1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...
1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ... 1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...
* * * * * 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 Page 30 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford
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 Page 31 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 and 28: man were the father of Nathaniel Jr
- Page 29: Nathaniel as Grand Juror and Repres
- 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
court’s reputation. Since the accusations against Smith involved felonies, he was committed to the sheriff’s<br />
custody and the court requested that Col. Scarburgh go as soon as possible to the governor to ask for his<br />
direction. When the Justices declared their opinion that Smith’s crimes had to be ruled on by the governor,<br />
Smith’s attorney John Tankard “interrupted the court and told all the people that this would come to<br />
nothing.” 158<br />
In March 1669, having received orders from the governor to proceed in due course <strong>of</strong> law, the court bound<br />
Smith over to the next General Court on the charge <strong>of</strong> two rapes and for causing the death <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> his<br />
servants. 159 The following month the boats carrying Smith and his servants set sail for James City but were<br />
apparently prevented by the weather from arriving in time for the General Court. The governor then<br />
ordered that Smith be tried in <strong>Accomack</strong>, and stated his intention to visit the county with his council, but<br />
“the weather was intemperate, causing the governor’s speedy return from <strong>Accomack</strong>.”<br />
In August 1669, the court again debated on how next to proceed in the Smith affair. Scarburgh, who had<br />
gone to James City to seek the governor’s advice, reported that it was Berkley’s wish to let Smith post bail.<br />
The <strong>Accomack</strong> Court drew up conditions referring Smith to the governor for trial, writing that “the<br />
necessity <strong>of</strong> the court’s proceeding is now most clear, for since Smith’s return last from town and before his<br />
trial, he hath removed most <strong>of</strong> [what] he can carry away into Maryland.” 160<br />
The Downfall <strong>of</strong> Colonel Edmund Scarburgh<br />
In February 1670, Henry Smith still seems not to have been put on trial. At that time, the <strong>Accomack</strong> court<br />
again discussed the disturbances recently prevalent in the county. The Justices unanimously agreed to go<br />
over in a body to the governor and council and plead that the peace <strong>of</strong> the county did “occasion our humble<br />
addresses.” They wished to show the governor first <strong>of</strong> all that they were free from any partiality against<br />
Smith, since most <strong>of</strong> their complaints concerned him. The court also wished to remonstrate with the<br />
governor and council concerning fellow Justice Captain Bowman, who happened to have recently changed<br />
his mind about the court’s manner <strong>of</strong> proceeding against Smith. 161 In their remonstrance they described<br />
how Bowman had in the past “abetted and managed’ a cause for a man who had a suit pending before the<br />
court; Bowman had afterwards hid this man from the undersherriff, and in exchange for these services later<br />
received 500 lbs tobacco from the man. In addition to this and other acts <strong>of</strong> partiality, Bowman had<br />
“conveyed a criminal on board a ship, which he caused to run from the sheriff and <strong>of</strong>ficers trying to stop<br />
her.” There is no record <strong>of</strong> what, if any, action the governor and council took on the remonstrance against<br />
Bowman; but it seems that he did not ultimately suffer for his actions, as he is found on the commission for<br />
Upper Northampton in 1671, the county <strong>of</strong> <strong>Accomack</strong> having before then been dissolved by the Assembly<br />
in October <strong>of</strong> 1671 due to “the late disturbance in the Counties <strong>of</strong> <strong>Accomack</strong> and Northampton”. 162 The<br />
dissolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>Accomack</strong> may have been a reaction to the events <strong>of</strong> 1669-70 just discussed - the Smith trial<br />
and the division between Bowman and the other justices. Other acts <strong>of</strong> violence occurred in <strong>Accomack</strong><br />
during this same period: on 28 March 1669 John Monke and Roger Churchill murdered Thomas Hall 163 ,<br />
and in 1670 Martin Moore, the currier employed by Colonel Scarburgh, threw Scarburgh to the ground and<br />
assaulted him with a stick, leaving him physically incapacitated for months. 164 Murder and violently<br />
assaulting a Justice <strong>of</strong> the Peace were unusually serious breaches <strong>of</strong> peace and order, and may have been<br />
among those incidents which led the Assembly to dissolve <strong>Accomack</strong> <strong>County</strong>. <strong>Accomack</strong>’s dissolution<br />
may have also been due to another event which must have occurred sometime in 1670 and which brought<br />
about the downfall <strong>of</strong> Colonel Edmund Scarburgh.<br />
On 12 September 1670 Governor Berkeley issued a warrant for Scarburgh’s arrest, declaring:<br />
“Whereas I am informed by persons <strong>of</strong> known worth and Integritie and by some <strong>of</strong> the Officers <strong>of</strong><br />
both the Counties on the Easterne Shoare Thatt Collonel Edmund Scarburgh hath contrary to my<br />
order and the peace long since established betweene us and the Indians unjustly and most<br />
Tiranously oppressed them by Murthering whipping and burning them, By taking their children by<br />
force from [those] who are their parents and many other waies to the apparent hazard <strong>of</strong> the said<br />
peace established as aforesd These are therefore in his Majesties Name to will and require you<br />
forthwith upon Sight here<strong>of</strong> to Arrest the Body <strong>of</strong> the said Coll Edmund Scarburgh and him to<br />
cause personally to appeare before mee and the Councell and Assembly on the Seaventh Day <strong>of</strong><br />
October Next Then and there to answere things as shall bee laid to his charge for having soe<br />
unjustly and contrary to Law and order abused the Authority committed to him. . .” 165<br />
Page 31 <strong>of</strong> 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. <strong>Bradford</strong>
Change language