Fence posts and arguing therewith…
So I’m hooting, hollering, strutting, patting my own back and generally dancing around because in my mind I had finally solved the case of “the Quaker” Joseph Pitman. The one that perplexed Hugh B. Johnston and has been a thorn in my side for years. So whilst I’m celebrating, my buddy David throws a dead cat and trips up my dancing. I had crafted my theory so tightly that not even light could get in… much less the theory be wrong. … I’m referring to the Quaker Pitmans of a couple “Posts” back…
Like I say… my buddy David throws this dead cat in my way…
from the Edgecombe Court Minutes…
[117] Jan1766
Anne PITMAN Guardian of Jethro Anne & Chloe PITMAN Orphans of Joseph PITMAN deced.
exhibited on Oath accts. of her Guardianship which were allow’d &c.
Joseph PITMAN Guardian of Thomas PITMAN Orphan of Joseph PITMAN deced. exhibited
his acct. by his Afirmation which was allow’d &c.
Thomas Pitman CANNOT BE “Orphan of Joseph Pitman deced.” Because Joseph Pitman WAS NOT DECEASED because he was both the father and guardian of Thomas Pitman .
So I’m saying this historical record is WRONG>
Take your pick:
The Court Scribe was drunk or hungover.
The Court Scribe was stupid and Lazy.
The Court Scribe was daydreaming and not paying attention.
The Court Scribe was “messing” with any future genealogists and the bastard knew it.
I can’t find that Jan. 1766 court document but I have found a pile of the Guardian documents and NOWHERE does in mention
Thomas Pitman “Orphan of Joseph Pitman”… ALL of the Ann Pitman documents mention those children as “Orphans of Joseph Pitman” which is why I think a inattentive scribe simply wrote down an error.
Thomas Pitman was always referred to as “Heir” or “Legatee” of John Gay Junr… never as “orphan of Joseph Pitman”.
Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina 
Ok here we go…
This January 1766 entry is from county court minutes, and I can get you a copy if you like.
A person can be an heir/legatee and an orphan. “Heir/legatee” is not synonymous with “child.”
And how do we know these entries are talking about the same people?
This entry indicates that both of these guardians to these separate children – Anne Pitman and Joseph Pitman – came physically into court in January 1766 and exhibited the accounts of their wards.
And I don’t think Hugh was “perplexed” – he merely stated that “One Joseph Pitman made his will on
December 18, 1786, and another on October 9, 1762, but the lists of legatees do not indicate that either was the father of the above children. [The list of the children of Joseph and Elizabeth Pitman from Quaker records.]” Which is very true.
Can I be of further help? 🙂
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 8, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Alright Ms History Librarian… put your gloves on cause we’re gonna scrap. Even if you produce a scan showing that that drunken scribe did indeed state that Thomas Pitman was “orphan of Joseph Pitman dec’d” I will argue that he was yawning and about to fall out of his uncomfortable chair from lack of sleep. There was Ann Pitman first who indeed WAS accounting for the “orphans of Joseph deceased”… the Twit in a drunken daze just said the same thing about Thomas Pitman. Yeah, Yeah, I don’t have a leg to stand on with this argument but I’m stickin’ to my guns.
My buddy “Holmes” is on this case too and probably cackling with delight over an adult beverage… he’s the one who threw the dead cat. He’s throwing all kinds of dates, deeds and arguments out but nothing is sticking but that one drunken scribe’s comment… The dude couldn’t even SPEL for Pete’s sake!
“And how do we know these entries are talking about the same people?” you ask…
Nowhere in the will of Joseph Sr d 1763 will you find mention of a Thomas… also nowhere in the Guardian Accounts of Ann will you find a mention. Joseph Pitman Sr had one son Jethro and the girls. Done deal.
Considering the will of John Gay “Jr”, the will of Moses Pitman, the Guardian Accounts of Joseph “the Quaker” with ward Thomas Pitman and the Rich Square MM records I offer my scenario as “proof” that Thomas Pitman was the son of Joseph “the Quaker” and had no relationship with the older Joseph who died 1763.
Hugh B. Johnston said this, “There were quite a few Pitmans or Pittmans living in Edgecombe County
by 1760, but no one appears to have worked out all their relationships.” I think I’ve cracked the puzzle.
Oh… and I think that everyone who runs across that drunk’s clerical error just gives up in defeat… I don’t.
Your turn…
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm
As an afterthought…let me be a little more clear…
“Thomas Pitman CANNOT BE “Orphan of Joseph Pitman deced.” Because Joseph Pitman WAS NOT DECEASED because he was both the father and guardian of Thomas Pitman.”
I’m not sure I understand this logic – this is obviously two different Joseph Pitmans – one is the guardian, and one is dead. And if the father is not dead, the child does not need a guardian, and this kid certainly has one.
I thought we’d been over this ground before, but maybe not…I’d better read the previous Joseph the Quaker post again to refresh my memory…
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 8, 2012 at 3:57 pm
My argument is kind of vague…. the point of the “Guardianship” is that Thomas was named in the will of John Gay Jr. Thomas gets the “estate” after the widow. So the assumption is that Sary dies when Thomas, in tow by father Joseph acting strictly by the dictate of the will, shows up in 1765 to account for the estate. We haven’t ran across any property for Thomas so the “estate” may have just been household and farm equipment… perhaps slaves?. An oddity for me is the age of the widow, who seems to be young to me. The age of John Gay Jr can be approximated at about b 1726ish making him about 35 when he died.
More to the point… there is no concern of Thomas “as orphan”… it is all about him being the “legatee” to the will, which is stated repeatedly in the Guardian “Accounts”.
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 10, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Another fun idea…what if this Thomas is the one of Rev War pension fame? He had a brother named Joseph, the cooperer…what if Joseph was older? What if he were old enough to serve as his younger brother’s guardian?
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 8, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Let me start another Post with the Big Picture… this thread is just a footnote.
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Hey Marc, I just realized the difference in wording, and it might be significant…
Anne PITMAN Guardian of Jethro Anne & Chloe PITMAN Orphans of Joseph PITMAN deced.
exhibited ON OATH accts. of her Guardianship which were allow’d &c.
Joseph PITMAN Guardian of Thomas PITMAN Orphan of Joseph PITMAN deced. exhibited
his acct. BY HIS AFFIRMATION which was allow’d &c.
Anne takes an oath; Joseph does not take an oath, but rather makes an affirmation. This implies Joseph, the guardian, does not want to take an oath, which in turn implies he might be a Quaker. It also implies that Anne may not be a Quaker.
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 8, 2012 at 4:55 pm
You may be correct that Joseph d1763 may not have even been a Quaker… or maybe not all that hard-core. He did sell the younger Joseph half his land which is why I think he was so influential. Perhaps Benjamin was the major Quaker influence. Ann always signed with her mark on the Guardian Accounts… Joseph NEVER signed any of them that I can find. The guy never signed NOTHING including the wills of Moses Pitman and John Gay Jr. He was definitely an AFFIRMER!
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 8, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Never mind on that previous post – I see you caught that back at the start of the “Joseph Pitman game.”
Ok, I’ll pull on my gloves while I wait for the new post. 🙂
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Marc, thanks to Kathy Sullivan, who’s following your posts, I think I have a clearer understanding now of your “erroneous court minutes” theory. And you could very well be right, as many of the other pieces would fit this.
But I’ll reserve judgment for now. 🙂
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 9, 2012 at 9:20 am
Cool… I think what that court reference did was so thoroughly muddy the waters that everyone has had to try to concoct a missing Joseph between the one who died 1763 and the start of the Guardian Accounts for Thomas Pitman at about 1765/6… if you go by that mention then there HAD to be a “deceased” Joseph that Thomas was attached to. I contorted myself like a pretzel trying to make it work. Hence, I finally decided there just HAS to be a mistake.
And regarding an earlier suggestion to try to map out the early Pitmans of VA to the Edgecombe folks… I’ve found it impossible at this time because there simply are not enough Extant documents to account for the couple of William Pitmans and their offspring that every serious researcher KNOWS were around. This Benjamin and Joseph Sr were attached to him (theory of course)… also unexplained is the early James who had land adjoining Elizabeth Pitman. There was also a William Pitman who married the daughter of Andrew Ross who I think was connected to Wm of VA. We just have to nibble away at the few little clues available.
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 9, 2012 at 10:31 am
Your theory could certainly be possible. And as for everything else – I agree! (No need for gloves, hee hee.)
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 9, 2012 at 10:46 am
Ah heck… now I’ll have to return the brass knuckles to the pawn shop. Not to worry tho’ there is a wine store just next door. A fella has to be fortified with the right spirits to properly interpret Edgecombe Court documents.
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 9, 2012 at 12:02 pm
No worries, I have full faith you’ll come up with something else controversial, right? 🙂
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm
I think Marc wins “The Joseph Pitman Game – Round 2.” Ding!
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 10, 2012 at 8:22 am
I thank you… and the Academy… my loyal fans…er, fan.
However, I’m waiting on any fallout from any relatives of that drunken court scribe to weigh in and give me my “what’s for”… its only fair. I suppose that I should admit that I totally made up that bit about him “messing with any future genealogists”… we all know he couldn’t predict the future…. Also he may not have actually been stupid… just lazy. I was too harsh in retrospect. I’m sorry.
LikeLike
anderson1951
May 10, 2012 at 10:29 am
If he was like me right now, I’d go with “he was yawning and about to fall out of his uncomfortable chair from lack of sleep.” And it was probably after lunch.
LikeLike
Traci Thompson
May 10, 2012 at 11:07 am