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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. Page 28 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford
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. Page 29 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford
Page 1 and 2: 1. Nathaniel 1 Bradford of Accomack
Page 3 and 4: Sketch of Nathaniel Bradford Nathan
Page 5 and 6: in London that “no question . . .
Page 7 and 8: Nathaniel’s Early Years to Settle
Page 9 and 10: to tender our Cause; that (if ye sd
Page 11 and 12: Nathaniel as Constable & Birth of N
Page 13 and 14: Alice sold the Occahannock plantati
Page 15 and 16: The occupation of currier no longer
Page 17 and 18: approve the appointment of the King
Page 19 and 20: The fundamental division within the
Page 21 and 22: ecompense for their services. The m
Page 23 and 24: Nathaniel in the Late 1660’s: 166
Page 25 and 26: practice that another of Nathaniel
Page 27: man were the father of Nathaniel Jr
Page 31 and 32: court’s reputation. Since the acc
Page 33 and 34: Nathaniel Bradford During the 1670s
Page 35 and 36: 2800 acres. In that same year Natha
Page 37 and 38: household. A Thomas Williams was a
Page 39 and 40: In 17 th century Virginia slavery w
Page 41 and 42: Mathews’ lack of payment for cert
Page 43 and 44: Governor Berkeley used the eastern
Page 45 and 46: Though tobacco was the staple of Vi
Page 47 and 48: himself was probably not in Sussex
Page 49 and 50: Now that all of Nathaniel’s land
Page 51 and 52: * * * * * Nathaniel as Attorney On
Page 53 and 54: Nathaniel’s tithables remained co
Page 55 and 56: towels, a small chest, a small brok
Page 57 and 58: Citations Introduction 1.Nathaniel
Page 59 and 60: early 1640s, Richard Smith Jr. is a
Page 61 and 62: 122.McKey, 7: 232. For knowingly co
Page 63 and 64: 219.Wesley Frank Craven, The Coloni
Page 65 and 66: 298.McKey, 7: 73. 299.McKey, 8: 49.
Page 67 and 68: Appendix A: Timeline of Events in N
Page 69 and 70: Apr 20 verbal bargain with Mathew S
Page 71 and 72: 1692 Feb 19 Robert Watson’s estat
Page 73 and 74: 3) Henry Bradford of the Muster Per

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?