1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

1. Nathaniel 1 Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia 

Page 1 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford

Contents 

1. Introduction 3 

2. Early Years: 1654-1661 7 

3. Seating of Bradford’s Neck: 1662-1665 12 

4. 1666-1670 23 

5. 1671-1677 33 

6. Later Years: 1678-1690 44 

7. Source Citations 57 

8. Bibliography 65 

9. Appendix A: Timeline 67 

10. Appendix B: Suggestions for Research 72 


Sketch of Nathaniel Bradford 

Nathaniel 1 Bradford was born probably in or before 1633 1 and died in Accomack County, Virginia, 

sometime after the taking of the county’s list of tithables in June 1690 2 and before 19 November of that 

year, when his son William 2 and widow Joan petitioned for joint administration of his estate 3 . He married 

Alice Smith, the daughter of Richard Smith of Northampton County, Virginia, before 30 January 1660 4 , 

and had by her two sons: 2.Nathaniel 2 Bradford (Nath 1 ), born before his baptism on 23 June 1661 5 ; and 

3.William 2 Bradford (Nath 1 ), born probably around 1662/1663 6 . 

Alice (Smith) Bradford died sometime after 18 October 1664, her last proven appearance in Accomack 

court records 7 , and before 1677 8 , by which point Nathaniel had married Joan Franklin, the sister of Henry 

Franklin of Northumberland County, Virginia 9 . By Joan, Nathaniel had at least one child: 4.John 2 Bradford 

(Nath 1 ), born probably around 1677 8 . Joan remarried to Thomas Budd of Accomack between 18 March 10 

and 16 June 11 1691 and herself died sometime between October 1698 12 and October 1706 13 . 

Neither Nathaniel’s birthplace nor the identity of his parents is known. There is no record of his being 

transported to Virginia 14 and no record of any other Bradfords living on the eastern shore of Virginia prior 

to Nathaniel’s first appearance in the records of Northampton County in 1654 15 . Even though his origins 

remain a mystery, a fairly detailed picture of his life emerges from the surviving records pertaining to him. 

Nathaniel began his professional life as a currier. By 1667, he had become a substantial landowner with a 

2800-acre plantation in Accomack County. Later in his life he acquired additional tracts in Accomack as 

well as a plantation of 1200 acres in Sussex County, Delaware, at that time part of the territory of 

Pennsylvania. He also expanded his business activities, adding to his estate a tanning house and a shop for 

manufacturing shoes. In addition to managing his plantations, Nathaniel held several minor positions of 

public trust in Accomack County during the course of his life. He served on 21 juries as well as on the 

grand jury for 1669, and on two occasions served as an attorney for other individuals before the court. He 

was a constable of Northampton County in 1660, and a surveyor of the highways for Accomack County 

from 1665 to 1669, from 1671 to 1672, and then again from 1683 until his death. Nathaniel served in the 

county militia as a horseman and in 1669 was appointed a representative of the county, possibly for the 

purpose of making by-laws for the court. In 1676, he lent material support to the cause of Governor 

Berkeley in Bacon’s Rebellion. Judging from the number of his dependants and the size of his landholdings 

compared to other planters, Nathaniel appears to have been one of the most prosperous men in Accomack 

County. 16 

* * * * * 

Characteristics of the Eastern Shore 

That area of Virginia where Nathaniel resided is known as the eastern shore, which throughout its history 

has had a reputation of being something of a world apart. Geographically, the eastern shore was virtually an 

island until the opening of the Chesapeake Bay bridge in 1963. Until then, the journey to the western shore 

was more quickly and easily made by sailing across the Chesapeake than by taking the circuitous overland 

route. That the eastern shore was commonly viewed as somehow separate is apparent from an official 

pronouncement of the royal government in 1673 which referred to the entire colony as “Virginia, together 

with the territory of Accomack.” 17 

The eastern shore of Virginia is today comprised of the counties of Northampton and Accomack, and 

constitutes the end point or tip of the much larger Delmarva Peninsula. The peninsula begins near the 

mouth of the Delaware River and is flanked on the west by the Chesapeake Bay and on the east for most of 

its length by the Atlantic Ocean. That portion of the peninsula that lies in Virginia is delineated on the north 

by its border with Maryland and on the south by Cape Charles, and is about 70 miles long with a mean 

width of 8 miles. It is a flat, forested region indented at regular intervals on its bay side by a series of creeks 

and inlets and flanked on its sea side by a curtain of marsh and islands. It was here that Nathaniel Bradford 

made his home. 


John Smith’s map of Virginia. The peninsula of the eastern shore is at the bottom. 

Brief History of the Virginia Colony on the Eastern Shore to 1654 

English settlement on the mainland of Virginia first began in the 

spring of 1607, with the founding of Jamestown [depicted left] by 

the Virginia Company of London. The following year Captain 

John Smith, one of the leaders of the new colony, set forth on an 

exploration of the Chesapeake Bay, in the course of his journey 

touching down at several spots on the eastern shore and even being 

hosted by the Indians there. The first settlement on the east side of 

the Chesapeake occurred in 1614 when Sir Thomas Dale sent a 

small group of men to Smith’s Island to engage in fishing and salt 

production. After a few years the salt works had fallen into disuse and the island was abandoned, but in 

1619 the activities of Thomas Savage, who was engaged in trade with the local Indians on the shore, 

revived interest in settlement. A year later the first Virginians began to arrive from across the bay and 

settled on land set aside by the Company in the south of the peninsula on Old Plantation Creek. This was 

the first permanent settlement of the English in Accomack. 

The year 1622 saw a tremendous uprising of numerous western shore Indian 

tribes against the encroaching English [depicted left]. This constituted a 

serious attempt to eliminate the European presence in Virginia, and about a 

third of the fledgling colony’s inhabitants lost their lives. A bitter and brutal 

war ensued that lasted for much of the decade. However, the natives of 

Accomack took no part in the massacre and as a result the colonists there were 

spared not only the initial violence itself, but also its bloody aftermath. So 

fearful was the mood of the colonists on the western shore after the massacre that there was talk among the 

government at Jamestown of relocating the capital to the eastern shore. Any idea of fleeing Jamestown was 

quickly set aside as being born of “a Panicke feare”, although the colony’s leaders did write to the company 


in London that “no question . . . that place [i.e., the Eastern Shore] had beene better at the first to have 

seated on, in regard of fertilitie, Convenience, all sorts of provision and strength both against the Native 

and Forreiner”. 18 

Due to a variety of factors, including the Virginia Company’s financial difficulties and its inability to 

adequately protect the colonists from Indian attack, in 1624 King James rescinded the Company’s charter 

and instituted direct royal rule over Virginia. At that time there were only 51 people living on the eastern 

shore, mainly clustered in the south of the peninsula, but over the next decade settlement began to spread 

northwards and the population increased eightfold to about 400 inhabitants. By 1643 the population had 

more than doubled to about 1,000 19 . By 1654, when Nathaniel Bradford first appears on the eastern shore, 

the English had been settled there for a generation and a relatively stable society had arisen among them. 

Eastern Shore of Virginia, with a few principal locations of importance to this biography. 

Social Heirarchy of 17 th Century Accomack 

In 1634, when Virginia was divided by the crown for administrative purposes into 8 shires or counties, 

Accomack was one of them, comprising all the settlements on the eastern shore. In 1642, the name of the 

shire was changed by the Virginia Assembly to Northampton, although then and for a long time after the 

entire eastern shore was commonly referred to as Accomack. The name Northampton was reportedly 

chosen after the English birthplace of Obedience Robins 20 , one of the first Commissioners of Accomack 

and a leading figure on the eastern shore. The county was ruled by men like Robins – County 

Commissioners, or Justices of the Peace, who were appointed by the governor. Large landowners with wide 

connections, they monopolized most of the civil and military posts of weight in the county, and through 

intermarriage were beginning to form a relatively stable ruling group. 

Beneath the Justices on the social scale was a large population of freeholders of varying degrees of 

substance – planters and craftsmen like Nathaniel who often held secondary public posts such as surveyor 

and constable and who served as jurymen. This group, essentially Virginia’s middle class, contained many 

gradations of wealth, including freeholders like Nathaniel who owned a few thousand acres, as well as 

others who might own only fifty. Directly beneath the freeholders in status was a group of free non- 


landowning residents, about whom less is known since they showed up sporadically in court and left less 

record of their activity. 

At the bottom of the social scale were those in servitude. There was at all times in colonial Virginia a fairly 

large population of white indentured servants. Those immigrants to Virginia who could not pay the cost of 

the voyage sold themselves as servants to those who could. Upon arrival they could be kept by the shipper, 

if he was a resident, or sold to the highest bidder. After a term of anywhere from 3 to 7 years, as stipulated 

by contract, they were given “corn and clothes” by their masters and were free to make their way as best 

they could. In the 17 th century, due to the abundance and cheapness of land and the high wages a laborer 

could demand from the needs of a growing colony, it was not unusual for former servants to flourish even 

after years spent as the legal property of another. However, some had little hope of escaping from such a 

condition. On the eastern shore, as elsewhere in Virginia, one finds in the court records the presence of 

slaves, shipped into the colony from Africa or from Barbados, bargained and sold in deeds of gift and deeds 

of sale, and bequeathed to descendants along with their future children. Throughout the course of this story 

of Nathaniel Bradford’s life will appear men and women from all of these various grades of society. 


Nathaniel’s Early Years to Settlement at Occahannock: 1654-1661 

Nathaniel’s First Land Acquisition 

On 29 May 1661, Nathaniel Bradford received a grant of 400 acres in Northampton County between 

Ockahannock and Nuswattocks creeks on the Chesapeake Bay. This grant was the fulfillment of a patent 

issued to Nathaniel on 10 October 1658 for transporting 8 individuals into the colony under the headright 

system, which throughout much of the 17 th century constituted the sole means for individuals to obtain land 

in Virginia. 21 

Sidebar: The Headright System 

The headright system for granting lands was established by the Virginia Company in 1618 as part 

of a series of reforms intended to revitalize its colony, which after 11 years of existence was still 

suffering from a lack of profit and a lack of population. To encourage immigration and stimulate 

agricultural enterprise, the Company set in place a system whereby an individual received 50 acres 

of land for every person he or she was responsible for transporting into the colony. The process of 

obtaining land under the headright system consisted of several steps. First one proved one’s 

importation of individuals before a granting authority, either one of the county courts or the 

General Court in James City. One thereby obtained a certificate which was presented to the 

secretary of the colony for validation. Once validated, this certificate served as a warrant for the 

specified amount of acreage wherever it could be found vacant in the colony. After one located the 

vacant land one wished to seat, one then had it surveyed in order to know its boundaries and 

applied for a patent, or grant, from the Crown for the specified land. In the meantime, the 

purchaser was free to settle on the land in anticipation of the forthcoming grant. If one did not seat 

the land (usually entailing the planting of a crop and the building of a house) within three years of 

the patent’s issue, the land was considered deserted and could be claimed by another. This 

customary three year maturation period probably explains why the actual grant for Nathaniel’s 

land came in 1661, three years after the original patent was issued. 

Since no record of Nathaniel’s 1658 patent or certificate of importation exists, there is no way of knowing 

whom he transported. For that matter, since a headright certificate could be sold or granted by the holder to 

others, and since headrights themselves could be sold or granted, that means that even if the certificate or 

patent did survive it would not necessarily be the case that Nathaniel actually transported the 8 individuals 

mentioned on them. If he did transport the 8 headrights, that would mean that by 1655 he was probably 

already well off enough to pay for the transportation of others into the colony, since a headright could not 

be claimed until the individual transported had either died or remained in the colony for a period of 3 years; 

though it is unclear how strictly this residency stipulation was enforced. The conclusion that Nathaniel was 

not without means when he first appears in Accomack is bolstered by the fact that he was able to enter a 

bond of 500 lbs tobacco in 1658. 

It’s natural to wonder whether Nathaniel himself might have been listed as a headright on his 1658 patent, 

since there is no record of his immigration. It should be stressed that even if he had been listed as a 

headright, it wouldn’t necessarily mean he had been transported precisely three years previous to its issue, 

since there was no time limit to when a headright could be claimed. Examples are known of headrights 

being claimed decades after their actual importation. Furthermore, one of the more common abuses of the 

headright system was to claim as a headright one who was simply returning to the colony from abroad, so 

that the presence of an individual as a headright is not incontrovertible evidence that one was an immigrant 

rather than native-born. Nevertheless, it is notable that Nathaniel’s first patent came 4 years after his first 

appearance in the records. If Nathaniel arrived in Virginia in 1654, one would expect someone to apply for 

a certificate of importation with him listed as a headright on it around the year 1657 and to receive a patent 

around that year from the certificate. Thus the time frame from Nathaniel’s first appearance in the court 

records to the issue of his first patent is about what one would expect to see had he transported himself to 

Virginia around the time he first turns up in the records. 


Stephen Charlton 

The only mention of Nathaniel’s 1658 patent and the resulting 1661 grant comes in the record of his later 

sale of the same land on 18 August 1663 21 . Where Nathaniel resided before settling this land is as much a 

mystery as his origin, although a clue to both might be found in Nathaniel’s earlier appearances in the 

records of the county. Nathaniel’s first mention in the court records came on 27 October 1654, as a witness 

to Stephen Charlton’s gift of land, livestock and slaves to his daughter Elizabeth 22 . By March of the 

following year Charlton had passed away, and Charlton’s executor paid Nathaniel 1046 lbs tobacco “for 

payment of tobacoes and other charges” out of the account of the estate Charlton left to his daughters, 

Bridget and Elizabeth 23 . In 1658, Nathaniel again appears in the records of Northampton as a bondsman to 

Charlton’s widow Ann in the matter of the account of the orphan Bridget: 

“This day Nathan l Bradford pett sd to y e Court to have his Bond delivered him in w ch bond him 

Selfe and John West past w th M rs Ann Charlton to M r W m Jones the then high sherrife y t M rs Ann 

Charlton widow should posecute an apeale granted her from North County Court to the then 

Ensuinge qrter Court to bee houlden at James Citty w ch Court was adiouned and y e next and y e 

next Court no pcecutions Its therefore y e Judgm t of y e Court y t hee have his Bond delivered him in 

hee paying Maior W m Waters Guardian to Bridgett and Elizabeth Charlton for her Use five 

hundred lb of Tobacco & Caske w ch was y e Said Waters his Chargs by him disbursed in y e pmises; 

as y t John West Sonn to M rs Ann Charlton by his Consent bee ord d to repay y e Said Nath l Bradford 

y e Moyetie of 500 lb of Tobacco & Caske & also of what other Charges to y e Sherrife and Clarke 

doth accrue/.” 24 

Stephen Charlton was one of the leading citizens of Northampton County. He was a signer of the 

Northampton Protest, a member of the first vestry of Northampton, frequently a Justice, and twice a 

Burgess, as well as the owner of large tracts of land in the county and a merchant with contacts throughout 

the Atlantic world. Charlton’s widow Ann, his third wife, was also the widow of Anthony West 25 . Ann’s 

son John West, a party to the above bond, himself went on to become one of the political leaders of the 

eastern shore. What Nathaniel’s connection with Charlton may have been is unclear. Perhaps Nathaniel was 

a relative, friend, or neighbor of Charlton’s, more probably a lessee or a dependant of some kind, such as a 

servant or an employee. Nathaniel’s connection to Charlton may have come through Charlton’s wife Ann 

and her son John West. In addition to entering into the above bond with Nathaniel, John West later 

witnessed Nathaniel and Alice’s sale of their plantation at Occahannock 26 as well as Nathaniel’s gift of land 

on the same day to his son Nathaniel, Jr 27 . 

* * * * * 

Teackle Petition 

Apart from his early association with Stephen Charlton, the only other record of 

Nathaniel before 1658 comes in June 1656, when he appears as a subscriber to a 

petition for the reinstatement of Reverend Thomas Teackle to the ministry of 

Nuswattox parish. Teackle had previously petitioned the court for reparations since he 

“doth lye under severall reproaches and Callumnies undeservedly cast upon [him] by 

Collonel Edmund Scarburgh as concerneinge an Act of fornicacon with [Scarburgh’s] 

wife, and attemptinge to take away his life by poyson; All which [Scarburgh] hath not 

only privately instilled into several peoples’ eares, But allso publicly to his discredit 

and Diffamacon blareth abroad to common conserne Although he hath never beene able 

to prove any of those things against him.” 28 

A month after Teackle’s petition, 35 of his parishioners, including Nathaniel Bradford, filed their own 

petition with the court to have the Reverend reinstated to his ministry. 29 

“To the Worth Comissioners of Northampton County nowe Assembled in Court att Hungeres 

most humbly sheweth the Humble peticon of ye In Habitantes of Nuswattockes pish. That whereas 

Mr. Thomas Teackle Clarke by by (sic) reason of some scandalous reports raysed of him Collonll 

Edm. Scarburgh, hath bine dismissed to officiate as hee ought & is bound unto by Engagement 

with us in ye worke of ye Ministrey. (To your peticioners great discomfort and detriment) Your 

peticoners thereforedoth Humbly crave, That yo'r worpes would bee pleased in Justice as it ought 


to tender our Cause; that (if ye sd Teackle hath not appeared guilty to yor worpes before whome 

the matter hath bine brought to tryall of those crimes hee hath bine charged withall; Consideringe 

alsoe the Integritye of his former life and conversacon amongst us; which hath not bine any waye 

in ye least blemished since his Liveinge in this County (untill this reproache nowe put on him by 

Coll. Edm: Scarburgh.) Gods publiq worp maye bee noe longer Neglected, our Minister 

undervedly suspended (his office) Nor your peticoners uniustly deprived of the ordinances to the 

great dishoner of god and to ye most manifest discomfort and detriment of your peticoners and 

your petres shall praye: 

Wm Jones vice Comes Jno Pannell Tho: Benthall 

Jno. Custis Jno Hinman Nich: Granger 

William Smart Mary Cornelius Rich: Hudson 

Sampson Robins Thomas Harmanson Jno Edwards 

Elias Hartree Wm Ward George Bourer 

Xpofer Maior Wm. Gaskins Cornelius Corneliuson 

Tho: Selby Phill: Mathews Tho: Budd 

Michll Rickattes Symon ffoskue Nathll Bradford 

Jno Greene Allexander Maddockes Tho: Mashall 

Walter Price Jno Johnson James Barnaby 

Henry Vanse [name crossed out] Willm Robertes 

Jno Willyams 

Robert Burrel Wm Westerhowse Jno Smyth 

The matter had originally been referred to the General Court at James City. 30 Evidently Scarburgh must 

have been unable to prove his allegations, since on the occasion of this petition the county court sided with 

Nathaniel and the other petitioners and reinstated Teackle to his ministry. 

From this record it is apparent that Nathaniel was not only an Anglican, but one who was active in the 

affairs of the parish. Later in his life, Nathaniel maintained his close association with the church. When 

Henry Parke, minister of Accomack parish, died in 1687, his estate was sold at auction on Nathaniel’s 

plantation 31 and Nathaniel himself paid for his funeral 32 , circumstances which indicate a close association 

with the minister. Further evidence of Nathaniel’s religious life comes from the inventory of his estate, in 

which the appraisers found a large book of sermons. 33 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel’s Marriage to Alice Smith - Move To Occahannock 

Wherever he may have resided in his earlier years on the shore, it is likely Nathaniel had seated his 400acre 

patent in Northampton by May 1659, as in that month he petitioned to have his land marked off from 

his neighbors so he could have a survey made 34 . By January 1660, Nathaniel had married Alice Smith 35 and 

in that month, after the death of her father Richard Smith, he inherited Richard’s 500 acre plantation at the 

head of Occahannock Creek: 

SMITH, RICHARD [R] – Undated / 30 Jan. 1659 – To my son-in-law Nathaniel Bradford the 

500 A. plantation whereon I now live, the land to run[sic] for Alce Smith and her children. And if 

the said Alce dies without issue then the said plantation to Nathaniel during his lifetime and then 

to her [Alce’s] sister Susan Smith and her heirs. To my dau. Susan Smith 450 A. lying on the other 

side of the branch, one neck being called “James Davis’ Neck” and the other “King Tomes Neck”. 

To my dau. Susan the linen that was her mother’s. To my dau. Alce Smith my little boy William 

East. To my dau. Susan Smith my servant John Major. To Edward Martin who was my servant, 

his diet until next October. To John Gorthine 4 barrels of Indian corn. To my servant John Fisher 

one year of his time, and to the little boy William East one year of his time. To Alphonsoe Ballis 

200#t. My son-in-law Nathaniel Bradford and William Thorn to assist my dau. Susan. Witt: 

William Thorn, Nathaniel Bradford, Alphonsoe Ballis – p. 57 {70} 36 


In Adventures of Purse and Person, it is suggested that Nathaniel was Richard Smith’s step-son based on 

Richard’s will, in which he mentions Nathaniel as his son-in-law while referring to Alice by her maiden 

name 37 . The theory is that Richard had Alice by an earlier wife and, after that wife’s death, Richard 

remarried another woman who was the widow of Nathaniel’s natural father. Aside from the fact that in the 

seventeenth century the term son-in-law was sometimes used to indicate a step relationship, this argument 

rests entirely on Richard Smith’s use of Alice’s maiden name in his will. In fact, further interpretation 

suggests that Alice and Nathaniel were already married when Richard Smith wrote his will. Richard gave 

his 500-acre home plantation to Nathaniel, but stipulated that the inheritance was to run in the line of Alice 

Smith and her children. In case Alice died without issue, the plantation was to be held by Nathaniel during 

his lifetime but then to go to Richard’s other daughter Susan. One wonders why Richard would have 

granted the land to Nathaniel if it was destined to be owned by the heirs of Alice by some other man, heirs 

who would have to wait until Nathaniel’s death to claim their inheritance. Furthermore, Richard Smith did 

not fail to provide for his daughter Susan, who received 450 acres; it is hard to imagine him not providing 

for his other daughter. But the critical factor undermining the theory found in Purse and Person is the fact 

that Richard Smith does not provide for Alice, only for her heirs, and that he provides for her heirs out of 

the very same land he granted to Nathaniel. The fact that Nathaniel and Alice’s first known child was 

baptized a little over a year after the will’s proving makes it seem even more likely that they were married 

when it was written, though they probably wed not long before. 

Richard Smith of Occahannock, the father of Alice and Susan Smith, is identified in Purse and Person as 

the Richard Smith who came to Virginia aboard the London Merchant in March 1620 38 and who was at 

James City in both the census of 1623/4 and the muster of 1624/5. 39 He must have lived through the 

massacre of 1622, and appears to have moved in the 1630s to Accomack, 40 where he served as sheriff in 

1641 41 and as churchwarden in 1648. 42 As late as May 1642 he does not seem to have been married or had 

any children, if he may be identified as the same Richard Smith who told Luke Stubbins that he would 

leave his entire estate to William Fisher. 43 If this latter man is Richard Smith of Occahannock, it means his 

daughters were born after 1642. Since Alice was probably at least 16 when she married Nathaniel in 1659 

or 1660, this may mean she was born between 1642 and 1644. It is at least clear that Richard was married 

by November 1648, when his wife Susanna Smith appeared in court to grant a calf to her godson. 44 I must 

emphasize that the conclusion about Alice’s birth year rests entirely on her father being the same man 

whose deathbed bequests were witnessed by Luke Stubbins in 1642. In fact, there were at least two 

Richard Smiths in Accomack in the 1640s and 1650s and it is not always clear which records are referring 

to the man who would become Nathaniel’s father-in-law. 45 

In 1652, Richard’s wife Susanna was in court over an altercation. Mary Cornelius, a witness, described the 

scene for the court: 

“. . . about the month of April last past the wife of Elias Hartrey and Susanna the wife of Rich. 

Smyth (being at the house) Jane the wife of the said Elias Hatrey asked [me] (if [I] had any money 

to lend her to pay the turnip woman) where upon Susanna Smyth (having a jug with beer in her 

hand) did throw the beer in her face, then the said Jane Hatrey did draw her knife, but they were 

kept asunder by the people in the house, as namely Henry Armitradeing and his wife, and this 

dep’t never the less (as they were keeping them from harming each other) Richard Smyth’s wife 

did reach over their shoulders and strike Elias Hatrey’s wife over the face, and having persuaded 

them for the space of half an hour (or there abouts) the wife of Elias Hatrey going forth, did 

suddenly strike Susanna Smyth . . . over the face and then for quietness sake we did persuade 

Susanna Smyth to depart the house. . .” 46 

Another witness, Jane Safforde, provided the additional detail that Susanna, after hurling the beer in Jane 

Hatrey’s face, called her a “porky whore,” and that “thou hadest rotted long ago had it not been for Clarke 

the surgeon.” Clearly the “turnip woman” comment struck a nerve with Susanna, and it is unfortunate that 

we have little idea as to the nature of the insult or why it aroused such a violent reaction. 

Richard Smith’s other daughter, Susan, married Robert Richardson by 1666 and they moved to Maryland in 

the early 1670s. 47 Some of their descendants may be found under the Richard Smith chapter in Volume III 

of Adventures of Purse and Person. 


Nathaniel as Constable & Birth of Nathaniel Bradford Jr. 

In 1660, Nathaniel Bradford was appointed a constable for Northampton County. 48 As constable, he would 

have functioned as a local law enforcement officer, called upon to prevent or punish any breach of the 

peace. Constables worked under and with the sheriff, who was typically a once and future justice of the 

peace, to arrest lawbreakers, deliver warrants, notify the militia of the muster, assist grand and petit juries 

and act as an arm of the County Commission. On court days one or more of the constables might be present 

to enforce orderliness, and to administer physical punishments if called for. But the job of the constable 

was not entirely that of a proto-policeman: in his capacity as an assistant to the court, the constable was 

tasked with administrative duties over and above those involved with keeping the peace. In 1661, when the 

court ordered a list to be taken of all sheep owned in the county, it was Nathaniel and the other constables 

who collected the list from owners in their districts. And when it came time to assess the taxes owed by the 

county’s inhabitants, it was the constables who would alert residents to whom they should bring their list of 

tithables and when. Unlike the positions of county clerk, justice of the peace, and sheriff, the office of 

constable was generally considered a burden rather than a privilege, since it carried with it no financial 

remuneration and little prospect for advancement. Other than compiling the list of sheep owned in his 

district, there is no other record of any specific duties Nathaniel carried out as constable, though 

presumably he notified the inhabitants when the tax list was due for that year and performed some if not all 

of the other duties associated with the office. 

It appears from the list of sheep returned for Nathaniel’s district early in 1661 that he had chosen by then to 

take up his residence on Richard Smith’s land rather than on his own land farther south, as he is found 

listed among his neighbors at Occahannock: Colonel Scarburgh, Jno Waltom, Rich: Kellum, Rob t Richison, 

W m Thorne and W m Taylor, among others. 49 

Coll Edm: Scarburgh 162 

Mr Jno Nuthall 10 

Henry Bishop 3 

Edw: Smith 2 

Georg Johnson 12 

Robt Clark 1 

James Jackson 8 

James Jones at Geo: Johnsons house 3 

Jno Paramore 1 

Edward Moor 5 

Allexander Adisson 6 

Wm Taylor 6 

Jno Waltom 60 

Rich: Kellum 8 

Wm Thorne 1 

Robt Richison 4 

Nathaniell Bradford 7 

It was during Nathaniel’s brief period of residence at Occahannock, and possibly during his tenure as 

constable, that he and Alice had their first son, Nathaniel Bradford, Jr., who was baptized on 23 June 

1661 49 . 


Settling Bradford’s Neck: 1662-1665 

On 26 March 1662, for the transportation of 20 headrights, Nathaniel Bradford received a patent for 1000 

acres on the eastern banks of Matchapungo Creek, near the Indian village of Matchapreague 51 . Two years 

later, in 1664, he received a patent for an additional 1400 acres north of the original 1000, this later portion 

being on assignment from Colonel Edmund Scarburgh and for the transportation of 28 individuals 52 . In the 

meantime Nathaniel had sold off his two other tracts, the 400 acres in Northampton in August 1663 53 and in 

October 1664 the 500 acres inherited from Richard Smith 54 . The 2400 acres at Matchapungo became 

Nathaniel’s home plantation and remained almost wholly in the possession of his descendants for yet 

another century. Portions of the land continued in his descendants’ ownership for over a century longer. In 

time the entire stretch of land came to be called Bradford’s Neck, as it is still known to this day. [Note: 

Some sources state that Nathaniel’s plantation was called Atlantic View, but this is a misunderstanding. 

There was a house called Atlantic View that was built much later on the property (probably in the 19 th 

century) by the LeCato family, one of whom married Nathaniel’s great-great-granddaughter. If Nathaniel 

had a name for his plantation, it has not been recorded.] 55 

On the same day that Nathaniel & Alice sold the land inherited from Richard Smith, Nathaniel made a gift 

of land to his son Nathaniel Jr., in order to honor the provision in Richard Smith’s will stipulating that 

Alice’s inheritance was to run in the line of her children: 

“Nathaniell Bradford, currier, for considerations accruing to him by the marriage of Alice Smith, 

daughter of Richard Smith, deceased, granted to Nathaniell Bradford, Jr., "my heir and the heir of 

the abovesaid Smith," 800 acres, being part of the 1400 acres purchased by Bradford, Sr. from 

Col. Edmond Scarburgh, now the home plantation at Matchapreage. This was given in lieu of 500 

acres sold by Bradford to John Fawsett and Dermon Selevant on the north side of the head of 

Occahonnock Creek and formerly belonged to Richard Smith. The conditions: if Nathaniell 

Bradford, Jr., or the heirs of Richard Smith when coming of age, trouble John Fawsett or Dermon 

Selevant in regards to the possession of the 500 acres, then Fawsett and Selevant should possess 

the 800 acres. Bradford acknowledged receiving 8000 lbs tobacco, and 4 cows and calves from 

Fawsett and Selevant. Signed 18 October 1664, Nathaniell Bradford. Witnesses: John West and 

Ed. Boteler. Recorded 20 October 1664, by Robt. Hutchinson” 56 

When Nathaniel sold the Richard Smith land to Fawsett and Sellivant, the tract at Matchapreague was 

referred to as “now the home plantation.” But even after settling at Matchapungo and selling off his other 

land, it appears that Nathaniel may have maintained the use of the plantation at Occahannock for a time. 

Indication of this appears in a deposition given by Nathaniel’s servant Robert Atkins on 16 June 1665 as 

evidence in the suit of Nathaniel against Alphonsoe Balls for riding Nathaniel’s horse without permission: 

“Deposition of Robert Atkins aged about 21 years: Said that after Alphansoe Balls and the wife of 

Bartholomew Meeres used the horse, she took the horse to the tanner’s old plantation on a Friday 

and gave it to Atkins, the tanner’s servant. On Saturday Atkins fetched the horse and carried to his 

master’s house at Matchapreage two tables, a grindstone and three hides and then turned the horse 

loose in the woods. On the following Friday Atkins was sent down into Matchapungo Neck to 

look for the horse, where he found him looking well. His master saw the horse when he got home 

and sent Atkins to Occahonnock to his old plantation for hides. After spending the night, Atkins 

caught the horse and carried eight hides home. The horse did not falter in the least and ate corn 

before being released in the woods. Toward the end of the next week, Atkins searched for the 

horse and found him dead. Signed, Robt. (O) Atkins.” 57 [Emphasis mine.] 

As Nathaniel had sold the plantation at Occahannock on 18 October 1664, perhaps the “old plantation” 

Atkins refers to is the land inherited by Richard Smith’s other daughter Susan, who wed Robert Richardson 

after her father’s death. Robert Richardson, like Nathaniel, was engaged in the leather trade. 58 Since 

Nathaniel and Robert were related it’s not hard to imagine them working with one another in the production 

of leather and the manufacture of shoes. Neither Dermon Sellivant or John Fawsett, to whom Nathaniel and 


Alice sold the Occahannock plantation, appear to have been in the leather trade, 59 but another interpretation 

of Atkins’ deposition is that they allowed Nathaniel the temporary use of his former plantation for his 

business activities. As for Nathaniel being referred to as ‘the tanner’, this may be a result of confusion on 

Atkins’ part about the difference between tanning and currying or it may indicate that Nathaniel himself 

was both a tanner and a currier. In any case, Atkins’ deposition clearly indicates that Nathaniel may have 

made use of his old plantation for a few years after patenting and settling his land at Matchapungo. 

* * * * * 

Indians at Matchapungo 

In October 1664 an acknowledgement was recorded in Accomack Court of a sale 

of land at Matchapungo from “Tapatiapon and his great men” to Nathaniel 

Bradford 60 . This acknowledgement doesn’t indicate that Nathaniel purchased land 

other than the 2400 acres he held at Matchapungo by patent, but rather that he 

needed to pay the Indian chief for the right to settle that land. If Native Americans 

claimed rights to land purchased by a colonist in Accomack, those rights had to 

be purchased from the Indians with payment over and above whatever was due to 

the grantor under Virginia law. This policy also applied to future sales of the 

same land, rights to which had to be purchased from the Natives anew with every 

transfer. Although no payment is recorded from Nathaniel to the Indians at 

Matchapungo, there are several acknowledgements on record in Accomack which 

detail such payments from others. For instance, in 1663 John Watts bought a tract 

of land from William Benstone but in addition had to purchase rights to the land 

from the same king “Tepatiapon” for 2 matchcoats and a shirt 61 . One must try to imagine Nathaniel 

presenting the Indian King and his great men with similar items as a token price for settling his patent. 

It appears that Indians were living on Nathaniel’s land in 1664, as at the time 

of Tapatiapon’s acknowledgement Nathaniel gave them permission to plant on 

it. In fact, it seems they continued to reside on the land until as late as 

December 1677, at which time King Robin the Indian lodged a petition against 

Nathaniel and his neighbor to the south Arthur Upshur over disputed land 62 . 

Matchapungo neck was evidently an area of old and relatively thick Indian 

settlement. In his account of the Indians of Accomack, Jennings Cropper Wise 

mentions the Matchapungoes as being one of the larger tribes on the eastern 

shore, and notes that they had a village near Wachapreague (just north of 

Nathaniel’s land) and another village lower down Matchapungo neck. 63 

Although the details of King Robin’s complaint are not described in the court 

record, the likeliest guess is that Robin was a leader of the Indians of 

Matchapungo and was attempting to maintain the rights given to Tapatiapon at 

the time of his acknowledgement to Nathaniel. Until the court’s rejection of the 

petition, 64 King Robin and the other Indians in Matchapungo Neck were given 

leave to “remain on the disputed land and enjoy all the former privileges 

except for the shooting of guns.” 

Eastern Shore Indians & Scarburgh’s Raid of 1651 

Unlike the Indians of mainland Virginia, those on the eastern shore seem to have come to terms with the 

presence of the English and consistently endeavored to maintain peaceful relations. They declined to take 

part in the massive uprising against the colonists that occurred on the mainland in 1622, even though they 

were invited to do so and at that time still significantly outnumbered the English colonists on the eastern 

shore. In 1644, another conflict broke out on the mainland which the eastern shore Indians failed to join. 

However, their unwarlike posture failed to save them from the consequences of rumors which continued to 

circulate since 1644 that they plotted some form of military action against the residents of the eastern shore. 

Many of the English on the shore, particularly those who held land on the northern “frontier” in what would 

become Accomack County, resolved to take action. In July 1650 a council of war was held in Northampton 

County and several witnesses were examined who testified to the existence of a plot among various tribes 

of Accomack to form a confederacy with the design of attacking the English. The Court declined to take 

action, but the following year Colonel Edmund Scarburgh took matters into his own hands. He gathered a 


group of about 50 men, including Thomas Johnson, Richard Bayly and others, and set out on April 29 th to 

capture the King of Pocomoke, who was suspected of being the head of the conspiracy. 

The exact course of Scarburgh’s raid is unclear, so it is impossible to determine whether it affected the 

Indian villages on Matchapungo Neck, but more than one village appears to have been attacked and several 

Indians killed or captured. Scarburgh’s raid was unauthorized and contrary to established Indian policy, and 

accordingly on 10 May 1651 the Northampton Court ordered the sheriff to arrest the men who took part. 

Justices Argoll Yeardley and William Andrews were sent to James City to prosecute the offenders, and 

William Andrews was ordered on behalf of the County to send 

gifts to the Kings of Pocomoke and Metomkin as well as to two 

Indians whom Scarburgh had abducted and enchained. 

Scarburgh and Johnson were singled out for special prosecution 

as being the leaders of the raid and were indicted by Yeardley 

and Andrews for “going in a hostile manner among the Indians 

and doing them outrages contrary to the known laws of 

Virginia.” However, the authorities at James City must have 

sided with Scarburgh since both he and Thomas Johnson were 

acquitted. The rest of the Justices of Northampton were 

compelled by Scarburgh’s acquittal to admit that “there is great 

probability that the Indians have concluded a confederacy of acting a sudden massacre of the inhabitants of 

the county.” The Court provided for a company of horsemen to be formed to meet the threat. This order 

was signed by Stephen Charlton, Colonel Scarburgh and Thomas Johnson, but no other Justices. If further 

action was taken against the Indians at this time, it was not recorded – but thereafter relations with the 

Indians remained peaceful until 1659, when Scarburgh moved against the Assateagues just north of the 

Maryland border. Though Nathaniel was later a horseman in the Accomack militia, it is not clear he was 

even on the eastern shore at the time of Scarburgh’s 1651 raid, much less whether he took part. 65 

* * * * * 

The “Art and Mystery” of a Currier 

By at least 1662, but probably earlier, Nathaniel had established himself as a currier, as we learn from two 

petitions lodged by Colonel Edmund Scarburgh against Nathaniel, given below. 

1) [28 January 1662/63] ”Upon the peticon of Coll Edm: Scarburgh declareing & Complaining 

that hee hath bin at a vast charge for tanning & making shooes, and that hee hath at this present 

nine shoemakers that doe noe work, for want of Leather curried w ch is and hath bin through the 

neglect of Nathaniell Bradford Currier who by Act of Parliamt is ingaged w th in Sixteene daies in 

winter and eight daies in Sumer to curry all hides brought to him upon the penalty of paying Ten 

Shillings P hide for his defeault The Court takeing the prmises into their serious Consideration 

Order that y e Sherriffe cause y e Statute to be produced to the said Nathaniell Bradford that hee 

may not pretend Ignorance, and also that John Turner & Robert Richardson [N.B. - Nathaniel’s 

brother-in-law] be appointed viewers & approvers both of y e Leather sufficient Tanning and well 

& sufficient currying, and in case of y e absence of either of them John Tizand to bee assistant 

therein, And that y e y e said Nathaniell Bradford bee paid for every hide, well & sufficiently curried 

thirty pounds of tobacco, or a paire of shooes for each large hide, as the Imployer shall thinke fitt, 

and this by y e Court allowed as y e greatest of payments, and to Continue until y e Court shall be 

better informed of y e prizes in England.” 66 

2) [18 January 1663/64] “Col. Edm. Scarburgh complained about the poor quality of leather from 

Nathaniell Bradford, currier, and desiring that it be improved in the future, requested that the 

leather be inspected. The court appointed Charles Ratcliffe, George Crumpe, Thomas Taylor, 

Robt. Richardson, and John Parker, tanner, to view the leather and report to the next court whether 

the fault lay with the tanner, currier or both.” 67 


The occupation of currier no longer exists, its function having largely been incorporated into the tanning 

process and the actual work of treating and finishing hides taken over by machines, but at one time curriers 

were an integral part of the production and manufacture of leather. Before the 19 th century, the currier 

occupied the middle step in the leather trade between the tanning of the animal hide and its transformation 

into a manufactured good. After an animal was killed and skinned, the 

hide was first delivered to the tanner, who removed any remnants of 

blood or tissue from the hide and then “limed” it – a process which 

involved washing the hide repeatedly in quicklime to prepare it to absorb 

the tanning solution. Next the tanner cut the hide to a useable size and 

dipped it in a series of solutions until the hide was thoroughly tanned. 

Then the hide was delivered to the currier, whose task was to finish the 

leather so it could be turned into a useable product, such as a saddle or a 

shoe. 

First the currier stretched the leather on a frame or rack until taut. Then he worked 

the hide with a “sleeker”, a short-bladed knife, to force out lingering tanning fluid. 

The main tool of the currier’s trade was a different implement known as the 

currying knife. First the currier used this implement to shave the inner surface of the 

skin until smooth, then to split the leather into different widths depending on its 

intended use. For shoe manufacture, the more pliant leather was used for the upper 

parts, and the stiffer leather for the soles. Having trimmed the hide, the currier 

began the actual currying process, which consisted of rubbing beef tallow and cod 

liver oil into the leather to finish it. At that point, the leather could be used for a 

multitude of purposes and stained or dyed. 68 

The whole leather trade was intimately inter-connected and each craftsman involved, from the tanner to the 

cobbler, relied heavily on the others. In medieval England often many members of the same family 

engaged in different aspects of the trade, so that the tanner, the currier and the cobbler or saddler were all 

related. In fact, it was quite common in England to find curriers also engaged in tanning and the 

manufacture of shoes. This ended up being the case with Nathaniel. 

Before entering into the profession of a currier one typically had to serve an apprenticeship to learn the 

trade. Since so little is known of Nathaniel’s early life, it is unclear where Nathaniel learned the craft of 

currying, whether he served an apprenticeship on the eastern shore or elsewhere in the colonies or England; 

whether he learned it in the service of a stranger or an acquaintance or whether it was a family profession, 

knowledge of which might have been passed on to him by his relatives. 


From Colonel Scarburgh’s first complaint, it is apparent that, regardless of activities carried out for their 

own profit, the local currier was obliged by law to “curry all hides brought to him” during certain periods 

of the year. One guesses that Nathaniel looked to the needs of his own operation before tending to other 

men’s hides, and that this may be a cause for Scarburgh’s first petition. By 1669, Nathaniel appears to have 

been no longer employed by Colonel Scarburgh as a currier, since in January of that year Scarburgh lodged 

a complaint against a Martin Moore, currier, for failing to supply him with curried hides as stipulated by an 

earlier agreement between them. 69 In 1668, Scarburgh is known to have been Moore’s master as well as the 

master of the tanner John Parker, probably the same John Parker who was sent to inspect Nathaniel’s 

leather after the second of Scarburgh’s complaints. Thus it appears that by 1669 Scarburgh had a currier 

servant on his plantation, and no longer had to rely on Nathaniel’s services. Perhaps by this time Nathaniel 

himself was already beginning to set himself up as a shoe manufacturer, as we know must have occurred at 

some point due to the existence of a shoemaker’s shop on his plantation. It’s tempting to infer from the 

complaints of Scarburgh that Nathaniel was engaged in shoe manufacture even at this early date, and that, 

being a competitor of Scarburgh’s, Nathaniel might have been less than generous when it came to both the 

number and the quality of hides he supplied to others. 

* * * * * 

Colonel Edmund Scarburgh 

Colonel Edmund Scarburgh has been mentioned several times already in the course of this biography. 

Nathaniel Bradford is sometimes associated with him in what would seem to be something of a client 

relationship: Scarburgh assigned Nathaniel the patent for a portion of his plantation at Bradford’s Neck and 

is described as Nathaniel’s “Imployer” in his complaint against Nathaniel for his delinquency in currying. 

Furthermore, Nathaniel’s service as constable came during the same year Scarburgh was sheriff, and it is 

likely that Scarburgh had the pick of those who served under him, since he also served on the county 

commission which chose the constables. All the same, such frequent association with Scarburgh in 

Nathaniel’s early years might not be quite as notable as it appears. Scarburgh was ubiquitous on the eastern 

shore and especially in Accomack County. By all accounts, he was a powerful figure and easily the 

county’s most famous and controversial early resident. His family was also extremely well connected, his 

brother Henry being the court physician to King Charles II. Given that both Scarburgh and Stephen 

Charlton have appeared several times already in Nathaniel’s life and that Scarburgh will appear again 

several other times in this biography - this seems like a good opportunity to give a brief sketch of the some 

of the history of the time, both the history of the wider English world and also the history of Virginia and 

particularly the eastern shore, in which both Charlton and Scarburgh were involved as prime movers. The 

digression is warranted, since the events to be described constitute the historical context of Nathaniel’s 

early life. 

* * * * * 

Historical Backdrop 

The English Civil Wars 

Nathaniel’s early life, whether spent on the eastern shore or elsewhere, was coterminous with momentous 

events happening in England, events which did not fail to have an effect on Virginia, far away though the 

colony may have been from the scene of the action. Wherever it was spent, Nathaniel’s youth should be 

imagined as occurring against the backdrop of the English Civil Wars and the events that surrounded them. 

The English Civil Wars of the 1640s began as a struggle between Parliament and King Charles I over 

control of the kingdom’s finances. Charles had been soundly beaten by Scotland during his invasion of that 

country in 1640, and as a result the victorious Scots took military control of a large portion of north 

England and required Charles to pay for the support of the Scottish troops there. In need of money, Charles 

found himself forced to summon Parliament to request funds. As soon as Parliament sat in 1640 it 

immediately made attempts to assert its authority, impeaching and executing the King’s chief advisor and 

demanding that Parliament meet on a regular basis rather than at the King’s whim. The King did his best to 

resist these demands and matters came to a head in late 1641, when Parliament passed the Grand 

Remonstrance, a list of all their grievances against the King, in which they also demanded the power to 


approve the appointment of the King’s ministers and to set up their own organization for Church reform. 

Charles rejected the Remonstrance and attempted to arrest five members of Parliament whom he viewed as 

leaders of the opposition, but the members were forewarned and escaped. The King himself, his position 

weakened, left London and raised an army. Parliament raised its own 

army and the two sides soon found themselves at war. The forces of 

Parliament emerged victorious in 1646; after a brief and uneasy peace 

war broke out again and, under the generalship of Oliver Cromwell, the 

Parliamentary forces were again victorious. At this point, feeling it 

could trust Charles no longer, Parliament claimed the full authority of 

the state and placed the King on trial. Charles I was found guilty of 

treason and beheaded in 1649, after which Parliament abolished the 

monarchy and the House of Lords and instituted a Commonwealth, or 

government by Parliament. A third war broke out shortly afterwards 

when Charles’ son, proclaimed king by exiled royalists in Scotland, 

raised an army and invaded England in an attempt to reclaim the throne 

for his dynasty. This third civil war resulted in another victory for the forces of Parliament. Cromwell 

defeated Charles II at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651, the prince fled to France, and the 

royalist cause collapsed in England. 

During the period from the execution of Charles I through the aftermath of the failed invasion of Charles II, 

many royalists fled England, seeking exile in Scotland, the Netherlands and also in England’s North 

American colonies. Two of the destinations of choice for royalists were Virginia and Barbados, where they 

were welcomed by the governors of those two colonies, who sympathized with the royal cause. Governor 

William Berkeley of Virginia made no secret of his adherence to the king and actively encouraged his 

fellow royalists to come to Virginia where their political attitudes might find a welcome reception. It is not 

known where Nathaniel Bradford lived during the wars of the 1640s, nor whether he took a side in the 

struggle between King and Parliament. However, it should be noted that, wherever he might have lived 

before 1654, his first appearance then in Virginia records was during the peak years of the royalist 

migration; and he had significant association with known royalist sympathizers Stephen Charlton & 

Edmund Scarburgh. 

Oath of the Commonwealth 

Many of Virginia’s elite were royalists, or as they are more popularly known, ‘cavaliers’, and the leading 

men of the eastern shore were no exception. Thus, resistance to the Commonwealth government was 

present to a certain degree at all levels of the colonial government, from the Governor on down to the 

County Courts. After the execution of Charles I, the Northampton court even went so far as to proclaim 

Charles II the rightful ruler of England in clear contradiction of the claims of the Commonwealth to have 

abolished the monarchy. 70 Due to these and other acts of defiance against its authority, in 1650 Parliament 

attempted to enforce the subjugation of those colonies that had become royalist havens. First it passed an 

ordinance cutting off all trade with Virginia and other offending colonies, and then sent Commissioners out 

to enforce submission. This was accomplished in Virginia without bloodshed when the colonial 

government at James City ratified the Articles of Capitulation on 12 March 1652 and handed over authority 

to the Commissioners. Governor Berkeley was removed from office and a new governor of proven loyalty 

to the Commonwealth appointed. At the same time, Nathaniel Littleton and Argoll Yeardley, the 

councilmen from Northampton County, obtained the signatures of 116 individuals on the eastern shore to 

an oath of loyalty to the commonwealth. 71 It could prove significant that Nathaniel is not on the list of 

those who took the oath, since it was essentially compulsory and even those in the county who were known 

to have royalist sympathies swore allegiance to the Commonwealth. Nathaniel’s absence from the list could 

indicate either that he was not on the eastern shore at this time, or that he was too young to be required to 

take the oath; alternately it could be that he was old enough but that only landowners or heads of household 

were required to take the oath. 

The Northampton Protest 

Although the justices of Northampton County took the oath of loyalty, Parliamentary rule clearly did not sit 

well with many of them. There seems to have been a clear division in the County Commission between 

those who were in favor of submitting fully to the constituted authorities and those who wished to adopt a 

more adversarial or independent attitude. 72 The latter group of justices took advantage of the opportunity 


provided by the change of regime to assert a measure of independence from the new government. 

Scarburgh and some other prominent men of Northampton began to stir up the people against James City 

on the pretext that since 1647 Northampton had not been called upon to elect representatives to the colonial 

assembly, and that therefore all public taxation since that year had been illegal. The people of Northampton 

selected six citizens, one of them Stephen Charlton, to draw up a protest to be delivered to the Assembly. 

Even though the slogan wasn’t used at the time, this document, known as the Northampton Protest, 

represents the first instance of colonials remonstrating against the authority of Parliament on the issue of 

“taxation without representation.” 73 

This remonstrance did not go unanswered by the government at James City, which soon brought those 

responsible for the protest to heel. But before turning to the response of the colonial government to the 

Northampton Protest it is necessary to describe other events going on at the same time which further 

exacerbated the divisions among the leaders of the eastern shore. 

The Dutch War, Indian Scares & Dissension Among The Northampton Justices 

A year after Virginia’s submission to parliamentary authority, war 

broke out between the Dutch and the English. Shortly after the 

commencement of hostilities in 1652, the Dutch sent instructions to the 

colonial government at New Amsterdam, suggesting means of defense 

and recommending, among other expedients for prosecuting the war, 

the use of Indians as allies. The ship bearing these instructions was 

captured by the English, and rumor soon spread of Dutch plans for an 

Indian massacre of the English colonists. In 1653, fears of such a plot 

were magnified by news from the north, where a Mohegan ally of the 

English spread word that the Dutch were plotting to incite the Narragansetts against the New England 

colonies. Although only mainland Virginia really had cause for concern from a generalized invasion of the 

Indians, the inhabitants of the eastern shore did not escape the general mood of alarm which ensued. 

Passions were high, and the eastern shore was rife with mistrust of its numerous Dutch residents and fear of 

the local Indians whom the Dutch were supposedly inciting to a general massacre. It appears that Colonel 

Scarburgh wished to take preventive action against both the Dutch and the Indians, since he went so far as 

to allege the existence of an actual plot. He and the other Justices in his camp had to be held back from 

action by certain other Justices of Northampton, who appealed to the Council at James City to protect the 

Dutch from reprisals: 

“Wee the Commissioners of Northampton County received from the Dutchmen in general 

(inhabitants of this County) wherein, they . . . complain, of a ruinous violence, suddenly to be 

acted upon them to their utter ruin, . . . We do therefore certify that they . . . have behaved 

themselves like honest men and legal subjects to the government they live under, having 

subscribed the Engagement, and performed all things, that is required of them in order to their 

obedience, from whereunto (in reason) they might expect protection. We are also of opinion, that 

unless they have an order now to secure them, not only they but the whole County (if not the 

whole Country) will be in danger of disturbance how sad consequences that may produce.” 74 

The Justices differed in their attitudes towards the Dutch and the Indians, as well as in the posture that 

should be adopted with respect to the Commonwealth government at James City. One portion of the Court, 

led by Argoll Yeardley, Obedience Robins and Nathaniel Littleton, felt that the authority of the 

Commonwealth government should not be called into question and wished to forbid any acts of hostility 

against the Dutch and Indian residents of Northampton. Another group of commissioners, led by Colonel 

Scarburgh and including the signers of the Northampton protest, were somewhat defiant towards James 

City and to a certain degree eager for action against the Dutch and the Indians. The battle lines drawn 

between the Northampton Justices in 1653 remained much as they had been before the submission to 

parliament, when Scarburgh and Johnson conducted their raid against the Indians north of Occahannock in 

1651 and were prosecuted by Argoll Yeardley and William Andrews. However, events since then had made 

this division more acute. 


The fundamental division within the Court came to a head in June of 1653. In that month, one of the 

Justices, Captain Thomas Johnson, a partner of Scarburgh’s in his 1651 raid, went so far as to assemble 

many of the shore’s inhabitants in Dr. George Hacke’s field, where he publicly read orders of the County 

Court which he found distasteful and incited the people gathered there to oppose them. Justice Stephen 

Horsey, like Stephen Charlton a signer of the Northampton Protest, added to the public tumult by calling 

his fellow Justices a “company of asses and villyanes”. Sensing their authority in jeopardy, the Court 

applied for help from Governor Bennett and the assembly at James City, representing the agitation of 

Johnson, Horsey, Scarburgh and others in a seditious light. In response, the Assembly ordered the 

subscribers of the Northampton Protest to be removed from office and dealt out the same treatment to 

Colonel Scarburgh, who was commonly known to have been a prime mover behind the Protest, though not 

a signer. On 29 July 1653, the governor, having personally come to Northampton County, held a court of 

investigation which fined several Justices of Northampton for words and deeds deemed harmful to the 

authority of Virginia’s Parliamentary Commisioners. Before the Governor’s arrival on the shore, an order 

had also been issued calling for the arrest of Colonel Scarburgh for conspiring to sell arms to the Indians, 

since he was rumored to have a substantial stock of weaponry in one of his ships that happened to be 

engaged in trade with them. Before the Governor’s arrival Scarburgh fled Virginia, making arrangements 

for the disposition of his estate among his children should he be unable to return. 

Scarburgh Ascendant, The Restoration of the Monarchy, Formation of Accomack County 

The year 1653 saw the nadir of the fortunes of Scarburgh’s political faction: its leaders either deprived of 

power or forced to flee the colony, their desire for action against the Dutch and the Indians thwarted, and 

their political influence crushed by the residence of the governor on the shore for nearly a full year. 

Afterwards their fortunes rebounded. By 1656, both Argoll Yeardley and Nathaniel Littleton had died, 

leaving Colonel Obedience Robins as the lone holdout of stature in the Court against those in Colonel 

Scarburgh’s camp. By then, Scarburgh had managed to become cleared of the allegations against him, and 

his position was restored. In 1659, he gained authority from the Assembly at Jamestown for an expedition 

against the Assateagues just across the Northampton border in Maryland in retaliation for certain 

depredations committed upon the Marylanders. In that year, Scarburgh was himself a member of the 

Assembly, and he no doubt used his influence there to secure the authority to proceed against the 

Assateagues. Since we find Nathaniel Bradford so frequently associated with Scarburgh, and since we 

know Nathaniel was later a horseman in the county militia, it’s natural to wonder whether he may have 

taken part in this raid against the Assateagues, though the names of the participants are not recorded. 

In 1660, Charles II was proclaimed the rightful King of England, putting an end to 

over a decade of rule by Parliament under the Commonwealth and by Oliver 

Cromwell during his Protectorate. In the summer of that year the erstwhile 

governor, William Berkeley, was rewarded by Charles II for his loyalty to the 

crown and reinstated as governor of Virginia. Two years later, Scarburgh’s old 

rival Obedience Robins passed away. The year after that, Scarburgh and his 

associates were able to secure at long last a project they had worked towards for 

over a decade: the division of the eastern shore into two counties. In 1663 

Accomack County was created from Northampton County, giving “King 

Scarburgh”, as many of his neighbors referred to him, his very own kingdom. 75 

Birth of William Bradford 

By the time of the formation of Accomack County out of Northampton County, Nathaniel Bradford had 

purchased, even if he wasn’t already seated on, his plantation at Matchapungo. It was around this time, 

specifically around 1662 or 1663, that Nathaniel’s second son William was born. 76 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel’s Jury Service 

In the first year of Accomack County’s existence Nathaniel appeared frequently in court as a juror, mostly 

in cases involving stolen, killed or injured livestock. Cattle and pigs in 17 th century Virginia were generally 


not kept penned up. Landowners rather fenced in their crops and allowed their livestock to forage at will. 

Consequently animals often wandered past the bounds of their owners’ property or at any rate out of their 

owners’ sight. Since the momentary location of an animal was no indication of its ownership, one man’s 

livestock was distinguished from another’s by distinctive markings cut into the animals’ ears. Even with 

this precaution, livestock was frequently a prey to a neighbors’ avarice or a victim of mistaken identity. 

One of the cases in which Nathaniel was a juror involved two men who were found guilty of marking 

another man’s pigs. Edmond Kelly claimed that he had three unmarked sows in his pen which returned 

from foraging marked by Robert Hignet and John Goring. Hignet and Goring claimed they thought the 

sows were wild, since they had been unmarked. When Edmond Kelly came forward to claim the pigs he 

failed to prove his ownership so Colonel Scarburgh, as deputy to the Colonial treasurer, requisitioned them 

“for the use of the King.” 77 Nathaniel was a juror in another case involving a barrow of Richard Hill’s 

which had wandered into another individual’s field, where it was killed by Robert Huitt. One witness 

claimed to have seen a hog with both ears cut off in Huitt’s house. Cutting off the ears of an animal was 

essentially a means of eliminating evidence of ownership and was therefore illegal. Huitt was found guilty 

and forced to pay a fine of 1000 lbs tobacco. 78 In another of Nathaniel’s jury appearances he and his fellow 

jurors convicted John Rogers of mismarking a heifer belonging to John Jenkins. The court was very serious 

about punishing such offenses and in this case “taking into . . . consideration the bad consequence of such 

evil practices and to deter others from the like” they ordered Rogers to stand for an hour with his head in 

the pillory with the words “For mismarking a heifer which was none of his own” posted above him. 79 

In all, Nathaniel served on 21 juries in Accomack County from 1663 to 1674, two thirds of them in the 

years 1663 and 1674. Following is a chart accounting for all of Nathaniel’s jury service: 

Complete Log of Nathaniel’s Jury Service 

1663 Jul 16 on jury in case of Jno. Dolby vs. Thomas Smith over a dead horse 80 

Jul 16 on jury in case of Jno. Goring & Robert Hignet marking pigs 81 

Jul 16 on jury in case of Robert Huitt vs. James Atkinson for killing hogs and cattle 82 

Aug 17 on jury in case of James Atkinson vs. Joseph Pitman over a dead pig 83 

Aug 18 on jury in case of John Rogers mismarking John Jenkins’ heifer 84 

Aug 18 on jury in case of William Blake vs. John Prittyman over a stolen sow 85 

Aug 18 on jury in case of the King vs. George Hack for killing a stray cow 86 

1669 Mar 17 on jury in case of Devorax Browne vs. Mihill Rickets for goods and services 87 

Nov 23 on jury 88 


1670 Jun 16 on jury 90 

1671 Nov 18 on jury 91 

1672 May 17 on jury 92 

1673 Feb 6 on jury 93 

1674 Jan 6 on jury 94 

Jan 8 on jury 95 

Feb 18 on jury 96 

Mar 17 on jury 97 

Apr 20 on jury in case of Isaac Jacob vs. Rowland Savage for trespass 98 

May 18 on jury 99 


Until a courthouse was built for the county later in Nathaniel’s life, sessions of the Acomack County court 

were held at Thomas Fowkes’ tavern. 101 This was essentially the 

local pub, so court day was often a festive occasion. Like those 

occasions when church services were held, sessions of the county 

court provided an opportunity for the community to gather together, 

catch up on the events of the day, and to socialize – and on court 

days Fowkes’ tavern did a brisk business. There are many instances 

in the court records of men being fined for appearing before the court 

drunk. Jurymen themselves were customarily given a free drink in 


ecompense for their services. The most common drinks served were probably locally made rum and cider, 

but imported brandy and wine was also present. Sack was drunk, as was beer and mum, a strong ale. 102 

Jurymen were not selected in advance; rather, they seem to have been chosen from among those already 

present at court, or those who happened to live nearby. There were probably always men on hand for such 

service, since it appears that a great number of the county’s residents showed up for court days. At the 16 

April 1664 court, Justice Scarburgh declared that most of the county was present. 103 This level of 

attendance can’t have been that uncommon, since nothing sensational was occurring in the session for that 

particular day. Court day was simply one of the only opportunities for the community to gather together, 

and many took advantage of the opportunity. Though any resident might appear in court, only freeholders 

were allowed to serve on juries. Servants and freeman without land were not allowed to be selected, and in 

practice gentlemen and county magistrates were never selected, likely since such service was considered 

beneath them. After 1674 Nathaniel ceased to appear on any juries for Accomack County, and this may 

indicate that after that year jury service was considered inappropriate to his age or station. 

Leisure Activities 

Having a drink at Fowkes’ tavern was not the only entertainment to be had on the eastern shore. Accomack 

is the site of what is thought to be the first theatrical production ever given in America, The Bear and the 

Cub, performed in August 1665. Someone thought the performance objectionable and informed on the 

actors, who were arrested by the king’s attorney and ordered to reenact the play for the court. 104 The 

justices must have found it innocent enough; rather than punish the actors, they instead fined the man who 

had informed against them. 105 

Although theater was not a normal diversion for guests at Fowkes’ Tavern, other diversions may have been 

common. The game of ten pins was popular in 17 th century Virginia and was frequently available at 

taverns, where owners would set up alleys devoted to the game. This and other games were frequently the 

object of wagers, and betting in general was very popular among Virginians. Dice were played as well as 

the two-person card game put. 106 Hunting for sport was also clearly 

prevalent, as is evidenced by the numerous cases brought before the court of 

men accidentally killing their neighbors’ hogs. Though frequently a matter 

for litigation, sometimes hunting could be a matter for neighborliness, as in 

the community hog hunt held around Christmas of 1662 in Accomack. 107 By 

far the most popular and prestigious pastime was horse racing. In some 

ways, it was considered a preserve of the upper class, since only the 

relatively wealthy could afford to own a horse. But, aside from private 

races, spectators were always welcome and frequently in great 

attendance. 108 There is evidence that Nathaniel Bradford himself was an avid equestrian. At his death, he 

possessed 33 horses and a copy of Markhams Masterpiece, the standard horse care manual of the day. 109 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel as Surveyor of the Highways 

About the time he settled at Matchapungo, in 1665, Nathaniel Bradford was appointed one of the surveyors 

of Accomack County. 110 His title was surveyor of the highways, a position different from that of the 

surveyor proper, whose job was to lay out the boundaries of land. The primary task of the surveyors of the 

highways was to ensure that the county’s roads were maintained in a good state of repair, essentially that 

they remain clear of debris and in a condition suitable for frequent use. The surveyors didn’t do all this 

work themselves, but rather had authority from the Court to order the inhabitants to assist them in clearing 

whatever portions of the county’s roads passed near or through the inhabitants’ land. All taxable male 

inhabitants were required by law to take part in this work and furnish their own tools for it. In the event that 

residents proved delinquent in helping to clear the highways, the surveyor could accuse them of such before 

the Court, which could hold them to account. In 1679, Nathaniel himself was accused of delinquency in 

clearing the highways near his own land and was ordered by the court to “make the bridge by Jno. Willis 

passable for carts and horses.” 111 Surveyors themselves could also be found delinquent in their duties. At 

Nathaniel’s appointment, an overseer of the surveyors was actually named and tasked with ensuring that all 

the surveyors fulfilled their duties. 112 


In 1665, Nathaniel was one of only three surveyors for Accomack, but when appointed again in 1683, he 

was one of 17. 113 The multiplication of the office was a clear result of the spread of settlement within 

Accomack and the building-up of the county’s infrastructure. In addition to their maintenance duties, the 

surveyors were also responsible for seeing that new roads were laid out when necessary. It’s tempting to 

imagine that during his time as surveyor Nathaniel must have overseen the creation of a significant number 

of the county’s roads whose essential routes have remained unchanged to this day; although most of the 

major roads were probably based on old Indian paths. 

As they continued to improve and subdivide their land, landowners sometimes found that the public roads 

which ran over their property ran directly contrary to their interests, preventing a more rational use of the 

land or seeming to divide it arbitrarily. It was sometimes possible in such cases to alter a road, provided one 

filed a petition with the court requesting permission to do so. Quite often, though, a landowner would 

simply alter the road without asking permission from the court. Anyone who found the new road to be a 

hindrance could then lay a complaint before the court, and if the alteration was found to be detrimental to 

the public, the landowner would be ordered to return the road to its previous condition. For instance, in 

1674 a complaint was registered before the court against Nathaniel’s neighbor Richard Kellam for 

“[enclosing] an ancient useful road and [denying] the same to be a road.” Nathaniel and neighbors John 

Smith, Robert Watson and Jonas Jackson, were ordered to determine “whether it had once been used by the 

inhabitants and whether it was a necessary road.” Nathaniel and the others judged that the old road was 

even more necessary than it had been in years past and Kellam was ordered to return the road to its former 

condition. 114 Nathaniel’s son William confronted a similar situation in the year after Nathaniel’s death, 

when he tried to alter the road leading north from Arthur Upshur’s land in Matchapungo Neck. 115 


Nathaniel in the Late 1660’s: 1666-1670 

Addition to Plantation at Matchipungo 

On 9 October 1667, Nathaniel received a patent for 400 acres adjacent to the 2400 acres he already held at 

Matchipungo. 116 This acquisition brought the total size of Nathaniel’s plantation to 2800 acres, or almost 4 

½ square miles. This was large in comparison to the size of most plantations in Accomack, and more than 

enough acreage than was necessary for a single household. To what uses did Nathaniel put this land? 

Though there is no direct evidence of it, he likely planted tobacco, as did nearly every landowner in 

Virginia at the time. At his death Nathaniel owned such large numbers of sheep and cattle that it is fair to 

imagine that a sizeable portion of his plantation was used for grazing. 117 Nathaniel may have had gardens to 

supply his household with vegetables and orchards to supply it with fruit and cider. At certain points in his 

life Nathaniel likely had tenants on his land 118 and possibly houses for servants and slaves. Some portion of 

Nathaniel’s plantation would have also been used by the Indians who resided on his land, though it is 

unknown how much land they used and unclear where precisely on the tract their land was located. 

Map of modern-day Bradford’s Neck, depicting rough boundary of Nathaniel’s Matchipungo Plantation 

Nathaniel’s home was probably located in the north of the tract near present day Bradford’s Bay and a little 

to the south of the town of Wachapreague. The house doesn’t survive, but according to Ralph Whitelaw it 

is possible a portion of it existed in his day as a room in the Gulf Stream Nursery. 119 Living on Nathaniel’s 

plantation in 1667 were at least 9 individuals, a number arrived at through examination of the list of taxable 

inhabitants in Accomack County for that year. Tax lists survive for Accomack County from the year of its 

formation until 1695, with the exception of the years 1672 and 1673. These lists contain the name of every 

head of household, as well as the number of taxable individuals in each person’s household, and are an 

invaluable source for researching the lives of particular individuals as well as their relation to their 

neighbors. 


The following chart lists the number of taxable individuals in Nathaniel’s household from the years 1661 to 

1667. (The tax lists for 1661 and 1662 are from Northampton County, since Accomack had not yet been 

formed.) 120 

Nathaniel’s Tithables Through 1667 

1661 6 tithables 







Not all individuals were subject to the head tax. Free white women were not taxed, so that Nathaniel’s 

wives would never have counted as tithables. Free white males under the age of 16 were also untaxed, so 

that none of Nathaniel’s sons would have been counted until beginning around 1676. 121 From this it is 

apparent that for the years 1661 to 1667 the bulk of Nathaniel’s household consisted of employees, servants 

or slaves. In 1667, since Nathaniel was taxed for 5 individuals, he must had at least 4 people living in his 

household other than himself, his wife, and his two young sons, Nathaniel, Jr. and William. Can the identity 

of any of these individuals be determined? 

* * * * * 

Robert Atkins and Sibbe Bullock 

The identity of two of Nathaniel’s servants in the year 1667 is confirmed by a court record from January of 

that year, in which Nathaniel gave security for fines levied on Robert Atkins and Sibbe Bullock. 123 The 

former is the same Robert Atkins whose deposition in Nathaniel’s suit against Alphonso Balls was cited 

earlier. Sibbe Bullock first appears in the records of Accomack in 1665 as a headright of Nathaniel’s 

brother-in-law Robert Richardson, 124 and was also later claimed by Nathaniel as a headright on his 

certificate of importation from 1672. 125 

In December 1666, Sibbe Bullock had been presented to the court by grand juryman Bartholomew 

Meeres 126 for the crime of fornication, or conceiving a child out of wedlock. Punishment for fornication 

was typically 25 lashes on the bare back, but that sentence could be 

commuted to a fine of 500 lbs tobacco if the accused had means to 

pay. 127 Most servants presented for fornication did not have the means 

to pay, and in such instances their master often assumed the cost of 

their fine in exchange for a longer term of service. In the case of Atkins 

and Bullock, Nathaniel put up security for their fines and the two 

avoided corporal punishment, although there is no further indication 

that their terms of service to him were lengthened as a result. As 

frequently happened with those caught for fornication, Robert and 

Sibbe later married. 128 It’s unclear for how long Robert and Sibbe 

served Nathaniel, but by at least 1674 Robert Atkins was out on his own, since he appears as a head of 

household on the Accomack tax list for that year. 129 In 1681 Atkins purchased land in the north of the 

county, 130 where he and Sibbe appear to have lived for the remainder of their lives. 

Thus 1 of Nathaniel’s 4 servants and slaves in 1667 must have been Robert Atkins, since white male 

servants were taxed at any age. If Sibbe Bullock worked as a field hand she would have been counted as a 

tithable owing to a 1662 law, though not if she worked as a domestic servant. 

* * * * * 

Indian Servants 

If the age of a servant or slave was unknown, that individual would sometimes need to have their age 

judged by the court. In the absence of proof of age, this was the only way to legally determine whether an 

individual belonged on the list of taxable inhabitants for that and succeeding years. It is thanks to this 


practice that another of Nathaniel’s servants from 1667 can be identified, an Indian named Nicander whom 

Nathaniel brought before the court in 1667. The court judged him to be 12 years old, gave him the surname 

Bradford, and ordered him to serve Nathaniel until the age of 24. 131 

There were probably two Indian settlements on or near Nathaniel’s land, one in the lower part of 

Matchipungo Neck and another near the northern border of Nathaniel’s 

land, the village of Watchapreague, which stood pretty much where the 

current town of Watchapreague stands today. 132 These tribes would have 

probably had their own clearings where they planted corn and possibly 

tobacco, as they had well before the arrival of the English. Though the 

circumstances under which Nicander came into Nathaniel’s possession are 

unclear, it’s possible he was a member of the tribe resident in the neck. 

The same might be the case with an Indian servant of Nathaniel’s 

nicknamed “Dick”, who was added to Nathaniel’s list of tithables in 

1674. 133 It is possible Nathaniel had other Indian servants throughout the 

course of his life, though no record of them exists. 

Nathaniel Bradford settled on land where Indians had been living for generations, but he does not appear to 

have dispossessed them. In practice he and they shared the land, even though in theory Nathaniel was the 

sole owner under English law. Contrary to the popular perception of the colonists as having an unremitting 

hostility against the Indians, on the eastern shore at any rate this was not the policy of the county 

government. The Accomack Court often endeavored to protect Indians from the violent actions of isolated 

individuals or groups of Englishmen. In 1664 John Devorax was employed by the county as an interpreter, 

but was dismissed from his post due to behaving “treacherously amongst the Indians to the abuse of His 

Majesty’s subjects and the dishonor of our nation.” 134 When Colonel Edmund Scarburgh conducted an 

unauthorized raid against the Indians of Accomack in 1651, he was prosecuted for it by the other Justices of 

Accomack, who ordered reparations to be made to the victims. 135 Even though Scarburgh was cleared of 

blame, the fact remains that the county commission was not of a single, hostile mind to exterminate the 


natives. This doesn’t change the fact that such actions as men like Scarburgh took would continue to occur, 

but it shows that a distinction ought to be drawn between those Englishmen who wished violence upon the 

Indians and those who wished to find some way to share the same space. However, this should not discount 

what happened to the Indians of Accomack over the course of the 17 th century. By the end of Nathaniel’s 

life they were not only in a position of complete dependence upon the English, but their population had 

been decimated. Only a tiny portion of this loss of population was likely attributed to the violent actions of 

Scarburgh and others. Much of it was due to disease. In particular, the smallpox epidemic of 1667 affected 

the Indians far more severely than it did the English, carrying off hundreds out of a total population that 

before the arrival of the English was probably only about 2000 and must have been even less at the 

outbreak of the disease. 136 By 1705 the list of surviving tribes was painfully small. 137 Indians were still 

living in their ancient homes at Wachapreague and other places in Accomack, but only by the sufferance of 

the English. Some tribes had disappeared completely or had been incorporated into other tribes. In time the 

same fate would befall the remainder. 

* * * * * 

Charles Holden 

Both the simple outline first drawn of Nathaniel’s family and the picture just sketched of the makeup of his 

household are significantly complicated by an order from the 16 August 1667 court of Accomack, in which 

reference is made to Nathaniel’s prosecution of Charles Holden, a young attorney and later a deputy 

attorney general of the Eastern Shore. On this occasion, Nathaniel attempted unsuccessfully to force 

Holden to support a child Nathaniel’s wife bore six months into their marriage. As neither the name of 

Nathaniel’s wife nor the name of the child is given in the court order, the question of their identity is a 

matter for investigation. While analysis of the record yields inconclusive results, it opens up an intriguing 

possibility - that Nathaniel may have had a third wife, no direct record of whom exists. 

“Whereas Nathaniel Bradford prosecuted Charles Holden and pleaded before ye Court that for so 

much as ye now wife of ye said Nathaniell Bradford hath had a Child wthin six months after 

mariage and doth affirm Charles Holden to bee father desiring ye sd Holden might keepe ye sd 

Child according to Act of Assembly The Court Examining ye cause finds noe such rule by Act of 

Assembly to inforce the said Holden to keepe ye sd Child. Therefore dismisd the suit. 138 

At first glance, Alice would seem to be the obvious candidate for Nathaniel’s wife in 1667. There is no 

record of any other wife of his between Alice Smith and Joan Franklin, and it can’t be said for certain that 

Nathaniel was married to Joan until 1677, a full ten years after the Charles Holden prosecution. By the 

same token, it is known that Alice was alive three years before this prosecution. If the wife in question is 

indeed Alice, then the possibility arises that Nathaniel, Jr.’s natural father was Charles Holden. It depends 

on whether or not Nathaniel, Jr. was Alice’s first child. In fact, this seems likely. In 1664, when Nathaniel 

and Alice sold the land inherited from Alice’s father, the elder Nathaniel was obliged to provide for Alice’s 

heirs, as stipulated in Richard Smith’s will. Yet he provided only for Nathaniel, Jr. and no other child of 

Alice’s, which indicates that Nathaniel, Jr. had no older siblings. Therefore, if the wife in question in the 

Holden prosecution was Alice, then the child fathered by Charles Holden was probably Nathaniel, Jr. 139 

However, several considerations cast doubt on the conclusion that Alice was the wife referred to in the 

Holden prosecution. First, in 1664, when he granted his son land in lieu of the Richard Smith inheritance, 

Nathaniel Sr. referred to Nathaniel Jr. as “my heir”, implying that he reckoned him his own son. If another 


man were the father of Nathaniel Jr., knowledge of it would have probably been as apparent to Nathaniel 

Sr. in 1664 as in 1667; and if Nathaniel Sr. was prepared to disown his responsibilities to the child in 1667, 

in all likelihood he would not have considered him an heir earlier. Not only that, the early birth of the child 

would have been apparent to Nathaniel and Alice’s neighbors, and the two of them would probably have 

fallen under suspicion for the crime of fornication, which applied to married as well as unwed couples. 

There are instances in the Accomack court records of married couples being presented by the grand jury for 

fornication based on their having a child early enough in their marriage to indicate that it was conceived 

before that marriage. 140 Nathaniel and Alice would not have been immune from this charge. But there is an 

even greater reason to doubt that Holden fathered Nathaniel’s first child by Alice. Namely, since they were 

married by 1660, and since Nathaniel, Jr. was born around that year, it’s natural to wonder why Nathaniel 

Sr. would have waited a full 7 years to lay a claim for child support based on false paternity. All of the 

considerations listed are not quite enough to warrant a complete rejection of Alice as the mother of 

Holden’s child, but make her a doubtful candidate. 

Yet the likelihood that the wife in question was Joan seems slim. After Nathaniel Sr.’s death, Joan’s brother 

Henry Franklin made an attempt to provide for her son John Bradford, but mentioned no other children of 

hers by Nathaniel. 141 John remains the only known child of Nathaniel and Joan and he was born in or 

around 1677, a full 10 years after the action against Charles Holden. Even so, the possibility remains that 

Nathaniel may have had earlier children by Joan who did not survive or who may not have warranted the 

assistance of her brother Henry for whatever reason. 

Though there is no direct evidence for it, another possibility must not be discounted: that Nathaniel had a 

third wife intervening between Alice and Joan. Alice was certainly alive in August 1664, when she united 

with Nathaniel in the sale of her inherited land to John Fawset and Dermon Selevant; but as this is her last 

identifiable appearance in the records, it can’t be said for certain that she was still alive three years 

later. What is more, by January 1667 a smallpox epidemic had broken out on the eastern shore, said to have 

been introduced by a sailor from Bermuda. 142 It is possible that Alice died from the disease early in the 

year, and that Nathaniel remarried very shortly afterwards, though this is obviously just speculation. The 

use of the term “now wife” in the court record may also be significant if it was used to distinguish from a 

former wife (i.e., Alice). At any rate, if Nathaniel’s wife in August 1667 was neither Alice nor Joan, there 

is no record of her or the child. 

Whoever the child was, if it outlived Charles Holden he appears not to have provided for it. A search of 

Holden’s numerous appearances in the court records of Accomack and Northampton reveals nothing to 

suggest a blood relationship with anyone. Holden appears to have died without having fathered any other 

children, as in 1689 he left his land in Northampton County to his wife Mary and, if she had no heirs, then 

to Edmund and Tabitha Custis. He also left legacies to various individuals, but none of them seem to be at 

all connected to Nathaniel Bradford’s family: Holden left his servant Thomas Summers a cow and calf; to 

Elizabeth Sterlinge he gave a gold ring; to John Bradhurst a horse; and to his godson Henry Sprattling a 

lamb. 143 The only possible contender for Holden’s illegitimate child among these legacies would be 

Elizabeth Sterlinge, since Sterlinge was her married name. According to a deposition she gave in 

Northampton Court she was born around 1660, 144 so if she was Holden’s child by Nathaniel’s wife, it 

would have to have been by Alice before the birth of Nathaniel, Jr.; and it is unlikely Alice had a child 

earlier than Nathaniel Jr. 

Ultimately it’s difficult to see how the issues brought up by the Charles Holden prosecution will ever be 

settled in the absence of further evidence. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely such evidence will ever come to 

light. 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel A Horseman in the County Militia 

On the same date that he prosecuted Charles Holden, Nathaniel was listed among those late or absent at the 

muster of the county’s militia. 145 


The county militias were the only military bodies available for the use of the government barring 

extraordinary levies of men. In theory they consisted of all free men capable of bearing arms, so it is not 

surprising to find Nathaniel in the ranks of the Accomack County militia. What is notable is that Nathaniel 

was a horseman as opposed to a footman. The militia was divided into companies of horse and foot, and the 

horsemen had much the greater status, since ownership of a horse was still rare enough at that time to be 

considered a mark of wealth. 146 

The Accomack County militia was commanded in practice by the leaders of the county, the Justices of the 

Peace, since they reserved for themselves most positions of military command. Though no record directly 

indicates that Nathaniel engaged in any military activity apart from showing up (or not showing up, as the 

case may be) at the muster, it’s natural to wonder whether he might have taken part in some of the 

campaigns that originated in Accomack during his life. It is impossible to tell whether Nathaniel was 

involved in Colonel Scarburgh’s 1651 raid against the Accomack Indians or his 1659 expedition against the 

Assateagues, since the names of the participants in these actions are not on record. In 1663, the Accomack 

court ordered a group of horse and foot soldiers to be gathered to assist the Indian King of Pocomoke, who 

complained of a plot among his great men to poison him and stir up revolt among his subjects; 147 Nathaniel 

may have participated in this action although, once again, the names of the participants other than the three 

commanders of the expedition are not recorded. Nathaniel was almost certainly involved in some capacity 

in the suppression of Bacon’s rebellion, discussed below, for which involvement he was compensated by 

the Virginia Assembly. However, as will be brought out, this compensation could have been for any 

number of activities, not necessarily service as a fighting man. 


Nathaniel as Grand Juror and Representative of the County 

In January 1669, Nathaniel was named to the grand jury for Accomack County. 148 Grand jurymen, like 

other county officials, held their posts for a year and had specified public duties. Part of the grand jury’s 

role was similar to that of today’s grand jury in that the members had the power to determine which 

individuals should be presented to the court for trial; but rather than simply being passive instruments of the 

court, the grand jurors were tasked with actually seeking out or bringing to the court’s attention those who 

broke public laws. In fact, grand jury members could be held liable for being delinquent in making their 

presentments and punished with a fine. 149 In the Accomack court by far the most common reasons 

individuals were brought before the grand jury were for fornication and breaking the Sabbath, but men and 

women could also be presented to the court for a variety of other offenses, including adultery, failing to 

attend church, neglecting to clear the highways, breach of public peace and also for slandering the court in 

private or even speaking ill in private of any of the Justices who sat on the court. 

In the same year that he was appointed to the grand jury, Nathaniel took on another post in service of the 

public, an appointment more intriguing than all his others because the nature of the service is unclear. 

According to a court order of 17 May 1669, on that date “Mr. Nathaniel Bradford” was appointed a 

“representative of the county” along with Mr. Southee Littleton, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Thomas 

Leatherberry, Mr. William Custis and Mr. John Parker. 150 Nathaniel was in elite company, since three of 

the other representatives (Littleton, Custis & Parker) were related to currently serving Justices of the Peace. 

Unfortunately, the record says nothing about the nature of the appointment. 

From an initial examination of the record there was no hint as to what these men’s representation entailed. 

They were definitely not the county’s representatives for the Virginia Assembly: not only were Nathaniel 

and the others appointed, not elected, but Accomack only sent two representatives to the Assembly, not six. 

The appointment was out-of-the-ordinary, not like the appointment of constables and surveyors, instances 

of which are inevitably found whenever one browses through 17 th century county court records. I sought 

possible purposes of Nathaniel’s appointment through data mining of the Accomack Court records. First, 

an investigation of the activities of the other appointees during 1669 as revealed by the court records turned 

up nothing that suggested they were carrying out the duties of a public official. Widening the search for 

clues in the court records of 1669 and surrounding years at first led to a suspicion that Nathaniel and the 

others’ appointment might have had something to do with a series of unusual events which unfolded in 

Accomack County in 1669. It so happens that 1669 was a very turbulent year in Accomack, replete with a 

controversial and scandalous trial, open dissension within the County Commission, and other acts of 

turmoil, some described, others only hinted at in the records. But Nathaniel’s appointment probably had 

nothing to do with these events. 

A thorough scan of Accomack County court records from 1663 to 1690 turned up clues as to what the 

nature of Nathaniel’s appointment in 1669 might have been. In December 1681, the Accomack court 

ordered that 6 men be chosen as representatives for making laws. 151 (Note that this is the same number of 

men as were chosen representatives in 1669.) Further detail about these representatives comes from a court 

record of 17 June 1682, in which the court ordered the sheriff to tell “the representatives” to meet the 

justices at the court house, where they would “make such laws as shall be thought needful and expedient 

for the good and benefit of the county.” 152 These later records seem to mirror the appointment of 

representatives in 1669 and may be an example of the Accomack court taking advantage of the right to 

enact local by-laws relating to their own jurisdiction. 153 This may have also been the reason for Nathaniel’s 

appointment in 1669. If that is the case, there is no record of what, if any, bylaws might have been enacted 

by Nathaniel and his fellow representatives. 


* * * * * 

Henry Smith 

In the year Nathaniel served on the grand jury and was appointed a representative of the county, all of 

Accomack was witness to the trial of Henry Smith, who was brought before the court repeatedly for a series 

of alleged crimes, including beating his wife, raping two of his servants, starving and excessively beating 

other of his servants and even causing the death of one of them. The whole affair was particularly 

sensational due to the serious nature of Smith’s alleged misdeeds and the sheer number of them, but it is 

more than just a lurid tale. The Henry Smith affair was the first in a series of scandals on the eastern shore 

in what amounted to two years of social and political turmoil, even violence, that finally culminated in the 

dissolution of Accomack County and its reincorporation into Northampton County after less than a decade 

of existence. 

Henry Smith was a wealthy and well-connected planter who owned the 4300-acre plantation Oak Hall in 

the north of Accomack, as well as a plantation on Occahannock Creek not far from Richard Smith’s old 

plantation. He seems to have had some influence with the governor, who on a previous occasion allowed 

him to escape the normal course of justice in the matter of his killing of a neighbor’s livestock. 154 

Influence-peddling may seem bad enough, but Smith appeared guilty of far worse. Rumors of Henry 

Smith’s domestic tyranny were in circulation throughout the county even before June 1668, when his 

servant Jane Powell complained to Colonel Edmund Scarburgh of the severe whippings she suffered at her 

master’s hand. 155 Even though the Justices knew about Smith’s reputation for excessive cruelty, they sent 

him away with only a reprimand, since this was the first complaint against him. A few months later, in 

October 1668, Smith’s servant Elizabeth Carter was brought before the court on the charge of murdering 

her bastard child, since it had been found by two women who viewed it to be bruised about the head and its 

flesh peeled off in places. 156 Elizabeth claimed that Henry Smith was the father, and her fellow servant Jane 

Hill testified that Smith “did frequently lie with [Elizabeth] and gave her physic,” presumably to prevent a 

pregnancy. In December there were more revelations, as several of Smith’s other servants as well as his 

wife came forward with their own complaints. The court was occupied with Smith’s trial for three days in 

early December of 1668, hearing the numerous accusations against him and attempting to determine what 

to do about his various alleged crimes. 157 Word of the Smith affair must have by this time spread 

throughout the entire county, so it’s safe to imagine that an even larger than usual crowd of residents 

gathered at Fowkes’ Tavern to view the proceedings. 

Though cleared of outright murder, Elizabeth Carter was found guilty of causing the death of her child and 

was fined and condemned to a public lashing. She accused Smith in writing of “tempting and alluring her to 

his bed by promise of marriage with other notorious and shameful imputations,” and declared that on some 

occasions Smith’s first wife’s sister, a Mrs. Holbrooke, would join them in bed. It also came out at trial that 

Smith had fathered a bastard child with another servant, Ann Cooper. Three other of Smith’s servants came 

forward to complain of severe beatings and of not being given enough food or clothing. Joanna Smith and 

others testified to the severe beatings her husband had given her. Believing Smith’s wife to be in danger, 

the court drew up Articles of Pacification, what today we would call a restraining order. Joanna pleaded for 

the court to take further action to secure her safety, since her husband had threatened to move to Maryland 

where he could engage in “more licentious living and liberty of using his tyranny to all under his power.” 

On top of all these revelations, it came out that Smith had publicly alleged the existence of a conspiracy 

against him on the part of the Justices and was known to have “said that the court had proceeded illegally 

and unjustly” and that he would “make them ashamed before the governor’s council.” 

In February 1669, more accusations against Smith surfaced. Smith’s servant Mary Hues accused him of 

rape, which she described for the court in vivid detail. Even worse in the eyes of the court, Smith’s niece 

Rachel Moody testified that Smith had attempted to suborn perjury from her by forcing her to swear to a 

pre-prepared deposition denying all the complaints she had made against him. It also came out that Henry 

Smith’s servants Old John and Richard Webb had both died after a long period of ill treatment by him. 

Furthermore, the court declared that Smith had “the mark of God’s desertion by his pride and arrogance,” a 

reference to the recent drowning of some of his livestock as well as the burning down of his house, events 

that were viewed as judgments of God. On top of all this, it was made known that Smith had petitioned for 

an appeal to the governor against the proceedings of the Accomack County court in an effort to damage the 


court’s reputation. Since the accusations against Smith involved felonies, he was committed to the sheriff’s 

custody and the court requested that Col. Scarburgh go as soon as possible to the governor to ask for his 

direction. When the Justices declared their opinion that Smith’s crimes had to be ruled on by the governor, 

Smith’s attorney John Tankard “interrupted the court and told all the people that this would come to 

nothing.” 158 

In March 1669, having received orders from the governor to proceed in due course of law, the court bound 

Smith over to the next General Court on the charge of two rapes and for causing the death of one of his 

servants. 159 The following month the boats carrying Smith and his servants set sail for James City but were 

apparently prevented by the weather from arriving in time for the General Court. The governor then 

ordered that Smith be tried in Accomack, and stated his intention to visit the county with his council, but 

“the weather was intemperate, causing the governor’s speedy return from Accomack.” 

In August 1669, the court again debated on how next to proceed in the Smith affair. Scarburgh, who had 

gone to James City to seek the governor’s advice, reported that it was Berkley’s wish to let Smith post bail. 

The Accomack Court drew up conditions referring Smith to the governor for trial, writing that “the 

necessity of the court’s proceeding is now most clear, for since Smith’s return last from town and before his 

trial, he hath removed most of [what] he can carry away into Maryland.” 160 

The Downfall of Colonel Edmund Scarburgh 

In February 1670, Henry Smith still seems not to have been put on trial. At that time, the Accomack court 

again discussed the disturbances recently prevalent in the county. The Justices unanimously agreed to go 

over in a body to the governor and council and plead that the peace of the county did “occasion our humble 

addresses.” They wished to show the governor first of all that they were free from any partiality against 

Smith, since most of their complaints concerned him. The court also wished to remonstrate with the 

governor and council concerning fellow Justice Captain Bowman, who happened to have recently changed 

his mind about the court’s manner of proceeding against Smith. 161 In their remonstrance they described 

how Bowman had in the past “abetted and managed’ a cause for a man who had a suit pending before the 

court; Bowman had afterwards hid this man from the undersherriff, and in exchange for these services later 

received 500 lbs tobacco from the man. In addition to this and other acts of partiality, Bowman had 

“conveyed a criminal on board a ship, which he caused to run from the sheriff and officers trying to stop 

her.” There is no record of what, if any, action the governor and council took on the remonstrance against 

Bowman; but it seems that he did not ultimately suffer for his actions, as he is found on the commission for 

Upper Northampton in 1671, the county of Accomack having before then been dissolved by the Assembly 

in October of 1671 due to “the late disturbance in the Counties of Accomack and Northampton”. 162 The 

dissolution of Accomack may have been a reaction to the events of 1669-70 just discussed - the Smith trial 

and the division between Bowman and the other justices. Other acts of violence occurred in Accomack 

during this same period: on 28 March 1669 John Monke and Roger Churchill murdered Thomas Hall 163 , 

and in 1670 Martin Moore, the currier employed by Colonel Scarburgh, threw Scarburgh to the ground and 

assaulted him with a stick, leaving him physically incapacitated for months. 164 Murder and violently 

assaulting a Justice of the Peace were unusually serious breaches of peace and order, and may have been 

among those incidents which led the Assembly to dissolve Accomack County. Accomack’s dissolution 

may have also been due to another event which must have occurred sometime in 1670 and which brought 

about the downfall of Colonel Edmund Scarburgh. 

On 12 September 1670 Governor Berkeley issued a warrant for Scarburgh’s arrest, declaring: 

“Whereas I am informed by persons of known worth and Integritie and by some of the Officers of 

both the Counties on the Easterne Shoare Thatt Collonel Edmund Scarburgh hath contrary to my 

order and the peace long since established betweene us and the Indians unjustly and most 

Tiranously oppressed them by Murthering whipping and burning them, By taking their children by 

force from [those] who are their parents and many other waies to the apparent hazard of the said 

peace established as aforesd These are therefore in his Majesties Name to will and require you 

forthwith upon Sight hereof to Arrest the Body of the said Coll Edmund Scarburgh and him to 

cause personally to appeare before mee and the Councell and Assembly on the Seaventh Day of 

October Next Then and there to answere things as shall bee laid to his charge for having soe 

unjustly and contrary to Law and order abused the Authority committed to him. . .” 165 


Though the governor’s warrant mentions “murdering whipping and burning [the Indians]” and “taking their 

children by force”, it is unclear whether this refers to an isolated incident or a series of depredations 

committed by Scarburgh. There are other vague hints in the court records of some general action taken 

against Indians around this time, but these records lack specificity. Whatever the details of Scarburgh’s 

actions, local tradition has its own version of events: that the Colonel gathered many of the native leaders 

together with the promise that the Great Spirit would speak to them. He had them sit in a ditch, at one end 

of which sat the ‘Great Spirit’ concealed from their view by some means or another. According to the 

legend, the ‘Great Spirit’ was in fact a cannon, and when it ‘spoke’ all of the Indians were killed on the 

spot. Ever since that time the episode has been referred to as the “ditch murder.” 166 Whether or not the story 

is true in all its parts, it certainly bears witness to Scarburgh’s reputation for cruelty against the Indians. 

No record of Scarburgh’s trial at James City survives, but the verdict of the Governor, Council and 

Burgesses was that he should be suspended from all civil and military offices until restored to favor by the 

Governor. It will never be known whether Berkeley might have ever reinstated Colonel Scarburgh, since 

Scarburgh passed away shortly after his removal from power. 167 As for Henry Smith, he was able in 1671 

to sell his plantations in Accomack and relocate safely to Somerset County, Maryland, away from the 

jurisdiction of the Virginia government. 168 It remains something of a mystery exactly which “disturbances” 

led the Assembly to dissolve Accomack County, or why Bowman was allowed to remain a justice while all 

the others were stripped of their posts, or why the government chose not to proceed against Henry Smith. 


Nathaniel Bradford During the 1670s: 1671-1677 

Nathaniel’s Tithables 

In 1671, Nathaniel Bradford had 9 taxable inhabitants in his household, an increase of about 50% over the 

6 taxable individuals found in his household in 1670. This increase most likely indicates the acquisition of 

servants or slaves, and hints at some kind of heightened activity on Nathaniel’s plantation. In the inventory 

of Nathaniel’s estate taken after his death, the appraisers found a “shoemakers shop” with three seats for 

shoemakers. 169 In light of this fact, it is interesting to note that in 1671 the number of individuals in 

Nathaniel’s household increased by exactly the number of seats later found in his shoemakers shop. It may 

be that 1671 was the year Nathaniel added shoe manufacture to his business activities. 

Nathaniel’s Tithables from 1668 to 1677 170 





1672 list missing 

1673 list missing 

1674 10 tithables (plus 1 unreported “Indian called Dick”) 



1677 11 tithables [Nathaniel, Jr. probably turned 16 in this year] 

The tax lists of Accomack are a useful tool for measuring the wealth of the county’s inhabitants, since 

every servant or slave in a household represents an investment of capital. Furthermore, the number of 

servants & slaves an individual owned was a direct indication of how much labor was required for the 

running of his plantation, and therefore the tithable lists may be used to indicate the scope of a particular 

individual’s business activities. Nathaniel, for instance, would have required laborers for his leather 

operation, such as tanners and shoemakers, and also laborers for whatever agricultural activities he was 

engaged in, such as planting corn, wheat, or tobacco. 

It is instructive to view the growth in Nathaniel’s household over time, and to compare him with other 

individuals to see how his household grew in relation to his neighbors. 

In 1664, when he first settled at Matchapungo, Nathaniel had 3 taxable individuals in his household, which 

is about the median number of tithables for Accomack County in that year. Following is a chart 

representing the array of households on the tax lists for that year in terms of size, with heads listed for those 

households of uniquely large proportions. 

1664 171 

1 individual with 27 Col. Edm. Scarburgh 

1 individual with 15 Devorax Browne 

1 individual with 11 Edmund Bowman 

2 individuals with 8 Jno. Lewis, Hugh Yeo & Robt. Huitt 

1 individual with 7 Richard Kellum 

11 individual with 6 

8 individuals with 5 


23 individuals with 3 incl. Nathaniel 




Five years later, in 1669, Nathaniel had 5 tithables in his household, which actually placed him among an 

elite 10% of individuals in Accomack with households containing 5 or more tithable individuals. 

1669 172 

1 with 21 Ann Toft [head of one of Col. Scarburgh’s plantations] 

1 with 19 Col. Edm. Scarburgh 

1 with 10 Capt. Edm. Bowman 

1 with 8 Hugh Yeo 

1 with 7 Henry Smith 

5 with 6 Tho. Browne, Robt. Huitt, Geo. Parker, Maj. Tilney, Capt. West 

8 with 5 incl. Nathaniel 

19 with 4 

28 with 3 

35 with 2 

90 with 1 

In 1671, the year his household underwent the 50% increase in tithable individuals, Nathaniel Bradford was 

among the top 5% of individuals in Accomack in terms of size of household. He and only 5 others, out of a 

total of 221 individuals on the tax list, had households with 9 or more individuals. This exclusivity becomes 

even more significant when one considers that none of Nathaniel’s sons were of taxable age at this time. In 

fact, Nathaniel’s household was larger than that of several of the county’s justices of the peace. 

1671 173 

1 with 40 Col. Scarburgh’s 

1 with 14 Devorax Brown 

1 with 11 Capt. Jenifer 

1 with 10 Capt. Jno. West 

2 with 9 Nathaniel Bradford & Charles Scarburgh 

1 with 8 Capt. Edmd. Bowman 

2 with 7 Maj. Geo. Parker & Mr. Hugh Yeo 

5 with 6 

10 with 5 

13 with 4 

22 with 3 

59 with 2 

103 with 1 

In 1671, and thereafter until his death, Nathaniel remained in about the top 5 th percentile of individuals in 

Accomack County in terms of size of household. In every year Colonel Edmund Scarburgh was alive his 

household far outstripped all others in terms of size. In 1671, the second ranked individual in terms of 

household size, Devorax Brown, had only 3 more tithables than the third ranked individual, Capt. Daniel 

Jenifer. Yet Scarburgh had 26 more individuals in his household than Brown - another indication of the 

power, wealth and influence he wielded in Accomack County. 

Discussion of the tithable lists for the remainder of Nathaniel’s life will be reserved for later, since they 

take on a different significance based on what was occurring in his household at that time. Suffice it to say 

that by the 1670s Nathaniel may be ranked among the elite of Accomack County in terms of the number of 

dependants on his plantation. 

* * * * * 

Consolidation of Bradford’s Neck and Addition to Holdings 

In 1672 Nathaniel had a patent reissued for the whole of his land at Matchapungo, including the 1000 acres 

originally patented in 1662, the 1400 acres patented in 1664 and the 400 acres added in 1667. 174 It appears 

that Nathaniel had failed to plant or build houses on both the 1000-acre tract and the 400-acre tract, since 

they were listed as deserted when the patent was reissued and Nathaniel had to supply 28 new headrights to 

lay claim to them again. In 1672, these three separate tracts were consolidated into a single plantation of 


2800 acres. In that same year Nathaniel received a certificate for an additional 400 acres near but not 

adjacent to his holdings at Matchapungo, these 400 acres being less than a mile due west of the border of 

his home plantation, separated from it by the southern end of a tract of land owned by Arthur Robins. 175 

Nathaniel’s Neighbors at Bradford’s Neck 

The map below illustrates the identity of some of Nathaniel’s neighbors within the general area of his home 

plantation. 176 

Map of Nathaniel’s neighborhood circa 1671 

(not a thorough depiction of all residents) 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel’s Headrights 

Over the course of his life, Nathaniel received patents for transporting 78 individuals into Virginia. Since 

certificates of importation and headrights could be sold, it’s not certain whether Nathaniel was actually 

responsible for the transportation of all the headrights on his certificates or whether he purchased the rights 

from others. It’s also unclear from looking at the lists just how many of the individuals from Nathaniel’s 

patents eventually became his servants, since even if he did transport them himself he may have sold them 

to others. In addition, it can not automatically be assumed that a person transported ended up becoming a 

servant, since one of the more common abuses of the system was to pay for the travel of friends and 

neighbors returning from a trip abroad and to claim these individuals as headrights. Keeping these 

considerations in mind, it is worth looking at a list of all the headrights culled from Nathaniel’s various 

patents to see if it may be determined whether he transported them or whether any of them became his 

servants. [Note: This list does not include the 8 individuals who would have been listed on his 1658 patent, 

as there is no record of the patent or the certificate, nor does it include the 20 individuals transported for his 

1662 patent, since the individuals transported aren’t mentioned in that patent.] 

From a patent of 26 September 1664 for 1400 acres, assigned to him by Colonel Scarburgh: 177 

John Evans 

John Smith 

John Dry 

John Casher 

Robert Casher 

John Courtney 

Robert Turges 

Samuell Short 

Thomas Coles 

John Cassick 

John Hancock 

John Wells 

Robert Masters 

Jonathan Samuraies 

John Tyzard 

Jenkin Morgan 


John Difneth 

John Sparkes 

Ezard Paine 

Ann Paine 

Dammaris Worthy 

Ellnor. Puckett 

Ann Found 

Crestlean Wenters 

Joane Ossett 

From a patent of 9 October 1667 for 400 acres: 178 

Edward Waller Jno. Tregon 

Tho. Gibbons [Benjamin Culme listed in original certificate] Margaret Strede 

Gideon Hayden Robt. Culliford 

James Finsh James Gold 

From a patent of 9 October 1672 for 400 acres: 179 

Miles Roxell 

James Hoxley 

Richard Webster 

Tho. Bossington 

John Lovelock 

Mathew Kele 

Agnes Taylor 

Joane Mazed 

Anne Eaton 

Elizabeth Abbot 

From a patent of 9 October 1672 for 1400 acres (reissue of 1000-acre patent, plus 400-acre patent from 1667): 180 

Edgar Lowderell 

Geo. Outrell 

Tho. Clarke 

Rob. Dotrington 

Nehemiah Blake 

Maurice Pembrocke 

Jno. Moore (?) 

Richd. Wiggon 

Samuell Taylor 

Robert Adkins 

Jno. Medcalf 

Mary Meares 

[the following names were crossed out] 

Edwd. Demstall 

Richd. Beare 

Joshua Rounder 

Adam Rinch 

From a patent of 25 November 1679 for 644 acres: 181 

Tho. Vintner 

Jno. Barnet 

Tho. Fletcher 

Alexr. Nash 

Richd. Long 

Jno. Rawlins 

Xper. Wooton 

Ed. Spicer 

Katherin Sherley 

Sybill Bullock 

Wm. Fetherston 

Robt. Paine 

Samll. Thurston 

Elizab. Jenkins 

Edgar Onley (?) 

Margar ----- 

Rich. Clefton 

Wm. Edwards 

Tho. Carpenter 

Tho. Harcroft 

Tho. Williamson 

Jno. Reeves 

Sandela, Negro 

Joan, Negro 

Jno. Howill 

Nathaniel’s Servants & Slaves 

The 28 individuals on Nathaniel’s 1664 patent were probably transported by Colonel Scarburgh, the 

assignor, who most likely sold either the headrights or the certificate of importation itself to Nathaniel in 

order for him to receive the patent. If the individuals listed as headrights on the 1667 patent were 

transported by Nathaniel, there is no record that any of them ended up living in Accomack County, much 

less in Nathaniel’s household. The same is true for Nathaniel’s 400-acre 1672 patent and his 1679 patent. 

However, many of the individuals on Nathaniel’s 1672 patent for 1400 acres were known residents of 

Accomack County prior to 1672, some of them neighbors, such as Samuel Taylor and Jno. Medcalfe. The 

Mary Meeres listed on Nathaniel’s 1672 patent was probably the wife of Bartholomew Meers, the man 

whose sickness occasioned the illegal borrowing of Nathaniel’s horse by Alphonso Balls. Several others on 

Nathaniel’s 1672 certificate are his known servants or slaves. It’s worth taking a look at these individuals, 

since in many ways they were an integral part of Nathaniel’s household: they were involved in the daily life 

of Nathaniel and his family; they were either employed by Nathaniel or under his authority as servants; and 

for a certain number of years they would have been a steady presence on his plantation. 

- Robt. Adkins & Sibbe Bullock are already familiar as the two servants of Nathaniel whose 

fornication fines he paid in 1667. 

- Thomas Williamson was probably the Thomas Williams who first appears in the tax lists for 

Accomack County in 1677. 182 Before then he may have been a servant or employee in Nathaniel’s 


household. A Thomas Williams was a witness for Christopher Sadbury in Nathaniel’s defamation 

suit against Sadbury in 1678 183 and in April of that year he was mentioned in a deposition as being 

with Nathaniel when Nathaniel accidentally killed one of William Burton’s hogs. 184 At Thomas 

Williams’ death, Nathaniel petitioned for administration of his estate as Williams’ greatest 

creditor. 185 Williams died owing various individuals more than the value of his entire estate, so his 

wife Elizabeth requested that she and her child at least be given clothing, since there would be 

nothing else left to her after the payment of Williams’ debts. Nathaniel Bradford was ordered to 

give Elizabeth the clothing and to take Thomas Williams’ estate into his care. 185 

- John Reeves was certainly one of Nathaniel’s servants. In 1676, he petitioned successfully for his 

freedom from Nathaniel, who was attempting to keep Reeves for a year longer than the term of 

service for which he had been indentured. 186 It is known that Reeves was brought to Virginia by an 

individual other than Nathaniel, 187 so it appears that in this case Nathaniel purchased the headright 

rather than arranging for the transportation himself. It is likely that this was the case with most of 

Nathaniel’s headrights, since there is no evidence that Nathaniel was engaged in the shipping 

business. Reeves died a few years after completing his term of servitude. 188 

Apart from the servants listed on Nathaniel’s 1672 certificate of importation, the identity of others may be 

surmised from examination of the Accomack County court records. The following individuals were 

servants of Nathaniel late in his life, being listed as in his possession at the inventory of his estate: Mary 

Stewart, Mary Shaw, William Trafford, Charles Justis and Mary Farrill. 189 Each of them was valued by the 

appraisers based on the time they had left to serve. Mary Farrill and Mary Shaw, who each had only one 

year to serve, were valued at a little over 1 pound sterling, whereas Charles Justis, Wm. Trafford and Mary 

Steward each had 5 years left on their indentures and were valued at between 8 and 9 pounds sterling. To 

give some idea of how much this was worth, passage to Virginia from England cost about 12 pounds 

sterling in 1680, or about 2500 lbs tobacco, and passage from Barbados 6 lbs sterling. 190 The court records 

of Accomack County allow the lives of these 5 servants to be traced to some degree: 

- It appears that Nathaniel’s son William sold Mary Stewart to Richard Bally after Nathaniel’s 

death, as in 1692 she was presented for fornication as Bally’s servant. 191 Charles Scarburgh paid 

her fine of 2000 lbs tobacco in exchange for her entering his service for two and a half years after 

she had completed her original indenture with Baily. It also appears that she wed the man whose 

child she bore, a certain Jones. 192 

- Mary Shaw may have been the same Mary Shaw who in 1689 was in the service of Robert 

Hutchinson, and whose term of service was extended since she attempted to run away. 193 

Nathaniel had several recorded dealings with Robert Hutchinson in his life: he was sued by 

Hutchinson in 1670 over an account 194 , and Hutchinson’s house is where a recorded conversation 

occurred regarding another of Nathaniel’s servants, the John Reeves mentioned above 195 . 

Hutchinson must have sold Mary Shaw to Nathaniel sometime in 1689 or 1690. 

- No significant records pertaining to Charles Justis exist in the Accomack court orders, but William 

Trafford appeared on several occasions. After Nathaniel’s death Trafford, though still a servant, 

sued the administrators of Nathaniel’s estate (his son William and wife Joan) for a mare and colt 

that Nathaniel had given him. 196 It’s worth quoting a few of the depositions given in this matter for 

the details they contain: 

“Deposition of Henry Read aged about 62 years: About a year ago in May, Mr. Natha. 

Bradford, Sr., came to Read's house and asked him to come down to his house to "cut 

horses and desired me if I had a good pliant rope to bring it with me. 'I have promised the 

boy William Trafford a mare for bearing of bricks.'" Bradford had already given him a 

mare, but it died, so now he was giving him another mare and colt. Read said he "would 

give him the cutting of ye colt", but Bradford "answered that if he had given him five 

mares, he had not lost by it" - for Bradford had hidden plate in a water hole; Trafford 

found it and returned the entire amount to Bradford. The last mare delivered to Trafford 

was branded "with NB with ye wrong end upwards." Signed in sworn in open court 17 

September 1691 by Henry (R) Read” 

“Deposition of James Ewell aged about 55 years: About three or four years ago, Ewell 

bargained with Nathaniel Bradford to do some brick work; Bradford, who was to find a 

helper, brought William Trafford. "After some time, Mr. Bradford came to Pungutege 

and ask your deponent how I liked ye said Trafford. [I] replied he did very well. So said, 


Bradford encourage ye boy Trafford and told him if he would be a good boy & please 

me, being his mare was dead, he ye said Bradford would give him another mare." Ewell 

afterward heard that Bradford had done as promised. Signed and sworn in open court 17 

September 1691, by James (I) Ewell.” 

- This William Trafford, described as “the boy” in the deposition of Henry Read, may have been the 

son of the William Trafford mentioned in the 1673 will of John Fawsett, 197 the man who 

purchased the Richard Smith land from Nathaniel. This same William Trafford, about 37 in 

1674, 198 may have been the William Trafford who in 1677 was reimbursed along with Nathaniel 

by Edward Hamond, a neighbor on Matchipungo creek, for securing a boat Hamond had found 

whose owner was in question. 200 

- The Mary Farrill who appears in the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate was likely the same Mary 

Farrell who in 1687, as a servant to Nathaniel’s neighbor Arthur Robins, was given 25 lashes by 

the court for the crime of fornication and bastard bearing. 201 Nathaniel must have purchased Mary 

from Robins for the remainder of her indenture. Nathaniel’s son William inherited her and while 

she was in William’s service she had yet another bastard, this time with the slave Spindolo, 202 

likely the same person as that Sandela who is listed on Nathaniel’s 1672 patent. For this action, 

she received 40 lashes. The child born to this union was named Thomas Ferrill and served William 

Bradford until the age of 24, after which he disappears from Accomack court records. 

Knowledge of another servant, employee, or lessee of Nathaniel’s comes from a court action of 1669, in 

which an Edward Martin was fined for neglecting to clear the highways, but pled that it was the fault of 

Nathaniel Bradford, with whom he lived, for not ordering him to do so. 203 This may have been the same 

Edward Martin who appears as a headright of Nathaniel’s father-in-law Richard Smith 204 and who, as 

Smith’s former servant, was given a legacy in Smith’s will. 205 Apparently Martin continued to live with 

Richard Smith’s heirs for several years, at least until 1669, probably along with another of Richard Smith’s 

servants, William East, whom Smith bequeathed to Alice. It is unclear what became of William East, but 

by 1671 Edward Martin was out on his own, as he is listed as the head of his own household on the tax list 

for that year. 206 Edward Martin has the dubious distinction of being an informant against what might be the 

first theatrical production ever given in America, the 1665 play The Bear and the Cub 207 

In 1684 or 1685, William Twiford received from Capt. Wm. Custis 1½ gallons of sturgeons oil and half a 

bushel of peas which he delivered to “my Master Bradford.” 208 As Twiford appears as a head of household 

on the tithable lists for 1684 and 1685, he was likely not a servant. His occupation was “feltmaker”, 209 and 

Nathaniel may have employed him in that capacity for his shoemaking operation. 

Richard Mason was probably a servant or employee of Nathaniel’s. He was living with Nathaniel in 1681 

when the sheriff of Accomack attempted to take him into custody at Nathaniel’s house for a debt owed to 

James Davis. 210 

John Daniell was certainly a servant of Nathaniel’s. For a time in the early 1680s he looked after 

Nathaniel’s plantation in Sussex County, Delaware. 211 Like Nathaniel’s servant John Reeves, he petitioned 

for his freedom after Nathaniel tried to hold him to a longer term of service. 212 

Though probably not a servant of Nathaniel’s, James Ewell lived on Nathaniel’s land for a time. 213 In 1678, 

Nathaniel sued him for damage he had wrought to Nathaniel’s property while dwelling there. Arthur 

Upshot and Wm. Nock were ordered to view the damages and found that Ewell had removed 18 apple 

trees, and that his dwelling house was “damnified.” 214 Ewell was a brick mason, and probably had a hand in 

building many public and private structures in 17 th century Accomack. 215 It’s possible Ewell rented land 

from Nathaniel, though no record of a lease exists. 

Nathaniel’s Slaves 

In the course of his life, Nathaniel undoubtedly owned servants in addition to the ones enumerated above, 

and had other dependants and employees. These are just the ones that appear as such in Accomack court 

records. Nathaniel also owned slaves. In the inventory of his estate four were listed: Sambow and Judee, 

each valued at 23 pounds; Bess, worth 5 pounds, and Spindelow, worth 18 pounds. 216 This Spindelow is 

likely that Spinola who was listed on Nathaniel’s 1672 certificate of importation, and the same individual 

as that Spindolo whose bastard child Nathaniel’s servant Mary Farrill bore following Nathaniel’s death. 


In 17 th century Virginia slavery was not the primary system of labor used in the southern colonies. Though 

introduced early in Virginia’s history, slavery did not begin to have the permanence of an institution guided 

by its own laws and special justifications until around 1662, when a Virginia law assumed that Africans 

would remain servants for life. 217 In the years thereafter the importation of Africans increased greatly. 218 

But for most of Nathaniel’s life, slavery had not yet replaced indentured servitude as Virginia’s dominant 

system of labor and the percentage of Africans in the labor pool was small compared to what it would 

become. 219 For a brief time in the beginning there was also room for ambiguity in the relations between the 

Africans and the English, since the entire society was accustomed to varying levels of servitude, white or 

black. After the expiration of their indentures or upon gaining their freedom, a handful of Africans even 

ended up adopting the Virginia planter lifestyle, themselves becoming owners of servants and slaves. 220 

However, the overwhelming majority of Africans in Virginia ended up becoming the permanent property of 

Englishmen and by the early 1700s in the public mind a hard distinction had developed between African 

slaves and European servants. 221 

One record pertaining to Nathaniel Bradford sheds light on the business of the slave trade in 17 th century 

Virginia. In 1676, Nathaniel was sued by Matthew Scarburgh over a verbal bargain the two of them had 

struck for a black woman. Perhaps the deal had gone badly for Nathaniel and he was attempting to get out 

of it since it had not been in writing. But William Nock had witnessed the bargain and was called upon to 

describe it for the court, whereupon a jury found for Scarburgh and ordered Nathaniel to pay the full 

amount discussed in the bargain: 

Deposition of Wm. Nock aged about 32 years: About last March 10, Nock was at the house of 

Nath. Bradford with Mathew Scarburough when he was asked to witness a bargain between them 

concerning a Negro woman for whom Bradford was to give Scarburough 3000 lbs of tobacco – 

half this year and half the next. If three hogsheads would not equal 1500 lbs this year, then 

Bradford would make it up the next. Scarburgh was to give Bradford a bond saving him from 

anyone in England or Barbados that might lay claim to the woman. Except for her baptism and the 

laws of the county, Bradford was to have no security; Scarburgh was to give Bradford “an 

assignment for five years and ever after if he could keep her.” Signed by Wm. Nock, in open court 

20 April 1676, before Jno. Washbourne. 222 

This record illustrates the sheer ordinariness with which human lives were bargained over in the same way 

one bargained over livestock. This was normal in colonial Virginia with respect to white servants as well, 

with the important difference that for an African it was not a term of years but an entire lifetime for which 

they could be sold. Even the longest-bound of white servants were allowed their freedom at some point in 

their lives, assuming a variety of obligations had been fulfilled. The most extreme cases of prolonged white 

servitude were the bastard children of servants – these children essentially became the property of the 

mother’s master, and did not gain their freedom until they reached the age of 21. 223 In that respect the legal 

status of a white bastard was not appreciably different from a bastard of mixed race, provided the mother 

was white. Other white servants were sometimes forced to remain in servitude for longer than their original 

contract due to a variety of reasons – e.g., as penalties for attempted escapes, because their master or 

mistress paid a fine for them, or due to other indebtedness– but even these men and women only had their 

independence postponed. For African slaves there was no hope of independence except through escape or 

by the whim of their owner. 

* * * * * 

Henry Bradford 

In 1676, Nathaniel’s servant John Reeves petitioned for his freedom. Nathaniel had purchased Reeves as an 

indentured servant from a Henry Bradford, and in a deposition before the court on 18 July 1676 Joseph 

Thorne related that, while at the house of Robt. Hutchinson on 25 March of that year, he heard Henry 

Bradford say to Reeves: “[I] brought [you] in for the term of four years and no more and had sold [you] but 

for four years and no longer should serve, and if Nath. Bradford had an assignment from [me] for any 

longer time, [I] will give him his ear.” 224 

Nathaniel, who claimed another year of service from Reeves, was instead forced to let him go, paying him 

600 lbs tobacco for extra time served as well as the bushel of corn and suit of clothes customarily given to 

servants upon the expiration of their indenture. 225 Apart from the details it contains, this record is also 


noteworthy for the presence of another individual with the same surname as Nathaniel. There is no 

evidence of any relation, but the tone of brusque familiarity used by Henry when speaking of Nathaniel 

(“give him his ear”) suggests the two may have been more than passing acquaintances. 

As for Henry himself, he appears in only one other record in Accomack County. On 18 April 1672 the 

Justices received a note from Henry Bradford asserting that he had received 2 hogsheads of tobacco from 

John Reyny for the use of Thomas Smith by the appointment of Mr. Browne. 226 Henry Bradford probably 

did not live in Accomack County, since he appears on none of the tithable lists and since someone who was 

in the business of securing cargo for merchants and transporting servants would have shown up more in 

court had he been a resident. 

It is worth pointing out that a Henry Bradford appears in the 1625 muster of Virginia, taken just after the 

King took over direct rule of the colony. In the muster at James City a Henery Bradford, age 35, is listed as 

a servant of Capt. William Pierce. 227 He had been transported in the Abigaile along with fellow servant 

Thomas Smith, who was age 17 at the time of the muster. Henery of the muster can not be the same Henry 

who sold John Reeves to Nathaniel, since the former Henry passed away in 1628. 228 

* * * * * 

Bacon’s Rebellion 

On 20 February 1677, Nathaniel Bradford was paid 1500 lbs of tobacco by the Virginia Assembly as a 

“public charge,” that is, for services rendered to the government. 229 Though the record doesn’t reveal the 

nature of Nathaniel’s service, the timing of the payment makes it all but certain that Nathaniel was being 

compensated for services rendered to Governor Berkeley in his war against the rebel Nathaniel Bacon, 

which had taken place the previous year. On the same date, and on the same page in the records of the 

journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses, numerous other men from the eastern shore were paid for 

“public charge.” Many men from the eastern shore assisted the Governor during his stay there in flight 

from the rebellion on the western shore and in Berkeley’s later invasion and recapture of Jamestown. In 

Accomack court during the year following the rebellion dozens of men came forward to claim a certificate 

for tobacco or goods due them for “country’s service.” These individuals had assisted in a variety of ways: 

John Charles for grinding corn for wounded soldiers; 230 John Stratton for volunteering his vessels for use 

by the invasion force and Captain Nathaniel Walker for commanding Stratton’s vessels; 231 John Sturgis for 

46 lbs of butter and 42 lbs of cheese; 232 John Cropper for impressing beef; 233 Thomas Evans for guarding 

prisoners; 234 Richard Piwell for “getting and killing meat” for the force assembled by Major West; 235 

Christopher Thompson for his own and his horse’s service for 14 days; 236 Thomas Barret for 33 days of 

military service in West’s force; 237 William Chace for 30 days of military service in a force assembled by 

Southy Whittington. 238 These men all came forward to swear to their service in Accomack Court because 

they had yet to receive compensation for their efforts from the Assembly, and these records reveal the 

nature of their service. Since Nathaniel Bradford was paid by the assembly without a petition, it’s 

impossible to say precisely how he assisted the governor’s cause. 

To some extent the rebellion’s beginnings lay in the discontent of many Virginians with the colonial 

government, but historians differ over how much weight should be assigned to any single root cause of 

discontent. Virginia had fallen on tough times economically, and this had much to do with the grievances of 

the colonists. Tobacco, Virginia’s staple crop and the economic lifeblood of the colony, had suffered a loss 

in price since 1660 and many blamed it on the monopoly on the American commodities trade granted to 

English merchants by the Navigation Act of that year. The convergence of high fees levied on America’s 

exported goods with the rising cost of imported goods seemed to put a brake on the colony’s economic 

expansion. As if that weren’t bad enough, Indian incursions on the western frontier in 1675 and the 

inability of the colonial government to prevent the Dutch from burning Virginia’s tobacco fleet in 1673 lent 

another dimension to the anxiety already felt over the colony’s economic insecurity. Add to these 

grievances a level of taxation that was seen as both too high and misapplied as well as a resentment that, as 

Bacon wrote, “all the power and sway is got into the hands of the rich,” 239 and it may be readily imagined 

how by 1675 Virginia was filled with discontent, which in the following year exploded into a full-scale 

rebellion against Government authority. 

The spark which eventually ignited the Virginians’ smoldering discontent was provided in 1675 when a 

group of Doeg Indians conducted a raid on Thomas Mathews’ plantation near the Potomac River. The raid 

may not have been a simple matter of plunder, but rather might have been intended as punishment over 


Mathews’ lack of payment for certain items he had purchased from the tribe. When the colonists executed 

their own raid in retaliation they killed some Susquehannock as well as Doeg, and in revenge for this attack 

the Susquehannocks began to conduct raids against the colonists, and to involve allied tribes. The war grew 

more serious, and the threat to the inhabitants of the outlying regions was real. In an effort to make peace, 

Governor Berkeley set up a meeting between the colonists of the Northern Neck and the Susquehannocks 

in which several tribal chiefs were murdered, leading to more mistrust and anger on both sides, and more 

violence. In an attempt to control the situation, the government made efforts both to restrain the colonists 

and to pacify the Indians. In March 1676, the Assembly declared war on certain tribes and set up a military 

zone on the border; it also passed laws regulating trade with the Indians, probably in an effort to prevent 

events like the one at Mathews’ plantation which could so easily spiral out of control. To many colonists 

these measures seemed an onerous burden which had nothing to do with the fight against the Indians. All 

men probably felt the sting of the higher taxes which were necessary to support the colony’s heightened 

state of defenses. And those residents of the outlying areas who felt the brunt of the Indian incursions must 

have wondered what good any laws, taxes or regulations were which failed to protect them. A source of 

particular bitterness was the fact that William Berkeley and many other leaders of the colony had a great 

personal stake in the Indian trade, a fact which led some to allege that the government’s regulation of the 

Indian trade was effected more from a desire for material gain than in the spirit of a wise policy. 

The point normally fixed as the beginning of the rebellion is the moment when Nathaniel Bacon, a recent 

immigrant and member of the governor’s council, took command of an extralegal militia of volunteers. 

These men had determined to fight the Indians themselves since they felt the protection of the regular 

colonial forces to be insufficient, and they elected Bacon their leader. Bacon quickly took action with this 

force against the Pumunkeys, a tribe living near his own estates, and promised more action to come. To 

subdue Bacon’s extralegal army Berkeley rode personally to Bacon’s headquarters with a troop of 

horseman, but Bacon was able to flee with his men before Berkeley’s arrival. The Governor declared 

Bacon a rebel and removed him from the Council, at the same time promising a new election of burgesses 

to the Assembly in order to air and settle all grievances. Bacon himself, popular with his neighbors thanks 

to his exploits, was elected to the Assembly for this session, but instead of being allowed to sit with the 

burgesses he was captured. After his capture, Bacon acknowledged the error of his ways and for such 

contrition was reinstated to the council. He then absented himself for most of the sessions of the Assembly 

which followed. However, near the end of the Assembly’s term Bacon reappeared in Jamestown with a 

troop of 500 men and forced the burgesses to give him command over the government’s forces being raised 

against the Indians. This the Assembly did and, having apparently gotten what he came for, Bacon departed 

to wage war. However, while on campaign Bacon learned that Berkeley had again declared him a rebel and 

was plotting his capture. Speedily Bacon returned to the Capital with his men to confront the Governor, but 

when he arrived found that Berkeley had fled to the eastern shore, which now became a kind of capital of 

the government-in-exile. 


Governor Berkeley Nathaniel Bacon 

Upon his arrival in Northampton County, Berkeley was put up by John Custis at his estate Arlington, which 

became the headquarters of the Governor and his retinue. Berkeley made Custis major general of the 

King’s forces and promised to exempt both counties on the eastern shore from all taxes for 21 years should 

they remain faithful to him and assist him in subduing the rebellion. Immediately the two counties were put 

on a war footing and preparations were made for an invasion. The militia of both counties was mustered in 

order to augment the regular forces, and men were requisitioned to supply these forces and also to maintain 

a watch on the shores for any sign of an attempted attack on Bacon’s part. Meanwhile, on the other shore 

many who had before been undecided went over to Bacon after learning of the Governor’s flight. Bacon 

himself issued a “Declaration of the People” which accused Berkeley of corruption, favoritism and 

protecting the Indians for profit and he also required men to swear loyalty to his cause in any way they 

could, either as fighting men, as suppliers, or simply as passive supporters. Bacon then dispatched Lt. 

General Bland with a single ship and a force of 250 men to capture Berkeley or induce the men of the 

eastern shore to surrender him. Bland picked up three more vessels along the way and with this force 

reached Old Plantation Creek in Northampton and there anchored. At this point, a Captain Laramore, 

whose ship was one of those that had been forcibly requisitioned by Bland, sent word to Berkeley that he 

would betray Bland if given assistance. When Bland’s lieutenant came to give Berkeley his demands, the 

Governor appeared to agree to everything, but secretly was plotting to do to Bland what Bland would do to 

him. One of the Governor’s men, Colonel Phillip Ludwell, packed a boat with armed men and rode out to 

Bland’s fleet as if to parlay. Ludwell was able to immediately take him prisoner and disarm the entire 

fleet’s crew. 

The invasion force assembled by Berkeley with the aid of Custis and others, and which included many 

freeholders of Accomack and Northampton Counties, set sail for Jamestown and reached it 

on 7 September 1676. Bacon was away on the York river at the time, so the governor’s 

forces succeeded in capturing the town; but after a rapid march Bacon arrived with a 

besieging force and set about reducing the city. At length, Bacon’s men were able to 

bombard Jamestown into submission. Berkeley was again forced to flee to the eastern shore 

and Bacon now issued an appeal to the people of Accomack, which mixed lofty appeals to 

the justice of his cause with attacks on the Governor, and matched pleas for the eastern 

shoremen to abandon Berkeley with threats of what might happen to them if they didn’t. 

However the residents of Accomack may have felt about this appeal, it was shortly 

afterwards superseded by events. On 26 October 1676, the rebellion was dealt a fatal blow 

by the death of its leader Bacon from disease. As soon as he heard the news, Berkeley 

dispatched Robert Beverly with a force of men to capture the other leaders of the rebellion. This 

accomplished, Berkeley joined Beverly and succeeded in putting out the vestiges of revolt throughout the 

colony. In January 1677 a ship with an English regiment arrived from England and gave a commission to 

Berkeley to try the rebels, and the court was composed of several eastern shoremen, including Lt. Col. John 

West, Col. Southy Littleton, and Capt. Daniel Jenifer. In all, twenty-three men were hanged for their part in 

the revolt, and large amounts of property seized from rebels without trial. Berkeley was widely believed 

then and ever since to have over-reacted in a spirit of revenge. As Charles II himself was said to have 

remarked: “That old fool has hanged more men in that naked country than I have done here for the murder 

of my father.” Berkeley was relieved of the governorship and returned to England where he died shortly 

thereafter. 


Governor Berkeley used the eastern shore as his safe headquarters during the thick of the rebellion and 

found wide support among most of its leaders as well as many of its freeholders. Notably, in Accomack 

County, Major John West (son of the John West mentioned above in conjunction with Nathaniel and 

Stephen Charlton) was a strong supporter of Berkeley, himself commanding a force of 44 men, which spent 

34 days “in the King’s service” at James City during Bacon’s siege. 240 Since Nathaniel was paid by the 

government in the aftermath of the rebellion, it is clear what side he supported, even if we don’t know the 

reasons for his support or the details of it. 

Although the eastern shore was the governor’s refuge, not all of its residents took his side in the rebellion. 

Notably, one of the sons of Colonel Edmund Scarburgh went over to Bacon. 241 In addition, in the years 

following the rebellion there are mentioned in Accomack court records the names of a few servants whose 

indentures were lengthened thanks to having served with Bacon, although it must be noted that their 

lengthened service was not due not to their having taken Bacon’s side, but simply as punishment for having 

fled before the expiration of their indenture. 242 

* * * * * 

Marriage to Joan Franklin & Birth of son John 

Sometime in 1677 or before that year Nathaniel Bradford married Joan Franklin. Though there is no record 

of Joan before this time, the fact that she was the sister of Henry Franklin of Northumberland County is 

apparent from two depositions taken in that county in 1713, in one of which she is described as Henry’s 

“natural sister”. 243 Nathaniel and Joan must have married by 1677, since their son John Bradford was born 

sometime in or not long before 1677. 244 

There is no record of Henry Franklin’s transportation to Virginia in the patent books, 245 but a Joane 

Frankling is listed as a headright of John Robins of Northampton County in a patent granted him on 

1674. 246 It is possible this Joan Franklin was the same woman as the sister of Henry Franklin and wife of 

Nathaniel Bradford. In one of the depositions mentioned above from Northumberland County, the deponent 

(one James White) seems to indicate by his language that Joan had come to Virginia separately from 

Henry, and that the two had not seen each other in a long time. Apparently White did “formerly hear . . . 

Henry Frankling Say that he had a Sister in Colony And afterwards One Nathaniel Bradford Coming into 

this County [said that his] wife was Sister to the said Henry.” The other deponent, Henry Franklin’s widow 

Hannah, described a meeting that took place between the long-lost siblings at Nathaniel’s plantation in 

Accomack in which the two of them recognized each other as kin. If Henry and Joan hadn’t seen each other 

in years and came to Virginia at different times, then it’s plausible that Joan was transported separately 

from her brother. If she was John Robins’ headright from 1674, then she would have been transported 

probably around 1671 or before. If she came into Virginia in 1671 without indenture she would have served 

Robins or his assignee for five years, the custom of the country, becoming a free woman around 1676 – a 

date consistent with a marriage to Nathaniel Bradford around 1677. 


Nathaniel’s Later Years: 1678-1690 

Nathaniel’s Increased Status – His Place in The Economy of 17 th Century Virginia 

Although first referred to as “Mr.” in 1669 at his appointment as a representative, it’s not until the late 

1670s that Nathaniel is more frequently referred to in Accomack County court records by that title. In the 

seventeenth century, “Mister” did not have the generalized use it has today, but was more specifically 

employed to designate a higher status. 247 In a basic way it was used to denote someone who was influential 

and respected in the community. Other signs of Nathaniel’s heightened status appear in the records around 

this time. After 1674, he ceases to serve on any juries. After 1677, he begins to appear in court more 

frequently in cases involving debt, and in the great majority of these cases as the creditor seeking payment. 

To take an example touched on earlier, in 1679 Nathaniel’s employee, servant, or lessee Thomas Williams 

died owing him nearly 9,000 lbs tobacco. 248 To give an idea of how much this was worth, when Nathaniel 

and Alice sold their land at Occahannock they received 8,000 lbs tobacco plus 4 cows and calves; 249 since a 

day’s labor was worth about 25 lbs tobacco, 250 9,000 lbs tobacco signified about a year’s worth of labor; 

around the year 1679, 9,000 lbs tobacco would have been enough to pay for passage to England three or 

four times, or to purchase 3 to 5 servants. 251 Another unusually large debt for which Nathaniel sought 

payment was from James Ewell, for 5000 lbs tobacco. 252 Unlike Thomas Williams, James Ewell was alive 

when Nathaniel claimed the debt and the suit dragged out for years. Most of the debts for which Nathaniel 

sought payment were not on this scale, but generally in the range of 100 to 2500 lbs tobacco. 

The scope of Nathaniel’s economic activities had clearly widened in a major way by the late 1670s. In 1679 

he purchased a 1200 acre tract in Sussex County in Delaware, at that time part of the territory of 

Pennsylvania, about 112 miles to the north of his home plantation on Bradford’s Neck. 253 It has already 

been noted that Nathaniel had consistently one of the largest households in Accomack County, in terms of 

the number of his taxable dependants. It will soon be brought out below that Nathaniel was among an elite 

group of planters who owned plantations in excess of 2000 acres. Land and number of dependants are solid 

indicators of wealth in 17 th century Virginia, where the economy revolved around tobacco. 

Tobacco was Virginia’s staple crop and the primary medium of exchange for almost all financial 

transactions of any kind. If Virginia’s original purpose was to make money for its founders, tobacco was 

Virginia’s saving grace, for tobacco was the first product of Virginia to turn a profit. And it was the spread 

of tobacco cultivation after its introduction in 1614 that ultimately came to define early Virginia society. 


Though tobacco was the staple of Virginia’s economy, not all colonists were involved directly in its 

cultivation. Nor was tobacco the sole basis of a planters’ livelihood in Virginia. It’s natural that Nathaniel 

should have engaged in shoemaking on his estate, since he began his career as a currier. But in fact a large 

number of the great planters of the colony were also engaged in tanning and shoemaking on their estates, 

including Colonel Edmund Scarburgh, John West and other leading residents of Accomack. An Accomack 

court record from 1674 allows a glimpse into the mechanics and magnitude of the shoe trade in Accomack: 

“Willm. Fletcher gave an account of shoes shipped over the bay to Yorke by Mr. Edw. Greenely 

from Mr. Wm. Whittington: shipped between 26 February 1672 and 2 May 1672, were 143 pair of 

shoes, including French falls for men and women, plain shoes and children’s shoes. Fletcher 

delivered 88 pair to Edward Greenley to take over the bay. Greenley admitted that he had received 

the other 55 pair from Whittington; he, in turn, had gotten them from Fletcher, who was employed 

by Mr. Devorax Browne to take account of all the shoes made and to whom they were delivered. 

Signed 16 March 1673/74, Willm. Fletcher.” 254 

If the root of the tobacco trade was the cultivation of the plant itself, the root of the shoe industry was the 

leather from which the shoes were made, and therefore the livestock that was the source of that leather. 

This Nathaniel possessed in abundance, owning 165 cattle at the time of his death. Another economic 

activity Nathaniel was known to have engaged in was the production of woolen cloth - itself reliant on the 

possession of sheep. In 1660, Nathaniel owned only 7 sheep, as appears from the sheep list taken that year; 

by the end of his life he owned 57. 

William Burton Livestock Suit 

Livestock, in addition to land, servants and slaves, was a primary source of property in Virginia. As noted 

above when discussing Nathaniel’s jury appearances, probably the majority of cases brought before the 

court involved livestock. On 17 April 1678 Nathaniel himself was prosecuted for having mistakenly killed 

a hog belonging to his neighbor William Burton. The depositions taken in the case tell the tale: 255 

Deposition of James Euell aged about 30 years: Euell was working at Bradford's when his people 

went hog hunting and brought home three hogs, one of which happened to belong to William 

Burton. Bradford seemed to be very sorry and said he would have to go and pay Burton or give 

him another. Signed, James (E) Ewell. (Side note: It was about three years since Euell heard Mr. 

Bradford speak this.) 

Deposition of Samuel Beach aged about 31 years: About 2 years 3 months ago, a sow belonging to 

Wm. Burton came to Beach's house with two barrows that Beach assumed belonged to Nathaniel 

Bradford. Two or three days later Beach sent word to Bradford, who came and said he had killed 

one of the barrows and was looking for the other. Beach said the sow belonged to Burton, but 

Bradford claimed she was his. The sow had always used the area around Beach's house, but after 

this, he never saw her again. Signed 16 April 1678, Samuel Beach. 

Deposition of Daniel Owin aged about 40 years: After Owin heard a gunshot, he heard Nathaniel 

Bradford ask if the barrow were dead. Thomas Williams answered that it was a sow. Owin saw 

Bradford and Williams stand by the dead sow, which Owin knew had belonged to William Burton 

two years ago Christmas. Signed 16 April 1678, Daniel (O) Owin 

Deposition of Barbery Owin aged about 30 years: "I was in Nickowansin a getting of walnuts. I 

saw a sow of William Burton's that we let out of our one pen about three or four days ago, and 

going along, I heard a gun something nigh to me, and presently the sow reeled and fell down, and 

seeing Thomas Williams come out of the thicket and set his foot upon the sow and stuck her with 

his knife. Nathaniel Bradford calling to him, asked if the barrow was dead. He answered, it was a 

sow. My husband being a little space before me, I beckoned to him, and he came back and I told 

my husband what happened." Signed 16 April 1678, Barbery (H) Owin 

Deposition of Jno. Reeves aged about 28 years: Reeves saw three hogs lying in Nathanl. 

Bradford's yard; one of them was white. Reeves saw James Euell pulling the bristles off the hogs, 

but did not know to whom they belonged. Signed 16 April 1678, Jno. Reves. 


In this case Nathaniel seems to have committed the wrong accidentally. The suit was referred to a jury, 

which ordered Nathaniel to reimburse Burton. There must have been some bad blood between the two in 

court that day as a result of the trial, and some harsh words must have been exchanged, since on the same 

day the suit was tried Nathaniel and Burton sued each other for defamation. After both defamation suits 

were dismissed each of the two men petitioned that the other be taken into custody until each put up 

security for good behavior. 256 

* * * * * 

Christopher Sadbury Defamation Suit 

In a small society like that of 17 th century Accomack, where almost everyone knew everyone else, 

reputation counted for a great deal. If a damaging rumor was allowed to spread it could affect all of one’s 

relationships. If the rumor in some way touched upon one’s trustworthiness in financial dealings it could 

potentially even be damaging to one’s livelihood, since so many financial transactions were conducted on 

credit and relied upon the honesty of the parties involved. Aside from the mutual defamation suits he and 

Burton filed against each other, Nathaniel was involved in only two such suits in the course of his life, both 

of them as plaintiff. In one of them, which was tried before the court on 18 January 1677/8, he sued 

Christopher Sadbury: 257 

“Petition of Nath. Bradford: About 13 August, at Watchepregue in the hearing of several people, 

Xophr. Sadbury sad that Bradford stole malt from him along with 50 pounds sterling worth of 

goods. Sadbury also said that Bradford and his wife kept the key of the room where the goods lay, 

and when they were done with the key, they threw it on the dunghill. Bradford was suing for 40 

lbs sterling in damages.” 

“Sadbury "submitted himself to the said Bradford" who accepted and discharged him. Ordered that 

the suit be dismissed with Sadbury paying court costs. "I own I said that I had lost several goods, 

but do not remember that I said as is charged in Mr. Nathaniel Bradford's petition. If I did, I am 

sorry for it." Signed 18 January 1677/78, Christopher Sadbury” 

In this particular case, Sadbury publicly retracted his statements. Nathaniel must have found this sufficient 

for the purposes of his suit, as he discharged him without demanding the damages requested in his initial 

petition. 

* * * * * 

Land in Delaware 

In early 1679, Nathaniel purchased land from John Hagoster in Angola Neck on Rehobeth Bay in what is 

now Sussex County, Delaware, at that time part of the colony of Pennsylvania. 258 In 1682, he resurveyed 

his Sussex planation to include 1200 acres. 259 It’s doubtful that Nathaniel ever resided for very long on the 

land himself, but there is evidence from Accomack that reveals time he probably did spend in Sussex. For 9 

months in the period before 1682, his sons Nathaniel and William stayed with Florence Matts, who later 

presented an account for their room and board in Accomack Court on 17 May 1682; 260 Nathaniel was 

clearly away during this time, perhaps arranging his affairs in Sussex. After Hagoster’s acknowledgement 

of the deed in 1679, Nathaniel’s only personal appearance in Sussex County court came in 1681, when he 

was on a jury to judge a dispute over a wager on a horse race. 261 

After purchasing the Sussex land, Nathaniel hired men to build a house and plant corn, both necessary if he 

hoped to retain title. Shortly thereafter, Nathaniel’s servant John Daniell was his agent in a dispute with a 

neighbor over land. In March 1682, Daniell made “forceable entrey” into the house of Nathaniel’s 

Rehobeth neighbor Baptis Newcomb “and by force of Arms hath and still doth keepe [Newcomb] out of his 

house and from making a Crop on the said Land”. 262 Evidently Newcomb had surveyed some portion of the 

same land. Daniell pled by his attorney “that his master Nathanil Bradford have A right to the said Land” 

and proved “that Nathanil Bradford did Clear part of the said Land and did plant sume Corn on the said 

Clear Land, And did hire sume men to build A house on the said Land, which men did deceive him; 

Mathias Everson sware that he did worke foure days on the said Land by order of Nathanil Bradfor 

Towards the geting A frame for A house.” But Newcomb proved that he “built the first house on the said 

Land, And Robert Bracey, Junor, sware that there never was any Corn Tended on the said Land by the said 

Nathanil Bradford or his order.” One fact that seems clear from the above proceeding is that Nathaniel 


himself was probably not in Sussex to oversee the building of the house and planting of a crop, since the 

men he hired to build a house “did deceive him.” Most likely he ordered one of his servants, possibly 

Daniell, there to oversee the work. 

By January 1683, Nathaniel had sent his son William, then about 20 or 21 years old, to live on his Sussex 

plantation. William was appointed a surveyor of Sussex county in that year. 263 A year later, Nathaniel 

called William back to Virginia temporarily, putting John Johnson “the Negroe” in charge of his estate and 

designating Henry Bowman his attorney for all his affairs in Sussex. 264 William’s return occurred around 

the same time that Nathaniel had to postpone a case of debt in Accomack court since "his son was 

dangerously sick.” 265 It’s possible that Nathaniel, Jr. had been retained in Accomack to help with 

management of the Bradford’s Neck plantation, while William had been sent to look after his father’s 

Sussex land. If Nathaniel, Jr. was “dangerously sick” in 1684, that would have been a good reason to call 

William back, either to be there when his brother passed or to help his father with his affairs during his 

brother’s illness. Then again, it may have been either William or John who was sick. 

William returned to Sussex in 1685 and began to appear in court as a proxy for his father. 266 William 

appears consistently in the records of Sussex from then until May of 1688, 267 after which date there is no 

further record of either him or his father in Sussex until William’s acknowledgement of the sale of the 

entirety of Nathaniel’s estate there to various parties in 1692, about two years after Nathaniel’s death. 268 

Significantly, it is shortly before William’s last appearance in Sussex court records that his brother 

Nathaniel disappears from Accomack court records, a fact pointing to the probable demise of Nathaniel Jr. 

around this time. The likeliest explanation for this turn of events is that, after the death of his eldest son in 

1687-88, Nathaniel Sr. called William back to Accomack to take his place. Nathaniel Sr. may have been 

arranging matters with a view to his legacy, reserving the Bradford’s Neck plantation for his eldest son and 

the Sussex plantation for his younger son. This is supported by the fact that Nathaniel Sr. had already 

granted Nathaniel Jr. 800 acres in Bradford’s Neck in 1664. 269 

Map of Rehobeth Area, site of Nathaniel’s Delaware Plantation 


Settlement of Sussex – Lower Delmarva Community 

It was not unusual for Nathaniel to have purchased land in what might seem at first to be an area rather far 

from his home plantation. In fact, numerous of the first settlers of Sussex were from the eastern shore of 

Virginia. When the area was still held by the Dutch, it was a popular destination for runaway servants and 

slaves from farther south; and after the English took final control of the area in 1673, a good number of 

those who began buying up large plots of land there were Accomack planters, or inhabitants of Somerset 

County, Maryland, itself settled largely by families whose ultimate origins lay in Accomack. Even as early 

as the late 1650s, in the first days of settlement in Somerset County, Maryland (just north of Accomack) 

one finds these same recent immigrants to Somerset pressing in upon the Dutch settlement around 

Rehobeth. However, it wasn’t until around 1677 that English settlement at Rehobeth really occurred in 

significant numbers, and Nathaniel was a part of this movement, although in his case it was not an actual 

movement but rather an expansion. Even though Nathaniel had a substantial plantation in Sussex, he never 

settled there himself. His Sussex estate was always of secondary importance when compared with his 

Accomack plantation. 

This movement of people from Accomack and Somerset into Sussex in the 1670s and 1680s was just the 

latest stage in a process of population movement that had been occurring since the earliest days of 

settlement on the eastern shore, when there were just a few dozen people living in the south of the 

peninsula along Old Plantation Creek. Since then, there had been a steady movement of people northwards 

from the southern reaches of Northampton on up into what would become the new Accomack County, and 

farther north across the border into Somerset County, Maryland, and then even farther north into Sussex. 

It’s a fact that never fails to impress itself upon anyone who researches families in the lower Delmarva 

peninsula, this tide of northward settlement. In a way, the five counties which make up the lower Delmarva 

peninsula - Accomack and Northampton counties in Virginia, Somerset and Worcester counties in 

Maryland, and Sussex in Delaware – should be viewed as a single community, in that a large number, 

possibly even a majority, of the people who lived there shared a common heritage which ultimately had its 

roots in the eastern shore of Virginia. Despite being spread out over the administrative jurisdictions of three 

separate colonies, the inhabitants of lower Delmarva were often bound more closely to each other by ties of 

community and kinship than they were to Virginians or Marylanders on the other side of the Chesapeake. 270 

* * * * * 

More Land Dealings 

In addition to his home plantation at Matchapungo and the 400 acres he patented in 1672, Nathaniel 

purchased other tracts in Accomack County over the course of his life. In 1679, he took out a patent on a 

644-acre tract which formerly belonged to Hugh Yeo, but which had been deserted after Yeo’s intestate 

death. 271 Nathaniel soon lost his claim to this land: four years after his patent it came out that John 

Washbourne had received a patent for the same tract, and as a result both his and Nathaniel’s patents were 

voided. 272 In 1680, the year after patenting the former Yeo land, Nathaniel sold off two plots of land he had 

purchased earlier. To Samuel Beech, Nathaniel sold the 400 acres he had patented in 1667 adjacent to his 

home plantation, and to John Willis he sold the 400 acres he had patented in 1672. 273 Though the original 

sales occurred in this year, neither sale was finalized until after Nathaniel’s death, when his son William 

completed the sales and they were finally recorded in Accomack Court. In 1681, the year after he sold the 

two plots to Beech and Willis, Nathaniel completed what would be his final land transaction when he 

purchased from William Jette another 500 acres in Accomack, this tract being located on the bay side of the 

peninsula on Pungoteague Creek. 274 These 500 acres along with the home plantation of 2400 acres and the 

plantation in Sussex passed to his son William after Nathaniel’s death. 


Now that all of Nathaniel’s land transactions in Accomack have been described, it’s worth taking them in at 

a glance. 

Since the Virginia economy was based on tobacco cultivation, land ultimately constituted the colony’s 

primary source of wealth. The most successful planters, those who became the governing elite of Virginia, 

owned almost to a man a couple thousand if not several thousand acres. A count of the total acreage of 

every tract that passed through Nathaniel’s hands reveals that he owned more than 6,000 acres over the 

course of his life. However, at any given time he owned only a portion of this, so it’s more instructive to 

look at the record of Nathaniel’s land ownership as a series of snapshots of his holdings throughout his life. 

In 1658 he owned 400 acres 





In 1679, the peak of his land ownership, he owned 5044 acres 

From 1681 until his death, he owned 4100 acres, 2900 of these in Accomack County. 

It has been noted that by the end of his life Nathaniel was among the top 2.5% of Accomack planters in 

terms of the number of servants and slaves he owned. How did he compare with the leading men of the 

county in terms of land ownership? The greatest landowner in Accomack was Colonel Edmund Scarburgh, 

who during the course of his life, patented a total of 46,550 acres, not only in Accomack but in other 

Virginia counties as well as in Maryland. 275 But his is an extreme example. The quit rent roll of 1683 serves 

as a useful tool for comparing Nathaniel’s land holdings to others in the county. Out of 184 entities listed 

on the quit rent roll, Nathaniel ranked 7 th in terms of acreage, among the top 4% of land holders. 276 Only 6 

men in Accomack owned more land there than Nathaniel, namely Daniel Jenifer, William Kendall, Charles 

Scarburgh, Southy Littleton and John West – all of them Justices of the Peace. Furthermore, only 18 

individuals out of 184 in 1683 paid quit rents on more than 2000 acres. Thus, in both size of household and 

size of land holdings, Nathaniel ranked among the top 5% of individuals in Accomack County, a select 

group that included among its number the governing elite of the county and few others. 


The inventory of Nathaniel’s estate contains a room-by-room account of his belongings and allows one to 

get a fairly good picture of what his house was like. It contained a porch chamber, a hall chamber, a hall, 

two cellars, a tanhouse, a shoemakers shop, a kitchen, and a study, as well as 2 garrets and some 

outhouses. 277 It would appear that Nathaniel’s house was basically comparable to the homes of the more 

prominent Virginia planters. The house of Nathaniel Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion, one of the colony’s 

wealthiest men, contained two halls, an inner room and outer room, three upper chambers, a kitchen, a 

dairy, and a storeroom. 278 The house of Accomack Justice Southy Littleton was nearly identical to 

Nathaniel’s, containing a parlor chamber, porch chamber, hall chamber, hall, two garrets, a little room over 

the kitchen, the kitchen itself, and a dairy. 279 The value of Nathaniel’s personal estate was also above the 

average. Not including livestock, his estate was valued at roughly £453. The estates of many of the elite 

were worth more on the order of several thousands of pounds sterling, but Nathaniel’s possessions 

definitely indicate he was one of the more well-off members of the middling class of planters. 280 

* * * * * 

Contempt of Authority 

Though Accomack court records reveal that Nathaniel interacted with the Justices of the county in 

numerous ordinary ways in their capacity as private citizens, on only one recorded occasion did he have an 

actual run-in with the law. In October 1681, Nathaniel was brought before the court for the rather serious 

offense of breach of peace and contempt of authority. 281 His servant Richard Mason had been sued by 

James Davis for a debt, but when the sheriff came with John Tankard and Henry Ayres to Nathaniel’s 

house to arrest Mason, Nathaniel prevented him from doing so. The sheriff in this case happens to have 

been Captain Edmund Scarburgh, son of the old Colonel, and Scarburgh’s deposition is the only surviving 

description of the events that transpired. 

After the sheriff entered Nathaniel’s house to arrest Mason, Nathaniel came into the room where Scarburgh 

and Mason were and asked what the matter was. When Scarburgh told Nathaniel he had come to arrest 

Mason, Nathaniel asked, “who arrests him, ye?” Scarburgh told him James Davis was having Mason 

arrested “upon wch ye said Bradford fell arailing on the said Davis askeing ye Dep if the sd Davis was not 

a sun of a whore.” Scarburgh asked Nathaniel if he would be security for Mason and Nathaniel agreed. But 

when he found out the suit was for 20,000 lbs tobacco, Nathaniel asked what would happen if he didn’t 

sign and Scarburgh replied “then he (meaning ye sd Mason) must goe along wth me.” At this Nathaniel 

“angerly said (wth a loud voice & disdainfull utterance) but he shant though.” Scarburgh then replied “then 

ye must sine this bond.” Nathaniel said, “but I wont” and Scarburgh said “nay then he must goo along wth 

me.” “Wth much scorne,” Nathaniel said “but I say he shant goo.” Scarburgh said “but I say he shall goo; 

& in his Majties name I command you to assist me wth my Pryoner to Prison.” “With a look of contempt,” 

Nathaniel replied “but I wont, nor he shant goo.” 

Scarburgh claimed that Nathaniel “[cast into] my grinning countenance many reproachfull words against ye 

Dep: & amongst others said what is Mun Scarburgh I know Mun Scarburgh well enuft ye Depont. mildly 

replyed, well & I know ye Currier well enuff the said Bradford said al good a man Scarburgh al good a man 

al over mim Scarburgh was wch he often reiterated wth. other reviling words . . . not being pertinent to ye 

Dep business.” After this Scarburgh took Mason by the hand and began to take him from the house, but as 

they neared the door Nathaniel laid “both hands on ye . . . prisoner [and] violently pulled him [away from 

Scarburgh].” Then with a “very loud” voice and “fierce countenance” Nathaniel said “ye shant go.” 

Scarburgh then “by ye sd Bradfords loks & posture [did] verily feere either to be struck in the face or be 

thrust backward on ye brick in ye porch if he made the least attempt further, and [he] having been ill some 

time before and finding [his] authority at an end wth the sd Bradford & imagining the same of the rest 

present did bid Mr. Tanckard Harry & all take notice, and then made haste away.” 

The court order mentions a deposition of Henry Eyre (probably the Harry referred to by Scarburgh) and a 

confession from Nathaniel, but no record of these exists. The court found Nathaniel guilty of “breach of 

peace and contempt of authority by rescuing a prisoner named Richard Mason," and he was ordered taken 

into the sheriff's custody till finding security for his good behavior. Though Nathaniel owned up to his 

fault, it’s unfortunate that we only have Scarburgh’s account of the event. 


* * * * * 

Nathaniel as Attorney 

On 2 March 1682/3 Nathaniel appeared in Northampton County court as an attorney for Robert Richardson 

in a suit for debt against Robert Riggs. 282 Robert and Susan Richardson (Nathaniel’s brother and sister-inlaw) 

had well before this date moved out of Accomack and settled in Somerset County, Maryland, and 

Robert himself died in September of the previous year, 283 so perhaps Nathaniel’s suit was on behalf of 

Robert’s estate or on behalf of his son. In any case, though Nathaniel acted as an attorney in this instance, it 

doesn’t mean he was a practicing lawyer. There were professional attorneys in Accomack during 

Nathaniel’s lifetime – John Fawsett, who purchased land from Nathaniel, was “the King’s attorney” in 

Accomack for a time, and Charles Holden, against whom Nathaniel brought a paternity suit, made his 

living as a lawyer before becoming the King’s attorney for the eastern shore. 284 However, in essence an 

attorney was simply a designated individual who had authority to represent another individual before the 

court – and this meant that any one could in theory appear before the court as an attorney for another. In 

this case, since Robert Richardson lived outside the county, he probably designated his kinsman Nathaniel 

as his representative to bring the suit in Northampton. 

Nathaniel acted as an attorney on one other occasion, when on 20 April 1674 he appeared on behalf of 

Miles Halbert, who was being sued by Isaac Jacob in Accomack court for a debt. 285 Halbert had been a 

headright of Colonel Edmund Scarburgh’s in 1670 and was an employee on Scarburgh’s estate during that 

year, in which he gave a deposition as witness to the currier Martin Moore’s assault of the Colonel. 286 It’s 

unknown what Halbert’s connection to Nathaniel might have been. Perhaps he became Nathaniel’s servant 


or employee after Scarburgh’s death, though there is no record of this. In 1673 Halbert had fathered a 

bastard child with Anne White, a servant of William Whittington’s. Two years later, Nathaniel witnessed 

Halbert’s assigning the child to the care and possession of William Gaskins in Northampton County. 287 

* * * * * 

Woolen Manufacture 

In 1682 the Virginia Assembly passed a law for the encouragement of the manufacture of linen and wool; it 

stipulated that every Virginian who produced a certain amount of cloth would receive a payment for it from 

the government. 288 Cloth was England’s staple and greatest export and this effort by the Assembly to 

encourage cloth manufacture in Virginia directly conflicted with the colony’s purpose according to the 

English government, which was to complement, not compete with, the mercantile activities of the mother 

country. For that reason, the attempt to encourage cloth manufacture in Virginia was discontinued shortly 

after it began. But, after the Assembly passed the law, dozens of men rose to the occasion and within a year 

they were presenting their cloth to the county courts in exchange for certificates to be presented to the 

assembly for payment. Dozens of men in Accomack claimed certificates for cloth production, including 

Nathaniel, who in 1683 received a certificate for 100 yards of Virginia woolen cloth produced on his 

plantation, the largest amount listed in the court records of Accomack for any single person. 289 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel’s Tithables from 1678-1690 

Although the number of tithables in Nathaniel’s household did not experience any dramatic growth in the 

years from 1678 until his death, it must be borne in mind that throughout the 1680s some portion of 

Nathaniel’s servants would probably have been devoted to his plantation in Sussex and so wouldn’t have 

shown up in the Accomack tithables list. From this it may be surmised that he owned more than would 

appear from simply taking the tax lists on their face. 290 


1679 9 tithables [Wm. probably turned 16 in this year] 

1680 9 tithables [Wm. added as a tithable after collection of lists] 



1683 8 tithables [Wm. probably in Sussex] 




1687 7 tithables [Wm. probably in Sussex] [Nath, Jr. in own household] 

1688 12 tithables [Wm. probably back from Sussex] [Nath., Jr. prob. dead] 



1679 Tithable List Excerpt 


Nathaniel’s tithables remained consistently high from 1678 until the end of his life, staying generally in the 

range of 8 to 10. The one exception to this was the span of years from 1686 to 1688. In 1687, the number of 

Nathaniel’s tithables fell from 10 to 7. Significantly, this is the very year his son Nathaniel, Jr., around 26 

to 28 years old at the time, appeared on the tax lists as head of his own household with three tithables. The 

most likely explanation for this coincidence is that Nathaniel gave his son the use of 2 of his slaves or 

servants when Nathaniel Jr. set out on his own, resulting in the transfer of 3 tithables from Nathaniel Sr’s 

household to Nathaniel Jr’s. It’s unclear where Nathaniel Jr. lived after moving out or whether he was 

married when he did so, though it was common for a son to first move out on his own at the time of his 

marriage. Although Nathaniel Jr. had been granted 800 acres in Bradford’s Neck by his father as early as 

1664, in the tax list for 1687 he is listed in a different district than Nathaniel Sr. so it would seem he 

probably wasn’t even living near his father, much less on these 800 acres. He may have been residing on 

the Pungoteague land Nathaniel had purchased in 1681 or perhaps on the property of his wife, though it is 

not clear if he was married. 

Death of Nathaniel Bradford Jr. 

In 1688, Nathaniel Jr disappears from the list of tithables, and once again Nathaniel Sr.’s household 

experienced a large growth in tithables, jumping back up to 12. From this it seems likely that Nathaniel Jr. 

died sometime after September 1687, his last appearance in the court records, but before the taking of the 

list of tithables in June 1688. This would explain the large leap in tithables that took place in his father’s 

household, since his servants or slaves would have likely returned to Nathaniel Sr.’s household, probably 

along with Nathaniel’s son William. William Bradford happens to disappear from Sussex County records at 

this time, a fact which suggests that his father called him back to Accomack after the death of Nathaniel Jr. 

The conclusion that Nathaniel Jr. died in 1687-1688 is strengthened by the fact that, at the death of his 

father two years later, it was the second oldest son, William, who was designated “sole heir”. 291 By the rule 

of primogeniture which applied in 17 th century Virginia, the eldest son was primary heir-at-law – and this 

would have been Nathaniel Jr. had he been alive. 

Further evidence of the life of Nathaniel Jr. is scant. Apart from those instances mentioned above, he 

appears in the records on only four other occasions, three of which are detailed below: 

In 1682 Nathaniel Sr. sued Florence Matts for a debt. Florence, wife of James Matts and widow of 

George Parker, presented her own account of a debt from Nathaniel as a discount against the 

larger debt she owed Nathaniel, Sr. In her account she claims, among other things, the expense of 

nine months food and accommodation for Nathaniel’s sons Nathaniel, Jr. and William. This was 

before William begins to appear in Sussex records. Nathaniel, Jr. would have been about 20 to 22 

at the time, and William about 19. 292 

In 1686 Nathaniel, Jr., along with Charles Holden, appeared in Accomack court as bail for 

Thomas Bushell, who had failed to show for an action brought against him by Henry Sellman. 293 

Nathaniel, Jr’s last appearance in the records of the eastern shore came in September of 1687, 

when he was sued by William Anderson, who appeared as consignee in trust to the merchants 

Micajah Perry and Thomas Lane of London, who were attorneys of Samuel Taylor. [This Samuel 

Taylor, a known resident of Accomack since its formation, may be the same person listed as a 

headright on Nathaniel’s 1672 patent.] Anderson alleged that Nathaniel had taken possession of 

cargo belonging to Taylor which had been consigned to Anderson, and as a result the court 

ordered Nathaniel to give a bond for 400 pounds sterling to Anderson so that the goods would not 

be “embezzled” before the determination of the case. Charles Holden acted as Nathaniel’s attorney 

and got the case referred to court for the following day, at which time it was dismissed. 294 

* * * * * 

Final Account 

Whenever a man died in 17 th century Virginia, creditors with any claim on an estate would come forward to 

seek what was due them, and the administrators of the deceased person would likewise seek to collect all 

money due to the estate in order to bring about a final settlement of accounts. As a general rule, the larger 

the estate, the more credits and debts were involved, and depending on how willing and able the 

administrators were to pay the estate’s creditors and how well they were able to force the payment of debts, 


the settling of these accounts could drag on a long time. After the death of Nathaniel Sr., his administrators 

were in court for two years suing and being sued on his behalf. 

After a person’s death an inventory was often taken of the deceased’s estate so his possessions could be 

divided among the heirs. Sometimes, in order to pay the deceased’s debts, items found in the inventory had 

to be sold at auction, an event referred to as an “outcry”. When Henry Parke, the first minister of 

Accomack Parish, died in 1687, his estate was auctioned at Nathaniel’s plantation. 295 Both Nathaniel Sr. 

and Nathaniel Jr. purchased items at the auction. Their neighbors, the Kellams, John Willis, Will. Twiford 

and Edm. Allin also bought items. Nicholas Hill was the undersheriff who oversaw the outcry. 

Nathaniel Bradford, Sr. mare and colt 1020 lbs tobacco 

Nathaniel Bradford, Sr. black horse, saddle, bridle, and saddle cloth 623 lbs tobacco 

Nicholas Hill 5 pair old stockings, 2 caps 40 lbs tobacco 

Edm. Allin coat and pair of britches 106 lbs tobacco 

Nathll. Bradford 2 pair britches, coat 280 lbs tobacco 

Nathll. Bradford coat and britches, waistcoat and 2 "shreds" of black 150 lbs tobacco 

Nathll. Bradford pair of old boots, 2 pair of old shoes 20 lbs tobacco 

Nathll. Bradford 5 neck cloths, 2 cravats 55 lbs tobacco 

Nathl. Bradford, Jr. one book in English, one hat 200 lbs tobacco 

Will. Twiford 8 books in Latin 200 lbs tobacco 

Edw. Kellam 2 pair of drawers, shirt wasitcoat, tape 145 lbs tobacco 

Rich. Kellam, Jr. pair of drawers, shirt, waistcoat 175 lbs tobacco 

John Willis, Jr. an old trunk 55 lbs tobacco 

Nick. Hill a gray horse 640 lbs tobacco 

It’s unclear why the auction of the minister’s estate was held at Nathaniel’s plantation. Parke’s place of 

residence is unknown, since he doesn’t appear to have taken out any patents for land in Accomack and 

appears on none of the tax lists for that county. He might have lived in Nathaniel’s household at Bradford’s 

Neck, since it was customary for an estate to be auctioned off close to the deceased individual’s residence. 

In addition to hosting Parke’s outcry, Nathaniel arranged and paid for his funeral, and was paid 1000 lbs 

tobacco for that reason out of the proceeds of the estate sale. 296 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel’s Death and the Inventory of his Estate 

Nathaniel Bradford’s last appearance in the records of Accomack County was on the list of tithables for the 

year 1690. 297 As the tax lists were traditionally collected in June, 298 he was probably still alive in June 

1690. He was almost certainly alive the month before, since in September 1691 Henry Read deposed that 

“about a year ago in May” Nathaniel was at his house. 299 Nathaniel must have died that summer or autumn, 

as on 19 November 1690 his son William and his widow Joan petitioned for joint administration of his 

estate. 300 

The inventory of Nathaniel’s estate, presented by his widow Joan about a year after his death, contains a 

wealth of information useful for those who wish to get a glimpse of his life by examining the objects left 

behind at his death. It is unique among inventories of that time in that it contains a room-by-room account 

of his house and outbuildings, so that one can almost get a picture of his plantation. So rare and detailed is 

the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate that it has been often used by historians of the Eastern Shore and of 17 th 

century Virginia in their efforts to gain a clearer understanding of what the social and economic life of 

colonists was like at that time. 

The inventory of the estate of Mr. Nathaniel Bradford, deceased, systematically listed the rooms in 

the house with the contents of each valued in pounds, shillings and pence (L: s: d), not tobacco: 

- The “garret over the porch chamber” contained 46 pair of men’s and women’s shoes, 

several pieces of leather and knives valued at L50:06:00. 

- The “garret over the hall chamber” contained more hides, flax cards, two linen wheels, 

flax and lumber worth L21:14:01. 

- The “porch chamber” contained a feather bed with blanket and sheets, two tablecloths 

and 28 napkins, a calico counterpane, Scotch cloth, various sheets, pillow cases and 


towels, a small chest, a small broken table and an old cask with “some hopp” in it, all 

valued at L8:12:09. 

- The “hall chamber” contained an old great chest, several yards of cloth, two table cloths, 

12 very old napkins, two hammocks, 8 torn sheets, 4 old broken chests, an old box with a 

broken hinge, 12 old leather chairs, yarn, hemp, pepper, two feather beds, sheets, 

blankets, rugs, curtains, vailings, bedsteads, two trundle beds, bolsters, pillow, flax and 

cotton wool. These items and the bed and bedding “in the porch” were all valued at 

L106:10:05. 

- Items “in the hall” included 67 lbs of pewter, 37 lbs of broken pewter, 24 tinker spoons, 

earthen chamber pots, a basin, “bell metal”, various pans and tools, two old tables, an old 

couch, andirons, 6 guns, a screw gun and a pair of old pistols valued at L11:12:02. 

- The “out houses” contained salt and Indian corn valued at L21:12:02 and 11 cider casks 

worth L3:02:01. 

- The “old cellar loft” contained barrels, tubs, lumber, glass, nails, 43 Indian bowls, Indian 

ladles, 30 lbs Virginia soup, and 4 pair old sheep shears valued at L3:04:04. 

- The “old cellar” contained 10 various sized casks containing 990 gallons of cider, and 7 

empty casks all worth L14:19:02. 

- The “new cellar” contained 21 gallons of “very bad” molasses, 109 lbs butter, 26 lbs 

rough tallow, Indian bowls and trenchers, 50 lbs Virginia cheese, pails, vats, tubs, bread 

trays and an old table valued at L4:19:08. 

- The “tanhouse” contained 229 hides worth L22:08:06. 

- The “shoemaker shop” contained three old seats for shoemakers, 46 old lasts and an old 

chest, all worth 7s:06d. 

- The “kitchen” held iron pots and kettles, pans, a spit, chafing dish, two fishing lines, 

saws, tools, 7 glass bowls, slate, tanners’ tools, ox chain iron, two back swords, 2 combs, 

lead, tin candlesticks, and a wool wheel, all valued at 11s:09d. 

- In the “study” were a large sermon book, Markhames Masterpease and some other books 

valued at L1:11:09. Also there were a pair of spurs, two glasses, a vial, a case of bottles, 

bees wax, 24 lbs sugar, 10 lbs of plate “weighed by Stilliard”, 264 yards of Roanoke 

(worth 3d per yard), decorative trim, a sugar tub, thread and 21 lbs of candles, all valued 

at L15:14:07 ½. 

- Bradford’s servants: Mary Steward (5 years to serve-L8), Mary Farrill (1 year to serve – 

L1:10), Mary Shaw (1 year to serve – L1:15), Charles Justis (5 years to serve – L9), Wm. 

Trafford (5 years to serve – L8). 

- Bradford’s Negroes: Spindelow (L18), Sambow (L23), Judee (L23) and Bess (L5). 

- Bradford’s animals: 57 sheep, 165 cattle, 21 unbroken horses, and 12 broken horses. 

The inventory was signed 19 November 1690, by Tully Robinson, Robert Watson, Arther (A) 

Uphutt and Francis Roberts. 

A continuation of the inventory added more than 86 hides and 51 bushels of wheat (at 3s per 

bushel) to total L38:06:06. Signed by the above appraisers on 20 June 1691. The inventory of 

Nathaniel Bradford, deceased, was presented to the court by Joan Bradford, alias Bud, on 17 

September 1691. 301 

Representative household items from Jamestown excavation 


By the end of his life Nathaniel Bradford had become one of the most prosperous men in Accomack 

County. He began his life as a middling artisan with a 400-acre plantation and became a planter who owned 

5000 acres in two different colonies. Building on his original profession as a currier in the leather trade, he 

incorporated other aspects of the trade into the activities of his plantation, which thereby became a center of 

manufacture. Evidence abounds of the scope and size of Nathaniel’s business. In 1689, a year before his 

death, Samuel French confessed in Northampton County court that he owed Nathaniel for the cost of 

making 59 shoes. 302 And in the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate, in addition to a “tanhouse”, tanning 

implements and 315 hides, there was found a “shoemaker shop” containing “three old seats for 

shoemakers” and “46 old lasts”. Forty six pairs of shoes were found elsewhere in the house. As Nathaniel 

possessed 165 head of cattle at his death, it may be that he supplied himself with some of his own hides. 

In addition to his engagement in the leather trade, there is evidence that Nathaniel engaged in other 

mercantile activity. It seems that even after the Virginia Assembly’s subsidy for cloth manufacture was 

discontinued many Virginians may have gone on producing it anyway, including possibly Nathaniel, who 

died possessed of 57 sheep, as well as sheep shears, flax cards and linen wheels. In Nathaniel’s cellars 

were found 28 cider casks and 990 gallons of cider, as well as 50 lbs of “Virginia cheese” and numerous 

other staples, such as corn and salt, in amounts which hint that the items might have been intended for trade 

and not just for the use of Nathaniel’s own plantation. Even the lack of tobacco in the inventory does not 

necessarily mean that Nathaniel didn’t grow it on his plantation, since the harvest would have occurred 

after or around the time of his death and the crop would have been sold by the time of the inventory in 

June, at which point the next crop would just be under cultivation. Of the 17 casks found on Nathaniel’s 

plantation, 10 were filled with cider and 7 were empty. It could be that these same casks had been recently 

emptied of tobacco and that Nathaniel produced cider in the off-season between tobacco harvests. In 

support of his plantation’s business, he employed half-a-dozen to a dozen servants and slaves. The diversity 

and scale of activities evident from the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate was typical of the gentleman planter. 

As Nathaniel’s “sole heir” by the law of primogeniture, William Bradford inherited Nathaniel’s servants 

and slaves, as well as the home plantation at Bradford’s Neck, the 500 acres on Pungoteague and the 1200 

acre plantation in Sussex County. Within a year, Nathaniel’s widow, Joan (Franklin) Bradford, married 

Thomas Budd, 303 with whom she and John Bradford, her son by Nathaniel, went to live. For over a year 

William Bradford, Joan and Thomas Budd handled suits of debt arising from the settlement of Nathaniel’s 

estate. William sold off most of Nathaniel’s cattle 304 as well as the plantation in Sussex, 305 and completed 

sales of land his father had initiated, but not completed, in his lifetime. 306 

* * * * * 

Nathaniel 1 Bradford was born in or before 1633 and died in Accomack County, Virginia between June and 

November in 1690. 

Nathaniel 1 and Alice (Smith) Bradford married before 1660 and were parents of the following 2 children: 

2. i. NATHANIEL 2 BRADFORD, born before his baptism on 23 June 1661, probably on his 

parents’ plantation at the head of Occahannock in Northampton County; died 

without issue between 1687 and 1690 in Accomack County. 

+ 3*. ii. WILLIAM 2 BRADFORD, born around 1663 in Accomack County, either at the head of 

Occahannock or at Matchipungo; died 1735 at Matchipungo in 

Accomack County. He married Bridget Fisher in Accomack County. 

Nathaniel and Joan (Franklin) Bradford married around or before 1677 and had at least one child: 

+ 4*. iii. JOHN 2 BRADFORD, born around 1677 at Matchipungo, died 1742-1753 in 

Worcester County, Maryland. He wed first Tabitha Lecatt in Accomack County, 

and second Margaret ___. 


Citations 

Introduction 

1.Nathaniel must have been at least 21 years of age when he posted a bond for Ann West Charlton’s 

appeal to the court at James City in September 21, 1658 [See note 24]. That gives an absolute upper limit of 

1637 for the year of his birth. However, he was probably born before 1633, since he was most likely at least 

21 when he witnessed Stephen Charlton’s deed of gift to his daughter Elizabeth in October 1654 [See note 

22]. 

2.JoAnn Riley McKey, Accomack County, Virginia Court Order Abstracts, Electronic Edition (Bowie, 

Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 2001); 7: 22. All tithables are supposed to have been collected by June 10. 

1690. 

3.McKey, 8: 4 

4.James Handley Marshall, compiler, Abstracts of the Wills and Administrations of Northampton 

County, Virginia 1632-1802 (Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 1994), 60. [N.B. – see page 8 for a discussion 

of a competing theory that has Nathaniel married to Alice after the date of Richard Smith’s will.] 

5.Marshall, 67 

6.See William R. M. Houston & Jean M. Mihalyka, Colonial Residents of Virginia’s Eastern Shore 

(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1985). William’s age was listed as 50 in August 1713 (A 8: 603). 

This probably comes from a deposition, but I have yet to check the original record. An independent 

estimate arrived at by assuming an age of 21 at his appointment as a surveyor in Sussex Co., 

Delaware/Pennsylvania in 1683 yields a birth year of 1662, so a birth year of around 1662/1663 seems 

broadly accurate, especially given that his older brother was probably born in 1660 or 1661. 

7.McKey, 1: 95 

8.That Joan’s marriage to Nathaniel occurred in 1677 or before is deduced from the probable birth year 

of their son John and is arrived at by assuming that Joan gave birth to John after her marriage to Nathaniel. 

For evidence of John Bradford’s birth year, see McKey, 8: 66 (19 Feb 1691/92 court), where it is recorded 

that John chose Thomas Budd as his guardian. Children were allowed to choose their guardians upon 

arriving at the age of 15, so 1677 should be a reliable upper limit to the possible range of years in which 

John was born. See also McKey, 9: 38 (8 Oct 1698 court), where John’s release to his brother William for 

the lands at Bradford’s Neck is noted. To sign a legal instrument, one had to be at least 21, which again 

gives 1677 as a reliable limit to John’s probable birth year. If it is certain that John was not born after 1677, 

his release to William hints that he was probably not born much before 1677. William’s need for a release 

from his brother John would have been operative ever since their father’s death in 1691 and it is likely that 

William was only waiting until John turned 21 to actually obtain the release. For further support for a birth 

year of 1677 see McKey, 9: 24 (7 April 1698 court), in which it is mentioned that Capt. Thomas Welburne 

brought a suit at the complaint of John Bradford. Since, one could not sue or be sued until one reached the 

age of 21 (for which see McKee, 8: 107), it is likely that John was not 21 when the suit was brought. It 

therefore seems likely that John turned 21 at some point after Welbourne’s suit, but before John’s release to 

his brother William. This might indicate that his birth fell sometime between April and October of 1677, 

but it is unclear when precisely Welbourne initiated the suit. 

9.Northumberland County, Virginia Record Book 1710-1713: Deeds Wills Inventories Etc., FHL 

microfilm 32639, folio 336. 

10.McKey, 8: 31 

11.McKey, 8: 35 

12.McKey, 9: 38. Joan Budd’s last known appearance in the records.. 

13.McKey, 10: 109. Anna Donella named as wife of Thomas Budd. [N.B. When Thomas Budd wrote 

his will on 5 May 1721 his sons Thomas and John were not of age, so they must have been born sometime 

after 1700. It remains to be determined whether they were the children of Joan or of Thomas’s second 

wife, Ann Donella Middleton.] 

14.Based on search of Nell Marion Nugent, Cavaliers and Pioneers (Richmond, Virginia: The Library 

of Virginia, 2004), volumes 1 through 3. 

15.Based on search of court abstracts for Northampton County (for which, see bibliography): Ames, 

1632-1640 & 1640-1645; Mackey & Groves, Vol. 3, Vol. 4, 5. 

16.I have declined to give citations for the information in this paragraph as it is all covered later in the 

text. 

17.Jennings Cropper Wise, Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke (Richmond, Virginia: The Bell Book & 

Staionary Co., 1911), 191. N.B. Quote is from a secondary source quoting an original source. In 1673, 

King Charles II granted the entire colony to the Earl of Arlington and Lord Culpeper. The quote is 

presumably the language used in the actual grant. 


18.Ralph T. Whitelaw, Virginia’s Eastern Shore (Maine: Picton Press,2001), 23. N.B. Both quotes are 

from a secondary source quoting original sources. The original reference given by Whitelaw is Kingsbury, 

Susan M., Records of the Virginia Company of London, IV: 11 

19.For estimates of population growth on the eastern shore see Whitelaw and James R. Perry The 

Formation of a Society on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, 1615-1655, (University of North Carolina Press, 

1990). 

20.Whitelaw, 28. 

* * * * * 

1654-1661 

21.McKey, 1: 39. No record has been found for the original grant and the original patent. Both are 

referenced in Nathaniel’s sale of the land to Henry Eldridge in Accomack Court, 18 August 1663. Location 

of the land may be found in Whitelaw, 527. 

22.Dr. Howard Mackey and Marlene Alma Hinkley Groves, CG, editors, Northampton County 

Virginia Record Book Orders, Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 5, 1654-1655 (Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 

1999), 37. 


Virginia Record Book Orders, Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 6 and 7-8, 1655-1657 (Rockport, Maine: Picton 

Press, 2002), 96. 



2002), 48. 

25.For Charlton’s wives and marriage to Ann West, see Whitelaw, 424. 

26.McKey, 1: 95 

27.McKey, 1: 96 

28.Whitelaw, 640. N.B. Quote is from a secondary source quoting an original source. 

29.Mackey & Groves, 5: 197. 



32.McKey, 7: 192 

33.McKey, 7: 333 

34.Mackey & Groves, 8: 81. 

35.Pace Dorman, this marriage date is based on the conclusion that Nathaniel probably wed Alice 

Smith before the writing of her father’s will. Seen following paragraph for a full treatment. 

36.Marshall, 60 

37.John Frederick Dorman, compiler and editor, Adventures of Purse and Person Virginia 1607- 

1624/5, Volume 3 (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007, 4 th Edition), 196. 

38.John Camden Hotten, editor, The Original Lists of Persons of Quality (Baltimore: Genealogical 

Publishing Company, 1962), 219. Since there were at least two or more Richard Smiths in Accomack 

during the period from the 1630s to 1660, caution should be exercised in accepting the conclusion that 

Richard Smith of Occahannock was the same man who appeared on the muster. 

39.Hotten, 239. 

40.Susie M. Ames, editor, County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia 1632- 

1640.(Washington DC: The American Historical Association, 1954), 40. 

41.Susie M. Ames, editor, County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia 1640-1645 

(Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1973), 88. 

42. Dr. Howard Mackey and Marlene Alma Hinkley Groves, CG, editors, Northampton County 


2000), 282. 

43.Susie M. Ames, editor, County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia 1640-1645 

(Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1973), 171. Since he was inclined to leave his entire 

estate to a seemingly unrelated man, this Richard probably had no spouse or children at the time. 


45.During the 1640s, some Accomack-Northampton records refer to a Richard Smith Jr., who would 

appear to be different from the Richard Smith who was a sheriff of Accomack in 1641. This sheriff Richard 

Smith may be the same man who was later churchwarden, given the prestige of the position, which would 

mean he survived the illness that is evidenced by Luke Stubbins’ deposition. However, it is not 

immediately clear that this Richard Smith, and not Richard Smith Jr., is Nathaniel’s father-in-law. In the 


early 1640s, Richard Smith Jr. is associated in a record with Sampson Robins; this man later gave a gift to 

Susanna Smith, who may definitely be identified as the daughter of Richard Smith of Occahannock. 

[Mackey & Groves, 3: 319] This tie would tend to support the conclusion that Nathaniel’s father-in-law 

was not the Richard Smith who was sheriff, but rather Richard Smith Jr. It further opens up the possibility 

that Richard of Occahannock was not the Richard Smith who was in the muster. Complicating matters 

further, in later records of the 1650s, there is a Richard Smith who was a servant to Henry Bagwell and 

who was probably also the same Richard Smith who became the servant of William Whittington. This 

Richard Smith would seem to be different than Nathaniel’s father-in-law, who rather than being a servant 

actually owned several servants. Unfortunately, none of the above Richards are sufficiently distinguished in 

the records to allow a firm conclusion about what other records are referring to each of them. Nor is it clear 

that this later servant Richard Smith is the same man as Richard Smith Jr. of the 1640s. There is some room 

to doubt that Richard Smith of Occahannock was the same Richard Smith found in the muster. 

46.Frank V. Walczyk, Northampton County VA Orders, Deeds, & Wills 1651-1654, Book IV (Coram, 

New York: Peter’s Row, no date), 90. 

47.Dorman, Vol. 3: 197. 


49.Mackey & Groves, 8: 151. 

50.Marshall, 67. 

* * * * * 

1662-1665 

51.Nugent, 1: 419. See Whitelaw, 770, for tract location. 

52.Nugent, 1: 425 

53.McKey, 1: 39 

54.McKey, 1: 95 


56.McKey, 1: 95. 

57.McKey, 1: 122. Ball confessed to using Nathaniel’s horse at the request of Bartholomew Meeres' 

wife. He rode before her to Tobius Sellvey seeking aid for Bartholomew, who was ill. The court believed 

that Ball’s illegal use of the horse was accidental, so ordered him to pay only 100 lbs tobacco and court 

costs. 

58.McKey, 2: 94. Orphan John Coulston apprenticed to Robert Richardson in order that Robert might 

“teach him his trade of shoemaking.” 

59.John Fawcett was king’s attorney for Accomack. (Whitelaw, 712) No information is available on 

Dermon Sullivant’s occupation, save that on at least one occasion he hired himself out to thresh a 

neighbor’s wheat. (McKey, 3: 109) 

60.McKey, 1: 92 


62.McKey, 5: 75 

63.Jennings Cropper Wise, Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke or the Eastern Shore of Virginia in the 

Seventeenth Century (Richmond, Virginia: The Bell Book & Staionary Co., 1911), 60. 

64.McKey, 5: 79. 

65.Wise is the source for the quotes and the great bulk of the historical account. 


67.McKey, 1: 64 

68.Information on the processes involved in the trade of currying and the currier’s equipment were 

found in the article Old Occupations – The Currier, S. Drummond, Family Tree Magazine, 11: 11: 5-6 

69.McKey, 2: 131. 


71.See Marshall, 34, for list of subscribers to the oath. Also Wise, 135. 

72.Wise explores the theme of a division in the Northampton Court in great detail and has a good 

account of the eastern shore during the Parliament period. 

73.For the text of the Protest, see Whitelaw, 29, or Wise, 139-140. Wise also has a detailed account of 

the actions and general mood surrounding the Protest. 

74.Wise, 142. N.B. Quote is from a secondary source quoting an original source. 

75.Wise was the source for most of this historical summary, supplemented by others. 

76.See William R. M. Houston & Jean M. Mihalyka, Colonial Residents of Virginia’s Eastern Shore 

(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1985). William’s age was listed as 50 in August 1713 (A 8: 603). 


This probably comes from a deposition, but I have yet to check the original record. An independent 

estimate arrived at by assuming a minimum age of 21 at his appointment as a surveyor in Sussex Co., 

Delaware/Pennsylvania in 1683 yields a birth year of 1662, so a birth year of around 1662/1663 seems 

broadly accurate, especially given that his older brother was probably born in 1660 or 1661. 

77.McKey, 1: 16-17. 

78.McKey, 1: 20. 

79.McKey, 1: 29-30. 

80.McKey, 1: 15. 

81.McKey, 1: 16. 

82.McKey, 1: 20. 

83.McKey, 1: 25. 

84.McKey, 1: 29. 


86.McKey, 1: 34. 

87.McKey, 2: 148. 

88.McKey, 2: 175. 

89.McKey, 2: 176. 



92.McKey, 3: 70. 

93.McKey, 3: 104. 

94.McKey, 4: 4. 

95.McKey, 4: 7. 

96.McKey, 4: 20. 

97.McKey, 4: 35. 

98.McKey, 4: 43. 

99.McKey, 4: 45. 

100.McKey, 4: 78. 

101.Whitelaw, 709. 

102.McKey, 4: viii-ix 

103.McKey, 1: 80. 

104.McKey, 1: 130 

105.McKey, 1: 142. The informer was Edward Martin, a servant of Nathaniel Bradford. 

106.Phillip Alexander Bruce, Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond: Whittet & 

Shepperson, 1907), 188-192. 

107.McKey, 1: xii 

108.Bruce, Social Life, Chapter 14. 

109.McKey, 7: 333. 

110.McKey, 1: 109. 


112.Information about the duties of the surveyor was gleaned from a variety of sources, but mostly 

through extensive data mining of Accomack Court records as contained in McKey, Vols. 1-10. 

113.McKey, 7: 28. 

114.McKey, 4: 77. 

115.McKey, 8: 60. 

* * * * * 

1666-1670 

116.Nugent, 2: 23. 

117.McKey, 7: 333. In the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate were found 57 sheep and 165 cattle. 

118.McKey, 5: 107. James Ewell lived on Nathaniel’s plantation. 


120.For Northampton lists see Mackey & Groves, 8: 176 & 241. For Accomack lists see Stratton 

Nottingham, Accomack County, Virginia certificates and rights, 1663-1709 and tithables, 1663-1695 

(Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 1993). 

121.The source for this and most subsequent statues relating to tithables comes from a webpage 

(www.genfiles.com/legal/Tithables.htm) titled “A Tithables Primer,” compiled by Robert W. Baird from 

William Hening’s The Statues at Large. 


122.McKey, 7: 232. For knowingly concealing himself from the list of tithables, Joseph Woodland was 

forced to pay a penalty of 500 lbs tobacco to the county and 500 lbs to the informer. 

123.McKey, 2: 15. 

124.McKey, 1: 108. 

125.Nugent, 2: 118. Claiming Sibbe Bullock as a headright was technically illegal, since she had 

already been claimed once before. This was, however, a common practice. 

126.McKey, 2: 12. The Bartholomew Meeres who presented Sibbe Bullock is the same man whose 

illness occasioned the illegal borrowing of Nathaniel’s horse by Alphonso Balls, mentioned earlier. 

127.McKey, 1: viii. 

128.JoAnn Riley McKey, Accomack County Virginia Court Order Abstracts 1714-1719 Vols. 12 & 13 

(Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 2000), 81. In Accomack court in 1717, John Tomson and his 

wife Sibela (executors of Robert Adkins) presented Adkins’ will. 

129.McKey, 4: 72. 



132.Wise, 60. 

133.McKey, 4: 75. 

134.McKey, 1: 97. 

135.Wise, 118-119. 

136.See Whitelaw, 17, for estimate of total Indian population on eastern shore in 1608. See Wise, 187- 

188, for affects of 1667 smallpox epidemic on shore Indians. 


138.McKey, 2: 53. 

139.Frank V. Walczyk, Northampton County Virginia Orders & Wills 1678-1683 Book 11 (Coram, 

NY: Peter’s Row, 2002), 32. Charles Holden deposed that he was about 40 years old on 28 October 1679. 

140.McKey, 1: 25. Gausalin and Bridget Van Nitsin were accused of fornication since their child was 

born seven months into their marriage. 

141.Northumberland County, Virginia Record Book 1710-1713: Deeds Wills Inventories Etc., FHL 




144. Walczyk, Northampton Orders & Wills 1678-1683 Book 11, 72. Elizabeth Sterlinge deposed that 

she was about 20 years old on 28 October 1680. 

145.McKey, 2: 54. 

146.Perry, 42. Horses were an expensive luxury at mid-century, though less so by the end of the 1600s. 

147.McKey, 1: 52. 

148.McKey, 2: 127. 

149.McKey, 5: 37. 

150.McKey, 2: 164. 

151.McKey, 6: 191. 


153.Warren M. Billings, editor. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary 

History of Virginia, 1606-1689 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975), 88. 

154.McKey, 2: vii. 

155.McKey, 2: 96. 

156.McKey, 2: 102. 

157.McKey, 2: 106-123. 

158.See McKey, 134-142, for February proceedings against Henry Smith. 

159.McKey, 150-151. 

160.McKey, 2: 188-191. 

161.McKey, 2: 188-189. 


163.McKey, 2: 142. 

164.McKey, 2: 199-200. 



167.Wise, 190. 

168.McKey, 3: 1. Named as “Henry Smith of Somerset County, Maryland” 


* * * * * 

1671-1677 

169.McKey, 7: 333. 

170.Nottingham, Accomack County, Virginia certificates and rights, 1663-1709 and tithables, 1663- 

1695. 

171.McKey, 1: 89-90. 

172. Nottingham, Accomack County, Virginia certificates and rights, 1663-1709 and tithables, 1663- 

1695, 84. 

173.McKey, 3: 23-25. 

174.Nugent, 2: 118. 

175.Nugent, 2: 118. Location from Whitelaw, 787. 

176.Locations of neighbors compiled from Whitelaw. 

177.Nugent, 1: 425. 

178.Nugent, 2: 23. 

179.Nugent, 2: 118. 

180.Nugent, 2: 118. 

181.Nugent, 2: 204. 

182.McKey, 5: 49. 

183.McKey, 5: 83. 


185.McKey, 6: 49. 

186.McKey, 5: 26. 

187.McKey, 5: 12. Reeves was transported to Virginia by a certain Henry Bradford. 


189.McKey, 7: 333. 

190.McKey, 6: xxiv. 


192.McKey, 8: 97. 

193.McKey, 7: 289. 

194.McKey, 2: 193. 

195.McKey, 5: 12. 

196.McKey, 8: 49-50. 

197.McKey, 4: 3. 

198.McKey, 4: 28. 

199.Stratton Nottingham, Wills and Administrations of Accomack County, Virginia 1663-1800 

(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1999), 6. 

200.McKey, 5: 23. 


202.McKey, 8: 44 

203.McKey, 2: 168. 



206.McKey, 3: 23. 

207.McKey, 1: 142. 

208.McKey, 7: 99. 


210.McKey, 6: 184-185. 

211.Craig Horle, editor, Records of the courts of Sussex County, Delaware, 1677-1710 (Philadelphia: 

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991), 157. Baptis Newcomb vs John Damell [sic]. 

212.Horle, 216. The record states that John Daniel was transported to Virginia from Barbados. 

213.It is unclear precisely where on Nathaniel’s land Ewell lived. 

214.McKey, 5: 107. 

215.McKey, 5: 77; 6: 4, 123; 

216.McKey, 7: 333. 

217.Material from webpage, “Chronology of the History of Slavery 1619 to 1789”, at 

http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html. 

218.Wesley Frank Craven, The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 1607-1689 (Louisiana 

State University Press, 1970), 400-1. 


219.Wesley Frank Craven, The Colonies in Transition 1660-1713 (New York & Evanston: Harper 

Torchbooks, 1968), 295. 

220.Wise, 285. 

221.Cravey, Colonies in Transition, 294. 

222.McKey, 5: 7. The record does not state the name of the woman. She may have been the Judee or 

Bess enumerated in the inventory of Nathaniel’s estate, or the Joan listed as headright on Nathaniel’s 1672 

patent. 

223.McKey, 7: 97. 

224.McKey, 5: 12. 

225.McKey, 5: 26. 

226.McKey, 3: 62. 

227.Hotten, 224. 

228.H. R. McIlwaine, editor, Minutes of the Council & General Court of Colonial Virginia 1622-1632, 

1670-1676 (Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1924), 268. 

229.H. R. McIlwaine, editor, Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1659/60-1693 

(Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1914), 82. 

230.McKey, 5: 44. 



233.McKey, 5: 56. 

234.McKey, 5: 69. 

235.McKey, 5: 96. 

236.McKey, 5: 85. 

237.McKey, 5: 56. 


239.A well-known quote of Nathaniel Bacon. Sources for the historical background include Craven, 

The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century 1607-1689; and Wise for those parts touching 

specifically on the Eastern Shore. 

240.McKey, 5: 56. 

241.Wise, 215. 

242.McKey, 6: 100. 

243.Northumberland County, Virginia Record Book 1710-1713: Deeds Wills Inventories Etc., FHL 


244.That Joan’s marriage to Nathaniel occurred in 1677 or before is deduced from the probable birth 

year of their son John and is arrived at by assuming that Joan gave birth to John after her marriage to 

Nathaniel. For evidence of John Bradford’s birth year, see McKey, 8: 66 (19 Feb 1691/92 court), where it 

is recorded that John chose Thomas Budd as his guardian. Children were allowed to choose their guardians 

upon arriving at the age of 15, so 1677 should be a reliable upper limit to the possible range of years in 

which John was born. See also McKey, 9: 38 (8 Oct 1698 court), where John’s release to his brother 

William for the lands at Bradford’s Neck is noted. To sign a legal instrument, one had to be at least 21, 

which again gives 1677 as a reliable limit to John’s probable birth year. If it is certain that John was not 

born after 1677, his release to William hints that he was probably not born much before 1677. William’s 

need for a release from his brother John would have been operative ever since their father’s death in 1691 

and it is likely that William was only waiting until John turned 21 to actually obtain the release. For further 

support for a birth year of 1677 see McKey, 9: 24 (7 April 1698 court), in which it is mentioned that Capt. 

Thomas Welburne brought a suit at the complaint of John Bradford. Since, one could not sue or be sued 

until one reached the age of 21 (for which see McKee, 8: 107), it is likely that John was not 21 when the 

suit was brought. It therefore seems likely that John turned 21 at some point after Welbourne’s suit, but 

before John’s release to his brother William. This might indicate that his birth fell sometime between April 

and October of 1677, but it is unclear when precisely Welbourne initiated the suit. 

245.Based on search of Nugent, Vols. 1-2. 

246.Nugent, 2: 158. 

247.Bruce, Social Life, 115. 

248.McKey, 6: 49. 

249.McKey, 1: 96. 

* * * * * 

1678-1690 


250.McKey, 1: 1. 

251.Various costs as compiled from records are summarized in McKey, 6: xxiv. 

252.McKey, 5: 98. 

253.Distance computed using mapquest.com directions from Wachapreague, VA, at Bradford’s Neck, 

to Lewes, DE. 

254.McKey, 4: 39. 

255.For Ewell’s deposition, McKey, 5: 86. For the others, McKey, 5: 101. 

256.McKey, 5: 102-103. 

257.McKey, 5: 80. 

258.For purchase see Horle, 82. Knowledge of tract’s location in Angola Neck is provided by a later 

possessor in Horle, 882. 

259.Horle, 161. 

260.McKey, 6: 213. 

261.Horle, 128. 

262.Horle, 157 & 166. 

263.Horle, 195. 

264.See Horle, 299 for record of William being called back to Virginia and John Johnson being 

Nathaniel’s estate being in the custody of John Johnson. See Horle, 308, for Bowman as Nathaniel’s 

attorney in Sussex. 

265.McKey, 7: 92. 

266.Horle, 365. 

267.Horle, 551. 

268.Horle, 847. 

269.McKey, 1: 95. 

270.Examples of Accomack families who ended up in Somerset Co,. Maryland and the area around 

Rehobeth in Sussex County abound in all the records of both places. A good general source for 

immigration to Sussex from Accomack and Somerset is Clayton Torrence, Old Somerset on the Eastern 

Shore of Maryland (Westminster, Maryland: Willow Bend Books, 2000), especially 9-13 and 424-427. 

271.Nugent, 2: 204. 

272.McKey, 7: 4. 

273.For deeds, see McKey, 7: 327. For locations see Whitelaw, 787 & 792, for Beech and Willis, 

respectively. 



276.Edgar MacDonald, transcriber, “An Accomack Quit Rent Roll for 1683,” Magazine of Virginia 

Genealogy, volume 23, issue 3, August 1985, 68-71 

277.McKey, 7: 333. 

278.Bruce, Economic History, 2: 155 

279.Bruce, Economic History, 2: 157 

280.Bruce, Economic History, 2: 247-251. 


282. Walczyk, Northampton Orders & Wills 1678-1683 Book 11, 212. 

283.Dorman, 3: 197. 

284.For Fawcett, see McKey, 1: 165. For Holden as King’s Attorney see Whitelaw, 255; evidence of 

his work as an attorney begin in abundance in McKey, Vol. 3. 

285.McKey, 4: 42. 

286.McKey, 2: 199. 

287.Howard Mackey and Candy McMahan Perry, editors, Northampton County Virginia Record Book 

Orders, Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 10, 1674-1678 (Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 2003). 

288.Bruce, Economic History, 2: 456. 

289.McKey, 7: 44. 

290.Nottingham, Accomack County, Virginia certificates and rights, 1663-1709 and tithables. 


292.McKey, 6: 213. 

293.McKey, 7: 155. 

294.McKey, 7: 209 & 213. 


296.McKey, 7: 192. 

297.McKey, 7: 322. 


298.McKey, 7: 73. 

299.McKey, 8: 49. 

300.McKey, 8: 4. 


302.Frank V. Walczyk, Northampton County Virginia Orders & Wills 1683-1689, Vol. 1 1686-1689 

(Coram, NY: Peter’s Row, 2001), 183. 

303.McKey, 8: 35. 

304.McKey, 7: 329. 

305.Horle, 847. 

306.McKey, 7: 327. 

Bibliography 

Ames, Susie M., editor. County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia 1632-1640. 

Washington DC: The American Historical Association, 1954. 

Ames, Susie M., editor. County Court Records of Accomack-Northampton, Virginia 1640-1645 

Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1973. 

Billings, Warren M., editor. The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of 

Virginia, 1606-1689. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1975. 

Bruce, Phillip A., Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry into the Material 

Condition of the People, Based on Original and Contemporaneous Records. New York: MacMillan and 

Co., 1896. 2 volumes. 

Bruce, Phillip Alexander. Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century Richmond: Whittet & 

Shepperson, 1907. 

Craven, Wesley Frank. The Colonies in Transition 1660-1713. New York & Evanston: Harper Torchbooks, 

1968. 

Craven, Wesley Frank. The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century 1607-1689. Louisiana State 

University Press, 1970. 

Craven, Wesley Frank. White, Red, and Black: The Seventeenth-Century Virginian. New York: W. W. 

Norton & Company, Inc., 1977. 

Dorman, John Frederick, compiler and editor. Adventures of Purse and Person Virginia 1607-1624/5, 

Volume 3 Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007, 4 th Edition. 

Horle, Craig W., editor. Records of the courts of Sussex County, Delaware, 1677-1710 Philadelphia: 

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. 

Houston, William R. M. & Mihalyka, Jean M. Colonial Residents of Virginia’s Eastern Shore (Baltimore: 

Genealogical Publishing Co., 1985). 

MacDonald, Edgar, transcriber. “An Accomack Quit Rent Roll for 1683,” Magazine of Virginia 

Genealogy, volume 23, issue 3, August 1985. 

Mackey, Howard and Groves, Marlene Alma Hinkley, CG, editors. Northampton County Virginia Record 

Book Orders, Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 3, 1645-1650. Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 2000. 




Book Orders, Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 6, 7-8, 1655-1657. Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 2002. 




Mackey, Howard and Perry, Candy McMahan, editors. Northampton County Virginia Record Book Orders, 

Deeds, Wills &c. Volume 10, 1674-1678. Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 2003. 

Marshall, James Handley. Abstracts of the Wills and Administrations of Northampton County, Virginia 

1632-1802 Rockport, Maine: Picton Press, 1994. 

McIlwaine, H. R., editor. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1659/60-1693 Richmond: 

Virginia State Library, 1914. 

McIlwaine, H. R., editor. Minutes of the Council & General Court of Colonial Virginia 1622-1632, 1670- 

1676. Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1924. 

McKey, JoAnn Riley. Accomack County, Virginia Court Order Abstracts, Electronic Edition. 10 volumes. 

Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 2001. 

McKey, JoAnn Riley. Accomack County Virginia Court Order Abstracts 1714-1719 Vols. 12 & 13 Bowie, 

Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 2000. 

Nottingham, Stratton. Wills and Administrations of Accomack County, Virginia 1663-1800 Baltimore: 

Genealogical Publishing Company, 1999. 

Nottingham, Stratton. Accomack County, Virginia certificates and rights, 1663-1709 and tithables, 1663- 

1695 Bowie, Maryland: Heritage Books, Inc., 1993. 

Nugent, Nell Marion. Cavaliers and Pioneers Richmond, Virginia: The Library of Virginia, 2004, Vols. 1- 

3. 

Perry, James R. The Formation of a Society on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, 1615-1655. University of North 

Carolina Press, 1990. 

Torrence, Clayton. Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland Westminster, Maryland: Willow Bend 

Books, 2000. 

Turner, Charles Henry Black, compiler. Some records of Sussex County, Delaware. (Philadelphia: Allen, 

Lane & Scott, 1909). 

Walczyk, Frank V. Northampton County VA Orders, Deeds, & Wills 1651-1654, Book 

IV Coram, New York: Peter’s Row, no date. 

Walczyk, Frank V. Northampton County Virginia Orders & Wills 1678-1683 Book 11 Coram, NY: Peter’s 

Row, 2002. 

Walczyk, Frank V. Northampton County Virginia Orders & Wills 1683-1689, Vol. 1 1686-1689 Coram, 

NY: Peter’s Row, 2001. 

Whitelaw, Ralph T. Virginia’s Eastern Shore Rockport, Maine: Picton Press,2001. 

Wise, Jennings Cropper. Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke or the Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Seventeenth 

Century Richmond, Virginia: The Bell Book & Staionary Co., 1911. 


Appendix A: Timeline of Events in Nathaniel’s Life 

Following is a timeline listing recorded events of Nathaniel Bradford’s life. Every record in any of the sources researched for 

this biography which mentions Nathaniel is accounted for in this timeline. All events occur in Northampton County before 

1663, and in Accomack County from 1663 unless otherwise noted. After 1663, events that take place in other counties are 

highlighted in blue. Tithable lists are highlighted in green. Significant local or world events are highlighted in red. 

Since Nathaniel was born in or before 1637, his age in any given year on the table is listed as being greater than or equal to 

the age he would be had he been born in that year. The age listed for reference is merely a guide and must not be construed as 

Nathaniel’s actual age. For instance, in 1661 his age is listed “>=24”. This does not mean he was 24 years old in 1661, only 

that he must have been at least 24. 

YEAR DATE Age EVENT 

1637 >0 born in or before this year 

1640s English Civil War 

1651 >=14 defeat of prince Charles II, collapse of royalist cause in English Civil War 

Col. Scarburgh’s raid on eastern shore Indians 

1652 >=15 eastern shore residents sign Oath to Commonwealth; Northampton Protest; war against Dutch 

1654 Oct 27 >=17 Nath. witnesses Stephen Charlton’s gift of land, livestock and slaves to his daughter Elisabeth 

1655 Mar 29 >=18 paid out of account of Bridget & Elizabeth, orphans of Stephen Charlton 

1656 Jan 30 >=19 petition to reinstate Rev. Thomas Teackle 

1658 Sept 21 >=21 petitions for his bond with John West for an appeal of widow Ann Charlton 

Oct 10 patent for 400 acres granted for transporting 8 people (N115) 

1659 >=22 Col. Scarburgh’s expedition against Assateague Indians 

May 30 petitions for Henry Edwards and Thomas Blayes to put up marked trees so he can survey land 

1660 >=23 Charles II proclaimed king of England 

Jan 30 proves will of Richard Smith with Wm Thorne 

Jul 30 chosen a constable of Northampton for the year 1660 

Nov 29 ordered to pay Hugh Yeo 2000 tob. 

1661 >=24 6 tithables 

Jan 28 as constable, returns sheep list for his district (he himself has 7; Scarburgh 162) 

May 29 William Berkeley grants him 400 acres between Ockahannock and Nuswattocks 

Jun 23 son Nathaniel baptized 

Oct 29 mentioned in Wm Waters’ account of administration for Charlton 


Mar 26 patent for 1000 acres at Matchapungo 


son William born in this year 

Jan 28 Scarburgh petitions against Nathaniel for failing to fulfill his duties as currier 

May 22 suit against Richard Stevens dismissed as being brought w/out cause 

Jul 16 on jury in case of Jno. Dolby vs. Thomas Smith over a dead horse 

Jul 16 on jury in case of Jno. Goring & Robert Hignet marking pigs 

Jul 16 on jury in case of Robert Huitt vs. James Atkinson for killing hogs and cattle 

Aug 17 on jury in case of James Atkinson vs. Joseph Pitman over a dead pig 

Aug 18 on jury in case of John Rogers mismarking John Jenkins’ heifer 

Aug 18 on jury in case of William Blake vs. John Prittyman over a stolen sow 

Aug 18 on jury in case of Scarburgh in the name of the King vs. George Hack for killing a stray cow 

Aug 18 Nathaniel & Alice [O] Bradford sell 400 acres at Ockahannock (N115) to Henry Eldridge 

Nov 10 Henry Ethridge sells John Trotman land bought of Nathaniel 


Jan 18 Col. Scarburgh complaint against quality of Nathaniel’s leather; men appointed to inspect 

Oct 17 Tapatiapon and his great men acknowledge sale of Matchaprege land; Nath permits them to plant 

Oct 18 Nathaniel & Alice sell John Fawset and Dermon Selevant 500 acres from Richard Smith (A13) 

Oct 18 grants Nathaniel Jr. 800 acres, pt of 1400 from Scarburgh, in lieu of 500 from R. Smith 

Sept 6 patent for 1400 acres at Matchapungo 


Jan 17 appointed surveyor in place of Wm. Taylor 


Jun 16 suit against Alphonso Balls for riding his horse without permission 



Jan 16 security for 1000 lbs tobacco for the fornication fines of Robert Atkins and Sibbe Bullock 

Feb 19 Certificate for 400 acres for transporting 8 

May 3 witnesses Rowland Baugh’s sale to William Ewing of livestock [Northampton] 

Aug 16 petitions for Charles Holden to support the child he fathered by his wife; court dismisses 

Aug 16 late at the muster for horsemen 

Dec 17 brings Indian to court, which judges him 12, to serve till 24, names him Nicander Bradford 



year of the Henry Smith trial in Accomack 

Jan 6 on grand jury for 1669 

Mar 16 case btwn Henrick Wagaman and Nathaniel referred at Nathaniel’s request 

Mar 17 on jury in case of Devorax Browne vs. Mihill Rickets for goods and services 

May 17 sued by Hendrick Wagaman for 450 lbs tob, claimed as debt due from Evart Johnson; dismissed 

May 17 app. rep of the county w/Southee Littleton, Jno Smith, Tho Leatherberry, Wm Custis, Jno Parker 

Jul 16 Edward Martin pleas for not clearing the highways that he had no order from Nathaniel 

Nov 23 on jury 



downfall of Col. Scarburgh 

Jan 26 case btwn Robert Hutchinson and Nathaniel referred at Nathaniel’s request 

Mar 16 sued by Robert Hutchinson for a debt; Nath claimed part payment; Jno West to examine account 

Jun 16 on jury 



1672 >=35 patent for 2800 acres, to include 2400 from 1662 & 1664 patents (A43), plus 400 from 1667 (A47) 

patent for 400 acres (A49) 

Jan 18 sues Arthur Upshott over a horse; Upshott ordered to bring the horse, and Bradford his evidence 

Mar 7 certificate for 700 acres for transporting 14 

Mar 7 Arthur Upshott ordered to deliver horse 

Mar 7 Arthur Robins and Robert Hill judge the horse in dispute btwn Nathaniel and Arthur Upshott 

May 17 on jury 

May 17 Wm Benston ordered to be surveyor in place of Nathaniel 

1673 Feb 6 >=36 on jury 

Feb 8 Henry Smith of Somerset sells John Smith 400 acres on Occahannock formerly owned by Nath 

Jun 17 1667 patent to Arthur Robins recorded: 1000 acres near Nath, Richard Kellam and Barth. Meers 

Oct 16 John Fawset will recorded: Nathaniel mentioned as a landowner 

1674 >=37 10 tithables (plus 1 unreported “Indian called Dick”) 

Jan 6 on jury 

Jan 8 on jury 

Feb 18 on jury 

Mar 17 on jury 

Apr 20 attorney for Miles Halbert as defendant in suit of Isaac Jacob 

Apr 20 on jury in case of Isaac Jacob vs. Rowland Savage for trespass 

May 18 on jury 

Sept 11 Arthur Robins sells Henery Chancey 1000 acres by Nath, Richard Kellum, Barth. Meeres 

Nov 10 ordered with others to determine if the road Richard Kellam enclosed was useful to the public 



Jan 27 sued by Tobias Selvy; dismissed on Nathaniel’s oath 

Jan 27 with others brings report on Kellum’s road, that it is useful for the public 

Feb 17 sued by Tobias Selvy; upon Nathaniel’s oath fine limited to 170 lbs tob. and costs 

Sept 18 court dismisses suit of Henry Haiy against Nathaniel Bradford 

Dec 29 witness to Miles Hulbert giving up his bastard to William Gaskins [Northampton] 


the year of Bacon’s Rebellion 

Feb 17 with others ordered to view road altered by Jno. Smith 


Apr 20 verbal bargain with Mathew Scarburough over a female slave upheld in court 

Jul 18 servant John Reeves petitions for freedom, having been sold by Henry Bradford for 4 years 

1677 >=40 11 tithables 

Governor Berkeley executes 23 involved in Bacon’s Rebellion 

married to Joan Franklin by this year; son John born around this year 

Feb 7 ordered to pay John Reeves 600 lbs tobacco for extra service, plus corn & clothes 

Feb 20 paid 1500 lbs tobacco by General Assembly as public charge 

Nov 22 ordered to pay John Willis and wife for appearing as his witnesses 

Nov 23 suit against Xopher. Sadbury referred 

Nov 23 deposition in case of Wm. Custis against James Ewel for unlawfully killing cattle 

Nov 23 James Youell binds himself to pay 10,000 lbs tobacco to Nathaniel & Richard Franklin on demand 

Dec 19 sues Christopher Sadbury for defamation; Sadbury too drunk to answer suit, fined & suit referred 

Dec 20 King Robin petitions for Arthur Upshot and Nathaniel to be summoned in regard to disputed land 

1678 >=41 10 tithables 

Jan 17 complaint of King Robin against Nathaniel and Arthur Upshot dismissed 

Jan 18 suit against Sadbury for defamation dismissed; Sadbury apologized for insinuating theft of goods 

Feb 18 sues Daniel Owen for a debt; case referred 

Feb 19 suit against Daniel Owin for defamation found wanting by jury 

Feb 19 deposition of James Ewell regarding Nathaniel’s men killing Wm Burton’s hog 

Feb 20 suits against James Ewell for debt and trespass referred 

Feb 20 apologizes in court for abusing and miscalling Edward Revell 

Feb 21 fined 50 lbs tobacco for swearing in court 

Feb 21 ordered to pay George Charnock for serving as witness 

Feb 24 Deed of John Hagoster to Nathaniel for land in Sussex [Sussex] 

Apr 16 suit against James Uell found to be over 39 lbs tobacco; dismissed as beneath jurisdiction 

Apr 16 Nathaniel declared for 6000 lbs against Uell; case referred; Upshot and Nock to view damage 

Apr 17 suit of Wm Burton; Nathaniel found guilty of killing his hog; ordered to pay 2000 lbs; appeals 

Apr 17 Nathaniel and Wm Burton sue each other for defamation; determined to be non-actionable 

Apr 17 Nath and Burton each petition for the other to be taken into custody & post security 

May 16 Arthur Upshot and Wm Nock report on damages in Ewell case; Ewell ordered to pay 280 lbs 

May 16 granted 5000 lbs judgment against James Ewell, who requests an injunction 

May 17 mentioned in deposition as housing Dr. Best 

Aug 19 James Ewell exhibits bill against Nathaniel against the judgment of 5000 from May; referred 

Oct 17 Ewell’s injunction against the 5000 lbs judgment is reversed 


patent for 644 acres in A37 (in dispute, eventually awarded to Yeo) 

May 26 petitions for administration of Thomas Williams’ estate as greatest creditor; ordered to inventory 

May 26 Nathaniel witnesses John Fauset’s power of attorney to John Tankred 

Jul 16 suit against John Lawes referred 

Sept 2 sues John Lawes but can’t prove petition; suit dismissed 

Sept 9 John Hagoster acknowledges deed to Nathaniel [Sussex] 

Dec 16 ordered to be summoned to court with his tithables for delinquency in clearing highways 


agrees to sell John Willis 400 acres (A49) 

Jan 17 neglected to send tithables clear roads; ordered to make bridge by Jno Willis passable 

Aug 4 sues Thomas Tayler who fails to appear 

Oct 22 suit against Thomas Tayler dismissed since Nathaniel did not prove his petition 

Dec 10 sells 400 acres at Matchapreague (from 1667 patent) to Samuel Beech 

1681 >=44 10 tithables 

William Penn receives charter to establish Pennsylvania 

William Jette sells 500 acres (A38) to Nathaniel 

Jul 12 sues Francis Wharton for 4 cows & calves; Wharton ordered to deliver cattle 

Sept 24 Nathaniel forcibly prevents arrest of Richard Mason from sheriff Edm. Scarburgh 

Oct 19 bound for contempt of authority at complaint of Capt. Edmund Scarburgh for Mason arrest 

Nov 9 on jury to judge the victor of a horse race [Sussex] 

Dec 16 sues James Matts for 1961 lbs tobacco; Matts can’t be found, so Nath granted attachment 

Dec 17 Florence Matts, as attorney for husband, acknowledged as security for Matts’ debt 

1682 >45 9 tithables 

Apr 11 Baptis Newcomb vs. John Damell for forcing him out of his house on Nathaniel’s lands [Sussex] 


Apr 11 Nathaniel petitions for a warrant to survey the 1200 acres from Hagester into one [Sussex] 

May 17 Florence Matts produces discount, incl. for 9 months food for sons Nathaniel & William; 

Jun 13 Baptis Newcomb wins suit against John Damell [Sussex] 

Aug 29 difference btwn Nath and Major Wm Spencer dismissed [Northampton] 

Nov 10 paid 600 lbs tobacco public charge out of tithable proceeds for recovering 1 runaway Robt West 


Jan 3 appointed with others to determine best route for a road to Matomkin Island 

Jan 4 John Washbourne sues James Walker for trespass on land belonging to Nath, who doesn’t show 

Feb 2 judgement granted Wm Spencer against Nath for 8000 lbs tobacco [Northampton] 

Feb 21 Washbourne and Nathaniel’s patents appear to be for same land, which is condemned 

Mar 2 appears as attorney of Robert Richardson against Robert Briggs [Northampton] 

Apr 10 John Danill petitions for freedom from Nathaniel; Wm ordered to tell him [Sussex] 

Jul 7 appointed surveyor from Burton’s to Bartholomew Meer’s house 

Aug 14 Danill’s suit dismissed because neither he nor Nathaniel showed [Sussex] 

Oct 9 seeks to revive judgment of 5000 lbs against James Ewell 

Oct 10 informs court that he had often notified Richard Kellam to clear the road through his land 

Nov 13 recieves certificate for 100 yards Virginia woolen cloth 


Jun 4 sues Thomas Tayler for 1070 lbs tobacco; Tayler requests delay, given 20 days to post security 

Aug 12 Arthur Starr sues Nathaniel with bill from John Daniell; Wm out of the county [Sussex] 

Sept 9 court judges Wm liable to pay Starr on bill from Daniell [Sussex] 

Sept 9 Nathaniel makes Henry Bowman his attorney in Sussex [Sussex] 

Dec 2 sued by Capt. William Custis, but granted reference due to son’s illness 

Dec 2 sues Capt. William Custis, but nonsuit due to failure to appear 

Dec 9 William Kenyn acknowledges sale, assignation of patent to Nathan Bradford, Senior [Sussex] 

1685 >=48 10 tithables 

William Penn given jurisdiction over Delaware 

Jan 13 Custis vs. Bradford suit continued to next court due to lack of justices present 

Feb 10 ordered to deliver items to Capt. William Custis 

Apr 8 as assignee of William Chace, granted judgment of 500 lbs tob against James Longo 

May 12 Nathaniel sues John Oaky for corn; judgment for plt [Sussex] 

Jul 30 mentioned as paid in account of Col. Southy Littleton [Northampton] 

Sept 8 Arthur Starr petitions for judgment of his trial; court grants execution against Wm [Sussex] 

Sept 8 Henry Bowman withdraws action of debt against Barnwell Garratt estate [Sussex] 

Oct 6 paid out of inventory of Capt. John Avery [Sussex] 

Nov 17 sued by Symon Hues; since no petition filed a nonsuit granted against Hues 

Dec 8 boundary btwn. Nath, Robert Bracy, Baptis Newcome to be resurveyed (crossed out) [Sussex] 

Dec 23 Henry Johnson vs. Hance Bettnor, who owed cooper’s work paid by Johnson at Mr. Bradford’s 

1686 >=49 10 tithables 


Jan 12 sues Robert Higgins over a 400 lbs tobacco note from Henry Parke 

Jan 12 Abraham Taylor admits owing him 440 lbs tobacco 

Feb 16 account presented of estate of Henry Parke, sold at auction at Nathaniel’s plantation 

Feb 16 prosecutes claim for 1000 lbs tobacco for Parke’s funeral 

Feb 28 witnesses sale of 650 acres from Nathaniel Walker to John Tankred [Northampton] 

Sept 21 suit against Joseph Thorne referred 

Nov 15 Nath and Joseph Thorne sue each other, Nath for 2360 lbs tob, Thorne for tob & payment for work 

Nov 15 discharged as bond for appearance of seaman William Parton 

1688 >=51 12 tithables 

Glorious Revolution in England: James II deposed in favor of William and Mary 

Jan 17 Joseph Thorne admits owing him 2360 lbs tob 


Jun 19 sues Edward Burck who fails to appear 

Nov 28 judgment confessed by Samll French for Nath making 59 pair of shoes [Northampton] 


Nov 19 upon petition, letters of joint administration granted to Joane and William for Nath’s estate 

1691 

Feb 17 William Nock ordered to be surveyor in Nathaniel’s former precincts 

Feb 18 John Willis Sr sues William for confirmation of 400 acres from Nathaniel 


1692 

Feb 19 Robert Watson’s estate owes Nathaniel’s estate 1000 lbs tob; Sheriff ordered to pay debt by note 

Feb 19 John Revell sues William Bradford; suit dismissed for not being also laid to Jone 

Mar 3 paid out of estate of Capt John Avery [Sussex] 

Mar 17 son William sells 400 acres near Matchapungo to John Willis for 10,000 lbs tobacco 

Mar 17 son William completes sale of 400 acres (patented 1667) at Matchapreague to Samuel Beech 

Mar 18 Revell’s suit against Joan & Wm referred at request of Bradfords attorney Tully Robinson 

Mar 18 suit of Lt. Col. Jenifer against Joan & Wm referred 

Mar 18 Joan and Wm sue Mary Meers, who fails to appear 

Mar 18 Joan and Wm sue William Sill, who fails to appear 

Jun 16 48 cattle bearing Nath’s mark to be transported to John Stockley’s Pennsylvania estate 

Jun 16 John Revell granted judgment of 1 pnd 1 shilling for wheat sold to Nathaniel 

Jun 17 Jenifer’s suit against estate referred 

Sept 15 inventory of Nathaniel’s estate presented by widow Joan Budd 

Sept 17 Joan & Wm ordered to deliver mare and colt to William Trafford, which had been gift from Nath 

Nov 17 suit of Budd and Wm against William Mason referred 

Nov 17 suit of Bud and Wm against William Goulding referred 

Nov 19 petition of Wm to change road laid out by Nathaniel and others from Arthur Upshor’s land 

Nov 19 Budd sues Henry Hubanck for debt, who fails to appear 

Nov 20 Budd exhibits bill to be relieved of judgment for Trafford’s mare and colt; execution suspended 

Dec 15 Wm and Bud sue William Mason for 20000 lbs tob due upon a bond; suit dismissed 

Dec 15 Wm and Budd sue William Goulding for 1400 ft of planks and 6 weeks sawyer’s work; dismissed 

Mar 1 Tho Bessent proves account agt Nathaniel for sheriffs fees [Sussex] 

Mar 15 suit of Wm and Bud against William Mason referred 

Jun 21 Wm and Budd sue William Mason; Capt. William and Capt. Henry Custis ordered to audit 

Sept 21 Capts. Custis decide Mason owes Nathaniel’s estate 293 lbs tobacco and 8 shillings 


Appendix B: Suggestions for Research into Nathaniel’s Origins 

The identity of Nathaniel’s parents is not known, nor is it known whether Nathaniel was born on the eastern 

shore or elsewhere in Virginia, or if he was born in England or some other colony. There is no record of his 

being transported to Virginia and no record of any other Bradfords on the eastern shore previous to 

Nathaniel’s first appearance in the records of Northampton County in 1654. What is more, a cursory search 

of some of the published abstracts of the records of other Virginia counties in the period before 1660 turns 

up no mentions of a Nathaniel Bradford. 

Researching individuals in the first half of the 17 th century and before can be daunting due to the scarcity of 

records, especially in the southern colonies. However, several prospects for research have been revealed by 

the evidence. It’s worth exploring these in some detail. 

1) Oath of the Commonwealth 

In terms of determining Nathaniel’s whereabouts before 1654, it is probably significant that he was not a 

subscriber to the Oath to the Commonwealth, which was demanded of the citizens of the eastern shore in 

1652. This could indicates either that Nathaniel was not on the eastern shore at this time, or that he was on 

the shore and too young to be a subscriber, or that only landowners or heads of household were required to 

take the oath. 

2) Henry Bradford from Accomack Records 

Nathaniel might have been related to the Henry Bradford who appears twice in the 17 th century court 

records of Accomack County. These two appearances contain no evidence of any relation with Nathaniel, 

but the suspicion of a connection arises due to the coincidence of their surnames and the fact that they did 

business. The tone of brusque familiarity used by Henry when speaking of Nathaniel (“give him his ear”) 

suggests that the two were more than passing acquaintances. For the sake of argument, I have assumed that 

the Henry Bradfords mentioned in the two records are the same person. 

1) Henry’s first appearance in Accomack court came on 18 April 1672, when the court 

received a note from him asserting that he had received 2 hogsheads of tobacco from 

John Reyny for the use of Thomas Smith by the appointment of Mr. Browne on 26 

February of the same year. 

2) Henry’s other appearance came on 18 July 1676, when the Accomack County court 

heard a deposition from Joseph Thorne in the matter of the petition of Jno. Reeves for his 

freedom from Nathaniel Bradford. Nathaniel had purchased Reeves as an indentured 

servant from a Henry Bradford, and in this record Reeves claimed that his term of service 

was four years, not the five Nathaniel claimed. In his deposition Thorne related that, 

while at the house of Robt. Hutchinson on 25 March of that year, he heard Henry 

Bradford say to Reeves: “[I] brought [you] in for the term of four years and no more and 

had sold [you] but for four years and no longer should serve, and if Nath. Bradford had 

an assignment from [me] for any longer time, [I] will give him his ear.” 

Henry Bradford was probably not a resident of Accomack, since someone who was in the business of 

securing cargo for merchants and transporting servants would have had some wealth and therefore would 

have shown up more in court had he been a resident. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that his 

presence in the 18 April 1672 court is in the form of a note rather than a personal appearance, and he is 

only referenced indirectly in the deposition of Joseph Thorne. Perhaps he lived in another Virginia county, 

in which case we might expect to find him cropping up fairly often in the records of that county, assuming 

such records survived. He could have lived in England or Barbados or anywhere else in the English 

speaking world, so records from those places ought also to be searched for clues. The Thomas Smith 

mentioned in Henry’s note from 1672 may be Capt. Thomas Smith of London, who sold John Reyny 

property on Pocomoke river and who appears to have been a merchant who carried cargo frequently 

between Virginia and England. Perhaps Henry was connected in some way with Capt. Smith’s business in 

Virginia. Further research into the activities of Smith, Reyny and Browne may yield clues. 


3) Henry Bradford of the Muster 

Perhaps Nathaniel or the above Henry Bradford are related to the Henery Bradford who appears aged 35 in 

the 1625 muster roll of the Virginia Company as a servant of Capt. William Pierce, transported in the 

Abigaile along with fellow servant Thomas Smith, who was 17. Henry of the muster died in 1628, so he is 

not the same Henry Bradford who appears in Accomack; but he may have been the latter Henry’s father, or 

related in some other way. And what of Henery’s fellow servant Thomas Smith? Is this Smith related to 

Nathaniel’s step-father Richard Smith? Is he perhaps the same person as the Capt. Thomas Smith 

mentioned in the other Henry Bradford’s 1672 note? If not, are the two Thomas Smiths related? A serious 

attempt should be made to find the parents of Henry Bradford of the muster and whether he had any 

children. The inventory of his goods was presented to the court at James City by Ester Clariett, so research 

might be attempted on her as well as Henery’s master William Pierce and fellow servant Thomas Smith to 

see if any clues present themselves. 

4) Other Bradfords in 17 th Century Virginia 

Several other Bradfords are known to have emigrated to Virginia in the 17 th century. 

• The records of the Virginia Company of London mention a James Bradford, transported by 

Garret Weston. [Court record of 26 April 1624; Vol. II, p.532.] 

• A John Bradford was among the list of those massacred on 22 March 1622 at George Yeardley’s 

plantation in Flowerdieu Hundred. [Records of the VA Company, 26 April 1624; Vol. III, p.568.] 

o A John Bradford is mentioned as transported aboard the Temperance in 1621 by Sir 

George Yeardley [Minutes of the Council & General Court of Colonial Virginia; 9 

February 1627.] He is likely the one killed in the massacre. 

• In Cavaliers and Pioneers, several Bradfords other than Nathaniel are listed. The Richard 

Bradford transported by Roger Walker or Walters in 1653/4 went to live in Charles City County 

and is well documented. DNA evidence suggests he might have shared a Bradford ancestor with 

Nathaniel. [See below.] 

• A John Bradford was listed as a headright of Lt. Thomas Flint from 1628. The land granted Flint 

was near land granted to William Pierce, who was the master of Henry Bradford, above. 

• A Thomas Bradford was a headright of Robert Holt, merchant on a patent from 1640. 

• A Susan Bradford was a headright of Sir Francis Wyatt on a patent from 1643. 

• A Nicho. Bradford was a headright of John Broach on a patent from 1647. 

• An Edy Bradford was a headright of Ephraditus Lawson on a patent from 1650. 

• A John Bradford was a headright of Augustine Warner on a patent from 1652. 

• A Mathew Bradford was a headright of Peter Knight on a patent from 1652. 

• A Sarah Bradford was a headright of John Hughlett on a patent from 1662. 

• A John Bradford was a headright of John Edwards on a patent from 1663. 

4) Nathaniel of Barbados 

A Nathaniel Bradford was transported to Barbados from England at age 19 on 27 April 1635 [Hotten]. This 

Nathaniel’s birth would have been around the year 1616, so he is the right age to have been the father of 

Nathaniel of Accomack. It is also possible this Nathaniel is identical to Nathaniel of Accomack, although 

that would mean that the latter’s marriage to Alice Smith, which we presume to be his first, took place 

when he was in his early 40s - not unheard of. A search of abstracts of the records of Barbardos reveals the 

presence of a few Bradfords resident there before 1660, but none of them named Nathaniel. Although at 

first glance Barbados would seem too far away to be a likely point of recent origin, the entire Englishspeaking 

world was much more intimately connected than one might at first suppose. A significant amount 

of trade and even migration went back and forth between Virginia and other English colonies, especially 

Barbados. 

5) Was Richard Smith the stepfather of Nathaniel? 

Notwithstanding the conclusion in Adventures of Purse and Person, there is scant reason to suspect that 

Richard Smith married Nathaniel’s mother, so to my mind Richard’s family is not a particularly fruitful 

area of research for finding Nathaniel’s origins. That being said, those interested in pursuing this line of 

inquiry should collect all the material available on Richard from Northampton County records and from the 

records of the Virginia Company. 


6) Currier 

Nathaniel began his career in the profession of a currier. Before entering the profession one typically had to 

serve an apprenticeship of 7 years to learn the trade. If it could be found out where Nathaniel learned the 

trade, it would doubtless prove useful for determining his origins. The records of the Currier’s Guild of 

London ought to be consulted to see if there are any Bradfords among them prior to 1700, since currying 

was frequently a family profession. Most of the guild’s records were destroyed in the Great Fire of London 

in 1666, but those records that did survive are located in Guildhall Library in the City of London. These 

records should be searched and attention paid not only to the surname Bradford but also to other surnames 

with which we find Nathaniel in any way connected during his early years, particularly Stephen Charlton, 

Edmund Scarburgh and Anthony and John West. 

7) Stephen Charlton – Anthony West 

As the earliest records we have of Nathaniel relate to the estate of Stephen Charlton, it could also be fruitful 

to research Charlton’s origin for clues. Nathaniel’s first appearance in the records was in 1654 as a witness 

to Stephen Charlton’s deed of gift to his daughter Elizabeth. After Charlton’s death, Nathaniel was paid 

1046 lbs tobacco out of his estate “for payment of tobacoes and other charges.” In 1658 Nathaniel again 

appears in the records of Northampton as a bondsman to Charlton’s widow Ann in the matter of the 

account of the orphan Bridget. The fact that Nathaniel was a bondsman for Ann Charlton and Stephen 

Charlton’s daughter might indicate a strong tie. 

Charlton’s wife was the widow of Anthony West, whose son John West was a witness to Nathaniel’s gift of 

land to Nathaniel Bradford Jr. Research into this family might also prove profitable. According to his 

biography in Adventures of Purse and Person, Anthony West may have been from Shadwell, which is in 

Norfolk, England, or from Stepney Parish in Middlesex County. His wife Ann, later Charlton’s wife, 

appears to have previously been married to Anthony Huffe. 

8) Edmund Scarburgh 

In the early 1660s we often find Nathaniel associated with Colonel Edmund Scarburgh in what would seem 

to be something of a client relationship. Scarburgh assigned Nathaniel a substantial patent of land in 1664 

and before then obviously relied on Nathaniel as a currier for his shoemaking business. Researching 

Scarburgh’s origins might prove worthwhile. Like Anthony West, Col. Scarburgh’s father was also from 

Norfolk, England. 

9) DNA Evidence 

Participants 18264 and 116429 in the Bradford Y-DNA Project are both descended from William 3 Bradford 

(Wm 2 Nath 1 ), 18264 through the line of Abel Bradford (Wm 3 Wm 2 Nath 1 ) and 116429 from the line of Levin 4 

Bradford (Wm 3 Wm 2 Nath 1 ). They are a mean genetic distance of 6 on 67 markers from the descendants of Richard 

Bradford of Charles City County, VA, which is close enough to allow the possibility of a common descent in the 

direct male line from a common Bradford ancestor. Nathaniel and Richard were roughly the same age, or at least 

the same generation, but there is no evidence that they knew each other. If Nathaniel and Richard were related, any 

progress in discovering Richard’s origins might also help to reveal something about Nathaniel’s. As far as I know, 

nobody has thus far been able to discover Richard’s parentage. The genetic distance between the descendants of 

Nathaniel and Richard is great enough to allow the possibility that they both descend from different Bradford lines, 

their common ancestor having lived prior to the introduction of surnames. 

For reference to the DNA results for 18264 and 116429, see the results webpage for the Bradford Y-DNA Project, 

currently located at http://www.delmarvabradfords.com/dna/results.php.

1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?