Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina

meant what they said, said what they meant

new Page added… Joseph Pitman wills

with 9 comments

See bottom of Page list.

I’m still pondering the “problem” Pitman.  In previous posts Traci challenged many of my assumptions and left me pretty much as bewildered as ever.  Her major contribution to the conundrum is uncovering a will of one Amy Pitman in 1799… this appears to be a daughter of the mystery Joseph Pitman who was chronicled in the Rich Square MM Quaker books.

So… there appears to be 2 dead, and distinctly different, Joseph Pitmans by 1763.  Neither of which can account for the 3rd adult Joseph at the time of their deaths. Who was he?

I can’t get a handle on whether this 3rd Joseph could actually write his signature… see under the John Gay Page and check the Moses Pitman will… also see the Guardian book of 1769… is the “scrawling” initials his “mark”…   Grrr…. (the obvious question is this the same Joseph as the 1787 will?)


The Joseph Pitman “problem” may not be as big a deal as I thought it was. These Josephs are hidden in plain sight, as they say. I was convinced that the 1763 and the 1786 were father and son. NOPE, now I don’t think so… here’s why: If the jigsaw puzzle piece does not fit look for another piece… don’t try to trim the piece to fit.

Joseph Sr dies 1763. leaves will, known Quaker………. son of Thomas Pitman of VA, d.1730

Joseph (Jr/the younger) dies about the same time, no will, known Quaker……. son of Thomas Pitman d.1754, grandson of Thomas Pitman of VA, d.1730
………… this man leaves orphan Thomas Pitman, legatee of John Gay
………… daughter Amy leaves will 1799

Joseph, guardian of the legatee of John Gay was the son of Robert Pitman
………. this is the “constable” of Edgecombe County, dies 1787…… father of Abner

The above works… but I had convinced myself that one of the Josephs had to be a brother of Benjamin (this could be the Craven County Joseph who died 1752) ???


Written by anderson1951

February 18, 2012 at 6:32 am

Posted in Uncategorized

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. LOL…sorry, bewildering folks is what I do… 🙂

    Remember, too, that the dead Joseph Pitman married to Hannah is definitely the one connected to Elizabeth Pitman, and does not appear to be connected to the Quakers.

    If the 3rd Joseph is hanging around with the Gays and Moses Pitman, then he probably is connected to the Quakers. And we know they loved the name Joseph as good as anyone, considering we know there were Joseph Jr. and Sr. Quakers. Plus they had oodles of offspring to pass the name along.

    Make sense?


    Traci Thompson

    February 18, 2012 at 9:49 am

  2. Picking a fight again I see… 🙂

    If you are correct that the Joseph/Hanah/1787 is not a Quaker then the 3rd Joseph is not him.

    Edgecombe Co., NC, Court Minutes 1744-1762 Book I
    GoldenWest Marketing Genealogy, Temple City, CA

    Dec 1760
    The last Will & Testament of Moses PITMAN Deced. was Exhibited by the Exrs. therein named
    and at the same time Joseph PITMAN one of the People called Quakers affirmed that he saw the
    sd. Moses PITMAN Execute the sd. Will & that he saw Jno. GAY & Jesse GREEN sign the same
    as Evidence thereto & at the same Time the Exr. Qualified acco. to Law

    I question whether the Sr/Jr designation NOT father/son but Elder/Younger? I would love to crack the signature of the 3rd Joseph. One of the John Gay wills designated him as Joseph Pitman “junr”.



    February 18, 2012 at 10:30 am

  3. Right…3rd Joseph was around after Joseph m. Hannah had died, and he seems to be around the Quaker group. I don’t think it really matters whether its Jr/sr or older/younger from that standpoint, but it could go either way.


    traci thompson

    February 18, 2012 at 12:27 pm

  4. Whoo hoo! Public acknowledgement. Sort of. Gotta love it. 🙂 A virtual toast to all Pitman researchers! *clink*

    But…I’m not done yet. 🙂 A couple of questions…

    1.) Do we know that Thomas who d. 1754 was associated with Quakers?

    2.) Do we know for sure that Joseph, constable and son of Robert, was the one appointed guardian to the legatee of John Gay?

    Has anyone looked the original papers concerning this estate, guardianship, etc.? Should that be put on a list of “other stuff to get for Marc?”


    Traci Thompson

    February 25, 2012 at 9:57 am

    • No idea if Thomas d1754 was Quaker… but here is an interesting part that threw me off until lately…(he died near Enfield) but he also had property very near the Pitman Quakers south of Tar River. The property is noted in his will and the sons who inherited it is what has been the clue to figuring out who they were (Newitt, Lott and others).

      If Thomas d1754 indeed had a son Joseph then this where he enters into the Quaker group. It also “could” explain the Sr/Jr exasperating conundrum. This is who I think is the Hugh B Johnston Quaker b1724… but he has to die almost at the same time as the Joseph “J” Pitman d1763.

      And yes… this does sound like “other stuff” 🙂



      February 25, 2012 at 10:34 am

  5. I’ll comment on Guy’s Joseph research here…

    Guy brings out an important detail in this post:

    He notes that the Joseph Sr. to Joseph Jr. deed of 1756 mentions Joseph Sr.’s wife Ann, a detail left out of abstracts (Hofmann missed it in her Edgecombe Precinct book.) This suggests that Joseph Sr. is probably the Joseph “J” Pitman with wife Ann of the 1762/3 will. I believe Guy theorizes correctly that Joseph Sr. probably had older children already provided for, possibly by a previous wife, and made his will to provide for his younger children.

    However, this is where we part ways in our theories. Guy has Joseph who m. Hannah as Joseph Jr.; however, I have seen no evidence that would suggest this. We have instead solidly tied Joseph who m. Hannah to Elizabeth Pitman. Land is a consideration here; Joseph m. Hannah seems to own no land except for what Elizabeth sold to him. Am I correct?

    Another Pitman I’m questioning is the Thomas Pitman of the Revolutionary War. As many researchers do, Guy has him as a son of Joseph m. Elizabeth Gay. However, I noticed that Rev War Thomas had a son named Lot, and Thomas m. Ann who d. 1754/55 also had a son named Lot. Hmmm….I wonder what the relationship is of these Thomases to each other? This may strengthen the theory that Joseph m. Elizabeth Gay is one of the unnamed sons of Thomas m. Ann. However, I need to see some land evidence.


    Traci Thompson

    March 5, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    • I’m about to reverse my take on the Joseph “J” Pitman… Thomas d1730 married Elizabeth Lancaster and I associated the Joseph “J” with him for that reason alone. Look at my newest post of the Thomas property up in Surry Co. in 1712… that is where the Lancasters were… Samuel Lamcaster had property adjoining Thomas. This is ALSO where and when William Pitman was at (I’m pretty sure). The Joseph “J” could just as easily been a son of William. That also associates Joseph “J” with Benjamin Pitman. (Benjamin and William Jr each have a Surry, VA patent that I may be able to plot)

      I think it is too soon to identify the Rev War Thomas… too many variables.

      Joseph m. Hannah is tied to the Elizabeth “Land”… other than that he isn’t tied to anyone… remember Robert 🙂

      I’m working up a Page for 2 John Pitmans… one of Thomas, one for William…. it is pretty compelling. One is connected to the William who hob nobs with Joseph m Hannah…. it is all very circular is it not?



      March 5, 2012 at 4:53 pm

  6. Look again at the Joseph Sr/Jr property

    Once I get more ammunition to plot these deeds I think 3 distinct Josephs will emerge… and the Joseph m Hannah may not be in the mix.

    these 4 patents are all dealing with the same land

    1762       22 May. William Gay of edgecombe Co. to JOSEPH PITTMAN of same, for 20s. Virginia money a parcel of 12 acres adjoining both parties and JOSEPH PITTMAN SENR., it being part of a Granville grant to said Gay for 340 acres bearing date Oct. 11, 1761. Wit: James Horn, JOSEPH “J” PITTMAN. DB 1, p. 398.
    1762       22 May. William Gay of Edgecombe Co. to JOSEPH PITTMAN of same, for 27s. 6d Virginia money a parcel of 13 acres adjoining both parties, it being part of a Granville Grant to said Gay for 340 acres bearing date Oct 11, 1761. Wit; JOSEPH PITTMAN, James Horn. DB 1, p. 401.

    (this is a duplicate)
    Edge. County, DB 1, page 420, 15 (Oct. (1762), recorded 3 Sept. 1762,
    Right Honorable John (Earl) Granville to William Gay, of Edgecombe
    County, for 10 shillings a tract of vacant land lying in Edgecombe
    County (?) Thomas Pollard’s line John (Gay) corner then by sd. (Gay)
    line S 10E 180 poles to a red oak then by Joseph (?) (?) Line N80E 136
    poles to a pine (Joseph ?) Corner then by sd. Line S 40 poles to a red
    oak then W 400 poles to a red oak then N 216 poles to a black oak in
    Thomas Pollard’s line then by sd. Line to the first station, containing
    340 acres.

    Edge. Co. Db 1, page 420, deed date 15 Oct 1761, recorded 3 Sep 1762,
    Earl Granville to William Gay, Edge. Co for 10 shillings sterling, a
    tract beginning at a white oak in Thomas Pollock’s line (John Gay’s)
    corner then by said Gay’s line south 10 east 180 poles to a red oak
    then by (Joseph ?) & (? Pitmans) line north 80 east 136 poles to a pine
    (Jesse ?) corner then by said line south 40 poles to a red oak then
    west 400 poles to a red oak then north 216 poles to a black oak in
    Thomas Pollock’s line then by said line to the first station,
    containing 340 acres, signed Thos Child, wit (Saml Swann), John Linton.
    NOTE: VERY HARD TO READ. Abstracted 6 Mar 07, NCA film C.037.40002,



    March 5, 2012 at 5:28 pm

  7. Can’t wait to see what you’ll do next! Yes, it is all terribly circular. Ah, but there is another tie to Elizabeth – remember Joseph is on the road crew that places him and Arthur near her and near William Anderson. I would expect Joseph m. Hannah not to be in the mix; that fits with his emerging profile.

    Those 1760s deeds that Tommy had a hard time reading on the film should be double-checked against the original books in Tarboro.


    traci thompson

    March 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: