sharing his kingdom.  Shire is the Saxon word for sharing.  In time, these loyal officials who administered the King’s policies were eventually called “shire-reeves” or “Sheriff” as it is pronounced today).  With all the traffic now from England to America, many goods were also being transported.  It was during this time that Piracy became a popular profession for some.  The most famous of Pirates is none other than Edward Teach.  Who?  Blackbeard!  He was the most notorious of them all and from the early 1700s till around 1718, he sailed the waters of North Carolina and Virginia looking for all the bounty he could muster.  The Royal navy eventually cornered him and killed him in North Carolina.  By 1729, seven of the original eight proprietors sold their interest in North Carolina back to the crown. Lord Granville retained his monetary interest and continued granting land in the northern portion of North Carolina.  With all this land to disperse and maintain, the proprietors needed help themselves to manage the business.  This gave rise to a unique profession called a Land Broker.  The broker controlled the purchase and sale of the land in question and made a tidy sum for his troubles.  These brokers in essence perpetuated the colonization of America.   In 1700, there were 5 colonized shires.  By 1740, there were 13 shires, including New Hanover and Bladen.  In 1760, there were 25 counties, including Cumberland.  By 1780, the North Carolina borders had been set and all land had been sectioned off into counties.  The brokers were working hard and by now all rights belonged to the King of England; thus, the brokers now worked for the King and his government (much like a corporate buyout).  From here on in, the larger counties were broken into smaller counties as the state government saw fit to maintain control.  This included the break up of Cumberland Co. in 1784 into Moore Co. North Carolina. It was named in honor of Captain Alfred Moore of Brunswick (a soldier of the Revolution and afterwards a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States). It is in the south central section of the State and is bounded by Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Scotland, Richmond, Montgomery, Randolph, Chatham and Lee counties. 

As noted earlier that the French and Indian wars were brewing, North Carolina was in the middle of it.  As a matter of fact, in 1758 the North Carolina militia and local Cherokee Indians assisted the British military in campaigns against the French and Shawnee Indians. The Cherokee decide to change sides right in the middle of it all after receiving ill treatment by the English (which seemed to be the norm as they taunted their own Englishmen), and they return home, where they eventually attack North Carolina colonists, young and old.  The Americans declared their independence in 1776 and by 1780 every one was involved in the war. To make matters worse, southern families were divided. Loyalist fathers were pitted against patriot sons while brothers and cousins fought against each other. Charleston, once the fourth largest (and richest) city of the colonies was besieged and fell to the British in 1780.  On 12 May 1780, the British captured Charleston, SC along with aNorth Carolina 1780 large portion of the American army.  Among those captured were 815 Continental troops and 600 militia from North Carolina. Loyalists across the backcountry are made confident as the British army approaches North Carolina, and significant Loyalist groups form in Anson, Rowan, Tryon, and Surry counties. Local Patriot forces defeat most of them, but 800 men under the command of Samuel Bryan reached the main British army.  In 1783, the North Carolina general assembly passed the Act of Pardon and Oblivion, offering amnesty to some North Carolinians who remained loyal to Britain during the Revolution. Many Loyalists did not receive amnesty as the state continued to sell off their confiscated property well into the 1790s.  It is quite apparent that if you had anything to do with the Crown or at least did not renounce your allegiance, you were not well looked after and considered to be a loyalists, even if you actually were not.  The general public acted then as they still do today, if you get a mob together with an idea in their head, they do not stop and think and damn the consequences.  By 1787, all was over for the fighting and by 1790; the newly formed American government even began to organize itself with a Federal Census.  In North Carolina, there were roughly 390,000 people (290,000 free and 100,000 slaves).

  Wow, what an exiting and dangerous time to live in.  Many volumes of details were left out above but the general idea has been expressed as to what was going on during the 1700s in America.  Why did we go into so much detail in the history, even down to the county level?  Because now, with the knowledge of what was going on, we can now discuss the Smith Family in relation to this time period in order to attempt to discover why the Smith’s did what they did and lived where they lived.

In our Smith Family, it is estimated that our Nicholas Smith was born about 1700 in Bertie Co. North Carolina, the son of Captain Ambrose Joshua Smith and Judith Ann Spann.  He became one of the estimated 250,000 people that inhabited America during 1700.  Nicholas apparently spent all his life between Virginia and North Carolina, yet his time and place of death is still unknown.  However, we do have records proving his existence through the purchase and sale of land mainly in North Carolina.  Not much is known about his childhood, but it is known that his father, Ambrose, not only was a Captain in the military, but was a land broker/speculator as shown earlier.  “Before, during, and after the American Revolution, colonists pushed the western boundaries of the settlement frontier. In the process, they provoked numerous conflicts with native tribes and made land speculation one of the chief pursuits of enterprising, adventurous and, sometimes, unscrupulous menCommon Sense, Thomas Paine .  George Washington's career as a surveyor was a natural extension of his own land speculations. Benjamin Franklin spent a great deal of his time in London promoting land deals to the crown. Robert Morris, the financial whiz who managed Congressional accounts during the Revolutionary War, died in poverty because his own post-war land speculations lacked the genius of his governmental accounting.  John Filson, a speculator in Kentucky land, helped promote his investments by creating a legend of another Kentucky speculator, Daniel Boone. ”4  I must assume that Nicholas was a speculator of sorts, for he was a well documented land broker, especially around the area in and around the NW (Old) Cumberland Co. North Carolina.  This area later encompassed the Moore Co. North Carolina that we know today.  It is believed that he learned his trade from his father.  There is very little evidence at this stage that gives evidence of Nicholas' family, but all the relevant details before and all the information gathered on those after wards just seem to match so perfectly.  The only difference really was the name of Nicholas' son.  He named him Nicholas but for reasons unknown (I can speculate as to why ) it seems that he changed his name to Nathan Smith - the same Nathan we descend from.

I will present to you those records which I have found and afterwards we shall discuss them.  For simplicity’s sake, I shall also display those records found with the name Nathan Smith, and yet again we will discuss them even later.

Nicholas Smith / Nathan Smith Records5


Grantor                  Grantee                       Date        ST CNTY BK Page
-------------------- -------------------- ----------- -- ---- -- ----
Smith, Nicholas             Guest, Henry Jr             1757 NC CUMB  1  174
Smith, Nicholas              Collins, Thomas             1754 NC CUMB  2   16
Narrimour, Edward        Smith, Nicholas             1764 NC CUMB  2  361
Gilmore, William              Smith, Nicholas             1767 NC CUMB  3  113
Johnston, Jonas             Smith, Nicholas             1770 NC CUMB  4   33
Smith, Nicholas                Ingram, Andrew            1770 NC CUMB  4  226
Smith, Nicholas               Smith, Henry                   1772 NC CUMB  4  410
Smith, Nicholas              Black, John                    1772 NC CUMB  4  414
Smith, Nicholas              Black, John                    1772 NC CUMB  4  426
Smith, Ann & Nathan       Pennington, Levi Sr    1772 NC CUMB  4  428
Ritter, Jesse                       Smith, Nathan               1774 NC CUMB  6  279

6 Oct 1748    Nicholas Smith sold 400 acres on the North side of Great Pee Dee river about a quarter mile above Isaac Denson, joining the river bank.

13 Oct 1749   Nicholas Smith sold 200 acres to Unknown in Bladen Co. NC on the south side of the Great Pee Dee  and above the mouth of Little River joining the river and a point about ½ mile above the Wagon Ford.

10 May 1752   Nicholas Smith deed land to Thomas Collins in Bladen Co. NC for 30 pounds VA. Money – 450 acres on south side of Deep river on Buck Creek.

Deed from Cumberland Co. NC - 21 Apr 1757 . Deed: NICLOS SMITH to Henry Guest [JOHN SMITH crossed out in original] acknowledged.

Deed from Cumberland Co. NC - 17 Aug 1762 . Deed: Joel McClendol to WILLIAM SMITH proved by Thomas Collins.  JOHN SMITH, sec. for John Gardner.  Petty Jurors: JOHN SMITH, NICHOLAS SMITH.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  2-361  - 14 May 1764  Edward Narrimour to NICHOLAS SMITH, both of Cumberland co.,50 pds, 100a in Cumberland co. on the Lower Little River.  s/ Edward Narrimour  w/ William Mears, William Harrison,

Deed from Cumberland Co. NC – 16 May 1764 . Deeds (5): Thomas Felps and wife Jean to ALEXANDER SMITH proved by John Stewart.  JOHN SMITH, a grand juror.  NICHOLAS SMITH, a petit juror.  JOHN SMITH, a petit juror.

21 Nov 1764 . ROBERT SMITH, a grand juror.  A road to be laid off from SANDHILL SMITH'S as apptd last court: Jury:  WILLIAM SMITH, SR, JOHN SMITH, and NICHOLAS SMITH.  Lewis Barge and ALEXANDER SMITH lic. to keep ordinaries at their respective houses.

20 Aug 1765 . Richard Blalock, a grand juror.  Deed: William Narremore to George Foulds proved by NICHOLAS SMITH.  Deed: John Underwood to Elijah Kallam proved by ROBERT SMITH.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  3-113 - 18 May 1767  William Gilmore of Craven co. to NICHOLAS SMITH of
Cumberland co., 30 pds, 100a in Cumberland co. on a branch of the Crains Creek on both sides of the branch, etc.  s/ William Gilmore.  w/ William Mears, Thomas Collins.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-128 - 04 Aug 1770  NICHOLAS SMITH, planter of Cumberland co. to Josiah
Williamson, of Cumberland co., 50pds, 100a lying in Cumberland co. on the South Fork of Cranes Creek on both sides of sd fork including the
plantation.  s/ NICHOLAS SMITH, SARAH SMITH,  w/ William Seal, George
Feagin, William Manes.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-226 - 28 Sep 1770  NICHOLAS SMITH, planter of Cumberland co. to Andrew Ingram, planter of Cumberland, 30pds, 100a lying in Cumberland co. on the Lower Little River on both sides of the river, first granted to NICHOLAS SMITH by patent dated 22 Apr 1767.  s/ NICHOLAS SMITH,   w/ John Stewart, Wm. Ingram.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-410 - 28 Nov 1771  NICHOLAS SMITH, planter of Cumberland to HENRY SMITH, of
Cumberland co.  30pds, 100a in Cumberland co. on the fork of Little River including the plantation that the said HENRY SMITH now lives on, first granted to William Narrimour, 22 Apr 1763.  s/ NICHOLAS SMITH  w/ Kenneth Black, John Black.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-414 - 28 Nov 1771  NICHOLAS SMITH, planter of Cumberland to John Black, planter of Cumberland, 35pds, 60a in Cumberland between the Lower Little River on the south side of said SMITH'S Mill Pond, first granted to NICHOLAS SMITH by patent 16 Dec 1769.  s/ NICHOLAS SMITH   w/ Archibald McDuffie, Malcolm Patterson.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-426 - 25 Nov 1771  NICHOLAS SMITH, planter of Cumberland co. to John Black of Cumberland co., 35pds, 100a in Cumberland on the Lower Little River.  s/NICHOLAS SMITH w/ Archibald McFee, Malcolm Patterson.

Cumberland  NC  Deed Book  4-435 - 20 Jul 1771  NATHAN SMITH, and ANN SMITH his wife, planter of Cumberland co. to Levi Pennington, Sr of Cumberland co., 45pds, land in Cumberland co. on Richland Creek branch of McClendon's Creek.  s/ NATHAN SMITH, ANN SMITH  w/ John Stephens, Isaac Pennington.

29 Jan 1772 . Commission of Gov. Josiah Martin dated at New Bern Dec 13, 1771 apptd the following as justices: .....DAVID SMITH...Deed: NICKS SMITH to HENRY SMITH proved by Kinath Black.

29 Jan 1772  Deed: Daniel Munroe and John Clark to MALCOM SMITH proved by Thomas Dobbins. Sander McKay apptd road overseer from Little River bridge to his house at the ______ road. To work road, ROBERT SMITH.  NATHAN SMITH and wife ANN SMITH to Levi Pennington, Sr.  proved by John Stephens.

29 Jan 1772  Deeds (2): NICHOLAS SMITH to John Black proved by Archibald McFie.

30 Jan 1772 . Deed: NATHAN SMITH & wife ANN to Levi Pennington, Sr. proved by John Stephens.

25 Oct 1774 . Deed: Jesse Ritter to NATHAN SMITH proved by William Manes.  Deed: ??????? Sanders to RICHARD SMITH proved by JOHN SMITH.

*  Prior to 1734, Bladen Co. NC was part of the New Hanover precinct of Bath Co. NC.
*  In 1754, Cumberland Co. NC was carved out of Bladen Co. NC.
*  From: "The North Carolina Gazetteer - A Dictionary of Tar Heel Places" William L Powell.  UNC     press 1968
    "Pocosin" - a swamp or boggy place that may also run or flow as a stream.
    "Lower Little River”- rises in SW Moore co and flows E through Moore co.
    forms the N boundary of Fort Bragg in Hoke and Cumberland counties and in
    part along the Cumberland / Harnett county line to the Cape Fear River.
    "Neill's Creek" - rises in S Wake co and flows SW in N Harnett County
    into Cape Fear River.  Named for Red Neill McNeill who settled along it's
    banks in 1740
    "Hector's Creek" - rises in SW Wake co & flows SW thru N Harnett co into
    Cape Fear river.  Named for Hector McNeill who settled along its banks
    in 1740.

South Eastern USA - 1755

If nothing else is evident, it is clear that Nicholas Smith bought and sold land.  Not just a few acres here and there, he sold great blocks of land from 200 to 450 acres at a time.  The only thing I find interesting to note is that he sold land or rather of the records found, he only traded land every couple of years, on average and basically around the same area.  I will go out on a limb here, but this tells me that Nicholas had found a niche in the new country that he was quite good at.  I will have to assume that he was a modest man, yet of means (probably passed down, but not overly wealthy) for his ambition for money was not great, lest he would have traded more often.  It appears that he traded only when he needed to – to pay taxes or avoid taxes. etc.  He apparently made just enough to keep his family comfortable or to remain unnoticed during these troubled times.  I say this, because of the locality of his dealings.  I am assuming that he had his family and homestead in Moore Co. NC (although it wasn’t Moore Co. until 1783) and wished to stay there and be with his family.  I assume that in between brokering, he had his own farm as well.  Simply, my thoughts are this:  Nicholas Smith was a family man of means.  Understanding the culture, lessons from his father on business, and staying ahead of the game, Nicholas seemed to achieve exactly what he wanted in life.  He wanted a family and to be surrounded by his extended family - a trait that still survives today.  In order to achieve his goals, he took what he learned from his father and earned enough to take care of and provide for his family by speculating land from the British Government to the colonists.  Easy job and good money.  There were only two problems with this arrangement – Natives and being a Loyalist. 

Nicholas Smith Family Nicholas was born about 1700.  Let’s give him 20 – 25 years to grow up and learn the lay of the land.  This would put him wanting to stretch his wings about 1720.  Sound good so far?  He was married to an unknown lady before 1730.  I believe this because his only recorded son (that I have found) was born about 1731, also named Nicholas.  Now stop and think for a moment.  By 1735, Nicholas is supposed to be married with a child in Old Cumberland Co. (now Moore Co.) North Carolina.  What is he doing for a living?  How does he support himself?  Who else is there with him?  Here is my theory….Nicholas’ father, Ambrose was a very well connected man as we discovered, not only with the locals but with family ties.  His grandfather, Christopher, was also established connections.  As a matter of fact, every male child of Christopher’s joined the military and were part of the local and state governments – all connected with other influential friends.  All but Ambrose exceeded the rank of Captain in the King’s Army during the 1600/1700s, even up to the rank of Brig. General.6   Through these connections, the Smith’s developed relations and established contacts within the British government (usually the Military officers were placed in charge as governors and such over colonies; thus, they had connections with those who had the power). And just by happenstance many of these officers were either relative or friends of relatives.  It would be safe to assume that the Smith family of the late 1600s and early 1700s were some what loyal to the crown.  Why wouldn't they be? -  He who had the King's ear, had power and money, which was a necessity in a colony that was just growing, as a child needs his mother.  The key here is that some of our relatives were in control of or looked after the king's possessions in the colonies.  Through this they became what I would call Semi-Loyalists.  But in the early 1700s, when American/British relations were basically good, there was no problem being loyal to your motherland.  With these connections, the Smith’s discovered land speculation and surveying to be a cash cow.  The land was claimed by Great Brittan and then dispersed among the Proprietors and then among the colonists at a price (who also in turn had to pay taxes as well – what a great deal!!?!!).  Ambrose obviously discovered this niche and taught his son, Nicholas, to do the same later in life.  The only way to make wealth was with land.  Manufacturing was outlawed as the king kept all trade from the colonies within British control. So investing in land was the way to go.  "Everyone who could borrow money plunged into the land speculation "7. The Quaker, William Penn (who was the brother - in - law to Lord Granville of the North Carolina land grant from the King) was granted land - Pennsylvania, yet realized that if he wanted a peaceful community they were not to settle land until it had been bought fairly from the Natives.  William was not a well thought of by his fellow Americans, due to tax reasons, yet he gave good advice that no one heeded as the French and Indian Wars proved.  I believe Ambrose kept his children and family near him and took good care of them financially as the land brokerage became quite lucrative.  Not to say there isn’t any earlier records, but since the first record showing Nicholas as the broker was in Oct. 1748, where he would have been close to 48 and his father would have been close to 80, it would seem better late than never that Nicholas take over the “Brokerage Business” as well as probably run the farm.  I want to believe Ambrose kept Nicholas out of the business as long as possible for safety’s sake for not everyone liked the speculators.  And as we discovered earlier, Ambrose finally was killed around 1758 by an Indian Attack along with his wife.  He would have been close to 98 years old and probably couldn’t run or fight back. Obviously this situation was escalated across the country as the French and Indian War came into play about 1755.  Incidentally, the were records of Nicholas selling land in 1757.  Now he should, according to averages, been found selling again in 1759, but He was not found again till 1762 – a good five years later, just as the war was coming to a close.  I believe he stopped selling and went into hiding after his father was killed in 1758.  At this stage, Nicholas only had to worry about the Indian problems, the Loyalist issue hasn’t come into play yet.

If you lived all your life on a patch of land, the same patch that your ancestors lived on for hundreds of years, and some foreigner came over and started taking it away from you in pieces, Would you be happy about it?  Well neither were the Native Americans, or Indians.  These guys were not stupid, and soon discovered how their lands were being taken away.  It was by the brokers.  Now the brokers were only doing that which was allowed by their King.  So the Indians were mad at the King, but took out their hostilities on his subjects, the brokers and the colonists.  The Indians fought to keep their lands by attacking the colonists and rightly so.  Yet their primitive ways, in the long run, were no match for the then mechanized invaders.  I believe that Nicholas kept a low profile in order to maintain their business and not be attacked by Indians as well as stay under the radar of the British, and Americans for that matter (I believe these actions are also why some would consider brokers as unscrupulous – they played both sides.  Yet playing both sides was not a unique situation to be in as every American was placed in this position during this time of war and revolution.  “The revolution forced competition amongst the colonists’ allegiances:  To England and the King, to colonial homes and families, and even to religious convictions.  To support the war was to refute the King; to oppose the war was to deny one’s homeland” 8).  What were the Smith’s to do?  Were they to discard their mother country or better yet their “bread and butter” and cry the rebel yell or were they to discard their homeland and countrymen in support of anMotto of Revolution unpopular government?  If you had a family with many mouths to feed, not to mention being accustomed to maintaining a certain way of life, what would you do?  If all your life, you survived on relationships that had been built on for generations and then suddenly were told to give up your security and lively hood, would you? Nicholas’ dilemma to remain connected to his brokering, his family, and his countrymen was even more complex than we earlier thought.  He was like so many, going to be in the middle of a fight that tore some many families apart as brother was against brother, father against son, and so on.    It is estimated that 1/3 of the American population chose not to give up the motherland and became Loyalists.  And “during the [Revolutionary] War, many loyalists stayed close to the British Army.  A great many clung to New York because the British held that City for much of the War.  Perhaps as many as 100,000 loyalists left the country after the revolution, many winding up in Candada.”9 Yet where do we find, Nicholas?  Did he go to New York? No, he stayed in North Carolina.  I believe that Nicholas’ loyalty was towards his family.  I believe he remained close to his own borders to defend them.  “Some of the militia men simply refused to serve beyond their territory’s boundary because they felt no connectedness to other colonies or to the British Crown; feelings of local Allegiance were already very strong in the mid-1750s”10.  At the time, many people were more loyal to their immediate community than they were to either the "American" or the "Loyalist" cause.  Does this sound like a Loyalist?  But on the other hand, it appears that up until at least 1770, Nicholas was still brokering land.   He had to get the land from somewhere.  I feel that Nicholas wanted to support the war, but only to the extent of his locality.  Yet in his line of work, he undoubtedly had to maintain contact with someone on the British side to keep the business going.  His loyalty to his homeland and countrymen was established when he remained in North Carolina.  His loyalty to his family was upheld by continuing to support them the only way he knew how.  It is interesting to note that  that every time we find them on the map overlayed with the current Political structure, the Smith’s are always just outside the line in the “Wild Country” and just out of reach of most authorities (yet just in reach of the Indians).  This tells me that Ambrose and Nicholas both were buying blocks of land in the wild country and selling it to make a profit.  In a way, our Smith’s helped expand the colonization of the new territory.  

North West Territory 1787 Remember that King George III, took the helm of England in 1760.  This was the time when national pride was forming and the hatred for all things British as the King began imposing his extra taxes on the people.  Yet Nicholas kept on brokering land in 1764, 1765, 1767, 1770, 1771, and up till 1772.  I have also discovered a Nicholas Smith on the 1767 Tax list of Cumberland Co. NC.  On the same tax list, was a Nathanial, three John’s, a Henry, two William Smith’s, as well as some members of the Owen Carpenter family, Kees (Keys) family, and a few other families, all of which we will get to later.   Here is where I think it really becomes interesting.   It is not known when Nicholas died.  It is known that Nicholas had at least four children, one of which was named Nicholas (not uncommon then or today).  It is estimated that the younger Nicholas was born around 1731 of which in 1770 he would have been roughly 39 years of age.  And if the older Nicholas was born about 1700, it would be obvious that he would be 70 years of age at the same time. So we have Old Nicholas at 70 yrs and Young Nicholas at 39 yrs in 1770.  Remember what is going on around them.  A war with the Indians and French had not long ended and a Revolution is brewing.  I propose that Old Nicholas, nearing his time of death, passed on what he had learned to young Nicholas and could have even used his father’s name once or twice to broker some land during this time.  And over the next couple of years bought and sold with or for his father.  Even to the extent that we find on the exact same days (29 & 30 Jan 1772) in the exact same place (Cumberland Co. NC), the sale of land by both Nicholas and Nathan.  Is this a coincidence?

Wait a minute!  Who is this Nathan guy now and where did he come from?  He is not mentioned on any record I have found before 1767 (on the tax list).  Then the next record found was in 1771 and 1772 brokering land in the same place as Nicholas.  He is found again in 1774 brokering land.  The next time I find him is on the 1790 Federal Census (the first of it kind).  Whoa, wait another minute! Where is Nicholas now?  I can’t find him.  After the 1772 records, he disappears off the face of the earth.  Are you curious?   Me too! Before we attempt and answer, lets find out a bit more about this Nathan. 

Now before I go too much further let me say that researching the past is not an exact science, for with people, names are spelled differently, people known by one name are not necessarily recorded under that name, nick-names are used, people assume names that were not theirs to begin with, dates are not always exact and are sometimes very confusing.  Unless you have a document (birth certificate, death certificate, marriage license, or something that is of an official nature) you can never be 100% sure; and even these conflict each other at times.  Who is Nathan Smith? What makes him so important, for this man is an enigma — which is to say he would fit right into our family.  From all accounts he appears to be a descent man, an educated man, and a man who doesn’t want to be found.  Why on earth would a man not wish to be found?  If this is the case, what was he hiding from?  He is said to be born in North Carolina during the early 1730s which if one remembers correctly these are semi-troubled times with uprisings, political troubles, and not to far off there will be the beginnings of the civil war with the natives and other settlers.  In his life time he would have seen not only a war, but a rebellion against the tyranny which manifested into a revolutionary war resulting in the birth of a new nation.  Awesome! 

The Nathan Smith we know is a man estimated to be born around 1730/31 in or around the area of North Carolina who we believe died somewhere in the Franklin Co. GA area.  He married a lady with the name Ann (first or middle we don’t know) supposedly around 1750 somewhere in North Carolina.  We must assume in 1750 and in Moore Co. North Carolina because it is believed their first son, Everett Smith was born in 1751 in Moore Co. North Carolina.  Nathan is also believed to have had other children as follows:  Nicholas Smith (b. 1758), Isham Smith (b. 1760), Stephen Smith (b. 1762), William Smith (b. 1763), and Sarah Rachel Smith (b. 1765/70).  Some think that he had more named Gabriel Smith (b. 1764), Mary Smith (b. 1768), and Jesse (b. 1772).  The all are feasible, but we have no proof and lean toward them being the children of other related Smith’s.  Below is a quick overview of Nathan’s children:

1.  Nathan Smith (Born abt. 1730/31 in North Carolina) (Died in GA, most likely Franklin Co.).  He married Ann Smith (b. abt. 1733) abt. 1750 in North Carolina.
 A. Children of Nathan Smith and Ann Smith
    +    i.        Everett Smith (b. 1751 in Moore Co., NC) (d. 21 Apr 1822 in MS)
    +    ii.       Nicholas Smith (b. 1758 in Moore Co., NC)
     +   iii.      Isham Smith (b. 1760 in Cumberland Co., NC) (d. 1840 in Lawrence Co. MS)
     +   iv.      Stephen Smith (b. 1763 in NC) (d. 1846 in Lawrence Co., MS)
     +   v.       William Smith (b. 1764 in NC)
    +    vi.      Sarah Rachel Smith (b. 1765 in NC) (d. in MS)

2.  Everett Smith2 [Nathan Smith1] (b. 1751 in NC / d. 21 Apr. 1822 in Fair River, Lawrence Co., MS) married Eliza Furr 1773 in Moore Co., NC (b. 1758 in NC / d. 1827 in Lawrence Co., MS), daughter of Henry Furr (b. 1717 in Gassau, St, Mall, Canton, Switzerland / d. 1769 in Anson Co. NC) and Russena Raffor (b. 1720 in Purrysburg, Effingham, GA / d. Unk).  Everett and Eliza are both buried in Smith Cemetery, Lincoln Co., MS.

A.  Children of Everett Smith and Eliza Furr
      i.         Daughter Smith
+    ii.        Isaac Smith (b. abt. 1772 in NC)
+    iii.       William One Hand Smith (b. 30 Apr. 1775 in NC)
+    iv.       Nathan Smith (b. 5 Feb. 1777 in NC)
+    v.        Everett Smith (b. abt. 1780 in NC)
+    vi.       Levi Smith (b. abt. 1782 in NC)
+    vii.      Pleasant Smith (b. abt. 1784 in NC)
+    viii.     Eli N. Smith (b. 30 Apr. 1787 in NC)
       ix.      John Smith (b. abt. 1790) 

3. Nicholas Smith [Nathan Smith1] (b. abt. 1758 in Moore Co. MS / d. unk) married unk.
A. Children of Nicholas Smith and Unk:
+    i.    Henry Smith (b. abt. 1790 in Putnam Co. GA / d. abt. 1835)

4.  Isham Smith2 [Nathan Smith1] (b. abt. 1760 in Cumberland Co. NS / d. abt. 1840 in Lawrence Co. MS) married Sarah Harbin (b. abt. 1770 / d. 1803 in GA?) on or about 1789 in NC.

A.    Children of Isham Smith and Sarah Harbin
+    i.         Isham Anderson Smith (b. abt. 1790 in NC)
+    ii.        John William Smith (b. abt. 1797 in NC)
      iii.       Elizabeth Smith (b. 1796 in NC)
+    iv.       Jemima Smith (b. abt. 1798 in NC)
+    v.        Stephen Smith (b. 1803 in Franklin Co., GA)

5.  Stephen Smith2 [Nathan Smith1] (b. 1763 in NC / d. 1846 in Bogue Chitto, Lawrence Co., MS) married Jemima Kees (abt. 1787) (b. abt. 1760 in GA / d. abt. 1860 in Lawrence Co. MS).  Both are buried at Friendship Baptist Church Cemetery, Lincoln Co., MS.

A.  Children of Stephen Smith and Jemima Kees
+    i.          Nathan Smith (b. 1789 in NC)
+    ii.         Mary Polly Smith (b. 1791 in NC)
      iii.       Sarah Smith (b. abt. 1793 in NC)
+    iv.       Isham Smith (b. abt. 1795 in NC)
+    v.         Nicholas Smith (b. abt. 1800 in GA)
+    vi.        Nancy Smith (b. abt. 1800 in GA)
+    vii.       Margaret Smith (b. abt. 1802 in GA)
+    viii.      Elizabeth Smith (b. abt. 1804 in GA)
+    ix.       James Allen Smith (b. abt. 1808 in GA)
+    x.         Jemima A. Smith (b. 9 May 1811 in Franklin Co., GA)

6.  William Smith2 [Nathan Smith1] (b. abt. 1764 in NC / d. UNK) married UNKNOWN.
A.  Children of William Smith and UNKNOWN
+    i.         William Smith (b. abt. 1788 in Moore Co., NC)

7.  Sarah Rachel Smith2 [Nathan Smith1] (b. abt. 1770 in NC / d. in MS) married Owen Carpenter (m. abt. 1785 in NC) (b. abt. 1767 in NC / d. abt. 1828 in Lawrence Co., MS), the son of Thomas Owen Carpenter and Catherine Shamberger.

More about Owen Carpenter:
Owen’ Father, Thomas Carpenter (b. abt. 1740 in NC / d. 1780 in NC) married Catherine Shamberger (b. abt. 1743 in NC / d. UNK) around 1759 in NC.  They lived in Bear Creek, Moore Co., NC.  Thomas is buried in Shamberger Cemetery, Montgomery Co., NC.  Thomas and his youngest son died at the hands British soldiers by being shot during the American Revolution. 

Thomas and Catherine Carpenter had 7 children:  Jonathan Carpenter (b. abt. 1760 in NC), Solomon Carpenter (b. abt. 1763 in NC), Dennis Carpenter (b. abt. 1765 in NC), Owen Carpenter (b. abt. 1767 in NC), and Temple Carpenter (b. 1769 in NC), Adam Carpenter (b. 2 Jul. 1771 in NC), and Infant Carpenter (b. & d. 1780 in NC).
A.    Children of Sarah Rachel Smith and Owen Carpenter:
+    i.    William Carpenter (b. abt. 1787)
+    ii.    John Carpenter (b. abt. 1787)
+    iii.    Nancy Carpenter (b. abt. 1791)
+    iv.    Catherine Carpenter (b. abt. 1793)
+    v.    Owen Carpenter (b. abt. 1795)
+    vi.    Nathan Carpenter (b. abt. 1797)
+    vii.    Dennis Carpenter (b. abt. 1798)
+    viii.    Henry Carpenter (b. abt. 1806)
+    ix.    Mary Carpenter (b. abt. 1809)
+    x.    Malinda Carpenter (b. abt. 1813)
+    xi.    Green Carpenter (b. abt. 1815)

North Carolina 1740 There you have it, three generations of what is believed to be from Nathan Smith.  But this is not where the story begins for we have only jumped into the middle of it.  As mentioned earlier, Nathan is bit of an enigma, mainly because there are no records showing neither where Nathan came from, nor who his parents or siblings are.  He just appeared.  Remember the first record found was in the 1767 Tax list for Cumberland Co. NC and again in a deed dated 1771 and then in 1772.  Again we found him buying land in Cumberland Co. NC in 1774.  The next record found was the 1790 US Federal Census.  Now the 1790 US Census was the first of its kind for the newly formed United States.  This Census was taken for each county in the land.  Since we know that Nathan’s children were born in North Carolina, it is safe to assume that this is the place to start searching. 

North Carolina 1700   North Carolina in the 1790s was beginning to take shape in the political aspect.  The county lines were still being formed but were not too far off from what it is today.  We know that Everett Smith was born about 1751 in what is known today as Moore Co. NC, but as you can see in the 1760 map of North Carolina, there is no Moore County, NC.  There even isn’t one in the 1780 map.  Moore Co. doesn’t show up until 1783, when it was created out of what was Cumberland County, North Carolina as shown in the 1800 Map (right in the middle).   Now notice the surrounding counties:  Cumberland, Chatham, Randolph, Montgomery, Richmond, and Robeson.  It is within these counties, including Moore Co. that we should find our ancestors.

  In the 1790 Federal Census of Moore Co. NC11, we researched and found that there are the following Smith’s recorded:  Everat Smith (2,3,3,0,0); Nathan Smith (1,0,1,0,0); Zachariah Smith (2,5,1,0,0); Thomas Smith (2,1,2,0,0); William Smith (1,1,4,0,0); William Smith (1,1,4,0,0); John Smith (1,2,2,0,0); William Smith (1,1,1,0,0); Archibald Smith (4,3,6,0,0); Stephen Smith (1,1,2,0,0); David Smith (1,0,4,0,0); James Smith (1,0,0,0,0); and William Smith (1,2,3,0,0).  After each name is a list of those in the family by numbers.  With the knowledge that the first number is those living in the house hold that are males either the head of household or at the age of 16 or over, the second number being all males younger than 16 years of age, the third number is all free females in the house hold, the forth number being all other free persons living there, and the fifth being any slaves that may be owned.  Lets begin the tedious task of going through these as an example of how we determine all other records we will go through in time.

North Carolina 1760   * Everat Smith (2,3,3,0,0) – Even thought the spelling is different, this is most likely our Everett Smith (b. 1751).  Earlier we discussed the children of Everett and by 1790, Everett and Eliza Furr (b. 1758) had 8 children.  The youngest was Eli (b. 1787), the next  youngest was Pleasant (b 1784), the next youngest was Levi (b. 1782).  These three would account for the second number of “3”.  Obviously the first number includes the Head of House hold, Everett, so the “2” still leaves us with one male child 16 or over living at home which was most likely William ”one hand” Smith (b. 1775).  Now this leaves the third number of “3”.  With Eliza living at home, this accounts for one.  Now Everett only had one daughter (birth unknown) and this could account for one more.  That leaves one female unaccounted for.  My belief is that it was a mistake and should have been another male, which would have been Nathan (b. 1777).  I believe Isaac (b. 1772) had already moved out on his own and Everett’s youngest son, John, had not been born yet.  To my knowledge th ere is no other Everett, Everat, or Averitt mentioned in any of the surrounding counties in the 1790s. 

North Carolina 1800 * Nathan Smith (1,0,1,0,0) – This is most likely our Nathan Smith.  Being around 60 years of age during this Census, still married to Ann, with all his children out on their own this seems to fit the profile depicted here in the census as Nathan being the one male over 16 or head of house hold and Ann being the female. The only thing I see that could be wrong here is that this Nathan could be a young man just starting out with his new wife, thus, no children.  It just isn’t clear.  There are, however, in the neighbouring counties other Nathan Smith’s during the same time.  We will discuss them as we come to them. 
* Zachariah Smith (2,5,1,0,0) – Just knowing the Census was taken in 1790 and knowing that the First number is a “2”, taking into account that one of the two is Zachariah, I estimate Zachariah’s birth date to be as follows:  1790 minus 16 equals 1774 just to start because he has a son 16 or over.  Knowing he had a son at this time to be at least 16 and that for Zachariah to be the father, he would have had to have been at least 20 (just an assumption – but this is all I have to go on) I will take off another 20 years (1774-20=1754).   Now this date of 1754 is the minimum I can calculate, meaning he could have been born before this but I again guesstimate that he was born between 1744 and 1754 (or 1749 +/- 5 years).  This puts him about the same age as Everett, but there is no mention of Nathan having a son named Zachariah; therefore, I must look for him to belong to another Smith born on or before 1730.  There is evidence of a Zachariah that belongs to Ambrose Smith (b. 1660/61), see Appendix II.  If so then, Zachariah was born 19 Aug 1734, which fits our profile here.

* Thomas Smith (2,1,2,0,0) – By using the same process as mentioned above, we can calculate that Thomas was born on or before 1754, but with other evidence we will find later, I believe that Thomas was born between 1735 – 1745.  He has a son at least 16 yrs old still at home, a son under 16 years old, a wife and daughter of indeterminate ages.  Again, there is evidence of a Thomas belonging to Christopher Smith (b. abt. 1720 in Bear Creek, Cumberland Co. VA), the son of Ambrose Smith (b. 1660/61), see Appendix II.  If this is correct, he would have been born about 1754 in Chatham Co. NC, which also fits our profile here.

* William Smith (1,1,4,0,0) – Through calculation, it appears William was born at or before 1754.  He had one son under 16, a wife and three daughters.  Our William only had one child and therefore this William is omitted from the direct line, but he is not to be forgotten about.  He may lead to other of our Smith’s.  There is evidence of a William belonging to the above same Christopher Smith (b. abt. 1720 at Bear Creek, Cumberland Co. VA) who again is the son of Ambrose Smith (b. 1660/61),  see Appendix II.  If this is a match, then this William was born about 1751 in Chatham Co. NC, which fits our profile here.

* William Smith (1,1,4,0,0) – This William appears just a few lines down from the first one mentioned above.  I believe it is just a duplicate of the above mentioned.  I can be wrong, but I have not been proven wrong yet; there is just not enough information on this.

* John Smith (1,2,2,0,0) – This John Smith, with calculation, would have been born at or before 1754.  He had two sons below the age of 16, his wife and one daughter (age unknown).  This John is believed to be part of the family but on another line as we will discuss next.

Taking Census * William Smith (1,1,1,0,0) – Now this is in all probability our William Smith (b. abt 1763), son of Nathan Smith.  William only had one son, also named William (b. abt. 1788).  He fits perfectly into this.  Other reasons I believe it is our William is because of the placement on the Census.  I assume the way this Census was taken was that the people came up to the poll taker or as the poll taker came to the people, this William is recorded in the middle of John Smith and Owen Carpenter.  We know that Owen Carpenter is the husband of Nathan’s daughter, Sarah Rachel Smith.  Owen’s record will be discussed in a later portion of the book.  Matching William with Nathan and knowing that Owen is his brother-in-law, I assume it is no coincidence that these two were recorded at the same time.  So with this theory, I further assume that the John Smith mentioned before William is also a relative of some sort, but this is just a theory and have no evidence to support it.

* Archibald Smith (4,3,6,0,0) – Archibald is a name that I  have not found in any of my Smith research of this time era.  I cannot rule him out as he does exist, but to whom I do not know.  By calculation, Archibald is assumed to be born between 1740 – 1750.  He has three sons 16 years old or older, three sons below the age of 16, His wife and 5 daughters.

* Stephen Smith (1,1,2,0,0) – Our Stephen Smith (b. abt. 1762) would have been married with about two children in 1790.  And what do you know, this record shows a Stephen Smith that matches.  Stephen and his wife Jemima Kees (b. abt. 1760) were married around 1787 and had at this stage two children: Nathan Smith (b. 1789), and Mary Polly Smith (b. abt. 1790).  I believe this is most definitely our Stephen Smith, son of Nathan Smith.

* David Smith (1,0,4,0,0) – This fellow is unknown to me during this time frame.  But is a Smith nonetheless.  He apparently is married with three daughters (age unknown).  I must assume that he was born before 1754.

* James Smith (1,0,0,0,0) – This James Smith is not of our direct line, but it may be proven later to belong to our Smith clan later, through John Smith (b. abt. 1721).  If I am correct this James would have been born around 1760.  This would make him right at 30 years old now.  It is strange that a 30 year old man is living single and no children.  The record suggests two things:  He was either a young  chap over the age of 16 just out on his own or he was an elderly man living alone.  I need more data.

* William Smith (1,2,3,0,0) – As you can already see, there are many Smith’s in the world.  And for those of us who research the Smith’s, the name William is a source of pain for us.  There are almost as many William’s out there as there are Smith’s.  I have no idea yet who this man is, but he has a wife, two sons below the age of 16 and two more daughters, ages unknown.  I too would have to assume his birth to be at or before 1754.

Now that was the Moore County Census of 1790 in NC.  Notice that of the children of Nathan Smith, we only came across three of the sons and one son-in-law. Pee Dee Trail We are missing at the least Nicholas and Isham.  Where were they?  To find them, we need to start looking first in the surrounding counties.  I am going to list the Smith’s found in the 1790 Federal Census for each county surrounding Moore Co. NC along with their family numbers in Appendix I.  I will not; however, make it boring with talk of calculations, for you can see how I come to my conclusions with the dates and how to read the data presented as shown earlier. 

First let’s look at Chatham County, North Carolina.  Our search at this stage is just for the two missing sons, Nicholas and Isham.  After abstracting all the Smith’s listed, we were unable to find any Nicholas or derivative thereof, but there were two Isham Smith’s with the first one having the following family numbers (2,3,4,0,0).  In 1790, our Isham would have been just about 30 years old and according to records he would have had only one child.  This one we find already has 7 children; therefore, we must rule him out.  The second Isham had the family numbers of (2,1,5,0,0).  Again, this Isham is not ours as he already has 6 children.  Knowing that all our records are not exact and the dates could be wrong a bit, by stretching it as far as I can go, I cannot make these two Isham’s match ours.  We will not forget the rest of the Smith’s listed in this county for some of them will come in to play with a related line.

Second, let’s look at Cumberland Co. North Carolina.  This one county has almost 40 Smith families to go through.  Of the families found in the 1790 census of Cumberland Co. NC, only 6 have matching names to our ancestors.  Of these six, there are 4 Williams, a Nathan, and a Stephen.  Knowing from what we have gone through earlier that we already have our William, we can discard (from the direct line at this time period only) the 4 others, leaving only a Nathan and a Stephen.  Our Nathan would have been around 60 years of age and his wife about 57.  This Nathan in Cumberland County has 2 females living with him.  Assuming one is his wife, Ann, who is the other female?  Our Nathan only had two daughters (one I am still not sure is his), Sarah and Mary.  Sarah married Owen Carpenter around 1785 and had already begun a family as we had seen in the Moore County census.  Therefore, the only female left is Mary (b. about 1768) and would have been about 22 years of age at this time.  Not knowing enough about her, I cannot comment if she was married or not or if she was living at home.  Thus, I must keep this Nathan as a candidate (although not probable).  Now Everett, Nathan’s first born, has a son also named Nathan born on  5 Feb 1777.  In 1790 he would have been 13 years of age – not old enough to be this one.  Stephen, Nathan’s fourth son, also had a son named Nathan, but born around 1789 – not old enough.  I have exhausted all the Nathan’s I can find with no clear match.  All that is left now, is the Stephen.  This census says the Stephen has 2 males 16 or older, 3 males under the age of 16, and 3 females.  Assuming Stephen is one male over 16 and his wife being one of the females, then he had 1 son over 16, 3 young sons under 16, and 2 daughters in 1790.  Our Stephen was married in 1787 and his first born arrived in 1789 – this cannot be our Stephen.

Third, let us look at Richmond Co., NC.  Of the 10 Smith families found, only one matching name exists, William Smith.  But we know he is not our William.

Fourth, let us look at Robeson Co. NC and Randolph Co. NC.  Neither county has one name that matches ours.

Nathan Smith Family This leaves us one more county that borders the 1790 Moore Co. NC to go through, Montgomery Co. NC.  Of the 10 Smith families found, we have 3 names that match ours.  First is a Nathan Smith (2,3,6,0,0).  Now if our Nathan and Ann got lonely after most of the children left and began producing a few more in the 1780s that we are not aware of, I think we can safely say that this Nathan does not belong to our direct line.  Second match is a William Smith (1,1,1,0,0).  Now this is a match to the information we have on our William.  But I thought we already has our William in Moore Co.?  Remember how I came to the conclusion that he was ours with the added theory of being with Owen Carpenter?  This William is found with a Jonathan Carpenter and a Temple Carpenter (both brothers of Owen), yet these two Carpenter’s did not register with or at the same time as this William.  So this is another mystery.  Is this our William again, just counted twice or is it just a coincidence?  I do not know.  Finally the last matching name was that of an ISHAM Smith.  This Isham is recorded having a family of one male over 16 (himself), 2 males under 16, and 6 females.  Our Isham, in 1790, is believed to have been married with one male child born around 1790.  This doesn’t match at all.  But to many researchers, it has been common practice to call this Isham, the son of our Nathan.  I have two choices at this stage for Isham.  I can accept the common practice until I find a better match or I can extend my search to a  wider radius of counties around Moore Co.  I will leave the issue alone for now. 

We have gone through the 1790 Census for Moore Co. NC and every county surrounding it and still have not located our Nicholas Smith or found a satisfactory match for our Isham Smith.  Isham is recorded to have been born in Cumberland Co. NC around 1760.  We have documentation for later about him moving to Franklin Co. GA in the early 1800s from Montgomery Co. NC.  Where was our Isham between 1760 and 1800?  Now even stranger is the fact that the young Nicholas (son of Nathan) born around 1758 isn’t mentioned anywhere in any of the surrounding counties.  In 1790, he should have been about 32 years old, married with one child born around 1790 named Henry. 

Question:  What if Nicholas (b. abt. 1758) was under the name of Nathan.  This is just a hypothesis, but let’s check it out for clarity’s sake.  Now we went through 7 counties and found 3 Nathan Smith’s.  The first one in Moore Co has (1,0,1,0,0) for a family record.  The second Nathan is from Cumberland Co. with (1,0,2,0,0) for his family record.  And the Last Nathan found was in Montgomery Co with (2,3,6,0,0) for his record.  Our Nicholas (b. 1758) in 1790 would have been married with one child as best as I can tell.  Now if this child was a girl, then the second Nathan from Cumberland Co. could be a match to our Nicholas - food for thought - for later.

Now that we are back on the subject of Nathan, let’s continue.  Using Nathan’s children as verification, we attempt to establish that we are in the correct place looking for Nathan himself.  Through establishing each of Nathan’s Children, we get a stronger picture and proof of Nathan Smith’s existence and where he came from, even though we have nothing before 1767.  Just based on the Census data, we believe we have a match.  After this, he is only found in Cumberland and Moore Counties for a few years.  Then low and behold, he shows up in Franklin Co. GA with a settlement named after him, the Nathan Smith Settlement.  It is hear that he is presumed to have died.  “The Smith’s migrated from North Carolina to the Nathan Smith Settlement prior to 1800 [between 1790 and 1798 as he was in Moore Co. NC on the 1790 Census and he signed a petition in GA in 1798] to what they thought was Franklin County, Georgia but later was deemed to be Cherokee lands. The Cherokees complained that the Nathan Smith Settlement [and every other local settlement] was on their land. An Indian agent by the name of Benjamin Hawkins [a Revolutionary Officer] from Washington D. C. was sent to Georgia to determine who was right, the settlement or the Indians; he decided in favor of the Indians. The land dispute went on for many years and the settlers became discouraged and sold their lands "warranted against all but the Indian Claims"12

In The First Settlers in what is now Habersham County, taken from the Lavonia Times and Gauge, February 23, 1934, the following excerpt is cited:

“The first settlers of what is now Habersham County were those settlers of Franklin County, whose lands were granted by the State of Georgia between 1783 and 1788, lay north of the Indian Boundary fixed by the treaty of 1785. These lands were granted under the impression that they lay south of the agreed boundary line. When this line was surveyed, it was found that these lands lay north of the boundary line and in the Cherokee Nation, the Indians demanded their immediate removal. In 1798, these settlers petitioned Governor James Jackson to have the line re-run or to take such other action that would protect them in the possession of their homes. This resulted in the "Four Mile Purchase" of 1804, when the Indians ceded a strip of land four miles wide and twenty miles long which included these lands. This strip of land was then added to Franklin County, but now lies in Banks and Habersham Counties. Those who signed the petition were: Phillip Thomas, John Thomas, William Thomas, Phillip Thomas, Jr., Abednego Downing, George Waters, Levi Taylor, James Huitt, Joseph Dunnegame, E. Dunnegame, Moses Terel (probably Terrell), John Little, William Alexander Ramsey, Jesse Austin, Thomas Ketrim, Thomas Lean, Equila McCrackin, (torn) McCrackin (probably James), (torn) Halcom (probably Moses), George Hopper, William Weatherspoons, Hugh Hartgrove, Benjamin Wofford,* Nathaniel Wofford, Richard Burkes, Richard Lay, Nicolas Smith, Nathan Smith, Oen Carpenter (probably Owen), James Minnerd (probably Minyard), Nicholas Nuton (probably Newton), Stephen Smith, Lewis Dickerson, Joseph Halcom, John Parker, John Ratley, Thomas Warren, Robert Shipley, John Shipley, Nathaniel Shipley, William Little." In the Georgia Genealogist, under Franklin County, Wofford Settlement appears the following: ". . . Col. Meigs further reported settlers left outside the Hawkins line around other forts:

Isham Smith, John Smith, Adam Sheffield, James Keys, Joseph Shelton, Samuel Spencer, William Spencer, Richard Jacks, John Huitt, Jacob Hollingsworth, Moses Alfred, William Smith, Averitt Smith, James Brown, Temple Carpenter, John Warren, James Hamilton, Nimrod House, James Alfred, Thomas Bullen, ` William Newton, ____ Snow, Asa Walker,  Morgan Guest, George Morgan,  Reuben Warren".

Of the above names found in Nathan Smith's Settlement, the following relocated to Mississippi: Nathan Smith - Franklin County, Nicholas Smith - Franklin County, Owen Carpenter,* Lawrence County, Isham Smith - Lawrence County, Asa Walker - Lawrence County, Temple Carpenter - Lawrence County, William Newton - Lawrence County, Morgan Guest - Lawrence County, and Averitt/Everitt Smith - Lawrence County.

It appears from the above transcripts that the Smith land was reclaimed by the Cherokee Nation and that the Smiths then migrated to Lawrence Mississippi prior to 1813. In the 1813 Tax Roll of Marion County (note: Lawrence County was formed from Marion in 1814), Isham Smith, Sr. is shown with a lot in Monticello with no poll taken. Persons exempt from poll taxes were over 50 years of age, thus the estimate that Isham Smith, Sr. was born about 1760.”13 

As I stated earlier, most believe that Nathan died in Franklin Co. GA.  I further estimated his death to be between 1805 and 1810.  The last record we have of him is in Georgia in 1798 and there is no record of him moving with his family to Mississippi.  My theory is that Nathan was a big family man as he brought his entire family to his settlement in GA.  Some of the children may have wanted to move out, but out of respect for Nathan they remained in the Settlement even  though there were problems with the local natives as well as the local state government.  Here is why:  By calculating the birth dates of the last of Nathan’s grandchildren to be born in Georgia coupled with birth dates of his grandchildren who were first to be born in Mississippi then using the 1813 Tax List for Marion Co. Mississippi, I estimate that the Smith’s did not move out of GA until after 1811 as they were in MS before 181314.  Now I did find some of his great-grandchildren to have been born in MS as early as 1811.  And I found some great-grandchildren born in GA as late as 1811.  This means that part of the family travelled to MS early and started a homestead, of which I assume was to prepare for the rest of the family.  We will go into depth into this in the next chapter, but I would say that with the Migration boom to MS in the early 1800s, coupled with the War of 1812, land was being given out cheap and the family wanted to move, but Nathan may not have wanted to as he had planted his family in GA.  If my theory is correct about the respect of Nathan, then no one would have gone early to MS to get things ready if Nathan was alive.  And if I found some of the family in MS in 1811, then I assume that Nathan must have died prior to 1811.  The trouble with the Georgia government was not finished until 1804 with the “Four mile purchase” and once again I can only assume that Nathan was there to see it through; thus, my estimate of Nathan’s death between 1805 and 1810.  I know we dipped into the 1800s, but it was necessary to finish out the 1700s while proving the existence of Nathan Smith.  One more theory to Nathan is that he could have been planning a move to MS due to all the trouble with the Indians and the bad land purchase from the Georgia government.  He just didn’t live long enough to see it through, but the children followed through after his death.  I just don’t know. 

Well I think that just about does it about Nathan Smith we know his exists and where he went.  Earlier we discussed Nicholas Smith and where he came from.  And here are some interesting comparisons between the two:

    The story of Nicholas Smith and where he comes from appears to match that of Nathan Smith and where he went.
    Nicholas and Nathan both have similar birthdates.                     
    The last records of Nicholas and the first records of Nathan appear to co-inside with one another.                                           
    Nicholas was selling property on the same days as Nathan (29 & 30 Jan 1772).            
    Nicholas was not only selling property on the same day, but at the same place (Moore Co. NC).                                           
    The fact that Nicholas disappears and Nathan appears at the same time and place is quite intriguing.                                       
    Nathan’s second child was named Nicholas, as per custom of the day to name children after grandparents, for Nicholas’s father was also named Nicholas.                Nathan’s fourth child, Stephen, named his first male child Nicholas and his second male child Nathan.    Nathan’s first child, Everett, named his third male child           Nathan.  Nathan’s daughter, Sarah, named her fourth male child Nathan as well.        
    The history or situations of the time period as well as actions of the Nicholas Smith Family prior to 1775 appears to necessitate the proposed theory and the               actions of Nathan Smith family afterwards.

What I am attempting to prove (without any real hard evidence to confirm the change), is that I am showing you the same person.  I believe that Nicholas Smith, born to Ambrose J. Smith, is the Nathan Smith we have shown above.  Many researchers that have been in the game much longer than I, have also debated the issue and have come to the same conclusion, yet again with no other evidence than that above.  The issue then turns to you, do you believe or don’t you.  If you don’t, then almost all you have read up till now is for naught.  If you do, then you have a continuation of the Smith Linage back to the 1500s.  Every thing from Nathan Smith till today is verifiable.  Every thing from Nicholas Smith back to William Smyth has records to verify.

The argument is clear and is hard pressed to be circumstantial, yet if this is true, there is the nagging question as to how or why?  I believe we have also covered this, which is why I went into so much detail with the history.  Prior to the revolution, Nicholas Sr. was still considered a loyalists despite all evidence due to his continuation of brokering land.  The Indians still were a threat to those settlers (and brokers), as shown by the murder of Ambrose in 1758 and the small attacks in Franklin Co. GA.  And most importantly, the nation was about to start a revolution against everything remotely tied to the British.  The dates and place of the last brokering of land by both Nathan and Nicholas (29 & 30 Jan 1772) verify the proximity of timing to the revolution in 1775.  Nicholas was a hunted / hated man in light of everything going on around him – not personally but by his profession and assumed loyalties.  In order to protect himself and more importantly his family, anonymity seems an appropriate response for some one who wished not to be found.  What better way to hide from the government than to change your name.  I believe he and his family rode out the war in Moore Co. NC until the outcome had been determined, as his best move was to do nothing in order not to arouse suspicion.  Once the war was over he took his family and purchased a settlement in Georgia for a fresh new start. But that is another story.   Some further research like (1) What were the laws on buying/selling land prior to 1775 in NC; (2) Did Ambrose have much land accumulated and if so can we create a paper trail of land bought and sold on a map to see if what Nathan was selling belonged at one time to Ambrose or Nicholas; (3) and What if Nicholas changed his name to sell more land without paying more taxes needs to be done.  Personally I believe with all the trouble with Indians, the French, the Revolutionists, and possible other reasons (such as being asked to leave the country) Nicholas changed his name to attempt a new life as Nathan Smith.  Another theory, by Jennings Smith – another Smith Researcher, says that Nathan may have begun heading for the Spanish territory (Natchez area) in lieu of leaving the country.  Along the way, he stopped in Franklin Co. GA, bought a track of land called the Nathan Smith Settlement.  Here again he had troubles with the local Indians and a bad purchase of land from the GA Government.  So fed up with it, he decided to move again toward Natchez but died before he could make it.  His family however made the trip, and that is another story.  But it is believed that Nathan died in GA.  He could have been stubborn and tried to stick it out, but when he died, his family took the opportunity to move on.  No one really knows.

Now that we have an idea who Nathan is, we can continue with his family.  If you read carefully back in the deeds for Nathan, you would have noticed that his wife was also in on the dealings.  Here is where we get the name ANN.  It is estimated that she too was born around 1730 just as Nathan.  This is all I know about her other than she had to have been a strong woman to keep up with Nathan and all her children in these turbulent times.  Now as shown earlier Nathan had 9 children, Everett, Nicholas, Isham, Stephen, William, Sarah, Gabriel, Jesse, and Mary.  And as stated earlier, Jesse and Mary have yet to be proven.  We used their birthdates and places of birth as well as their children to verify their existence within the 1790 Federal Census.  But we didn’t go into any detail of who Nathan’s children were.

The first born, Everett, born in 1751 in North Carolina, most likely Moore Co.  The second born, Nicholas, who was named after his grandfather (or possibly his father), was born in 1758 in Moore Co. MS.  The third born, Isham, was estimated to be born about 1760.  Fourth, was Stephen, who was born about 1762 in Cumberland Co. NC.  The fifth child was William, who was in the Revolutionary War, was born 26 Feb 1763 in Moore Co. NC.  The sixth child was Sarah Rachel Smith, who was born about 1765.  These sixth children I can competently say exist and all fit the bill to be the children of Nathan and Ann.    Now there were three other considerations for children: Gabriel, who was born in 1764,  Mary, who was born about 1768 in Moore Co. NC and Jesse, who was born about 1772 in

 Everette Smith Family

Moore Co. NC, none of which I am sure about.  I have only found some connections through others research and no solid proof.  Besides, if Ann was born about 1730, she would have been 38 with Mary and 42 with Jesse.  It is entirely possible, but it just doesn’t feel right to me.  I believe Jesse was born on 16 Apr 1766 in Montgomery Co. NC and died on 11 Apr 1842 in Franklin Co. GA.  I also believe, yet have no proof, that he was the son of John “Little River” Smith, which was either a brother or 1st cousin of Nathan’s.  It is also said the Jesse was a veteran of the Revolutionary War and received a land grant in Franklin Co. GA for service in the War.  He was supposed to have joined the military around May 1780 in the Chester District of South Carolina till about 1783.  He then moved to his birth place in Montgomery Co. NC for one year.  He last moved to Franklin Co. GA with his land grant where he died.  He is said to have married Keziah Neal (b. abt. 1765) around 1787 and had 4 Children (William, Benjamin, James, and Jesse).  He also married Ann Mitchell (b. abt. 1783) on 31 Jan 1832 with one Child (Rebecca – b. abt. 1833)15.  With that in mind about Jesse, I will pick him up in another portion of this book.  Now Mary, I have only seen a couple of links and have on proof or records to comment on her.  And finally, Gabriel who fits nicely into the picture as far as dates, but he is no where to be found with the immediate family.  He was born 12 Dec 1764 in Anson Co. North Carolina.  Which is a bit strange as all the other children were born in Moore Co. area, yet Anson Co. was next to Cumberland Co. in 1764 which was not yet Moore Co.; therefore, I cannot give a definitive answer to this question.  And as it still stands, I am not sure that he belongs to Nathan.  As a matter of fact, he has been linked to John “Little River” Smith, who is the brother of Nicholas, son of Ambrose.
I believe he is our family, but through another line, perhaps of John “Little River” Smith, Alexander Smith, or even Francis Smith.  I have yet to formulate an educated guess.

Everett grew up in Moore Co. North Carolina and remained living near his father after moving out.  He married Eliza Furr , the daughter of Heinrich or Henry Furr and Russena Raffor.  Henry was from Switzerland born about 6 Jul 1726 and died 27 Sep 1769 in Anson Co. North Carolina.  Russena was born in Georgia.  Everett, living in Moore Co. NC during the 1790 Federal Census, would have been about the age of 39.  By this time he and Eliza had all of their 9 children: A daughter (b. unk), Isaac (b. abt. 1772), William (b. 1775), Nathan (b. 1777), Everett (b. abt. 1780), Levi (b. abt. 1782), Pleasant (b. abt. 1784), Eli (b. 1787), and John (b. abt. 1790).  The first child, the daughter, is found in the 1790 census only recorded as a  female and is the only knowledge of her existence that I am aware of.  I have seen another’s  research that claims she was married to a Mr. Sheffield, but I have found nothing.  Nathan has been found through a marriage record to Elizabeth Jackson on the 18th of January 1821 and then later to a lady named Jennet, but nothing else has been found as of yet.  John, Everett’s youngest, was recorded as marrying a Ms. Sarah Dunn on 9 Aug 1824 in Mississippi and this is all I could find.  Later, Everett is recorded living in Franklin Co. GA near his father in the Nathan Smith Settlement as shown on the 1798 petition.  It is believed that they were here only for a few years until moving to Lawrence Co. Mississippi by 1812.  We did not find him recorded on the 1813 Marion County Tax list (as Lawrence Co. was not formed yet out of Marion Co.) along with his brothers, Isham, William, and Stephen; however, a couple of his sons were listed.  Everett is recorded to be buried in Smith Family Cemetery near Brookhaven, Lawrence Co. MS on 22 Apr 1822, survived by all of his children as they lived in Mississippi.  There is an Everett Smith Sr. listed on the 1830 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS (p. 63, line. 17), but it is difficult to verify that this is him.

Nicholas Smith Family Nicholas Smith, the second son, was born around 1758 in Moore Co. North Carolina.  He too remained near his father as he got older and began his own family.  Being named Nicholas is just one more notch in the list of things that help prove the Nicholas/Nathan saga as it was customary for parents to name their children after their grandparents.  He married an unknown lady.  Together, they had at least one son I know of, Henry, who was born about 1790 in Putnam Co. GA (Putnam is notable for a couple of citizens such as Joel Chandler Harris, author of The Uncle Remus Tales , who was born and raised in Putnam County and Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple.).  It is assumed that Nicolas’ wife was from Putnam Co. as well, and met her just before the move of the Smith Family to Franklin Co. GA (indecently, Putnam Co. [in 1807]was carved out of Baldwin Co. [in 1803] which was part of the Creek Indian lands and Franklin Co. during the 1790s.)  Nicolas was not found on the census lists we went over in North Carolina, yet he is found as seen on the 1798 petition to the Governor of Georgia shown earlier with his father, Nathan.  Then we loose Nicholas.  Did he remain in Georgia or did he move to Mississippi with the rest of the family.  It may be jumping ahead, but we found his grandchildren in Mississippi and therefore assume that he moved with the rest of his family.  He could have died in Georgia and his family continued on to MS.  I have no proof of his death or proof to verify my assumption on Nicholas. 

The third child, Isham Smith, seemed to be a bit of a mystery at first, but the further I dug, the more research from others I found.  Now officially, Isham appears to have gone to great pains to hide from the tax man.  I have found no record of his birth, but it is estimated by other means that he was born around 1760 in Cumberland Co. North Carolina.  Now in 1760, Moore co. was not created yet, but the land was carved out of Cumberland Co.  I said this because I don’t know ifFranklin Co. GA he was born in Cumberland Co. or  Moore Co. as we know them today?   It was hinted to me while researching that Isham was a participant in the Revolutionary War, but I am still trying to find out.  The first record of Isham was in 1787 on a North Carolina State census of Montgomery Co.  Then I found an Isham Smith in the 1790 Federal Census, but it is not definitive that it is him.  We do however have him signing the 1798 petition in Franklin Co. GA.  This follows suit with the rest of the family.  All the children, basically no matter how old, remained near their father.  Family and Respect was obviously very important in these days.   While in Georgia, thanks to Dr. Harold Graham of Newton Co. MS, records were found in the form of Deeds.  On 18 Apr 1804 (recorded on 7 Jun 1808) in the Deed Book RR on page 38, a Lewis Dickerson of Franklin Co. GA, sold Isham 200 acres in Franklin Co. on the Hudson Fork of Broad River for the sum of $1,065.  But Dr. Graham found on 30 Jul 1810 (recorded 6 Nov 1810) in the Deed Book T, on page 94 (Tax Collector’s Deed of Franklin Co.) a deed to a Lewis Moulder for 200 acres (the same 200 acres bought earlier) on the Indian Boundary and Hudson River.  How can the Tax Collector sell Isham’s land? Simple, If you don’t pay your taxes, the tax man will take your possessions to pay the tax.  The tax collector, Zebediah Payne, sold Isham’s land that he paid $1,065 for to Mr Moulder for (get this) $6.00 due to taxes in arrears from 1804 through an auction on 4 May 1805.  Isham lost his land for $6.00 in an auction.  In the Deed Book T, page 95, dated 31 Jul 1810 (also recorded on 6 Nov 1810), Mr Moulder sold the land the very next day to John C. Aberhold of South Carolina for $775.75.  Can you believe it? It appear that Isham forked out $1065 and then had the land taken from him, sold to another and then he made a profit from the resale.  Then there was one last record found in Deed Book HH, page 154 – 155, dated 21 Jul 1810 (dated just before the tax man took the land and not long before the time I estimated he moved to MS) a sale of land from Isom Smith to Isaac Smith of the same said property of 200 acres for the sum of $1,100.  This last sale wasn’t recorded until 30 Aug 1817.  This means that Isham bought some land for $1065 in 1804.  Had it  taken from him and auctioned for $6 upon which the new owner sold for $775.75.  But Isham, under the name of Isom, sold the land to Isaac Smith (of any relation, I don’t know) for the sum of $1,100 – a $35 profit – just 9 days before the tax collector auctioned off the land.  The records didn’t have time to be recorded before the transactions took place; therefore, no one knew of the sales.    He worked the land for 6 years without anyone noticing, sold it for a profit without paying any taxes.  Where another man who also profited of the purchase and resale of land that didn’t belong to him via the tax collector.  No one could even tell until Aug 1817 that the discrepancy existed.  Who owned theLawrence Co. MS land?  Who got shafted?    It either belongs to Isaac Smith or John Aberhold.  But Isham, Mr. Moulder, and the Tax man all got their share and disappeared.  There was some shady deals going on that had Isham’s name written all over it.  It is quite funny to also notice that the Smith Family packed it in a migrated to MS within months of these transactions.  This is also an example of the government land dealing that were going on with the Yazoo Land Fraud and Pine Barrens Scandal.

The next record found on Isham was in the 1813 Marion Co. Mississippi Tax List where it appears he had a plot of land in the city of Monticello, MS (probably bought from the proceeds of his previous sale).  As Marion Co. was carved up and Lawrence Co. was born in December 1814, we found Isham on the 1821 Tax List for Lawrence Co. MS.  In around 1822 he was located on a lawsuit pertaining to his nephew, William “One Hand” Smith, being mentioned as his uncle Isham Sr. just for a reference.  I also found him on the 1820 Federal Census for Lawrence Co. MS (page 61, Line 34).  The only problem with this is that it records Isham as having 2 males age 10 or under, 1 male between 18 and 25, 3 females age 10 or under, 1 female between 10 and 15, and 1 female between 16 and 25.  Our Isham only had 5 children that I am aware of which in 1820 he would have had only one at home at the best.  Yet with out more details, as these children could have been grandkids or nephews/nieces, I cannot be sure.  He was cited in the 1833 and 1834 Lawrence Co. Tax Lists.   Some how he missed being recorded on the 1830 Census and the 1840 Census.  I looked in surrounding counties and was unable to find him.  I believe after the dealings in Georgia, he didn’t mind being on the local records as it was inevitable, yet refrained from being on anything Federal that those from Georgia could find him.  It is rumoured that after 1820 (assuming that was him) he is never listed as the head of any household because he was living with one of his children and never owned any land, but we know that he was listed on the 1840 Tax list for Lawrence Co. MS so something is amiss with the rumour.  And the last record found by Dr. Graham had to deal with Slaves.  Yep, my direct ancestors owned slaves.    This began with a court case of ‘William WOOTEN, Complainant, vs. Stephen SMITH, Defendant’.  Stephen was Isham’s son.  “The case involves a slave named Buck who was able to save enough money to buy his freedom from Stephen Smith in about 1841.  He had originally been owned by old Isham Smith.  Isham, Sr. sold Buck to Stephen Smith [his son] in about 1835. Buck had attempted to buy a mulatto slave girl named Rachel from James Case. Rachel and Buck were trying to leave the south when Rachel was arrested and held in a Vicksburg jail.  Buck had his freedom papers which saved him from going to jail with Rachel. Buck returned to Bahala and contacted James Case in an effort to get Rachel out of jail.  James Case informed Buck that when he had sold Rachel to Buck that Rachel had then become the property of Stephen Smith and that Buck needed to enlist Stephen Smith's help. Buck told Case that under no circumstances would he go to Stephen Smith.  Stephen Smith learned of Rachel's arraignment, and with his son-in-law, George Washington Phillips, had her released.  Case determined that Buck had disappeared and that the girl Rachel was his property if Buck could not take care of her. Case then sold Rachel to William Wooten. Jeptha Furr interceded and stated that if Rachel were turned over to Wooten, something terrible would happen to her.  Smith hid the girl from Wooten and Wooten then brought a law suit against Smith.  William ‘One Hand’ Smith (son of old Everett Smith) and William's son Hamilton testified for Stephen Smith.  During the interrogation, William ‘One Hand’ Smith stated that his Uncle Isham had originally owned Buck and had sold Buck to Stephen.”16

Mississippi  1819 Isham Smith Family With all this, we gathered that Isham was married.  He married Sarah Harbin, who was born about 1770 in North Carolina as best as I can tell and died about 1803 while in Georgia, around 1790 in North Carolina.  She died just about the time all the mischief began with Isham.  Together they had 6 children:  Isham Anderson Smith (b. 1790), Elizabeth (b. 1796), John (b. 1797), Jemima (b. 1798), Stephen (b. 1803), and Dorcas (b. unknown).  Logic would dictate that if Isham and Sarah were married in 1790, the first child fits.  I have no record, yet if Sarah died in 1803, I am assuming she died during or afterwards due to complications from child birth of Stephen.  Furthermore, as she had no more children after 1803 and was married about 1790, Dorcas had to have been born within these dates.  The biggest gap in dates is between Isham Anderson and Elizabeth, which means I assume Dorcas to have been born between 1791 and 1795.  Each of the children had their own families and will be discussed in the next chapter, except Elizabeth.  We have discovered that Elizabeth married William Levi Netherland (b. abt. 1770 in SC / d. about 1815 in Amite Co. MS) on 3 Aug 1811 in Amite Co. MS.  Yet this is all I found. I have no record of any children.  It is not known when Old Isham died, yet we know it must have been after 1840 (from the 1840 Tax list).

The Fourth child, Stephen Smith, was born about 1762 in Moore Co. North Carolina.  He grew up as part of a pack that appeared to be inseparable of the years, even till death.  He was probably the toughest of them all.  I have not uncovered any shady deals or dark secrets.  He appears to be quite upfront and forthcoming.  Unlike his father and a couple of his brothers, he remained visible to the public eye as we can find him on most all the census and tax records.  Through this, I have been able to use his paper trail to help me find the rest of his family as they travelled and lived near one another.   It appears that Stephen got married about 1787 in North Carolina (assume Moore Co.) to Jemima Kees.  Jemima is said to have been born around 1760 in Georgia.  In the 1790 Federal Census of Moore Co. North Carolina, Stephen is found having one male child under 16 and two females.  This matches his profile at this date in time.   According to Jennings Smith, another Smith Researcher who actually belongs to this Stephen Smith line, it is estimated that Stephen moved around 1795 to the Nathan Smith Settlement in North East Georgia.  This also fits his profile based on the birth of his children.  While in GA, we have already discovered the land troubles with the settlement on Indian lands with Nathan, yet Stephen was also there as he also signed the petition to the Georgian Governor.  Jennings also discovered that Stephen moved his wife and kids out of the settlement and bought some land in 1798 from a Thomas Gregg on the Hutson River in Franklin Co. GA.  Stephen always appeared to be doing the right thing and avoid as much trouble as he could without going too far from his family.  Now we found out earlier that Isham sold his land in Jul 1810, and just on year later, it has been found that Stephen sold the same property bought in 1798 on 21 Sep 1811.  These dates all coincide with the assumptions that the Smith family left Georgia and migrated to Mississippi before 1812, because we also find Stephen on the 1813 Marion Co. Mississippi Tax list where he paid taxes on a block of land in Bogue Chitto (now in Lawrence Co. MS).  On the 1820 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS, we find Stephen (page 60, Line 13 – Township #8) with 4 male children under 10, 2 male children between 10 and 15, 1 male child between 15 and 18, 1 male over 45, 2 females under 10, 1 female between 10 and 15, and 1 female between 26 and 44.  It also said that Stephen owned 1 female slave.  He had a big family obviously and those shown here were not all his; they were probably some grandkids living with him.  He was found again in the 1830 Federal Census for Lawrence Co. MS (page 63, line 13) with 1 male between 5 and 10, 1 male between 60 and 70 (himself), 1 female between 20 and 30, 1 female between 60 and 70 (the wife), and he had 12 slaves.  It appears that Stephen had settled down and began a farm (of what I don’t know).  He had to be successful at it to be able to acquire the slaves and maintain them.  Once more in the 1840 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS (page 61, Line 23) Stephen is found with only himself and 14 slaves.  His wife and children were missing or moved out and he remained working the farm.  It is said that his wife Jemima Kees died about 1860 in Lawrence Co. MS, so I don’t know where she was at this time.  But it is estimated that Stephen died in Bogue Chitto, Lawrence Co. MS around 1846.  Jennings Smith says that although there are no gravestones remaining, both Stephen and Jemima are believed to be buried at Friendship Baptist Church Cemetery in Lawrence Co. MS.

Now Stephen and Jemima together had 10 children as far as I can tell.  There was: Nicholas (b. 1788), Nancy (b. 1788), Nathan (b. 1790), Mary (b. 1791), Sarah (b. 1793), Isham (b. 1795), Margaret (b. 1802), Elizabeth (b. 1804), James (b. 1808), and Jemima (b. 9 May 1811).  Each one of the children ventured out and had families of their own except for Sarah.  The only information I can find on Sarah at this stage is that she had married a John Delishment.   

Stephen Smith Family

William Smith Family   The Fifth child, William Smith, was born 26 Feb 1763 in Moore Co. North Carolina. William appears to be a bit of the quiet one.  Being the 5th child with 4 older brothers, he probably was held back as little brothers are, yet he appears to have grown up with the same respect for his family and maybe even his country as it is rumoured that he was a volunteer in the Revolutionary war, enlisting about 1780 in the 96th District of South Carolina (I have sent off for documents from the American Archives and War office to prove this).  William moved back home to Moore Co. after the war and lived there and in Montgomery Co. over the next few years.  He is estimated to have been married around 1787, at the close of the revolution, to a Ms. Sarah Patterson.  Together they had one child that we are aware of, William Smith, who was born about 1788 in Moore Co. MS.  A Smith researcher, Gregory Smith, in his book “Descendants of Captain Billy Smith” stated that Sarah’s family originated in Moore Co. North Carolina as well.  William and Sarah, according to Gregory Smith, were involved in many land transactions in the Franklin Co. Georgia area (of which involved some of the Kees’ Family – we will get to them later).  Now we did find that he signed the 1798 petition to the Georgia Governor as well; thus, proving the theory of Gregory Smith that he was located in Franklin Co. GA.  I have yet to find these land transactions, but I am still looking .  William seemed to remain with his family though out his life as they all did, for again I found him but this time on the 1813 Marion Co. MS Tax List as William Sr. also holding one slave.  Modestly, he is found in the 1820 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS (p. 58, Line 16, Twsp.  #8) with 2 boys under 10 yrs old, 1 male between 18 and 25, himself, one female under 10, 2 females between 10 and 15, and his wife, along with 2 slaves.  It is apparent that William was a farmer, modest, but a farmer none the less, because in the 1830 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS (p. 65, line 13) we find him again with three boys, one daughter, his wife, and 5 slaves.  I have found no further records of William, yet it is estimated that he died about 1833 in Mississippi.

The sixth and last child, Sarah Rachel Smith, was born about 1765 in North Carolina, and assumed Moore Co.  She married Owen Carpenter, who was born about 1767 also in North Carolina, around November 1785.  Now it is hard to find some of these people in the distant past and you hope they owned some land, paid taxes, or were recorded with some court record or deed.  It is even harder to keep up with the person if they are female.  Women did own land and run farms and businesses, but as a rule, the men handled all the business.  Therefore, after women married they were hard to find unless on a deed with the husband, on a will from the husband or father, or the head of house hold and the husband had died.  Up till now we have had only sons of Nathan, but now we have his only confirmed daughter, Sarah.  I have found precious few records of Sarah, and can only follow the trail using Owen Carpenter, her husband.  But this seems to work just as well.  As they were married about 1785, on the 1790 Federal Census of Moore Co. North Carolina, we found Owen Carpenter with matching wife and children.  Unable to find further evidence, the next record found was on the 1798 petition to the Governor while living in Franklin Co. Georgia.  Owen signed next to Nathan and Nicholas.  In 1804, it has been found through a “summary of a Report of Col. William Wofford, made to Col. Jonathan Meigs, agent to the Cherokee Indians, Southwest Point, regarding the number and condition of the Settlers living in and near the "Wofford Settlement [and Nathan Smith Settlement]", on the Frontier of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation of Indians - lying between the Currahee Mountain and the Headwaters of the Oconee River.  [Of these] Nathan Smith's Settlers - Original Settlers left outside of Col. Hawkins line 1st February 1798 [were]: Owen Carpenter”17  There were others, but at this point I only wish to show Owen.       
Owen & Sarah (Smith) Carpenter Family

Although, this portion is about Sarah, there is an interesting note about the Carpenter family that I must share with you.  Now Owen’ Father, Thomas Owen Carpenter who was born about 1740 in North Carolina and died about 1780 in North Carolina married a Catherine Shamberger who was born about 1743 in North Carolina around 1759 in North Carolina.  They lived in Bear Creek, Moore Co., NC.  Thomas is buried in Shamberger Cemetery, Montgomery Co., NC.  Together they begat 7 children:  Jonathan Carpenter (b. abt. 1760 in NC), Solomon Carpenter (b. abt. 1763 in NC), Dennis Carpenter (b. abt. 1765 in NC), Owen Carpenter (b. abt. 1767 in NC), and Temple Carpenter (b. 1769 in NC), Adam Carpenter (b. 2 Jul. 1771 in NC), and Infant Carpenter (b. & d. 1780 in NC).  These names will be relevant later, but the story is simply that “[Thomas] Owen CARPENTER, Sr. being the patriot militiaman who was killed on his doorstep along with an infant son then held in his arms, by a single musket ball fired by a marauding band of Tories [British Soldiers] during the American Revolution”18 
As Owen seemed to miss the 1813 Tax List (his brothers were on it), we can find Owen again with Sarah on the 1820 Federal Census of Lawrence Co. MS (page 75, line 9).  It would appear that they had a couple of grandchildren living with them as well as one slave.  It is believed that Owen Sr. died in Lawrence Co. MS sometime in 1828.  His and Sarah’s children, namely Owen Jr., moved at this stage up to Carroll Co. MS as we can see on the Original Land Plat Book for Carroll Co. MS: Owen Jr. owned as follows: (1) Owen Carpenter 40.78 acres 1834 (2) Township 19 Range 4 E Owen Carpenter, Sr. 40.14 acres  in 1835 (3) John Carpenter 40.78 acres 1836.  In 1835, Owen Sr. was already dead; thus, it is believed that Sarah may have bought land under her husband’s name, for it is shown that she, too, passed away in 1836 in Carroll Co. Mississippi, near her children.  It is estimated a few of our Smith’s and Carpenters (and Taliaferro’s) moved to the Carroll Co. MS  1835 Black Hawk and Smith Mills areas in the southern portion of Carroll Co. MS.  Black Hawk, located six miles south of Coila, was formed from an Indian village and named for a famous Indian chief who lived in the vicinity. The place is classed with Carrollton as being one of the oldest settlements in North Mississippi, being formed in 1828. The town was incorporated in 1836, but had been a village long before Mississippi ever became a state.  As Mississippi took over the Indian lands in 1833, it was by June 1834  Some of the early settlers to this community were: O' Keefe, Marshall, Carpenter, Smith, Gillespie, Standley, Brewer, Martin, Johnson, Atchison, King, Hendon, Fleming, Avera, Moore, Stevens, Semple, Faucher, Bland, Bennett, Harris, Terrell, Kittrell, Cooley, Hill, Reeves, Murdock, Lundy, Pate, Purcell, Austin, Streater, Meek, Spann, Sharkey, Calhoun, Hinson, Cox, Bacon and Brown.  According to local family history, the Smith's Community was located between Potacocowa Creek and the Longhill Community in Carroll County. It is said there was a big steam mill located on the creek, a couple of stores, and a post office and Rock Ford public school.  Some of the families living in the area duMississippi Counties ring this time included those of Josh Smith, Angus M. Millan, Morgan Smith, James M. Liddell, Charles O. Aven, John A. Hammons, Henry Harden Smith, Hightower, Sabin, Wash R. Mullen, Watson, Benjamin J. Lott, Lee C. Smith, Geralus N. Smith, Curtis Lee Smith, Edgar A. Hammons, Ben Telford, Lynn Taliaferro, Eva Smallwood and Homer Ricketts.  The first Postmasters of  Smith’s Mills were: Josh Smith (appt. 23 Sep 1837) and Thomas M. Smith (appt. 1 Oct 1840); if they are of relation, I am not aware yet.
The Smith Family went through many changes in the 1700s, not to mention America and the World.  It was a time of changes, revolutionary and unity, in all facets of life.  The world was still attempting to establish itself as those inside demanded change, just as Our Smiths were sorting through all the changes going on looking for their place to set roots.  These changes; however necessary but unfortunately, ended in many battles being fought both on and off the battle field.  Our ancestors were caught up in the middle of the fights and even caught between the warring sides.  Although there were no outstanding heroes recognized by the world in our family during this time, we did survive a most dangerous and exciting time and I am glad they did for I would not be here to cherish my family as it appears our ancestors did.  They are all heroes to me.  God is always in control guiding our Family.

By: Jerry A. Smith,
Smith Family Researcher


1.  Connell, Brian:  George Washington-The Savage Years (New York: Harper & Bros. Press, 1959), p. 61.
2.  Bennardo, Kevin:  Essay – Uneasy Allies: British and Colonial Interaction During the French and Indian War.
3.  Chronicle of the Revolution, Expanding Frontier, p. 3  www.PBS.org/ktca/liberty/
4.  Chronicle of the Revolution, Expanding Frontier, p. 1  www.PBS.org/ktca/liberty/
5.  Cumberland Co. North Carolina Deed Books, 3 & 4 – along with Deed Index.
6.  Coleman, C. W.:  Compilations of records from "William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Vol. 6, No. 1, July 1897, pp. 41-52.
7. Meltzer, Milton:  Benjamin Franklin, The New American; 1988, p. 153.
8.  Wulf, Karin A.:  Essay – Despise the mean distinctions [these] Times have made: The complexity of Patriotism and Quaker Loyalism in one Pennsylvania Family
9. Chronicle of the Revolution, Loyalists, p.1  www.PBS.org/ktca/liberty/
10.  Bennardo, Kevin:  Essay – Uneasy Allies: British and Colonial Interaction During the French and Indian War.
11.  1790 US Federal Census:  https://sites.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/nc/moore/census/1790/
12.  Lavonia Times and Guage (Newspaper): 23 Feb 1934.
13.  Georgia Genealogical Society Quarterly Vol II Ser 3 March 1967
14.  1813 Marion County Tax list
15.  Fortenberry, Bobby J.:  Research on Jesse Smith at bjfort@xspeduis.net
16.  Logan, Sharon Smith: Smith Family Researcher – Essay of Origins of Smiths  (http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=sjsmith&id=I00027)
17. Georgia Genealogical Society Quarterly Vol II Ser 3 March 1967
18.  Morrow, Ken:  Emails and Correspondence: Descendant of Temple Carpenter, Son of Thomas Carpenter: bulldog38@prodigy.net as verified by bible record.

Back To

The Top