Monday, February 2, 2026

Solomon Bolton Story

   A Romance of the Melungeons


Mysterious Racial Group in East Tennessee, Descendants of Phoenicians of Ancient Carthage,
 Subject of Dramatic Story Found in Memoirs of Late Judge Lewis Shepherd 
 - Drama and Heartbreak Attended Early Lawsuit in Which Chattanoogan Won His Spurs -

By
T. A. Rogers
June 21, 1936


Editor’s Note–Romance, drama and heart-break, holding all the interest of a Hollywood moving picture thriller, are contained in this story of “The Melungeons,” a tale of the early days of Chattanooga, as told by the late Judge Lewis Shepherd, for many years a leading member of the bar here.  This story , along with many other interesting narratives, appears in ‘Personal Memoirs” in which Judge Shepherd told of striking and important cases in which he figured as a young attorney and in later life.  For the most part the stories in the book were originally written for the Times by Judge Shepherd.

-------------------------------------------------
Many years ago, when Tennessee was being settled by white people, there came to this section from Virginia a wealthy man with his family and his slaves.  He bought a large and valuable tract of land a cleared it up and converted it into a farm.  This tract was situated in the bend of the river, now called Moccasin bend and much of it was very rich and fertile river bottom land, where vegetation of all sorts grew in rich and luxuriant abundance.

The man died after awhile, leaving a widow and three sons, the widow married again and raised a family of three girls.  The young men grew up to be good business men, and each of them had a fine farm inherited from his father.  Two of them died without having been married, and their estates were inherited by the survivor.  The survivor, the hero of this story, rented his land and hired out his slaves, and he himself entered into the mercantile business in the town which grew up on the south side of the river.  It was at first Rossville, but is now the flourishing city of Chattanooga.  After several years of life in the town he was attacked with severe  spell of fever; he recovered but the disease affected his mind to such an extent that he was temporarily deranged.  He recovered his mental faculties about the year 1848 and thereafter, for several years, managed his property very successfully.

Old Soldier’s Beautiful Daughter

He had on his farm a tenant who had been a United States soldier in the War of 1812, having joined the army in South Carolina, where he lived at the time.  This old soldier had a daughter who was famed for her beauty, her grace of manner and modesty.  She was a dark brunette.  She had a suit of black hair, which was coveted by all the girls who knew her.  Her form was petite, and yet withal was so plump and so well developed as to make her an irresistibly charming young woman.  She was most beautiful of face, and had a rich, black eye, in whose depths the sunbeams seemed to gather.  When she loosed her locks they fell, almost reaching the ground, and shone in the sunlight or quivered like the glamour which the full moon throws on the placid water.  She was the essence of grace and loveliness.

Our hero fell in love with this delightful young woman;’ she reciprocated his affection, and they obtained the consent of their parents to be married.  His mother and half sisters heard of his attachment and engagement — to which they were much opposed. They knew if he married, their prospects of some time falling heir to his property would be destroyed.  They notified the clerk and his deputy, whose duty it was to issue marriage licenses not to issue a license, claiming that our hero was incompetent to contract a marriage, and that there was a legal disability to his inter-marriage with this girl and they threatened to bring suit for damages against him and his bondsmen if he issued him a license to wed this young woman.

Love Laughs at Obstacles

When our hero, several days afterward applied to the clerk he was refused a license.  He was a young man of resources and was not to be outwitted in this way.  He took his bride elect and crossed over the river and secured the aid of Ab Carroll and John Cummings, both of whom were young men, and they entered joyfully into the plot.  They were fond of fun, and they readily agreed to promote the marriage, since there was a romantic feature connected with it.  They took the young people desperately bent on getting married to the house of squire Clark in Dade county, Georgia, and sent to Trenton and secured a marriage license.  Squire Clark performed the marriage ceremony in due and proper form, and made return of the license, properly indorsed by him under the law of Georgia, the proper court in Trenton, the county seat of Dade county.

The happy bridegroom, with his charming bride, returned to his home that afternoon, duly and legally married, much to the discomfort of his relatives who had tried to thwart the marriage, it never having occurred to them that a Georgia court would grant a license and a Georgia judge perform the ceremony.

They immediately went to housekeeping on the bridegroom’s plantation in a comfortable home which he had previously furnished and prepared for his bride, and they started out in life happily and auspiciously.  The marriage took place on June 14, 1856, as shown by Squire Clark’s return on the license.

The first child of the marriage was a son, who died in his infancy.  The second was a daughter, who was born in the latter part of they year 1858.

Insane From Grief

Eight days after her birth the mother died, which event was such an overpowering shock to the father that he went violently insane and had to  be taken into custody and kept under guard for a long time.  He never recovered his mind, but he got to be in such condition that he was entirely harmless. He was permitted to live alone in his house and his meals were furnished him by his guardian, who looked carefully and closely after his welfare.

He was like Judge Alton Parker in one respect-he took a plunge into the creek, or river, near his house every morning, no matter how cold or how hot it was.  In the winter time he frequently had to break the ice in order to take his plunge.  He would not allow a hair to grow anywhere on his body, head or face; he plucked them out as soon as they made their appearance, and he fancied that evil spirts would invade his house and destroy him unless he kept himself surrounded by a circle of cats, which he always did.  His cats were numerous and were exceedingly well trained for their work.

The mother and half sisters of the crazy man procured a maternal aunt of the child “Aunt Betsy” either by threats or bribes to take the infant clear out of the country and exacted a promise from her that she would never return to this country, and she took her away and settled in Illinois in the swamps of the Mississippi, seventy-five miles from Cairo, and the child was completely forgotten by everybody in this country, except Mr. Samuel Williams, who knew all the fact and knew that some day there would be a reckoning. He secretly arranged with “Aunt Betsey” to have a letter written to him once in a while to keep him posted as to the whereabouts and the welfare of the child, and this she did.  Whenever she changed her place of residence she promptly caused Mr. Williams to be notified and informed of her new habitation.

She had the forethought when she went on her journey to take the child’s father’s family Bible, which contained a record in his own handwriting of his marriage and the birth of the  children, which proved to be a valuable item of evidence in the great chancery court suit which afterward arose out of these matters.

Shortly after the man went crazy William H. Foust was appointed guardian of his person and property.  Mr. Foust was one of the best men in the country; was successful and prosperous in his own affairs and made a careful and prudent guardian of his ward’s property and of his person. He kept his lands rented and carefully collected and preserved the rents until he had a fund of many thousands of dollars, loaned at interest and well secured by deeds of trust on real estate.  Mr.  Foust allowed the man to live in his own house, but employed one of the tenants on his estate to feed him and look after keeping his house and clothes in proper condition, and in this way he was comfortably and amply provided for.

Fight for Estate Opens

In 1872, while the Hon. D. M. Key was chancellor, the two surviving half-sisters of our man and the children of the deceased half sister brought suit in the chancery court, by which they sought to surcharge and falsify the settlements made from time to time by Mr. Foust of his guardianship; they charged that he had mismanaged the estate and wasted its assets, and had loaned large sums to insolvent persons and had taken inadequate security from the borrowers, and sought to make him account for the assets, which he ought, by prudent management, to have on hand.

Another feature of the bill was that Mr. Foust’s ward was an incurable and permanent lunatic, rarely having a lucid interval, and that complainants were his heirs apparent and would certainly fall into possession of the estate.  The prayer of the bill was that the guardianship be revoked and the ward and his estate be turned over now to them,  they agreeing to give bond and security that they would provide for all his wants.  They also prayed the court to pronounce a decree adjudging them to be the heirs apparent to the estate.

Mr. Samuel Williams and Col. John L. Divine were the sureties on Mr. Foust’s bond as guardian, and they were sued in order to make good the decree which the complainant expected to recover, and Mr. Williams concluded that now was the proper time for him to make use of the knowledge which he had of the existence and whereabouts of the rightful heir apparent, and sought a lawyer to whom his secret would be entrusted and who could represent the girl in the assertion of her rights.  He found on inquiry that all the experienced lawyers in town had been employed either by complainants or Mr. Foust, one of the defendants.  VanDyke, Cooke & VanDyke Judge D. C. Trewhitt and Maj. Mose H. Clift were the array on the complainants’ side while Key & Richmond and Col. W. L. Eakins represented Mr. Foust.

Young Lawyer Recommended

A friend of Mr. Williams advised him to consult a young lawyer (Shepherd) who was just starting out in business.  Mr. Williams acted on this advice and communicated all the facts in his possession to the young man and placed the entire matter in his hands for  such action as he might deem necessary and appropriate.  Mr. Williams agreed to serve in the capacity of next friend to the girl and become responsible for the costs and thereupon a bill was filed for her, asking that she be adjudged the child and heir apparent to the crazy man and that she be supported and educated out of his estate, her education having been sadly neglected while she was in exile.

This bill created a big sensation; it was like a clap of thunder out of a clear sky.  The complainants were extravagant in their denunciation of the bill as a tissue of falsehoods and slanders.  They claimed that it was a fabrication of old man Williams, and that the girl was an impostor.  They even denied that there was any such person as she in existence; they denied her identity as the child of the lunatic, married to his alleged wife and claimed that if he had gone through the form of marriage it was void for numerous reasons, and the issue of such marriage was illegitimate.

In this condition of affairs, Mr. Williams on the advice of the counsel he had retained for the girl, went to Illinois and after much persuasion , he induced her to return to Chattanooga with him. He brought back with him the old Bible which “Aunt Betsy” had carried away with her when she went to Illinois.

He had to promise “Aunt Betsy” that he would fetch her back to Chattanooga as soon as she could dispose of her belongings, which promise he made good.  When Mr. Williams got back to Chattanooga the girl was nearly 15 years old.  She knew nothing about the ways of the world. She was totally ignorant of the prevailing fashions of dress, she did not know what a corset was or how it was worn, whether over or under the dress.  She had spent the most of her life in the forest along the banks of the Mississippi, where she and her aunt had made their living by cultivating a small patch with hoes and by cutting cord wood and selling it to the steamboats which plied up and down the river and which used the wood for fuel. She knew nothing whatever of the arts of fashionable women in making for themselves attractive forms  and figures by skillful lacing.  She was simply an uncouth , unsophisticated, unmade-up, natural girl from the backwoods; a girl, withal, possessed of a strikingly beautiful face and a figure which , by proper development and dress was capable of being molded into a form that would please the most fastidious.

Hoe Girl to Heiress

She was very much like her mother, and possessed all the charms and graces she did, but they were undeveloped.  Mr. Williams took her to a milliner and had her proved with a wardrobe suitable to her changed surroundings.  She very readily adapted herself to her new surrounding and her new life out in the midst of civilization.  She was kept at the Williams home and sent to school from there for about two years.

She had to start from the very beginning but, being ambitious to get some education she studied hard and learned very rapidly and in the short time of her school days got a very fair and practical educations.  She afterward married her teacher, who was a splendid young man and became one of the leading men in the community and managed his wife’s affairs very successfully and added considerably to her fortune.  At the time of his death, which occurred about twenty years ago, he was a prominent official in the county and in conjunction with Blev Thomspon, represented the Hill City district in the county court.

The case was energetically prepared for trial; upward of sixty depositions were taken on the various issues raised in the pleading.  The fact of the marriage was easily proved; Squire Clark, who officiated, was still living; as were John and James Cummings and Joel Cross, all of whom were eye witnesses to the performance of the ceremony and remembered it well.  In their depositions they stated as a reason for remembering the occurrence so well the unusual circumstances that when the ceremony was said Squire Clark, the bridal pair and witnesses were all standing in the big road in front of Squire Clark’s house.  The record in the old Bible established the date of the birth of the child.

The point made that the man was incapable, by reason of being non compos mentis, of entering into a contract of marriage was settled by the ruling of the judge that a marriage which was voidable could not be questioned by anybody except one of the parties to be contract; in other words, that such marriage could not be attacked collaterally; so that it was at all relevant to take evidence on that point.

The great battle ground was the allegation in the answer that the marriage was void because in contravention of a statue of Tennessee prohibiting the intermarriage of a white person with a person of Negro blood to the sixth degree it being alleged that the mother of this girl was a person of mixed Negro blood within the prohibition degree, and upon this issue a large volume of proof was taken.

What the Proof Showed

The evidence completely exploded this theory.  It was satisfactorily established in the proof that the family of this woman was in no way allied to, or connected with, the Negro race; that there was not a feature of herself or ancestry that was at all similar to the distinguishing characteristics or features of the Negro, except that they were of dark color, about the color of a mulatto.  They had high foreheads; long, straight, black hair; high cheek bones, thin lips, small feet, with high insteps and prominent Roman noses, while the features of the Negro and mulatto were exactly the reverse of these.

In truth, these people belonged to a peculiar race which settled in East Tennessee at an early day and in the vernacular of that country, they were known as “Melungeons,’ and were not even remotely allied to the Negroes.  It was proven by the tradition among these people that they were descendant of the ancient Carthagenians; they were Phoenicians who, after Carthage was conquered by the Romans and became a province, emigrated across the Straits of Gibraltar and settled in Portugal.  They lived for many years and became quite numerous on the southern coast of Portugal, and from thence the distinguished Venetian general, Othello, whom Shakespeare made immortal in his celebrates play, “Othello, the Moor of Venice.”  These were the same people who fought the Romans so bravely and heroically in the Punic wars and whose women sacrificed their long, black hair to the state to be plaited and twisted into cable with which to fasten their galleys and ships of war to the shore.

About the time of our Revolutionary war, a considerable body of these people crossed the Atlantic and settled on the coast of South Carolina, near the North Carolina line, and they lived among the people of Carolina for a number of years.  At length the people of Carolina began to suspect that they were mulattoes or free Negroes and denied them the privileges usually accorded to white people. They refused to associate with them on equal terms and would not allow them to send their children to school with white children, and would only admit them to join their churches on the footing of Negroes.

Race Holds Its Own

South Carolina had a law taxing free Negroes so much per capita, and a determined effort was made to collect this of them.  But it was shown in evidence on the trial of this case that they always successfully resisted the payment of this tax, as they proved that they were not Negroes.  Because of their treatment, they left South Carolina at an early day and wandered across the mountains to Hancock county, East Tennessee; in fact, the majority of the people of that country are “Melungeons,:” or allied to them in some way.  A few families of them drifted away from Hancock into the other counties of east Tennessee and now and then into the mountainous section of Middle Tennessee.  Some of them live in White, some in Grundy and some in Franklin county.  They seem to prefer living in a rough, mountainous and sparsely settled country.

One peculiarity of these people is that the dark color cannot be bred out of them; they do not miscegenate or blend in color.  It frequently happens that a white man marries a “Melungeon” girl and raises children by her, but the children always partake of the color of one or the other parent; some of them will be white, like the father, and some of them dark, like the mother.  Sometimes the women bear twins by a white sire, and one will be white and the other one dark.  The spectacle has often been seen of a mother suckling twin babies, one white and the other dark.  This is not true of a cross between a white man and a Negro woman.  A mulatto is always half white and half black, and an octoroon can hardly  be told from a pure Caucasian, the Negro blood being so completely bred out.  While this is true, our southern high bred people will never tolerate on equal terms any person who is even remotely tainted with Negro blood, but they do not make the same objection to other brown or dark-skinned people like the Spanish, the Cubans, the Italians, etc.

the term “Melungeons” is an East Tennessee provincialism; it was coined by the people of that country to apply to these people.  It is derived from the french word ‘melange’ meaning a mixture, or medley, and has got into the modern dictionaries.  It was applied to these people because at first it was supposed that they were of mixed blood-part white and part Negro.

This name is a misnomer, because it has been conclusively proven that they are not mixed with Negro blood, but are pure-blooded Carthaginians, as much so  was Hannibal and the Moor of Venice and other pure blooded descendants of the ancient Phoenicians.

Fight at Every Step

It was proven in the case that the grandfather of this girl was accorded full right of a citizen while he lived in Hamilton coutry.  He was allowed to vote at all elections at a time when a Negro could not vote and was allowed to testify in the courts when a Negro was an incompetent witness.

Once, in Marion county, a white man named Perkins killed one of the old man’s grandchildren and an indictment was found against him, with the name of the old man marked as prosecutor.  A plea in the abatement was filed by the defendant, averring that he had no capacity to become a prosecutor because he was a Negro.  The defendant was convicted and sent to the penitentiary for a long term.

The old man applied to the government for a pension on account of his services to the country in the War of 1812.  At the time of his enlistment a Negro or a mulatto could not become a soldier in the United States army at all.  He had some difficulty in finding a witness who could testify that he was in the army in that war.  He had put his case in the hands of a local pension attorney, who had exhausted his resources in an effort to find satisfactory evidence in support of his client’s claim.

Knew Company Roll by Heart.

Someone told him that the old man could call the roll of his company from the captain down to the last private on the list.  He had learned it from hearing the orderly sergeant call it over at roll calls, and his habit was to repeat it as a sort of song or medley.  The attorney called him in and had him call the roll and while he called the attorney wrote down the names.  The old many had forgotten the number of his regiment.  All that he could tell was that it was a South Carolina regiment.  The attorney sent this list of names to the war department at Washington, and a search was made in the archives among the South Carolina regiments, and sure enough, the muster roll of his company was found, containing the names from the captain down, just as the old man had called them over to his attorney.  From this clue as a starting point he had no difficulty in making out his case to the satisfaction of the pension commissioner.

This was a very important piece of evidence to defeat the Negro imputation, because it was utterly impossible for a Negro to be an enlisted man at the time.  He might be hired as a teamster or a cook, but could not be a soldier.

While the testimony was being taken some old-time Negroes were introduced to prove that the Boltons, for that was the name of the old man referred to, were kinky-headed Negroes.  They were promptly swore to this and said that the whole bunch of them had kinky hair, just like a mulatto Negro.

Missing Witness Appears

On being cross-examined they were asked if all of Bolton’s daughters had kinky hair and that our girl’s mother had the same sort of hair.  They did not know that Betsy was in the land of the living; in point of fact, the parties and attorneys on the other side did not have a suspicion that she was any nearer than her Illinois hut in the swamps of the Mississippi; but she was then on Williams island, having been brought back here by Mr. Williams in pursuance of his promise to her when he got her to let him fetch the girl back.

Notice was immediately served that on the following Saturday the deposition of Betsy Bolton would be taken at the residence of Samuel Willliams, and it was so taken.  She was asked to cut off a lock of her hair and pin it to her deposition.  She reached up to her topknot and pulled out her old-fashioned tucking comb, and a monstrous mass of coal black hair as straight as the hair of a horse’s tail, fell down to the floor.  It was about four feet long and perfectly free of a kink or a tendency to curl.  She exhibited with  her deposition a fair sample of her magnificent hair, which completely destroyed the depositions of the Negroes taken on the other side to prove that the Bolton people were Negroes.

The case was patiently tried by the learned chancellor, who gave the solicitors free scope to argue it as much as they pleased.

The decree was in favor of the girl and adjudged that she was the heir apparent of her father and entitled to be supported and educated out of his estate and to inherit his estate after his death.  He directed the guardian to provide liberally out of the funds in his hands for her education and maintenance and to pay the young lawyer, who had fought her battle single-handed against the most experienced and best legal talent that could be found, $5,000 for his services.  The young man thought that was a pretty good fee to earn in his first year’s practice.

His Memory Good

At one time Mr. Williams got alarmed at the splendid array of lawyers that were pitted against his inexperienced solicitor, and he contemplated sending to Knoxville for Col. John Baxter to take the leading part in the case, but on reflection he decided that that would be unjust to his solicitor, who had borne the burden of the preparation of the case for trial; he thought he was entitled to the glory and the compensation in case of success, and he therefore abandoned his purpose engaging Col Baxter.

One of the funny incidents of this case was the following:

Joel Cross testified that he witnessed the marriage and that it occurred in the big road in front of Squire Clark’s residence on June 14, 1856; he was closely examined by Judge Trewhitt, who thought that he could catch him on his swearing so particularly to the date of the marriage.  He asked him how he was able after such a long lapse of time, to swear to the precise date of the occurrence.  His answer was;

 “
Well judge, that was a notable day with me; several things happened on that day to make me remember it.  While we were at breakfast that morning the report was brought to us that a Baptist preacher who was carrying on a revival in the neighborhood had got drunk and the meeting would have to be broken up; a little later some young horses that were plowing in my field ran away and tore down several acres of fine growing corn; and then, about the middle of the afternoon, this marriage performed in the big road; and lastly, we had a fine baby girl born at our house that evening and I set down the date of her birth and her name in the Bible, and that is how I know the date.”

The decree in this case was affirmed on appeal to the supreme court and by this final act a great wrong was righted and a worthy  girl was vested with the title to a large fortune of the benefits of which she had been deprived for many ye

Monday, August 18, 2025

Native American Gibson Ancestors

 



Morris Evans and Jane Gibson had several children but it appears that only daughter Francis Evans and her descendants were held in slavery, the rest are listed as 'mulatto' but appear to be free. Some interesting notes on these two families are found below.
Lynchburg City, Superior Court of Law and Chancery, Case #1821-033 (file #236), Charles Evans etc. vs. Lewis B. Allen. These two cases are representative of several in Virginia, in which slaves sued and won to regain their freedom, based on their ability to show descent from an Indian woman, which condition legally turned their enslavement into assault, battery, and unlawful detainment:
 1805
0002 (Accession # 21680501). Richmond, Virginia. The petitioners claim they are being “holden in slavery by Lewis Allen.” They cite four generations of free ancestors: their mother, “a free woman of colour, named Amey”; their grandmother, Sarah Colley; their great grandmother, Frances Evans; and their great great grandmother, Jane Gibson. Fearful that Allen “will sell them, as slaves without the limits of this commonwealth; as he hath already sold several of the family aforesaid in North Carolina,” the petitioners seek “a prohibition ... against Allen and all other persons.” They note that “the complainant Charles Evan is now tied and confined to be sent from Richmond, and probably out of the country by the order of Lewis Allen.” They include court documents from the freedom suit of their cousin, “Thomas Gibson, alias Mingo Jackson,” who “recovered his freedom” from a certain David Ross. Depositions from Richard Wills and John Meriweather provide a vivid oral history of the petitioners’ ancestors; a genealogical chart traces the family back to the petitioners’ great great great great grandmother, adding two more generations that are not referenced by the petitioners in their petition. 
To the honorable, the judge of the Richmond chancery-district-courtThe petition of Charles Evans Amy Evans, Sukey Evans, Sinar Evans, Solomon Evans, Frankey Evans, Sally Evans, Milly Evans, Adam Evans, and Hannah Evans holden in slavery by Lewis Allen, of the county of Halifax humbly sheweth: that your petitioners are descendants from Jane Gibson, a free Indian woman, who and most of whose posterity have obtained their freedom by judgments of different courts: that there is a great danger of their beingremoved out of the commonwealth by the said Allen; as some of the same blood have been sold by the said Allen in the state of North Carolina.
Your petitioners therefore pray that they may be permitted to sue in forma pauperum* &c March 5. 1804I beg leave to certify it to be my opinion, that the above allegationsare supported by documents in my possession, and that the petitioners are intitled to freedom.
          EDM: RANDOLF, a counsel in the said court.
Docketed:
Evans &c } PetitionvsAllen* in forma pauperum: a plural form of the legal term in forma pauperis or a designation given to a person without the money to peruse a lawsuit for whom the court waives some of the normal court fees.Citation: Genealogical chart and Petition, Lynchburg City (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1807–1945.Charles Evans and others vs. Lewis B. Allen. 1821-033 Local Government Records Collection,City of Lynchburg Court Records. Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
The records of this Gibson-Evans family show they were probably Indian Americans.


DESCENDANTS OF JANE GIBSON
Details for
GIBSON, Jane ([the elder]) in Petition 21680501
Name: GIBSON, Jane ([the elder])
Petition: 21680501 filed in Virginia, 1805
Role in Petition:
Color and Gender: mulatto female
Status: FPOC
Identified Immediate Family: EVANS, Charles - great great great great-grandson
EVANS, Amey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sukey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sinar - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Solomon - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frankey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sally - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milly - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Adam - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Hannah - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, George ([the elder]) - brother of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Jane Gibson ([the younger]) - daughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, George ([the younger]) - son of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Morris - son-in-law of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frances - granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Jane - granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tom - great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frances ([Frank]) - great-grandaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tom - great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tompson ([Tomson] [Thompson]) - great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
COLLEY, Sarah Evans ([Colly]) - great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Hannah ([Hanah]) - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Beck - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Amey - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Kate - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
David - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
Toby - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milley - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sally - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Harry - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Nancy - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Nelly - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Rachel - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Benjamin ([Ben]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Archy - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Mary - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, James ([Jim]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Robin ([Robert]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milah - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, Thomas ([Mingo Jackson]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles


Morris Evans and Jane Gibson had several children but it appears that only daughter Francis Evans and her descendants were held in slavery, the rest are listed as 'mulatto' but appear to be free. Some interesting notes on these two families are found below.
Lynchburg City, Superior Court of Law and Chancery, Case #1821-033 (file #236), Charles Evans etc. vs. Lewis B. Allen. These two cases are representative of several in Virginia, in which slaves sued and won to regain their freedom, based on their ability to show descent from an Indian woman, which condition legally turned their enslavement into assault, battery, and unlawful detainment:
 1805
0002 (Accession # 21680501). Richmond, Virginia. The petitioners claim they are being “holden in slavery by Lewis Allen.” They cite four generations of free ancestors: their mother, “a free woman of colour, named Amey”; their grandmother, Sarah Colley; their great grandmother, Frances Evans; and their great great grandmother, Jane Gibson. Fearful that Allen “will sell them, as slaves without the limits of this commonwealth; as he hath already sold several of the family aforesaid in North Carolina,” the petitioners seek “a prohibition ... against Allen and all other persons.” They note that “the complainant Charles Evan is now tied and confined to be sent from Richmond, and probably out of the country by the order of Lewis Allen.” They include court documents from the freedom suit of their cousin, “Thomas Gibson, alias Mingo Jackson,” who “recovered his freedom” from a certain David Ross. Depositions from Richard Wills and John Meriweather provide a vivid oral history of the petitioners’ ancestors; a genealogical chart traces the family back to the petitioners’ great great great great grandmother, adding two more generations that are not referenced by the petitioners in their petition. 
To the honorable, the judge of the Richmond chancery-district-courtThe petition of Charles Evans Amy Evans, Sukey Evans, Sinar Evans, Solomon Evans, Frankey Evans, Sally Evans, Milly Evans, Adam Evans, and Hannah Evans holden in slavery by Lewis Allen, of the county of Halifax humbly sheweth: that your petitioners are descendants from Jane Gibson, a free Indian woman, who and most of whose posterity have obtained their freedom by judgments of different courts: that there is a great danger of their beingremoved out of the commonwealth by the said Allen; as some of the same blood have been sold by the said Allen in the state of North Carolina.
Your petitioners therefore pray that they may be permitted to sue in forma pauperum* &c March 5. 1804I beg leave to certify it to be my opinion, that the above allegationsare supported by documents in my possession, and that the petitioners are intitled to freedom.
          EDM: RANDOLF, a counsel in the said court.
Docketed:
Evans &c } PetitionvsAllen* in forma pauperum: a plural form of the legal term in forma pauperis or a designation given to a person without the money to peruse a lawsuit for whom the court waives some of the normal court fees.Citation: Genealogical chart and Petition, Lynchburg City (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1807–1945.Charles Evans and others vs. Lewis B. Allen. 1821-033 Local Government Records Collection,City of Lynchburg Court Records. Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.
The records of this Gibson-Evans family show they were probably Indian Americans.


DESCENDANTS OF JANE GIBSON
Details for
GIBSON, Jane ([the elder]) in Petition 21680501
Name: GIBSON, Jane ([the elder])
Petition: 21680501 filed in Virginia, 1805
Role in Petition:
Color and Gender: mulatto female
Status: FPOC
Identified Immediate Family: EVANS, Charles - great great great great-grandson
EVANS, Amey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sukey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sinar - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Solomon - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frankey - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sally - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milly - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Adam - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Hannah - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, George ([the elder]) - brother of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Jane Gibson ([the younger]) - daughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, George ([the younger]) - son of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Morris - son-in-law of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frances - granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Jane - granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tom - great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Frances ([Frank]) - great-grandaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tom - great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Tompson ([Tomson] [Thompson]) - great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
COLLEY, Sarah Evans ([Colly]) - great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Hannah ([Hanah]) - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Beck - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Amey - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
Kate - great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
David - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
Toby - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milley - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Sally - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Harry - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Nancy - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Nelly - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Rachel - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Benjamin ([Ben]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Archy - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Mary - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, James ([Jim]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Robin ([Robert]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles
EVANS, Milah - great great great great-granddaughter of EVANS, Charles
GIBSON, Thomas ([Mingo Jackson]) - great great great great-grandson of EVANS, Charles

--------------------------------------------------------------




The complainant Charles Evan is now tied and confined to be sent from Richmond, and probably out of the country by the order of Lewis Allen.” They include court documents from the freedom suit of their cousin, “Thomas Gibson, alias Mingo Jackson,” who “recovered his freedom” from a certain David Ross. Depositions from Richard Wills and John Meriweather provide a vivid oral history of the petitioners’ ancestors; 


David Ross is listed in the estate sale of Gilbert Gibson in Louisa County, Viriginia in 1763  and in Pittsylvania County during the Revolution David Ross was accused of instigating the Indians in the area to attack the white settlers but was later proved to be not guilty. (3)

In 1791 Thomas Gibson aka Mingo Jackson won his freedom from this same David Ross in Richmond, proving he descended from an Indian woman of Charles City County, Jane Gibson. Other members of this family belonging to George and Jane Gibson [brother and sister] of Charles City County, some living in Louisa County, also won their freedom. (4)


Questions by the defendant.  How old were you when you were first acquainted with the elder Jane Gibson and George her brother?  
 Answer   I believe I was ten or eleven years old or thereabouts. 
Quest.  How old do you suppose they were and how long did they live afterwards? 
Answer.  Jane Gibson the elder was very old, I apprehend she was eighty years of age, [born about 1640] being past all labour - Mr. Carter my Master took her to live with him at Shirley where I then lived to brew a diet drink, he being afflicted with a dropsy - The old Jane Gibson I suppose might live two or three years. 
SHIRLEY PLANTATION
NUMBER 4---SHIRLEY PLANTATION Jane Gibson died about 1720
NUMBER 5 --- WESTOVER Gibby Gibson died at Westover



Friday, March 14, 2025

John Graweere

  John Graweere or Geaween?


Jack Goins



These above names became important to me in my Goins and Melungeon research, especially after discovering the original court records were lost and the two documents  researchers used and referenced in their notes had transcribed the name differently. Both transcribed the records from a copy transcribed from the original record by Conway Robinson. One as John Graweere and the other as John Geaween, so with the combined efforts of other concerned researchers we obtained a copy of the court case of John Graweere from the Virginia Historical Society, copied by Conway Robinson who wrote the name twice, once as “John Graweere”, and again as “said Graweere.”

This review of Colonial records and names in those records question the accuracy of the genealogy and all articles written using the name Gowen as a variant of Geaween which presents a major problem for Gowen researchers who claim the freed slave was John Gowen. Conway Robinson’s notes dispute their claim because Graweere is not a variant of Gowen.

Copies of this court record have been given to Librarians and to experts in historical handwriting in four different states, all of whom concluded the word as transcribed by Robinson was Graweere.

I will list a few examples of the many reasons given for the conclusion on why the word is *Graweere: The last letter in said word is an e- example the word (the) was used in this court record 27 times and the ending e is identical to the ending e as in Graweere. Also in the document, the ending letters in the word *therefore are identical to the ending re in Graweere. The second letter is an rather than an e as in Geaween (Gowen)because several words in this record where the second letter is an r and one of them is directly under the word Graweere and that word is brought, the r in brought is identical to the second letter as in Graweere. Several words in said document end with an n such as theand womeand they prove the last letter as in Geaween cannot be an n as claimed by researchers who used Geaween a variant of Gowen and then use the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography as their reference.          
 
Henry Read McIlwaine (1864-1934) also transcribed the name as Graweere from Conway Robinson’s notes, which is not a variant of Gowen. The reason researchers ignored Conway Robinson’s transcribed copy from the original record may have been because it was not on microfilm, or in major libraries, but this begs the question why did they claim Henry Read McIlwaine transcription was wrong?

According to my investigation the Virginia Magazine of History used the transcription of the text furnished for the earlier numbers by Mr. Lothrop Withington of London, England, an accomplished antiquarian and genealogist who transcribed the name from Robinson’s transcription as John Geaween so they referenced (VMHB-Virginia Magazine of History and Biology).

Concerning The African Angolans who arrived at Jamestown on a Dutch ship in the summer of 1619.


A-1.  John Gowen I (originally "Geaween" and sometimes mistranslated "Graweere") was born about 1615.  By 1640, Gowen, described as a "negro", was the freed servant of William Evans of Virginia.   John Gowen, a hog farmer, became a freeman in the first generation of British North America.  He had a son by an African-American woman named Margaret Cornish about 1635.  In 1641 John Gowen purchased the freedom of his son Michael (originally "Mihill") from Lt. Robert Sheppard, master of Margaret Cornish.

B-8.  John Goyne (aka Guynes) III, born 1776 in the Camden District of South Carolina, son of James Goyne, son of William Gowen II, son of John Gowen II, son of William Gowen I, son of Thomas Gowen, son of Michael Gowen, son of John Gowen I.   

Concerning this review: I do not disagree with this family genealogy up to John and Mary Going then to William and Catherine Going of Stafford, Fairfax, Lunenburg Counties Virginia. I have followed part of this line using records, such as Wills, military, court, land etc, and this line can be fully documented up to William. Although the parents of William and Catherine are only possibilities and there were two, an older John and a Thomas Going, both were probably emigrants from England.

As the reader can observe for themselves  John Graweere son was not named in the record where they were given their freedom, but a Surry County record names a Negro Matthew after John Grashere name, this John must be the same person as John Graweere who is recorded as the property of William Ewin/Evans in 1640:

 ”MICHAELL, a Negroe KATHERINE his wife JOHN GRASHEARE a Negro, MATHEW a Negroe.” WILLIAM EWINS/EWEN's James River land in Surry [known as the Colledge Plantation by 1 March 1640/41],” was patented as follows:
 
part A - 400 acres Tappahannah Territory patented 15 September 1619 by WILLIAM EWEN
 
part B - 1,000 acres Tappahannah Territory patented January 1621/22 by WILLIAM EWEN, which is the same land that is recorded in other records as Evans. (Surry County Court Records (1700-1711) [p.219] 2d. Septr. 1701. At a Court held at Southwarke for the County of Surry. Present. Mr. HENRY TOOKER, Mr. WILLIAM BROWNE)

Notice Tim Hashaw agrees, but adds Grasheare is a variant of Geaween.  

Surry County,Va records show that William Evans who was John Geaween’s master in 1641 patented 400 acres in Sept 15,1619 (two weeks after the arrival of the White Lion based on headlights. Four Africans are named as attached to Evans household at a early time: John “Grasheare”,Mathew” “Michael” and “Katherine” as calculated by the ages of the children of Michael and Katherine. John “Grasheare” is a variant of John “Geaween(1619-    
(the Black Mayflower and the Origin of the Melungeons, part 1  Melungeon rootsweb list)   

The problem with the above statement “John Grasheare is a variant of John Geaween” is, this name Grasheare is a common surname today. Only Grashear is found at WorldConnect. No Graweere or Geaween  One example is:. Loot Grashear born mid 1800’s
   ID: I555
   Name: Loot GRASHEAR
   Given Name: Loot
   Surname: GRASHEAR     Sex: M


As previously stated the original court records are lost. What did survive was the abstracts of the records by Conway Robinson, Esquire, who transcribed them before the fire in Richmond destroyed the original. Robinson’s transcribed records are not on Microfilm, they are printed in two places: 1-McIlwaine's Minutes of the Council, and 2-The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Thus the original court records of John Graweere and his unnamed son obtaining their freedom is forever lost, so the Angolian genealogy and the Melungeon Gowen, Goins is based on a copy from the copy from the original record. This copy by Robinson and McIlwaine transcribes the name as Graweere which is not a variant of Gowen after all.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Robinson for copying the original records before they were destroyed when the court house burned. I have the page in question from Robinson’s notes - Henry Read McIlwaine (1864-1934), ed, Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with Notes and Excerpts from Original Council and General Court Records, into 1683,now Lost (Richmond : The Colonial Press, Everett Waddy Co., 1924)and as previous stated Henry Read McIlwaine transcribed the name from Conway Robinson's notes as John Graweere.

From other court and land records the original name may have been Grasheare and has nothing at all to do with Gowen, Goins or variant, but from both Robinson’s notes and McIlwaine the word appears to be Graweere and may have been a mistranslation of Grasheare who was named in the court  record below.  
      
“THO: ROBINSON, DANIELL BRIDGMAN, RICHARD BRADLEY, MORGAN GLOVER, SAMLL HUBY, FRANCIS ALLEN, MAURICE PRICE, LAUR CARVER, ELIZA his wife, MICHAELL, a Negroe KATHERINE his wife, JOHN GRASHEARE a Negro, MATHEW a Negroe…” (Surry County Court Records (1700-1711) [p.219] 2d. Septr. 1701. At a Court held at Southwarke for the County of Surry. Present. Mr. HENRY TOOKER, Mr. WILLIAM BROWNE),

An 1659 record shows wm EWIN/ EVANS was probaly dead and wife MARY probated his holdings. see attachment.


A Blizzard hits Surry County!
by Dennis Hudgins

”In this item I will provide detailed references which will put together some facts about an early negro family in Surry County, Virginia. Their last name is unknown at this time but it is not far-fetched to say that they could have been the progenitors of the Blizzard family. The headrights for MICHAELL, a Negroe & KATHERINE his wife belonged to WILLIAM EWINS/EWEN by 30 September 1643 and their children in June 1659 [RABECCA? about 20 yeares old, FRANCIS about [8 or 10] yeares old, AMOS about [9 or 7] yeares old & SUSANNA about [5] yeares old] were probably raised on the Surry County Colledge Plantation. By the age differences, there may have been another child not accounted for in the 1659 Surry record.” Note: the missing child is Mathew and probable son of John, so this creates a strong possibility that the freed son of John Graweere name was Mathew.  

This above appears to be the same record as this one below from the VMHB, but notice the name changes  WILLIAM EWINS/EWEN to William Evans and JOHN GRASHEARE to John Geaween.

“On 31 March 1641 the Virginia Court ordered, that John Geaween being a Negro servant unto William Evans was permitted by his said master to keep hogs and make the best benefit thereof to himself provided that the said Evans might have half the increase… And whereas the said negro having a young child of a negro woman belonging to Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the said negro did for his said child purchase its freedom of Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the court hath therefore ordered that the child shall be free from the said Evans”…  (VMHB)

“On 31 March 1641 the Virginia Court ordered, that John Graweere being a Negro servant unto William Evans was permitted by his said master to keep hogs and make the best benefit thereof to himself provided that the said Evans might have half the increase… And whereas the said negro having a young child of a negro woman belonging to Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the said negro did for his said child purchase its freedom of Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the court hath therefore ordered that the child shall be free from the said Evans”…Henry Read McIlwaine (1864-1934), ed, Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670- 1676, with Notes and Excerpts from Original Council and General Court Records, into 1683.
 
Concerning The Africans who arrived at Jamestown on a Dutch ship in the summer of 1619. Most of them simply stepped off the ship into obscurity. John Geaween (Graweere) is being recorded by said author as one from this group, but where is this record? The census below shows the progression of this group. If John was one of the 20 Angolans and still a slave in 1641 this would suggest they were all slaves instead of indentured servants because all 20 if survived, would have completed their terms of indenture before 1640-41 when John and his unnamed son were given their freedom.
 
The following history from census records sheds some light on the 20 slaves at Jamestown: “In the space of 5 years immediately following 1619, the number of Africans in the Colony was increased by two. The muster taken of the population in 1624-25 discloses the presence of twenty-two as compared with the twenty brought in by the Dutch privateer, but one of these two additions is accounted for by the fact that the Treasurer had landed a negro in Virginia in 1619, and the other had been imported in the Swan in 1623.1 The two children included in the lists of the muster, it may be, were born on the North American continent. Their ages are not given, which makes it impossible to state this with confidence.2 If under five years, they were natives of the Colony, but if over five years, they were born at sea or in the West Indies. 2 If born in Virginia, two of the negroes forming the cargo of 1619 must have died. Of this there is no record. The two additions to the original number, as shown by the census of 1624-25, are accounted for by the two negroes brought in by the Treasurer and Swan, from which it may be reasonably inferred that the two negro children mentioned in the census of 1624-25 had been counted in the importation of 1619. If none had died in the interval, the census of 1624-25 would have shown, in case the two children had been born in Virginia, the presence of twenty-four instead of twenty-two slaves in the Colony.”

Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry into the Material Condition of the People, Based on Original and Contemporaneous Records  Bruce A. Phillips
 
Source: McIlwaine, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, p. 477; see also Hening, ed., The Statutes at Large, 1:552.
 
March 31, 1641-Suit of John Graweere
[The suit of John Graweere reveals that there were greater restrictions on the ownership of personal property by black servants. In addition, Graweere's successful petition to purchase his child indicates another difference between white and black men. Graweere's decision to use the court to secure his son's freedom indicates that he was one of the many blacks in Virginia who knew how to use the colony's institutions.]
 
... John Graweere, who is represented as an African servant of William Evans, was the father of a child by a slave who belonged to Robert Sheppard. ...
 
In the above articles we have two different pronunciations of a last name which changes the name, Graweere or Gearween which some translate to Geaween. Thus from Geaween to Gowen we have compounded and error which is why no documented records exist of the possible freed son of Graweere. Hopefully researchers will start over because other researcher have concluded Mihil Gowen must be that freed slave of John, let us examine the records of:  
               
                   Mihil Goen

Part 2 is an examination of the proposed father and sons listed as children of Mihil(Michael?)Gowen, because records only show a son William.  Due to the widespred destruction of records in James  City, New  Kent and Hanover Counties of Virginia it’s almost impossible to trace one’s family in  this area and Mihil Gowen is no exception only four records of his existence remain but some have turned him into a biblical Solomon. The children of Mihil as claimed by articles written in the Gowen Research Foundation Newsletters by the editor and others is wild speculation at it’s best.

I have ancestry charts prepared by the editor of GRF showing these assumed connections but no supporting data to substantiate them and in fact there is not one single record to show any of the proposed connections. If one accepts Mihil date of birth as 1638 then Mihil would have been 3 years old on March 31, 1641 when the unnamed son of John was given his freedom. If this child was Mihil he became a slave again to Christopher Stafford after his suggested father John Gowen obtained his freedom from Evans in 1640-41 because Mihil was given his freedom in Christopher Stafford’s York County will, dated 18 January 1654, after he served 4 more years to Stafford’s sister, Anne Barnehouse. This freedom was completed on 25 October 1657, which was 16 years from the date John Graweere son was set free in 1641. This begs the question if Mihil was the freed slave of John, when and why did Mihil become a slave again?  
 
These suggested children of Mihil Gowen was jump started by the editor of the (GRF)Gowen Research Foundation from Paul Heinegg book "Free African Americans of Colonial North Carolina and Virginia.” Note: these were only suggestions from Paul Heinegg and his use of the word may and perhaps "John Geaween" was the father of Mihil Gowen.

None of said authors have shown any records to support this kinship. There is no record that gives the age of Mihil. He may have been a brother, a cousin or no close kinship to John Graweene. Plus this John being a Gowen or variant is highly unlikely. Mihil may have been 40 years old when his son William was born on 26 August 1655, or he may have been 20, who knows. Even his death date is not listed on any record. We know from a record his land was escheated 11 Sept 1717 and he was granted the land on
8 Feb 1668. He was probably dead at the time of this survey by Christopher Jackson, James City County and is mentioned on the escheat, Survey 24 November 1708 and is said to contain 37 acres. Usually an escheat doesn’t occur until someone in the area notices the land is vacated and taxes have not being paid, which may be why we have 9 years between the likely death of Mihil shortly before the surveyor of in 1708 escheat.


I will list the old records for the readers to investigate.
 
“On 31 March 1641 the Virginia Court ordered, that John Graweere being a Negro servant unto William Evans was permitted by his said master to keep hogs and make the best benefit thereof to himself provided that the said Evans might have half the increase… And whereas the said negro having a young child of a negro woman belonging to Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the said negro did for his said child purchase its freedom of Lieut. Robert Sheppard… the court hath therefore ordered that the child shall be free from the said Evans”…Henry Read McIlwaine (1864-1934), ed, Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676, with Notes and Excerpts from Original Council and General Court Records, into 1683, Now Lost
 

“ John’s child was Michael,(Mihil) born about 1638.” This is obviously speculation on the author’s part, but the word perhaps was not used in his articles, therefore the reader is left to assume it is factual genealogy.(GRF articles)    
 
“Mihi (Michael?) Gowen, born about 1638, was the “negro” servant of Christopher Stafford who gave him his freedom by his 18 January 1654 York County will after 4 years service. Accordingly, Stafford’s sister, Anne Barnehouse, discharged “Mihill Gowen” from her service on 25 October 1657, and she gave him his child, William, born of “her negro” Prossa. He patented “30 or 40 acres” in Merchants Hundred Parish in James City County on 8 February 1668. He died before 11 September 1717 when his land was mentioned again in James City County records listed below: (Abstracts of York County wills and deeds, orders 1657-1659)

 “His proven child was:
 
 William, born 25 August 1655, son of Prossa, baptized by Mr. Edward Johnson on 25 September 1655.
 
Other Suggested children by said author was:
Daniel, born 1657?
Christopher born 1658
Thomas born 1660  
 
These authors suggested white wives for Mihil Gowen because the children belonging to Christopher and Thomas Going were not recognized, as Negro and neither was Christopher and Thomas by any records I have seen.
 
“Christopher Gowen and wife Anne, son Michael born Jan 1679”,(Abington Parish records, Gloucester County)
 
The case for Christopher Gowen above being black is the record below mentioning Michael Gowen male tithes. This Michael may have been the son of Christopher and Anne, but there is no record that Christopher was the son of Mihil, or that he was black, even so there is also a Michael Going in Culpeper County, Va.
 
“14 July 1720 Ordered… that Peter Harrilson be Surveyor of the Lower Prect [precinct].. and that he have Michl Gowing’s male Tithables, Mrs Mary Anderson’s Titables at the Quarter adjoining to that, Geo. Butlers, Henry  Tylers and his own tithables to assist him. (The vestry book of St. Paul’s Parish, Hanover County, Virginia page 93.)
 
This record is used to make it appear that Michael Going was black because of the statement male tithables, meaning he had female tithables, but the facts are this Michael may have owned female slaves because all negresses born in Virginia, when above sixteen years of age, were rated as tithable whether their labors were confined to the house or to the fields, differing in this respect from the white female servants, who were not listed if the work they were called upon to perform was exclusively domestic (Hening’s Statutes, Vol. II, p. 296)  
     
No proven records for any of those connections including marriage records, or names of wives, etc, etc. The only proven child of Mihil Gowen remains William by theslave Prossa. Since nothing more is found on Prossa, she probably remained a slave. If she and Michael had other children they too would have been slaves. Another proposed son of Mihil by said author and this unnamed white wife was Thomas Gowen Going. Thomas Going family lived in Stafford County, Virginia, where they owned land on Rattlesnake Branch of Pope’s Head Run in 1704.
 
In a book “southern lineage” by Adie Evans Wynne is a complete different genealogy for the above families and it is appropriate to enter it here: “A Thomas Gowen born 1617 “ On the 7th , 8th month 18 year old Thomas Gowen (1635)was listed as a passenger from Virginia out of London by the New England Historical & Genealogical Register.”

The entry read: “These underwritten names are to be transported to Virginia in the “Globe” of London, Jeremy Blackman, Master, have been examined by the Minister of Gravesend, of their conformities and have taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacies.”  The term “transported” was usually reserved for convicts who were to be banished to the colonies by the crown because of criminality or heresy.
Thomas Gowen is mentioned as bound for Virginia in “Our Early Emigrant Ancestors” by John Camdan Hotten. The term “bound” was usually reserved for indentured Servants. Thomas married in Golchester County, children born to Thomas include Christopher Gowen born 1647, (Southern Lineages by Adeline Evans Wynn-Gowen manuscript 002)
 
This is the same Christopher Gowen listed as one of the sons of Mihil Gowen in articles written in the Gowen Electronic Newsletters.   
 
Was the following record used to determine Thomas was a son of Mihil Gowen?    
        
 
In an 8 May 1767 land dispute a 70 year old deponent, Charles Griffith, related a conversation which
he had with Major Robert Alexander 43 years previously in 1734. Major Robert Alexander, who owned land adjoining the Gowens, supposedly said of them,  “he had a great mind to turn the Molatto rascals (who were his tenants) of[f] his land” (NGS Quarterly page 20)
 
Thomas Going and his sons owned 1215 acres of land along Alexander’s back-line, extending north from Four Mile Creek. Alexander did not live on his land, but lived at Boyd’s Hole opposite the Maryland Point, far to the south. Not mentioned in this version of the deposition is “Thomas Going confessed that Robert Alexander held the said line but he was of the opinion that he [Alexander] would not be allowed to hold more than his papers mentioned, therefore Thomas ‘Going’ had a legitimate complaint against Robert Alexander, so if he Alexander could paint them as mulattoes he would keep the land. Thomas Going also owned 653 acres of land along the Potomac River, west of Little Spout Run. (Northern Neck Land Grants) It is not clear which land Thomas dwelled on.
 
The case for the author designating Mihil the father of Thomas may be fairly stated as follows: If Mihil was of African descent, and if Thomas was called a “mulatto,” they must be related. The entire case is predicated on accepting the statement of a 70 year old man remembering a conversation from 43 years ago.
 
 It appears that Mihil Goen late of said County of Jas. City dyed seized of 30 or 40 acres….
 
from old French eschete, which meant "that which falls to one," the forfeit of all property (including bank accounts) to the state treasury if it appears certain that there are no heirs, descendants or named beneficiaries to take the property upon the death of the last known owner. This escheat is also strong circumstantial evidence that Mihil son William did not live to adult hood or else died before Mihil and left no heirs. Escheat, that is reversals of land titles to the colony, in most cases this occurs when no living heirs can be found and no records of a William Going, Gowen etc, etc, has been located who is anywhere near the age of the William Gowen son of Mihil Gowen and no one to my knowledge has a proven connection to this son. No mention in this escheat record where children or blood kin to Mihil were denied this land because they were black, in fact there is no records that show any of these proposed children of Mihil. If Mihil had other children by Prossa they would probably have remained slaves and not have been known or mentioned by the colony in this escheat. Plus the fact the colony allowed Mihil to purchase his land through another escheat listed below.    
 
 
“11 Sept, 1717 Inquisition, Jas. City.. Mihil (Michael) Goen late of the said county of Jas. City dyed seized of 30 or 40 acres…Escheat…survey, 24 Nov. 1708 by Christopher Stafford Surveyor of Jas City Co. is found to contain 37 acres. in Yorkhampton Parish, Jas. City Co. (same as above, page 19)
 
 11 Sept 1717-22 Jan 1718 37 acs. James City Co Yorkhampton Parish beg in at corner of the land of Mihil Gowen, Hubbard & Francis Morehead, escheated from Mihil Goen, dec’d, by inquisition under Edmund Jennings, Esgr. 11 Sept 1717. (Also NGSQ page 19)
 
According to those few records on Mihil Gowen, from the time he first appears until his land was escheated he never moved, only the Parish changed and eventually he owned part of this land formerly owned by Barnhouse.
 
A Goins researcher must consider and investigate all Goins, Going possibilities and there was another William Gowin in the same neck of the woods who was not the son of Mihil because his son was born 1655.
 
“MR. WILLIAM HOCCADAY, 1,000 acres Yorke Co., 14 April 1653, page 89 of Patent Book No. 3 Near the head of Ware Creek, North West by North upon a former devident and North West by North towards Waraney Creek. Transportation of 20 persons: Alexander Watson, Wm. Mackgahye, Andrew Sharpe, Jane Johnson, Randall ______, Isabell Grace, Mary Reeise (?), Tomasin Madero (or Maders), Mary Graham, James ______, Edward Hodge, Richard Gillman, Willm. Moline, Fra. Peppett, Richard Jones, Michaell Barrow, Richard Moore, Joane Rivers, Ja. Nicholson,* Wm. Gowin. Renewed 20 November 1654.”
 
18 Oct 1670 p233 Bushrod -Gowin
 It is ordered that GOWIN an INDIAN servant to Mr. Tho Bushrod serve his said master six years longer and then be free.
 
 So basically we have; William Gowan, son of Mihill born 1655 a negro of York Co.,Virginia, William Gowin born at least 1630, English or Irishman 1653 to York Co.,
Virginia ---Gowin freed about 1676, an Indian of York Co., Va.
 
 
           From Pocahontas to Mihil Gowen
      
”While the mind cannot contemplate the birth of the first Negro on North American soil with the same emotions as those aroused by the birth of Virginia Dare, the event nevertheless was one which cannot be regarded without a feeling of the profoundest interest when we reflect upon its association with the great events which were to come after. Whichever of these children, if either, was born in Virginia, it was the first of his race who could claim a nativity in the soil and an absolute identification with its history.” (Bruce Economic history)2
 
Calvin Beale describes Goins as:“the most widespred and one of the oldest and most reliable indicative surnames of tri-racial origin in the United States. The name is found today among the Lumbee, The Melungeon, the Smilings, the Red Bones, the Ohio Guineas and in various other parts of Ohio, Tennessee and North Carolina where none of these terms are used. Some are white, some Indian, and some Negro in current status today.” (Overview of the Phenomenon of mixed race Isolates. Beale.)  
 
These clans named by Beale and Edward T Price were well known in their day, each clan had their own history and legends. Since records show several clans labeled by Price in the 1950 study of tri-racial Black, White and Indian clans in the Eastern United States this begs the question. Why did the authors articles in the Gowen Research foundation choose Melungeons and not one of these other clans as descendants of to 20 Angolians and as Beale stated they also list Goins etc, etc?
 
Bearing the name Goins, or variant does not mean you are a Melungeon, or a descendant of Mihil Gowen, even according to Y Chrome DNA your Gowen progenitor may have been an Indian, an African, or a European. Discovering an Indian ancestor does not make one a descendant of Pocahontas, or a black ancestors son prove you forbearers were among those 20 Angolians at Jamestown.

Searching for ones NA or AA, or English Gowen progenitor is a monumental task, but those of us who loves a challenge must undertake it using the available records. Some may say why go to all that trouble, just claim Pocahontas, or some other famous Indian chief, or claim my Goins family was a descendant of the first African born on American soil, or first freed slave, without any proven documentation. Through DNA and family research I have found all of the above in my family tree. Good luck on your research journey.

 Jack Goins

Solomon Bolton Story

     A Romance of the Melungeons Mysterious Racial Group in East Tennessee, Descendants of Phoenicians of Ancient Carthage,  Subject of Dram...