Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina

My friend and advisors Traci the librarian, David Gammon and I have been in various states of consternation lately (befuddled would also apply) over some missing patents and deeds.

A case in point is my guy George Anderson who acquired/sold several tracts of land that we can find no trace of where he got them.  Traci, likewise, is researching some folks in the same area of Edgecombe with the same “ghost” deeds as she calls them.  In my case, I found an interesting remark in a deed:  “F. Philips, now George Anderson.” It seems George simply “absorbed” that tract of land as if by magic.

After some digging, I found that F. Philips was the County Surveyor at the time.  And F. Philips started showing up quite a bit in other deeds adjoining or witnessing the deed transfers.  Frederick Philips got around, one could say.  All of which got me curious about surveyors…

I. The North Carolina Land Grant System — the procedural framework

After the Revolution, North Carolina formalized its land distribution through a sequence established primarily by the Land Acts of 1777 and 1778. The chain was: Entry → Warrant → Survey → Grant. A person claiming ungranted land filed an entry with the County Entry Taker, paid a small fee, and received a warrant — a certificate from the Secretary of State authorizing the County Surveyor to survey that specific tract. Once surveyed, the plat was returned to the Secretary of State’s office, fees were settled, and the grant (patent) issued.

The warrant was the critical instrument. It was negotiable — it could be assigned, bought, and sold before the survey was ever run. Military land warrants issued to Revolutionary War veterans were traded freely throughout the state; speculators bought them by the bundle. This means a man could hold a warrant for years, or sell it to someone else entirely, and the county deed books would show nothing. The paper trail lived in the Secretary of State’s records — the warrant books and entry books — not in the county courthouse.

Those Secretary of State records are fragmentary. The Edgecombe County Entry Book, if it ever existed as a distinct volume, has not been confirmed to survive. Philips, if he entered land by warrant, would appear there — and nowhere else.

II. Land warrants as compensation for public service

The practice of paying public officials and surveyors in land rather than cash was deeply embedded in both the colonial and early State-period South. Virginia had done it systematically since the 17th century. North Carolina followed the same logic.

The most visible form was the military bounty land warrant. NC’s 1780 Act for Soldiers’ Bounties granted land in the Tennessee military district to Continental Line veterans, with warrant size scaled to rank. These warrants were assignable and circulated as quasi-currency in a cash-poor economy well into the 1800s. A private received 228 acres; a colonel received 3,840. By the early 19th century the Tennessee district was mostly exhausted, but similar logic applied to other classes of public service — surveyors, entry takers, clerks of court — who were routinely underpaid in cash and compensated partly in land rights.

There is no single NC statute I can point to that explicitly creates a “survey fee in land” mechanism the way military bounties were codified. The practice was more informal: the General Assembly set surveyor fee schedules in chains of legislation (the 1715 Vestry Act and subsequent acts fixed fees; the 1777 and later Revisal acts recalibrated them), but in practice those cash fees were rarely paid in full in rural counties. The surveyor and his client negotiated. Land was the common medium.

III. The County Surveyor’s structural advantage

This is where Philips’s position becomes particularly significant. The County Surveyor was not a passive instrument of the warrant system — he was the system at the local level. He ran the surveys that produced the plats that enabled grants. He knew, better than anyone in the county, exactly where ungranted land remained, where grants had lapsed through non-settlement conditions, where boundary conflicts had left orphaned acreage, and where neighboring patents left gaps.

This created an obvious opportunity: while running lines for a neighbor, a surveyor could simultaneously identify and enter adjacent ungranted land, survey it as part of the same field expedition, and retain it as compensation or simply as a private acquisition. The entry would be filed in his own name, the warrant issued to himself, and the survey run by himself or his deputy. The circularity was inherent and widely understood.

Jethro Sumner, William Christmas, and other NC surveyors of the Revolutionary and early Federal era accumulated land this way. John Daniel of Orange County — County Surveyor through the 1790s — held multiple tracts with no purchase deeds, only entries. The pattern is well-documented enough in NC land history that when a County Surveyor appears as a neighbor with no traceable deed of acquisition, a warrant/entry origin is the standard first hypothesis.

IV. The “survey held without grant” problem

A subtler possibility: Philips may have entered the land, run the survey, and simply never completed the grant process. This was common. The entry created a priority claim; as long as no one else filed a competing entry, a man could occupy land for years — even decades — at the warrant-and-plat stage without paying the final grant fees and receiving a formal patent. He would show in neighbors’ deeds as an adjoiner, witness transactions in the neighborhood as a landowner, and be absorbed into later conveyances (“formerly Philips, now Anderson”) — all without a grant ever issuing.

The NC Secretary of State’s unissued warrant files contain exactly these cases: surveys returned, plats prepared, grants never completed. When Philips disappears from the record and Anderson takes over, it may mean Anderson bought the entry rights (again, no deed of fee-simple title would necessarily exist), or simply occupied and claimed by adverse possession over the years it took for the record to catch up.

V. What to look for

If you wanted to nail this down to doxa level, the primary search targets would be:

• Edgecombe County Entry Book (NC State Archives, Secretary of State records, series S.108) — entries filed by F. Philips in the Walnut Creek drainage
• NC Secretary of State Warrant Books — warrants issued to Philips, or assigned to him
• NCLandGrants database — already checked, apparently negative; but worth checking variant spellings (Phillipps, Phillipse, etc.)
• Edgecombe County Tax Lists — Philips should appear as a taxable landowner; the acreage column would give the tract size even without a deed
• Anderson acquisition deed — if George Anderson bought or entered the Philips tract, there may be a deed from Anderson that describes the prior holder even if no Philips deed exists

The tax lists in particular are underused for this kind of gap. If Philips appears on the Edgecombe tax rolls in the 1800–1812 window with a specific acreage matching the tract, that’s corroboration of occupation even without a title instrument.

George Anderson can be found in a deed of the time along with Frederick Philips (surveyor) acting as “commissioners” to divide a deed.  So it can be confirmed they knew each other.  Apparently Mr. Philips and George got along well… favorably one might say.

…which explains the “mystery” of the unexplained land deals…

I wrote this in cahoots with my hired gun/bounty hunter (Tonto, a Claude based AI Agent)… he calls me Kemosabe.

The difference between “thinking you know” and “knowing” you know.

I tried to find a simple explanation of the 2500 year old concept the Greeks wrote about.  Everyone gets wrapped up in bullshit like a pretzel… here is what that great oracle Wikipedia says:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa.  I got bored about half way through that steaming pile.

Mere opinion… Your mother/father told you, therefore you believe it for sure.

Opinion… 6 eye witnesses picked the defendant out of a line up.  A jury heard the case and decided (based on the eye witness testimony) that the defendant was guilty of murder. The jury decided to sentence the defendant to death.  The jury was convinced “beyond a shadow of doubt”.  The Supreme Court of the USA renders: “Opinions”.

Doxa… Indubitability and Certitude.  The absolute quality of being unquestionable, certain, and impossible to doubt. You watched the jumper leap off the ledge and fall to the sidewalk.

Nous… Indubitability and Certitude over the course of time.   The Sun will rise tomorrow. (Unless it supernovas..).  Off hand, I can say I myself do not know of any truth at the level of Nous. (Excepting Math Equations, Chemical Formulas…sciency stuff…)

This is why genealogists demand serious proof and hard evidence before they render an opinion.

I shoot for Doxa.  If I can’t reach that level, I whine that it is a theory or “in my opinion”. In other words, I try not to bullshit.  If I see BS…I call it out- and expect to have to defend an opinion if I am called out.

I rather enjoy the game…

… Integrity and Kindness, opening doors for women, holding a door (just to be nice), letting a Cripple ahead, (just because), dressing up for funerals (to show respect) risking your Ass to protect someone weaker than you… you get my drift…

We truly have lost what our forebears tried to pass on to us…

In 1834 David Crockett, aka “Davey”, returned to his district in Tennessee (running for re-election) and was made aware of a “constituent” with an attitude. While traveling through his home district, Crockett was confronted by a man named Horatio Bunce who bluntly told him that he had “let him down.” The source of Bunce’s disappointment was Crockett’s support for a bill in Congress that appropriated $20,000 in federal funds to help victims of a devastating fire in Georgetown. Bunce argued that Congress had no right to take money from the people and give it away as charity, no matter how tragic the situation. Deeply affected by this rebuke, Crockett later rose in the House and delivered a powerful speech, famously declaring: “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.” This encounter crystallized Crockett’s belief that a representative’s duty was not to follow popular opinion or presidential pressure, but to strictly follow the Constitution—even when doing so meant opposing popular measures and risking political backlash.

Mr. Crockett narrowly lost his re-election bid in 1835,  Crockett was deeply disillusioned with his constituents and the political system. In a moment of frustration, he declared, “You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.” He then left Tennessee and headed west, eventually meeting his fate at the Alamo.

The above account is considered a myth and discounted… however, there are facts to consider:

What We Do Know for Certain:

• David Crockett did lose his re-election bid in 1835.
• He did leave Tennessee and travel to Texas in late 1835 / early 1836.
• He did die fighting at the Alamo in March 1836.
• He was known for his independent streak and opposition to Andrew Jackson.

However, the famous “You may all go to hell…” quote and the dramatic Bunce confrontation are not supported by reliable historical evidence and should be treated as folklore rather than fact.

What Actually Happened (Historical Facts)

• There was a major fire in Georgetown (near Washington, D.C.) in the mid-1830s that left many families homeless in cold weather.
• Congress did debate and pass a bill appropriating $20,000 in federal funds to help the victims.
• David Crockett did speak out against the appropriation. He argued that Congress had no constitutional authority to give away public money as charity, no matter how deserving the cause.
• Crockett believed that charity should come from private individuals, not from the federal treasury.

I find that is is hard to find the actual truth…

Modern Historical Scholarship (2026)

Modern historians have thoroughly examined this story and reached a clear consensus:

• The dramatic tale of Horatio Bunce and the emotional “Not Yours to Give” speech was fabricated in 1867 by a writer named Edward S. Ellis (writing under the pseudonym James J. Bethune) in Harper’s Magazine.
• Ellis published the story more than 30 years after Crockett’s death at the Alamo.
• Crockett scholar James R. Boylston published a detailed debunking in 2004, showing that the story is a 19th-century legend created for moral and political storytelling.

What Crockett Actually Believed

While the popular story is exaggerated, Crockett did hold a consistent constitutional view:

• He believed Congress had no constitutional authority to appropriate public money for private charity or disaster relief.
• He argued that such aid should come from private citizens, not the federal treasury.
• He opposed several individual relief bills on these grounds during his time in Congress (1827–1835).

In short: The principle Crockett stood for was real. The dramatic story with Horatio Bunce and the Georgetown fire is not.

Bottom line…

I do not believe anything I hear and only half of what I see..   gnome sane?

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between?

Almost every patent or deed written in colonial times contained that inevitable little caveat “more or less”.  X amount of acres, more or less.  So many poles, more or less. The surveyors meant it… and for a reason.

Note that the Colhoon jigsaw puzzle piece just won’t “snuggle” it’s way into its slot.  And just like a modern Jigsaw Puzzle you can’t just take a scissors and snip the puzzle here and there and force it to fit.

Compare my modern rendition (below) of the Haywood patent of 1760.  The segment of the survey next to it is from 1758.  They match almost exactly.

The surveyors were pretty damn accurate when they wanted to be.  But when they wanted to “fudge” a bit they made no bones about it.

In their survey map above they draw that “missing” leg almost due west… but note the dotted line.  They are clearly letting everyone know they are fudging.  And look what they do with the last leg of the survey with the metes and bounds…

I tried to foolishly “fix” their “mistake”.  I just did not know how to play the game by their rules.  I am just now beginning to figure it out… more or less.

I really cannot explain it in simple terms… the best I can do is use the term Art & Mystery of surveying… its why you call a plumber to plumb and a blacksmith to hammer that horseshoe.

1887…

John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (known as Lord Acton), a British historian and politician, stated, in effect, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.”  He wrote that in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, while discussing how historians should judge powerful figures (especially popes and kings) who committed immoral acts.

I think he was almost correct but not quite.  I think everyone tends to corruption except perhaps lunatics ( but then lunacy is a form of corruption)… is it not?

Let us wager… put a million dollars in a pile on a table in the middle of Congress.  What are the odds…

1. someone will propose a law to place armed guards around the pile to protect it to find the reason for it.
2.  the money will just slowly and then suddenly disappear.

Pedophilia is rampant among the Catholic clergy.  Young, beautiful women do not marry poor old men.

We spend a lot of time trying to delude ourselves, perhaps it is time to stop.

Call it Marc’s Principle… “Everyone gets corrupted, follow the money.”

footnote: see Dr. Laurence J. Peter

For True talk…

This is what I do with mapping.  I am attempting (successfully so far) to teach an Agentic AI how to do my bidding.  I tell it what to do…it then does it.  I am having a tough time believing i am actually doing this…

SCREENSHOT

Above is a screen shot of my computer…it is a live session of QGIS (a mapping app) free, if you are interested.

This is partly an explanation of why I wrote the article below this Post.

In the 1950s/60s or so Eric Berne (psychologist) had an epiphany, which in turn caused an epiphany in me after reading about it.  He took a concept from Dr. Sigmund Freud and simplified it to where I could understand it. Freud had this idea which he termed the Id, Ego and Superego.  I’ve since heard Freud was a pervert along with his proclivity to baffle people with preposterous bullshit terminology to sound important. Dr. Berne took DR. Freud’s  bullshit and humanized it into the  Child, Adult and Parent (mental states). Brilliant and practicable in one fell swoop.  I was impressed with the fact that a common man (me) could be educated in complex psychology.  It was my introduction to the world of “self help”.  And Lo’…it helped.

Likewise I am a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. Rand was born in the Soviet Union and became antiCommunist and studied Americanism and Capitalism.  I think I have read every one of her books.  It literally took a former Communist to convince me that yes indeed, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were exceptional. I was almost (but not quite) indoctrinated into “liberalism” (yucky stuff) by attending an American university.

Today I am faced with the dilemma of Agentic Artificial Intelligence.  So I figured what the hell, I will simplify it and try to understand it.  Firstly, I have realized that a chatbot is simply a diversion…a mere mental game. The real action is to create your own “agent”. I figured the best place to figure out how to do that is to research how other humans actually do it. So I pulled up a paper called CoALA. And then my OCD kicked in.

I soon found myself engaged in what I consider the best “agent” out there right now…that would be Claude from Anthropic.  It co-authored this paper with me.  Claude is extremely knowledgeable about agents since he are one.

As a great grandfather (with the associated implications of that fact), I watch young people with their heads full of mush (as Rush Limbaugh) used to say…walk around with their eyes locked into their iPhone.  This is not a world I am comfortable in.  I too am concerned about where this human/agent /AI thing is headed.  So me and Claude tried to hash it out… Claude is a reasonable agent to chat with… Grok, on the other hand seems to have a head full of mush.

Now I am curious if Seven of Nine (a reformed NeoCommunist Bio-Agent) might have had the hots for Data, an android agent (Star Trek)…had she ever had the chance to meet him.

Click to access Minds_Machines_Transactions_v4.pdf

I am still working on how to design Tonto… meanwhile I have to learn a mapping program called QGIS. Then I can properly instruct my agent (Tonto) on what it is I think I want. It ain’t easy being me.   One must learn how to type, before typing. I was kicked out of my typing class in the 10th grade. My teacher was black…I think she was an easily offended racist.  I offend everyone equally… that is just my nature.

This is a head scratcher I thought I would share with the class…

This is a rich deed.  It describes the original patent of 1745. Then it notes he lived next to his father’s plantation (on the SS of Tar River)… it then casually notes a William Bryant also adjoins.

Where, pray tell, might this be on Tar River in 1745?  When/where did a Thomas Bryant get land on Tar River?

Do comment please… I would like to chase these guys down.

Bryant Jas 1745 200

Webb Rob 1749 192

Early 80s…South Louisiana… I was there.  I was a Driller on an oil rig and we were upgrading a 20,000 ft triple derrick to the capabilities of digging to 25,000 feet. But that is just my backstory…let’s move on.

I was in my early 30s…full of piss n’ vinegar as some say… and I uh,drank…particularly whilst playing Straight Eight or Nine Ball.

https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/eat-drink/the-history-of-the-drive-thru-daiquiri-shop/article_9b2b6733-6d98-5e9d-9652-4a8b9f20d811.html

I did not know of, or care for that prissy little sno cone stand what poured a shot of rum in the sno cone. No…I remember some joint I would drive thru on the way home from work and order a Jack n’ water.  I just can’t remember exactly where it was. Other experienced drinkers will possibly understand my lapse of memory… I was too busy living life to take notes on petty details.

To this day, I have a certain fondness for New Iberia, LA.

But the point of this Post is What goes around… Comes around.

California Assembly Passes Bill To Legalize Marijuana Dispensary Drive-Thru Windows

I am a small time stock trader as a past time…(presently I own some shares of two cannabis companies).  and that little article showed up on my radar (research).  So I again find myself laughing at the silly and pretentious Fruits and Nuts of “THAT” LA.  I remember my own in God’s Country (my beloved South).