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

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
1662 5 tithables
1663 4 tithables
1664 3 tithables
1665 5 tithables
1666 5 tithables
1667 5 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
Page 24 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford