E-Mail Me
Get your own Free Home Page
Joseph Hanks was on of nine children, and the eldest son to remain in Richmond County after the death of his father, John Hanks. When his long-widowed mother Katherine, who seems to have lived with him and his own growing family, finally died in 1778 or early 1779, the court appointed him administrator of her few items of personal estate. But seven other individuals-five of whom were immediate neighbors of the deceased and her son Joseph (two of these were members of the local gentry)-were given by the court responsibilities in the settlement of her estate as well. As will be demonstrated, their identities, land-holdings, and places of residence, when combined with other data, are of critical importance in determining exactly where in North Farnham Parish the Joseph Hanks household-and presumably daughter Lucey-resided.
The death of his mother marked the beginning of a time of uprooting for Joseph and Ann Hanks. Although he was past 50, his wife was still in her childbearing years. The couple now had at least seven children of widely varying ages and at least two more would yet be born. By 1780, the eldest son, Thomas, had migrated to Hampshire County, in the northwestern part of the commonwealth. From there, he served five months in the Continental army in the cause of the American Revolution, at various locations in North Carolina and Virginia.
Joseph's son Thomas must have sent back a good report of the hilly western part of Hampshire County-the area that today is divided between Mineral and Grant counties in West Virginia-because in or about June of 1782 Joseph Hanks left Richmon County, and traveled west for probably two or three weeks to the frontier settlement in Hampshire Coounty's Patterson Creek valley. It is not known how many of his family members he took with him on this initial, tentative, temporary sojourn of four or five months; but he was taxed there during the summer for one tithable adult male, two horses and three cattle. Several weeks later, probably in October, a census of Hampshire was reported in the same neighborhood as the head of a household of 11 white persons.
The reason for identifying the Joseph Hanks of Hampshire county with the Joseph Hanks of Richmond County need discussing at this point. When two individuals of the same name are recorded intermittently during the same time period of two different locations, it msut normally be assumed they are two distinct individuals. The Joseph of Richmond is recorded frequently until April off 1783, and once later, in a court suit of April 5, 1785, which he prosecuted through someone to whom he granted power-of-attorney.
The Joseph of Hampshire is reported twice in 1782, on both a tax list and a census return as cited above. Neither record cites the month and ay when this Joseph was counted, but the tax assessment, according to the enabling legislation, should have been started on April 10, and fully completed, with any late additions, by July 1. The state census was mandated for the period October 1-October 20. (Whether county officials carried out their instructions from the state legislature in a timely manner is not known.) The Hamspshire Joseph is again reported, as "Joseph Hanks of the County of Hampshire" on March 9, 1784, when he mortgaged a 108-acre tract to Peter Putman. What is there to suggest that the two Joseph, living 250 miles apart, were the same man?
The identification is based on the fact that Joseph Hanks of Richmond County is not to be found in the 1782 personal property tax assessment lists made there during the spring and summer of 1782. Nor does his name appear in the court records either as one excused from paying the tax due to infirmities, or convicted by a grand jury or county officials for failure to report for the tax. One must conclude Joseph Hanks was missing from the county during this time period. However, an indictment presented against a certain "Hanks" by a grand jury on June 4, 1782, but dismissed may coincide with Joseph's departure from the county, as will be shown.
The identification of the two Joseph Hanks as the one individual relies further on the fact that the Joseph of Hampshire County is not reported there in the personal property tax lists for 1783, as the writer details farther along. One must account somehow for this gap between the other citations of his presence there. Beyond this, both the Josephs were illiterate and made the mak on documents with an "x". Their households were of similiar size, and they were of similiar socioeconomic status. Moreover, a chain migration between the Northen Neck and Hampshire County can be documented.
Get your own Free Home Page