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

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,
Page 53 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford