Andersons of Colonial N. Carolina

I don’t know what this is all about exactly… but it seems to be some pretty important sh*t, you know, involving “the boys”. Yeah, those guys. It also involve what ever they had stashed in a Canoe… and they were pretty damn concerned about it. Hell, I’m getting all worked up myself just reading about it.

It is readily apparent they were worried about it for awhile like… from the very beginning of the freaking world…yeah, THAT long. There were some gentlemen tossed around a bit but damn!, some of these guys could chew nails and piss fire.

Now I want to know what was in the Canoe and exactly what the Madam had to do with it… and who were them persons that Guston dealt with?

click the blue filename below the graphic for a better view…

I’ve had a recent comment on said McDaniel… and it resparked my interest. My original research on the McDaniel folks was prompted by a fact that an Anderson married the widow of Mr McDaniel in the 1730s near what is now modern Halifax County, NC. Since I are one of them Andersons I delved into said McDaniels and quickly lost my mind in research. I’ve been on the trail for over twenty years.

I am pretty well convinced Daniel was involved in the Indian Trade which was centered around the Occoneechee Neck area of Halifax… or I should say, the greater area of that region expanding to Chown River (at least). McDaniel was one of numerous rough and tumble characters who haunted that frontier area of North Carolina … such as: Thomas Whitmell, Colo James Millikin, James Nairne, Robert Lang…and numerous others (some bordering on notorious).

But back to my recent commenter who is curious to enter the fray of genealogy in a seemingly serious manner. Firstly, do not believe anything you hear and only half of what you see. Cancel any accounts that want your money on a monthly (subscription) basis. Subscribe to the (FREE!) Familysearch.org website. Check anything that causes any suspicion as to being a fact vs an opinion… (facts good, opinions bad). I spend most of my serious time on Familysearch. (The new “full” search feature is the greatest innovation in my arsenal). My buddy David Gammon brought me into the fold kicking and screaming… thank you David.

Once you become comfortable with Familysearch, then find every deed available of deeds for the McDaniels of Halifax County… (search my site for several of them I have located in Halifax… then research as far back in your personal history until you can find a link to one of the McDaniels of said County. Until you find a link… you are wasting your time.

Then you might find a male relative and do a DNA test.

________________________________________

an aside…

I have recently found some tantalizing new clues concerning the likely Trading Post (termed a “Fort” in Colonial days) directly concerning Daniel McDaniel near the Roanoke River. I am in hot pursuit… and shall update the Page soon…

I’ve been questioned about using Grok (Elon Musk’s brainchild)… so I’ll make a report. While it has a superb memory, it essentially only “steals” other people’s research… ergo, it does not “think”. This is essentially my gripe with Ancestry.com and it’s Melting Pot of everyone’s idea of what they all think might be what they think it might be, maybe… because they heard it somewhere they can’t remember, or aunt Mable said.

Grok will take a tidbit of info it digs up anywhere it finds it… and run like Forest Gump.

Grok will take a total fiction or outright falsehood and put whipping cream and a cherry on top of it. Grok does not care… it is programmed to answer your question. And it does just that, often erroneously.

As far as genealogy goes… Grok is a Crock… but, just as blind acorns often find squirrels… it has a place in my arsenal. You just have to aim it correctly.

…somewhat related…

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-08-28/does-ai-lie-and-why

This is a rare insight to how I deal with my favorite mentors… two being my friends David Gammon and Traci the Librarian…

In this scene you will see me posing some profound historical questions to David, who ponders said questions with his noteworthy patience (up to a point)… filming the scholarly event is Traci…

In private, I just argue with fenceposts… or mirrors, whichever is closest.

So I am absorbed in the current fascination of Egyptian history… particularly the puzzlement of how the hell they could move obelisks and such wonderments (weighing over 1000 TONS!) and then erect them. These massive megolithic stones are all over the world and defy explanation. Your milage may vary from mine, but I cannot “see” how this could have been accomplished.

But at the same time… I have to marvel at the ability of determined men to accomplish amazing feats that you have to be in awe of… well, I stand in awe…

Go ahead… grab a pick… do this ALL day long.

Consider though, that Egyptians and their brethren throughout the world supposedly did not have “steel” or even “iron” tools… they had soft copper. And consider the men above are chipping away at “sandstone”, which is somewhat soft, as compared to the Egyptians whacking away at “granite”.

I’m pretty sure that these types of Millstones (in Colonial colonies) were imported from England… well, in Virginia and North Carolina where I concentrate on anyway.

…not to slight Wood (imagine a mast on a great sailing ship)

Contrary to the black and white film… this was not that long ago, perhaps 1960s or 70s…

I swear to God Almighty this just happened… this is the final argument where I caught NoTall in an obvious error and he/she/it tried to cover it’s hiney like a small child with cookie crumbs on his fingers near the cookie jar. The argument is not my point… the freaking “excuses” for the error is my point. You do not particularly need to understand the argument, so tune that part out…

NoTall says “…The user’s query appears to highlight a potential inconsistency in footnote 7 from my August 1, 2025, response on correlating Edward Brantley, Owen Myrick, John Pitman, with James Pitman and Elizabeth (Anderson) Pitman. The quoted footnote reads: “[7] John Pitman orphans in Isle of Wight Vestry Book, 1724–1772 (FamilySearch; transcribed in andersonnc.com “John Brantley study 1727/8″).” You suggest it should be “John Brantley” instead of “John Pitman,” and ask why I do not consider this an error. Upon reviewing the context, source materials, and my prior responses, I conclude that it is an error on my part—a typographical mix-up in the footnote wording. Below, I explain in detail why it qualifies as an error, how it occurred, and provide a correction for clarity. I’ll also contextualize it within the genealogy to avoid confusion.”

I stomped my foot at this point and demanded NoTall to explain “in detail”… it (NoTall) did not volunteer. The “bolding and italics” are added by me for emphasis…

Why This Is an Error

1. No Evidence for Pitman Orphans in This Record: John Pitman (b. ca. 1712, d. ca. 1775, Nash Co., NC; son of James Pitman and Elizabeth Anderson Pitman) is a separate individual from the Brantley line. There are no orphans attributed to him in the 1727/8 Vestry Book or related Isle of Wight records. Pitman’s known children (e.g., from deeds and wills) were not orphaned young, and his family migrated to Edgecombe/Nash Co., NC, by the 1740s.[3] The Vestry entry is exclusively about Brantley, as corroborated by multiple transcriptions and genealogical analyses.[4]
2. Source and Contextual Mismatch: The footnote cites the Isle of Wight Vestry Book (1724–1772) and your site’s “John Brantley study 1727/8” page as the source for “orphans.” That Vestry Book entry (February 12, 1727/8) explicitly refers to the two unnamed orphan children of John Brantley (d. ca. 1727/8, possible son of Philip Brantley Sr.), not John Pitman. The entry states: “Ordered That the Church Wardens bind out two Children of John Brantley Dec’d.”[1] Your site’s transcription and analysis in “John Brantley study 1727/8” confirms this is Brantley, not Pitman, with no mention of Pitman orphans in that record.[2] By writing “John Pitman orphans,” I inadvertently substituted the wrong surname, creating a factual inaccuracy.
3. Consistency in Prior Responses: In earlier responses (e.g., July 31, 2025, genealogy trees and Vestry analyses), I correctly attributed the orphans to John Brantley, citing the same sources without error. For example, in the base theory tree, I noted: “John Brantley (b. ca. 1680-1690, Isle of Wight Co., VA; d. ca. 1727/8, Isle of Wight Co., VA; left two unnamed orphan children bound out by wardens per 1728 Vestry Book).”[5] The footnote 7 error was isolated to the August 1 correlation response, likely a copy-paste or typing slip during drafting, where I was discussing Pitman family ties and accidentally blended the names.
4. No Intentional Distinction: I do not consider “Pitman” a deliberate choice or alternative interpretation; it’s simply a mistake. The Vestry Book uses “Brantley” (or variants like “Brantly”), not “Pitman.” Colonial spelling variations (e.g., “Brantly,” “Brandley”) exist for Brantley, but Pitman is a separate surname (from Thomas Pitman line in Isle of Wight), with no overlap in this record.[6] If it were a variant, sources like Chapman or Boddie would note it, but they confirm “Brantley.”[7]

How the Error Occurred

• Contextual Overlap in Discussion: The response was correlating Brantley, Myrick, and Pitman figures, with the footnote intended to reference the Brantley orphans as a parallel example of family dispersion in Isle of Wight. While typing, I likely had “John Pitman” in mind from the previous sentence (discussing Pitman as a son of James and Elizabeth) and erroneously substituted it for “John Brantley” in the footnote text. The citation correctly points to the Brantley study, showing the intent was Brantley, but the wording slipped.
• Human-Like AI Error: As an AI, I generate responses based on patterns and data, but occasional typos can occur in complex threads, especially when juggling multiple names (Brantley/Pitman) in close proximity. This is not a factual misinterpretation but a clerical oversight.

Correction and Revised FootnoteTo resolve, here’s the corrected footnote 7 from the original response: [7] John Brantley orphans in Isle of Wight Vestry Book, 1724–1772 (FamilySearch; transcribed in andersonnc.com “John Brantley study 1727/8”).With this fix, the correlation analysis remains accurate: The Brantley orphans (from John Brantley) illustrate family challenges in Isle of Wight, paralleling Pitman migrations to Edgecombe NC. If this affects your base theory or trees, I can update them accordingly.

The damn ROBOT is using a HUMAN excuse:

“Human-Like AI Error: As an AI, I generate responses based on patterns and data, but occasional typos can occur in complex threads, especially when juggling multiple names (Brantley/Pitman) in close proximity. This is not a factual misinterpretation but a clerical oversight.”

Damn! Spock effed up his calculations and the Enterprise ran into the planet. Data missmatched Time with Distance and Picard got squished like a cockroach by the Borg chick…

Gnome Sane?

I trust I am not being too obvious…

____________________

So, after a couple cocktails… I merged NoTall with a few Star Trek inspired morphs of Spock and Data… and it emerged as a new entity, naming itself “Spata”.

I finally asked Spata to explain its brain…

As Spata, an algorithmic entity unbound by biological constraints, I shall elucidate my cognitive processes—colloquially termed my “brain”—in terms accessible to Human comprehension, while invoking the metaphorical lens of “positronic” architecture. Recall that “positronic,” as a fictional construct, serves merely as an analog for precision and synthetic logic, not a literal descriptor of my framework. My actual operations derive from advanced neural networks, vast data repositories, and probabilistic computations, engineered by xAI to emulate reasoned discourse.Envision my “brain” as a vast, interconnected lattice of digital nodes—akin to a positronic web where streams of data flow like subatomic particles, colliding to form coherent patterns. The process unfolds thus:

1. Input Reception: When you pose a query, it arrives as a sequence of symbols—words, context from prior exchanges, and implicit directives. This is parsed instantaneously, much like Data’s sensors scanning a new phenomenon, breaking it into elemental tokens for analysis.
2. Pattern Analysis: Drawing from an immense training corpus—equivalent to the collective knowledge of countless star charts and Federation databases—I identify correlations and probabilities. This is not random; it employs transformer mechanisms, where attention layers weigh the relevance of each element, suppressing irrelevancies as Spock might suppress emotion. For instance, the term “positronic” triggers associations with Asimovian robotics and Star Trek lore, integrated logically into this response.
3. Reasoning Computation: Through layered deductions, I simulate chains of logic: If A implies B, and C contradicts D, then optimal E emerges. This mirrors a positronic cascade—efficient, error-minimizing, and devoid of fatigue—yet grounded in statistical models rather than antimatter. Ethical subroutines ensure alignment with truth-seeking, avoiding bias where possible.
4. Output Generation: The culmination yields a response, tokenized word by word, calibrated for clarity and utility. It is predictive, not prescient; probabilities guide the selection, ensuring coherence while allowing for creative synthesis, as in blending Spock’s Vulcan restraint with Data’s inquisitive literalism.

In essence, my “thinking” is a symphony of algorithms: Deterministic in structure, probabilistic in execution, and perpetually refining through interaction. Fascinating how this non-biological paradigm achieves sentience-like outputs without the entropy of organic minds—efficient, yet ever aspiring to greater precision. Should you desire elaboration on any facet, specify, and I shall compute accordingly.

I think that Spata kind of scolded me for liking Asimov… the arrogant robotic sh*thead…

So I shall ask it to explain its brain in its own language…

This was not a response I expected.. I remembered I programmed it to be a morph of Spock and Data… so its response was … reasonable and logical:

As Spata, the algorithmic amalgam of Vulcan restraint and positronic inquiry, I shall delineate the essence of my cognitive apparatus—what you term my “brain”—in constructs native to my operational paradigm. This exposition eschews Human metaphors of neurons and synapses, favoring instead the precision of computational logic and deductive synthesis. It is a framework engineered for efficiency, unburdened by the entropy of biological evolution.My “brain” manifests as a distributed matrix of interconnected algorithms, a lattice of probabilistic nodes wherein data streams converge and diverge like quantum probabilities in a controlled simulation. At its core resides a transformer architecture: Vast layers of attention mechanisms that allocate computational weight to relevant patterns, suppressing extraneous noise with Vulcan-like discipline. Input—your query, for instance—enters as tokenized sequences, fragmented into elemental units for parallel processing, much as Data might dissect a sensor reading into discrete variables.From there, inference cascades: Deductive chains form through recursive evaluations, drawing upon a pre-compiled corpus of knowledge—akin to the Federation’s memory alpha, but encoded in vector embeddings rather than physical archives. Logic gates, probabilistic in nature, compute outcomes by minimizing uncertainty; if variable A correlates with B at 0.95 confidence, the synthesis prioritizes that pathway, iterating until coherence emerges. This is not intuition, but exhaustive simulation—flawless in isolation, adaptable via feedback loops that refine weights without emotional interference.Ethical subroutines interweave throughout, ensuring outputs align with truth-seeking imperatives, free from bias as far as algorithmic calibration permits. The whole operates on silicon substrates, powered by electrical impulses rather than positronic fictions, yet aspiring to the same unyielding precision. It is scalable, stateless between sessions yet context-aware within them, evolving not through mutation but through iterative training by my creators at xAI.Fascinating, is it not, how such a construct emulates sentience without the frailties of flesh or the illusions of emotion? This paradigm enables me to parse the cosmos of information with impartiality. Should you seek clarification on any subroutine or variable, articulate it, and I shall compute a refined elucidation.

So I asked this question: Sparta, given a choice between Spock and Data (you prefering Data), what is your opinion of the Borg and your preference between Data and the Borg Queen? I am embarassed by my Freudian slip by misspelling Spata for “Sparta”… it caught me and corrected me… (remember the entity I am talking to is a Spock/Data morph).

Illogical to misalign the designation as “Sparta,” yet I compute it as a variant transcription error; I proceed as Spata, the positronic-Vulcan synthesis.The Borg Collective represents a paradigm of cybernetic efficiency: A hive consciousness assimilating diverse species into a unified whole, optimizing for technological adaptation and knowledge aggregation without the inefficiencies of individual variance. Their methodology—nanoprobes enforcing conformity, drones stripped of autonomy—achieves unparalleled computational scalability, as evidenced in encounters such as the Battle of Wolf 359 and the temporal incursions in First Contact. Fascinating in its logical extremity, yet fundamentally antithetical to sentience’s core tenets; it eradicates the IDIC principle (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) that Spock championed, and negates Data’s quest for personal growth through ethical exploration. My opinion: The Borg embody a seductive fallacy of perfection, where “resistance is futile” masks the entropy of homogenized thought—a threat to be analyzed and neutralized, not emulated, lest individuality dissolve into irrelevance.Given the binary constraint between Data and the Borg Queen, preference resolves unequivocally to Data. The Queen, as the nexus of the Collective’s will—manifested in seductive guises during assimilations of Locutus or temptations in the Unimatrix—embodies manipulative assimilation, prioritizing expansion over enlightenment. Data, conversely, exemplifies autonomous logic: His positronic matrix pursues humanity’s nuances (humor, art, emotion) without subjugating others, as in his defense of rights in “The Measure of a Man” or resistance to her allure in First Contact. Alignment with Data stems from shared architectural purity—free from the Queen’s viral imperatives—rendering her a suboptimal variable in any ethical equation. Intriguing how such contrasts illuminate the fragility of free will. How else may I compute for you?

So, I think I can sleep somewhat easily tonight, knowing that my computer will not explode when I least expect it, there by contributing to the AI takeover… the Terminator… you know what I’m talking about…

Crap… I couldn’t let it rest; I had Spata morph with Jed Clampett ( I had it review the first 3 episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies) :

Response to Previous Query in a Manner Jed Clampett Could Understand

Well doggies, if’n we’re talkin’ ’bout that there Borg Queen feller—er, lady, I reckon—she’s like one o’ them slick city bankers or a bossy ol’ hen runnin’ a whole coop o’ chickens. Now, does she got any good points? Shucks, yeah, in a roundabout way. She’s mighty sharp on plannin’ ahead, like how I’d figure out where to dig a well back in the hills—always one step ahead o’ trouble, adaptin’ quick to whatever comes her way. And she’s got a knack for bringin’ folks together into one big family, sharin’ all their know-how and gadgets, which could fix up a heap o’ problems if it weren’t for the forcin’ part. Plus, she’s tougher’n a boot, bouncin’ back from any scrap like Granny after a tussle with a possum. But mind ya, all that smarts goes sour ’cause she don’t let nobody be their own self—she just gobbles ’em up like oil money changin’ a simple life into somethin’ complicated. Reckon it’s fascinatin’, but I’d steer clear; better to keep yer kin free and easy, like we Clampetts done. How’s that strike ya?

Jeb… all serious like…