Georgia: Wilkes County: A Smith Family Odyssey, Chapter 5 ==================================================================== USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, data may be used by non-commercial entities, as long as this message remains on all copied material. These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or for presentation by other persons or organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to use this material for purposes other than stated above must obtain the written consent of the file contributor. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store this file permanently for free access. This file was contributed by: Art Seder ARSeder@aol.com ==================================================================== CHAPTER FIVE NATHAN SMITH AND HIS TIMES Nathan Smith is better known to history than many of Mittie Olivia Smith's forbears. His record of Revolutionary War experience provides some of the details of his life; the land and tax records of Wilkes County include many references; he left a Will that tells us about his family and something about his lifestyle; and the records of the administration of his Will provide still more information. Considering the fact that Nathan was a farmer without pretensions to public life or office, it is possible to piece together a fair indication of who he was and how he lived. Nathan Smith was born in 1750/51 according to his Revolutionary War record. As noted in Chapter One, he is thought to have emigrated to Georgia with his father, James Smith, shortly before the Revolutionary War. After the war he received several warrants signed by General Elijah Clarke entitling him to land being parceled out to those who had fought for the Patriot cause. He also received a headright grant in the period 1783-1785. The available record of Nathan Smith's ownership of land begins in 1786, when he is listed in the Wilkes County tax records as owning 200 acres of second quality oak and hickory land on Beaverdam Creek. However, it appears that Nathan did not actually acquire title to the land until September 1789, when it was conveyed to him by his wife's parents, William and Phoebe Foster, for £50 (Deed Book GG 215). The land in question, on which the Fosters lived, had been granted to Foster by the Governor in 1788. The records show that William Foster was also granted 550 acres of land on Beaverdam Creek in 1784 and additional land in 1785, which made him one of the larger landowners in the county. Foster's lands adjoined Nathan's and also land owned by his nephew, William Shepherd Foster. In 1798 Nathan acquired another 100 acres on Beaverdam Creek from William Shepherd Foster and his wife Susannah, giving him a total of 300 acres. The land had also been owned originally by Nathan's father-in-law, William Foster, and probably represented the division of a parcel in which Nathan already had an interest. In 1800 his land holdings were temporarily increased to 500 acres, possibly reflecting the disposition of land from his father James' estate. In any event, in 1801 and succeeding years Nathan is again listed as the owner of 300 acres. In 1805 Nathan and his wife Sarah conveyed 150 acres to their son Elbert "in consideration for the parental love and affection toward the said Elbert". It is further identified as the land on which Elbert Smith lives (Deed Book VV 358). This indicates that Elbert had built his house on his parents' land and suggests that Nathan, who was then fifty five years old, had begun the process of turning over the farm to his oldest son. Because the description of each parcel of land listed in the tax records refers to the adjoining land owners, it is possible to identify Nathan Smith's neighbors with reasonable accuracy. And since there were frequent intermarriages among neighbors, and wills and other legal documents often bore the names of neighbors as witnesses, appraisers and the like, the people who were important in Nathan Smith's life are readily identifiable. Nathan's closest friends were old neighbors from North Carolina days, Nathaniel Rice and his son Samuel. Both of the Rices were witnesses to the Will of Nathan's father, James Smith (I Davidson 66), and Samuel was a witness to Nathan's Will in 1814 and to the codicil in 1816 (I Davidson 99). When Nathaniel Rice died in 1799, Nathan Smith was named as one of the appraisers of the estate (I Davidson 138, 141; II Davidson 281). Most importantly, after the deaths of Nathan and Sarah Smith, Samuel Rice was appointed guardian of their minor children, William and James B. Smith, (II Davidson 188, 189, 293). In addition to their friendship, the Smith and Rice families were related through marriage; Samuel Rice and Nathan Smith's son Elbert married sisters, Fanny and Elizabeth Lybas. The tax records indicate that the Smith and Rice farms also adjoined each other on Beaverdam Creek. The close connections are further illustrated by the fact that another adjoining landowner, Benjamin Powell, was married to a third Lybas sister, Mary. And Nathan and Sarah Smith's daughter Sally married the son of still another adjoining landowner, Charles Phillips, Sr. In short, the cluster of farms on Beaverdam Creek four miles southwest of the town of Washington made up a self-contained community of families that intermarried, ministered to each other's needs and provided support when that was needed. II Wilkes County changed greatly during the lives of Nathan and Sarah Smith. A vast, forested wilderness when they arrived in the 1770's, it had become a settled, relatively stable farming community by the end of the second decade of the 1800's. The town of Washington was authorized by the Legislature and lots were laid out in 1783. That same year Colonel Micajah Williamson, a Revolutionary War hero, opened a tavern consisting of two log cabins with a broad open space between the two. A large picture of General Washington hung in front of the tavern, and one room housed the first court of Wilkes County. By 1796 the town consisted of 34 houses The acts establishing the town of Washington provided for the reservation of lots to be used for a free Academy and a set-aside of 1,000 acres in the county to provide funds to finance the schoolhouse. A brick schoolhouse was finally built in 1796, but in the meantime classes were held in private homes by itinerant schoolmasters. However, the effort to provide free public education did not succeed, and what little education was offered in Wilkes County in the early part of the nineteenth century was provided by private schools. One such school, the Washington Academy, was established in 1786, and by 1796 the school had enrolled about 70 students. A group of Methodists established another private school, Succoth Academy, about three miles from Washington in 1790. However, few farm children were able to attend any school, and most grew up with no formal education. By 1790 stagecoaches operated from Savannah to northern destinations by way of Augusta and Washington. After arriving in Augusta the coach departed for Washington at 6:00 A.M. every other Saturday and arrived the following day at 11 A.M. However, Georgia roads, including those used by the stagecoach, were generally in miserable condition. A road law enacted in 1792 gave the county courts the right and duty to lay out new roads and appoint road overseers who were obligated to keep the roads in good repair. The legislation required that all roads should "at all times be kept well cleared from logs, trees, bushes and other obstructions" for a width of thirty feet and all roots should be grubbed up at least sixteen feet across. In order to maintain the roads, all male laboring persons between the ages of sixteen and fifty were required to work not more than twelve days a year. The following year (1793) the act was amended to include slaves in the work detail. It also provided that every white worker must "carry with him one good and sufficient gun or pair of pistols", apparently as a precaution against Indian attacks. Despite the good intentions reflected in these road acts, road conditions continued to be deplorable well into the nineteenth century. A few people traveled in buggies or sulkies, but most traveled on horseback and shipped their produce by water in flatboats where possible. People emigrating to Georgia usually came in wagons and carts, with some members of the party riding horseback. Every town of much size had its "Waggon yard", and a French traveler in 1802 saw large wagons drawn by four or six horses going from upper Georgia to Charleston, carrying such articles as cotton, tobacco, smoked hams, and deer and bear skins. By the turn of the century Wilkes County merchants offered a selection of goods brought from Augusta, Charleston or, in a few cases, New York. Articles bought in New York were usually shipped to Savannah by sailing vessels and then barged up the river to Augusta, where they were transferred to wagon trains for the final haul. Merchants extended credit for as long as one year but sold at about double the cost of the goods. Most stores sold liquor as well as groceries, dress goods and the like. During the War of 1812 all coastal shipping was cut off by the British Navy, and as a result land transportation reached its height. Cotton was hauled by wagon as far north as Baltimore in exchange for merchandise. However, the roads were so poor and land transportation so slow that by 1813 thirty thousand bales of cotton had piled up in Augusta and equal amounts in Savannah and Charleston. The morass created by dozens of heavy wagons mounted on thin iron-rimmed wheels, all following narrow ungraded roads, can scarcely be imagined. While some substantial houses were going up in Wilkes County at the beginning of the nineteenth century, most dwellings were still log cabins, although now sometimes covered with clapboards on the outside and plastered inside. Many of the original cabins had been enlarged to accommodate the large families common to that period, with kitchens, spring houses, smokehouses and "necessary houses" scattered about in the vicinity of the main house. The changeover from tobacco to the cultivation of cotton, referred to in the preceding chapter, continued on into the new century. Vast forests were cut down to make way for cotton fields, and the need for labor to plant, cultivate and harvest the cotton led to an increased demand for slaves. Immediately after the Revolutionary War there was a shortage of slaves in Georgia, as many had run away or departed with the British during the war. However, slaves were soon imported from Africa in large numbers or were brought by their masters from Virginia and the Carolinas. While the percentage of blacks was lower in Wilkes County than in the rice-growing coastal areas of Georgia, the proportion of black to white inhabitants in Wilkes continued to grow after 1820, for reasons to be discussed in the next chapter. While cotton was king in Georgia, it would be a mistake to assume that other crops and agricultural products were abandoned. Corn continued to be a major crop, both for home consumption and for sale, although it never rivaled cotton as a cash crop. And every farmer raised hogs, a few cattle and horses and much poultry. Nathan Smith's Will identifies him as one of the class of farmers who made up the great majority of Wilkes County residents. Nathan owned a number of hogs, several horses and ten head of cattle, which was consistent with the holdings of neighboring farmers. While he owned six slaves, they included several women and one child. It is clear, therefore, that Nathan was not one of the larger planters but worked in the fields alongside his sons and the slaves. His landholdings of about 300 acres, while they indicate that he was a very substantial farmer, would not have defined him as a member of the planter class, who often owned from five hundred to one thousand acres or more. III The interest in religion following the Revolutionary War described in the preceding chapter, apparently diminished somewhat beginning in the 1790's. Bishop Asbury in 1799 complained that upcountry Georgians still tended to focus on "new lands ...and new objects" rather than religion. And Baptists in Wilkes held days of fasting, humiliation and prayer in order to "lament [their] languishing estate" and to pray 'for a revival of religion." The problem appears not to have been a lessening of church attendance so much as a decline in the emotion-filled "outpourings of the spirit" characterized by the camp meeting revivals discussed earlier. Ministers also lamented the fact that their communicants had a propensity to leave their religion at the church door so far as daily activities were concerned. The revival that the ministers wept and prayed for came to Wilkes County in 1802 and continued for more than a decade. The religious upheaval was part of a larger evangelical movement known as the Great Revival or the Second Great Awakening that began in Kentucky in 1800 and reached Georgia several years later. During the following decade, evangelical Christianity reached into almost every neighborhood in the upcountry, and hundreds of Wilkes County residents became members of churches, most of them Baptist and Methodist. Great numbers of upcountry Georgians attended church services and outdoor camp meetings; churches enjoyed unprecedented success in winning new converts, attracting former skeptics and even hardened reprobates. Stories were told of the "powerful awakening" of people like Micajah McGehee, a planter who generally got drunk at least twice a day, and Nancy Hart, a Revolutionary War heroine, who broke through a latched door to get into a Methodist meeting and became a "shouting Methodist" herself. In 1806, Bishop Asbury estimated that he had preached to over a thousand souls at a meeting in western Wilkes County-a meeting that Nathan Smith and his family may well have attended. Some idea of the scope of the revival movement is suggested by the fact that in October of 1802 a multi-denominational camp meeting held in Warren County, immediately south of Wilkes, was attended by seven thousand persons. At that meeting twenty-six ministers preached from two different stands, and the shouting only increased as the days of meeting drew to a close. In addition to large camp meetings of the kind addressed by Asbury, regular church meetings often lasted much of the day and often far into the night, with periods of preaching and exhortation, often accompanied by sieges of weeping, shouting, and even fainting. One such meeting was described by Nathan Smith's neighbor Daniel Grant as having culminated in "many crying out, some in distress, others rejoycing [sic], some falling down as dead, some finding peace". Most religious services were held in homes or rough "meeting houses" in the country. It was not until 1821 that the first church was built in Washington, a Methodist Church having an original membership of fourteen. The success of the revival movement has been attributed largely to the passion and zeal of some of the ministers of the time; nineteenth century Georgians were much addicted to preaching that could move them to the heights and depths of emotion. James Russell, a Methodist minister whose preaching sparked a series of revivals in 1809 and 1810, could throw his hearers into a state of shock by speaking in a "strain of terror" or in one of "melting tenderness". Like all excesses, the revival movement began to wain after 1810, and religion returned to more lucid levels, although camp meetings continued to play a large role in the religious experience of the times. The next great revival movement occurred about fifteen years later and will be referred to in a subsequent chapter. IV On April 20, 1814. Nathan Smith executed his Last Will and Testament (spelling and punctuation as in the original): "In the name of God Amen. I Nathan Smith of the County of Wilkes and State of Georgia being low in health but of a perfect sound mind and memory, knowing that it is appointed for all men once to die do make constitute and ordain this my last will and testament in manner and form following: my soul I give to God who gave it me, my boddy commit to the earth from whence it was taken to be burried without pomp at the discretion of my Executors hereafter named, and first I will that all my just debts to be justly paid after which of such goods or chattels as God has blessed me with I give and bequeath in manner and form following. "Item. I give and bequeath to my beloved wife Salley Smith during her natural life all my possessions goods & chattels comprehending my whole Estate without any Exception whatsoever and after her death my aforenamed Estate as lands or possessions Goods & Chattels of Every description whatsoever to be Equally divided amongst the lawful heirs of the boddy with this Exception that whereas to some of my children I have already given some property which said property is to be valued and the same shall stand and be considered as constituting part of the then so divided Estate and lastly I appoint my beloved wife Salley Smith, my son Elburd [Elbert] Smith, my son in law James Dorougher [Dorough] Executors to this my last Will and testament revoking and making Void annulling all formerly Wills or testaments by me made allowing this and only this to be my last will and testament. "In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this twentieth day of April in the year of Christ One thousand Eight hundred and fourteen. The Will is signed by Nathan Smith, with a seal, and witnessed by B. Moore, Sam'l Rice and Joseph Hurley. At some time during the next two years Nathan's daughter Sally, who was married to Charles Phillips, Jr., died. For that reason, Nathan executed a codicil to his Will on April 16, 1816, stating that, having given his son-in- law, Charles Phillips certain property, to be considered his full share, "I make his children by his first wife, my daughter Sally, my heirs." Witnesses to the codicil were Isaac Langdon, Benjamin Powell and Samuel Rice. The will was recorded April 17, 1818, and the will and codicil were filed for probate July 1, 1818 (Will Book 1818-19, p. 81; I Davidson 99). While the Will includes several stock phrases often used in wills of the time, the general tone is that of a sober, modest, God fearing, loving husband and father. Nathan's religious beliefs are evident from the reference to giving his soul to God, from which it came. His love and concern for his wife are reflected in the use of the phrase, "my beloved wife Sally Smith", the fact that the entire estate was left to her during her life and that she was appointed Executor of his Will. His sense of fairness is evident from the terms of the Will and codicil apportioning everything equally among his heirs; there were no favorites. That Nathan was not one who valued acclaim or public recognition is indicated by his request that he be "burried without pomp". Shortly after the Will was filed for probate Sarah Smith, as Executrix of Nathan Smith's estate, filed an inventory and appraisal (Inventory and Appraisal Book 1812-1816, p. 316). The appraisers were his old friend Samuel Rice, George Smith, Bernard Moore, Isaac Langdon and Joel T. Smith. The inventory read as follows: 8 head of hogs $76.00 2 Colts at 40 dollars each 80.00 2 bay mares one at 76 the other at 65 140.00 Plow shares/lot of tools 23.75 Sealy and her child Patrick 700.00 Easter $500 & Jourdan $415 915.00 Harry $350 & Winston [?] $250 & [?] $200 800.00 1 lot of pots and oven $10; 1 loom & 3 wheels $15 25.00 1 lot of pails $2 and 2 bed stands $8 10.00 Cupboard and furniture $20 table & chairs $7 27.00 2 chests $8 four beds and bedsteads & furniture $120 128.00 1 pair of [?] yards $3 flatirons $1 one looking glass 5.00 $2929.75 candle moulds [?] & candle .75 The stock of cattle 8 head 60.00 10 head of [?] 9.00 $2999.50 The inventory reveals considerable information about Nathan Smith's status and also about farm life in Georgia in the early nineteenth century. It is immediately apparent that Nathan's most valuable assets were his slaves. The high value placed on "Sealy and her child Patrick" probably reflected not only her ability to perform the tasks to which she was assigned and to Patrick's potential as a worker but also to the prospect that Sealy would have more children. The male slaves must have been valued on the basis of age, physical condition and skills. By modern standards, these are cold blooded assessments that obviously should not be measured in dollar terms. But this was how society in eighteenth and nineteenth century Georgia was structured. As was noted earlier, even the Methodists and other evangelical Christians were ambivalent on the subject of slavery. It can only be hoped that Nathan and Sarah Smith were kind and concerned slave owners. The fact that Nathan almost certainly worked side by side with his slaves tends to imply a personal relationship that was absent on large plantations, where slaves were subject to overseers and Negro gang bosses. Because Nathan Smith left everything to his wife Sarah during her lifetime, no distributions of his property took place for four years. However, on November 6, 1820, their son Elbert Smith and son-in-law James Dorough, who had been named co-executors of Nathan's estate, reported a division of the slaves among the legatees which was to take place at the death of Sarah Smith "and she is now dead" (II Davidson 293). Thereafter, for the next several years the executors filed periodic statements with the court reporting the sale of Nathan's assets and the distribution of the proceeds to his children. As distributions to Nathan's daughters were paid to their husbands under the laws of the time, the names of the husbands appear repeatedly in the court documents, thereby providing information important to establishing the family genealogy. In addition, payments were made to Samuel Rice as guardian of Nathan's two minor sons, William B. Smith and James B. Smith, and his reports of the funds spent for the care of the minors are also included in the court records. The balance of the property referred to in the appraisal is more fully described in the executors' return, filed in 1821, reporting the sale of the assets of the estate. Because the return provides so much detail concerning the household effects, farm implements and the like, it is set out below in full. In each case the name of the buyer of the property is included, the property is described, and the price paid is noted. In cases where the purchasers were family members-Elbert Smith, Robert Moss, Polly Chaffin and Nathan Foster Smith-it is quite possible that no cash changed hands and that the appraised value of the items was simply taken into account in the total division of assets among the legatees. To Elbert Smith 1 Lot Cooper's Tools $ .75 " 1 Bason [sic] 1.311/4 " 1 Hone[?] .811/4 " 1 Loom 6.061/4 " 1 Looking glass .75 To: Robert Moss 1 Lot of Tools . " 1 Stone churn 1.00 " 1 Dish and Pan .75 " 1 Lot wool 2.811/4 " 1 Pr. Shears .121/2 " 1 Bed & furniture 17.061/4 " 4 Hogs 29.50 " 1 Pr. [?] 1.121/2 " 1 [?] .183/4 To Gilbert Hay 1 Lot tools .75 " 1 Lot old Irons 2.121/2 " 1 Fro 1.00 " 1 Beehive 1.621/2 " 2 Hogsheads 1.811/4 " 3 & a fourth Bushels Wheat @ 561/4 1.811/4 " 1 Bed & furniture 17.061/4 To Samuel Rice 1 Large pot 2.061/4 " 1 Barrel .75 " 6 head Sheep 11.00 " 1 Lot Corn 11.683/4 To Thomas Freeman 1 Cupboard 12.50 " 1 Chest 2.00 To Nathaniel Harris 1 Cotton Wheel 1.061/4 " 1 Beehive 1.75 " 1 Dish 1.50 " 1 Flax Wheel & Hackle 1.371/2 " 6 Hogs 11.00 " 5 " 5.00 " 21/2 Bushels Wheat 5.00 " 10 Bushels Wheat 7.50 " Waggon Limber 2.00 " 1 Lot Corn 10.00 " 1 " " 10.00 " 1 " " 10.00 " 1 pen Shucks .50 " Short Corn 4.121/2 " 3 stacks fodder 7.871/2 To James Towns 1 Beehive .683/4 " 1 " 1.311/4 " 1 " 1.621/2 " 1 Calf Skin .561/4 " 7 hd geese 3.71 " 1 Bason [sic] 1.50 " 1 Bell .621/2 To Thomas Combs 1 Beehive 1.561/4 " 1 Set Cups & Saucers 1.121/2 " 1 Barrel .933/4 " 1 [?] .25 " 1 Cow 15.311/4 " 1 Lot Wool 3.00 To Polly Chaffin 1 Bed 2.121/2 " 4 Hogs 16.811/4 To William Freeman 1 Sow & pigs 7.25 " I Heifer 5.061/4 To Thomas Truit 1 Bay horse 91.00 " 10 Bushels Wheat 5.00 To Thomas Cofer 1 Cow & Calf 11.25 To Joseph Cofer 1 Cow 12.00 To Isaha Marshall 10 Barrels Corn 21.00 To Nathan F. Smith rent[?] of plantation 90.50 " 1 Oven 1.121/2 " 1 Pot & hooks 1.50 " 1 Spider [?] 1.00 " 1 Lot of Irons & 2 pr. Gears 3.25 " 1 Lot plows 3.75 " 1 Pot rack 2.00 " 1 Cotton Wheel 1.621/2 " 1 set plates 2.00 " 1 earthen dish .871/2 " 1 Lot table utensils .25 " 1 Lot Earthenware .561/4 " 1 Sugar Box .25 " 2 Bottles .25 " 1 Walnut Table 2.50 " 1 Chest 4.75 " 5 Chairs 2.25 " 1 Bed & furniture 33. 00 " 1 Sifter & 2 trays 1.75 " 1 Bay mare 60.00 " 5 Barrels Corn 10.00 " 1 pr. flatirons .50 " 1 Meat tub .933/4 " 1 Hogshead .371/2 " 1 Fat tub .621/2 " 2 Meal tubs .621/2 " 1 Tub .561/4 " 1 Stack of fodder 5.50 " 1 pine table 1.311/4 To Isaac Langdon 1 drawing knife & 1 Lot tools 2.371/2 To Absalom Montgomery 1 pr. [?] 1.121/2 " 1 Waggon and horse gear 125.00 " 1 Bay mare & 1 Black horse 100.00 The items just listed reveal many interesting facets of the life and times of Nathan Smith and his family. For example, the first item, which involves the sale of "Cooper's Tools", reveals that Nathan produced his own barrels. Several other items refer to the sale of barrels of corn, indicating that corn and probably wheat were transported in barrels. While the return demonstrates that Nathan Smith raised corn and wheat there is no mention of cotton. This may mean either of two things: that Nathan raised no cotton but basically raised crops for his own use and sold excess corn, wheat and other produce for cash or that his cotton was sold to factors and the proceeds added to the estate rather than auctioned off with his other assets. The former seems more likely. The return confirms that, like virtually all Georgia farmers of the time, Nathan Smith raised hogs, which were the principal source of meat for the family and were probably also a source of income. He also raised sheep, but it is likely that sheep were seldom slaughtered for the table but were raised for their wool. Nathan also raised cattle, but it is probable that they were kept for milk production and only bull calves were slaughtered for food. The return also refers to a number of beehives, which not only provided honey for the table but candle wax as well. The report identifies Nathan Smith's horses as among his most valuable possessions. Obviously, the horses were used for riding, for pulling the "waggon" and for plowing. Some of the cattle may have been oxen, also used for pulling the plow or wagon. The household effects identified in the return provide a good inventory of the kinds of furniture, implements and utensils common in an early nineteenth century Georgia farmhouse. The most important items of furniture clearly were the beds, bedsteads and "furniture". At that time the "bed" usually referred to what today is called a mattress and was filled with goose feathers or, in poorer homes, with corn husks or cattails. The "bedstead" was the wooden frame, with rope cords upon which the mattress rested. The "furniture" included the bed hangings-drapery material that could be drawn around the bed to provide warmth and privacy-and the cover or rug that lay atop the sheets. It is worthy of note that the families of three of the four children mentioned in the return, Robert Moss, Polly Chaffin and Nathan Foster Smith, all received beds and bedsteads from the estate. Chests, a cupboard, a walnut table, a pine table and five chairs made up the other important items of furniture. The presence of two spinning wheels for cotton and one for flax, plus a loom, reflects the fact that in rural nineteenth century Georgia families spun their own yarn from the raw materials grown on the farm and then wove it into the cloth from which clothing, bed linens and other essential items were produced. "Store bought" cloth was a seldom indulged luxury for farm families like the Smiths. While the executors' return does not mention it, wild animals were still hunted and their skins used to produce shoes, leggings and other items of clothing. The reference to sale of a calf skin indicates that skins of domestic animals were also used for that purpose. The executors' return also identifies a wide assortment of utensils, implements and containers used in the preparation and serving of food. The list includes a butter churn, pots, pans, dishes, cups and saucers, an oven, a pot and hooks (for cooking over the fireplace), earthenware, pot racks, table utensils, a sugar box (sugar was precious and well guarded), a sifter, trays, tubs and more. The return also identifies a number of "basons", probably used for washing. In addition to the statement of items of personal property sold, the executors' report includes payments to four creditors totaling $22.871/2 plus $5.25 to the tax collector. It also reports cash payments to legatees as follows: Paid James Dorough $687.00 Paid Elbert Smith 850.00 Paid Nathan [Foster] Smith 524.25 Paid Robert Moss 565.183/4 Paid Sam'l Rice (Guardian) 400.00 Paid Elbert Smith 27.621/2 These payments represented a partial distribution of the proceeds of the estate. That they were not in equal amounts reflects two factors: first, Nathan Smith's Will had referred to his having made dispositions of property to some of his children during his lifetime, which had to be taken into account in the ultimate division of his estate; and second, later distributions, also in unequal amounts, were used to arrive at the appropriate division of the estate among Nathan's children. While it is not possible to rationalize completely the distributions made to the various legatees, it appears likely that, because Elbert Smith, the eldest son, had received a substantial gift of land from his father and mother during their lifetimes, he did not receive as large a distribution from the estate as would otherwise have been the case. It also seems likely that Nathan Smith had distributed assets to his daughters when they were married; in fact, the codicil to Nathan's Will is specific on that point as regards his daughter Sally. As a result, the records suggest that Nathan Smith's, second son, Nathan Foster Smith, and Nathan's two minor children were the principal beneficiaries of the estate. Nathan Foster Smith was by far the largest "purchaser" of the items of personal property listed in the executors' return. In addition, he received several substantial cash payments. Most particularly, Nathan Foster Smith received a cash payment of $1,230 which represented the proceeds of sale of a tract of land on Beaverdam Creek in Wilkes County, obviously a part of his father's farm. As this narrative will follow the fortunes of Nathan F. Smith in the next chapter, it is important to note that his parents left him relatively well off for the time and place. One other aspect of the executors' returns should be mentioned briefly, namely, the payments made to creditors of the estate. Most of the entries reflect routine services involving farm equipment, such as sharpening a "rooter" and "laying" ploughs. However, one entry records three visits in 1820 by John L. Wingfield, a local doctor, apparently to treat Sarah Smith in her last illness. On two occasions he brought with him and apparently administered vials of medicine consisting of antispe...c drops, for which he charged $3.00 per visit. Another records the visit of another doctor, John Holiday, to treat Nathan's minor son, William. The physician's statement reads: "March 26, 1820: To Rising at Midnight & visiting Wm. Smith- $5.00" "March 26, 1820 Bleeding & Blister 50 Cord. [?] 1.75 $6.75 The services apparently involved, in Sarah's case, the application of patent medicines of some kind and, in William's case, bleeding and blistering the patient. Fortunately, William Smith was young and strong and survived the treatment, but Sarah Smith did not. V Succeeding chapters this narrative will follow the lives of Nathan and Sarah Smith's second son, Nathan Foster Smith, and his family. However, before doing so it is appropriate to set out what has been learned of other members of Nathan and Sarah's family, some of whom have already been introduced in one context or another. Elbert Smith Nathan and Sarah Smith's eldest son Elbert was born April 4, 1783 in Wilkes County. He was no doubt named for Samuel Elbert, one of the principal officers of the Georgia forces during the Revolutionary War. Elbert was also elected Governor of Georgia in 1785, shortly after Elbert Smith's birth. Elbert Smith was married about 1802 to Elizabeth Lybas, whose father, William Lybas, had emigrated to Georgia from Rockingham County, North Carolina. William Lybas' family included a son, Charles, and three daughters. As noted earlier, one of the Lybas daughters, Fanny, married Samuel Rice, Nathan Smith's neighbor and best friend. A second daughter, Mary, married Benjamin Powell, whose lands also adjoined those of Nathan Smith. Elizabeth Lybas, who, married Nathan Smith's son Elbert, was the third daughter. Elbert Smith was allotted two draws in the land lottery of 1803, indicating that he was married at the time and had at least one child under 21 (I Davidson 324). In 1805 he made his first appearance in the tax records, although he was shown as owning no property at the time. However, earlier that year he was given 100 acres of land by his father and mother (Deed Book VV 358), which included the land on which he was then living. In 1814 Elbert was appointed co-executor of his father's estate and in the period 1820-1823 carried out those responsibilities. Meanwhile, beginning in 1818 Elbert Smith was involved in a number of transactions with members of his wife's family. He stood security for his brother-in-law Charles Lybas while the latter was acting as Administrator of his father's estate; he witnessed the Will of another brother-in-law, Benjamin Powell; and he exchanged parcels of land with Charles Lybas. When Mary Lybas Powell died in 1825, her Will left her estate to her nieces and nephews, the children of Elbert Smith and Samuel Rice. By the time of his death in 1837 Elbert Smith had graduated from the ranks of small farmers into the planter class, having added substantial acreage to the land he had inherited by purchases in 1829 (Deed Book LLL 328). Perhaps the best gauge of his wealth and station in life is provided by an entry in the Wilkes County census of 1830 listing him as the owner of eighteen slaves. As slaves were far more valuable than land, livestock or other personal property, Elbert's ownership of so large a number indicates significant wealth-which was passed on and added to by his sons. He is listed in the censuses of 1820 and 1830 but died July 10, 1837. Elbert and Elizabeth Smith had four sons, Jonathan, William F. Smith, James Smith and Elbert Smith, Jr. Their oldest son, Jonathan, also became a relatively wealthy planter. Jonathan was born in 1807 and, on March 17, 1831, he married Lucy Cosby, daughter of Garland and Lucy Cosby of Wilkes County. Jonathan and Lucy had seven children prior to her death about 1850, after which Jonathan married Eliza Fouche and sired two more children. In the census of 1840 Jonathan is listed as owning 18 slaves and real estate valued at $10,000. By 1860 his real estate was valued at $8,500 and the value of his personal property had grown to $20,500. His occupation was listed as that of farmer, but the scale of his operations indicate that he had risen to the planter class. Jonathan died about 1881. Nothing has been learned about Elbert's second son, William F. Smith, after his listing in his father's household in the census of 1830. The census of 1840 lists a William F. Smith as residing in Randolph County, Georgia, unmarried and owning no property. However, because the name is so common, it is not clear whether the person identified was in fact Elbert Smith's son. Elbert and Elizabeth's third son, James, born in 1811, married Martha Wallace in Wilkes County. Their sons were named Charles, James and John, and their daughters Emma and Elizabeth-a genealogist's nightmare. A James Smith and his family appear in the Wilkes County census of 1850, where he is listed as a farmer with real estate valued at $6,000. If this James is, in fact, Elbert's son, as seems likely, he was a very successful farmer as well. Elbert's youngest son, Elbert Smith, Jr., was born in 1815 and was married to Adelia Burns on November 21, 1841. Elbert Jr. is included in his father's listing in the Wilkes County census of 1830; he is one of the two males between ages 15 and 20. In the census of 1840, three years after his father's death, Elbert Jr. is listed as head of a household that includes two males 20-30 (born 1810-1820), one female 15-20 (born 1820-1825) and a male 10-15 (born 1825-1830). A female 50-60 (born 1780-1790) is also listed. This listing is difficult to interpret. The two adult males are probably Elbert, Jr. and his brother James. However, the children are not either Elbert's or James'. The older woman may well be Elbert Jr.'s mother, Elizabeth Lybas Smith (born 1783). In the census, Elbert Smith, Jr. is listed as owning 16 slaves. What appears to have happened is that Elbert Jr. was living with his parents at the time of his father's death and continued to live there with his mother. The census thus reflects the household of his father, Elbert Smith Sr., prior to the division of his estate. His sons Jonathan and Elbert Smith, Jr. were thus the beneficiaries of very substantial legacies that led the way to their own success as planters. Elbert Smith, Jr. appears in the Wilkes County census of 1850 as 35 years of age, a farmer with real estate valued at $5,000. His family includes his wife, Adelia, age 36; James A. Smith age 7; Samuel R. Smith age 4; and William Smith age 2. Sally Smith Nathan and Sarah's daughter Sally was probably born about 1784 and died in 1815. It will be recalled that the codicil to Nathan Smith's Will refers to her death, to her husband Charles Phillips and to her children. Little is known about Sally beyond these bare facts. Her husband was the son of an earlier Charles Phillips whose farm adjoined that of Nathan Smith. Sally's husband, Charles Phillips Jr., is first listed in the tax records for 1802 next to his father; as he owned no land it is evident that he was then working on his father's farm. Charles Jr. was allotted one draw in the land lottery of 1803, which indicates that he was married but had no children at the time. In 1805 Charles Phillips Jr. is listed as owning 50 acres of land on Beaverdam Creek, probably land conveyed to him by his father. In the land lottery of 1806 Charles Jr. was allotted two draws, indicating that he was married with at least one child. Thereafter, he disappears from the records other than through the reference in the codicil to Nathan Smith's Will. Elizabeth Smith Elizabeth Smith was born about 1784 or 1785 and married James Dorough about 1801. Her husband will be referred to as James Dorough, Jr., to differentiate him from his father, James L. Dorough, who will be referred to as James Sr. James Dorough, Sr. was a farmer whose land lay along Beaverdam Creek not far from the farms of James and Nathan Smith. He was listed as owning 250 acres of land in the first reported tax returns, those of 1785, and probably had owned the land for some years prior to that. In about 1792 he appears to have bought land a short distance to the west on Kettle Creek, and by 1796 he was listed as the owner of 400 acres and six slaves. James Dorough, Jr. first made his appearance on the tax rolls in 1802 but was not indicated to own any land at the time. In 1803 he was allotted two draws in the land lottery, indicating that he was married and had at least one child. The children began to arrive in 1802, with the birth of Rebecca, and she was followed by Richmond (1804), Miles (1806), Sarah (1818), Nathan Smith Dorough (1809), Willis (1812), James Pierce (1814), Joshua (1816), Harriet (1818) and Martha Ann (1824). While James Dorough, Jr. was apparently a farmer like his father, he was also a Methodist lay minister. The records show that he officiated at a number of weddings in Wilkes County, and he is listed as a "Local Preacher" in the records of the Georgia Conference of the Methodist Church. In that capacity he no doubt conducted services at homes and country meeting houses in the Beaverdam Creek area between visits from the ordained circuit riding ministers. He was obviously liked and respected by Nathan Smith, as he was made co-executor of Nathan's Will. In turn, James and Elizabeth named one of their sons Nathan Smith Dorough. James Dorough, Jr. was called upon on other occasions to witness wills (1822 and 1830) and he was appointed Administrator of the estate of one Thomas Combs in 1831. While he was thus recognized for his character and integrity, he appears not to have been a success as a farmer, as his children were provided the tuition they needed to attend school from the Poor School Fund in 1828. Looked at in another light, however, it may have simply been impossible for a man with ten children who spent part of his time as a minister and owned no slaves to earn enough cash to pay school tuition. Mary (Polly) Smith Mary Smith, called Polly as were many Marys of the time, was probably born about 1790. She was married to Leonard Chaffin January 23, 1812, and their first child, Jesse, was born later that year. Their second child, Anderson, was born in 1813, followed by Martha (1814) and Nathan (1815). The Chaffins were also near neighbors of the Smiths. No record has been found of Leonard Chaffin's landholdings, if any. However, in 1814 Leonard witnessed a legal document, and in 1816 he took an oath as Ensign in the 169th Militia District. While Leonard and his family were listed in the Wilkes County census of 1820, he had died by 1828, for in that year funds were provided from the Poor School Fund to pay the tuition for his four children. The Wilkes County census of 1830 lists his widow Mary (Smith) Chaffin as head of a household consisting of two males between 15 and 20, one female between 10 and 15, and one male between 5 and 10 years of age. In 1832 Leonard Chaffin's orphans were allotted one draw in the land lottery held that year. Two years later Mary Chaffin, identified as living in Oglethorpe County, conveyed 202 acres of land in Dooly County she had drawn in a land lottery, to her brother, Elbert Smith, for $10. She signed the document with her mark, and her oldest son Jesse also signed. The Chaffin sons are found in Georgia censuses thereafter for a number of years. They were small farmers, never having been able to improve very much on the humble circumstances into which they had been born. Phebe (Phoebe) Smith Nathan and Sarah's daughter Phebe was undoubtedly named for her grandmother, Phoebe (or Phebe) Foster. (The name was spelled both ways in both generations.) She was born about 1800 and according to Wilkes County records was married to Robert Moss on February 4, 1819. Their first child, Carter, may have been born several years before the marriage took place, as a report of the Trustees of the Poor School Fund in 1828, gives Carter Moss' age as 11 (Davis, Wilkes County Records, p. 115). Phebe and Robert Moss' second child was born in 1819, the same year they were married, and Parmelia (1824), Nancy (1825) and Mary and Robert (twins) were born in 1827. Robert Moss, like his brother-in-law Leonard Chaffin, died prior to 1828, as the Trustees of the Poor School Fund made tuition grants that year to his orphans, Carter and Frances Moss. In the census of 1830, Phebe Moss, like her sister Polly Chaffin, appears as head of a household consisting of the children listed above. In 1832, "Pheby" Moss was allotted one draw, and her children, "orphans of Robert Moss", were granted two draws in that year's land lottery. Carter, the oldest of the Moss children, married a woman whose given name was Harriet and sired seven children between 1845 and 1859. However, in the census of 1860 Carter is listed as a farm laborer without any real or personal property. Like their cousins, the Chaffins and Doroughs-but unlike their uncle Elbert Smith and his children-the family of Phebe Smith Moss appears to have had a very hard time making ends meet. William B. Smith William, the third son and seventh child of Nathan and Sarah Smith, was born about 1801 or 1802. As such, he was still subject to the Guardianship of Samuel Rice at the time his father's estate was being administered in 1820 but came of age and was paid his distributive share before the estate was closed in 1822. On October 24, 1822, William married Mary Snider, whose father's name was probably Christian Snider. From that point on, however, William Smith's whereabouts and status in life are conjectural-the consequence of having inherited as common a name as William Smith. The most reasonable conjecture appears to be the following: A William B. Smith is listed in the 1830 census of Coweta County, Georgia, which is located in west central Georgia on the Chattahoochee River, about 140 miles west of Wilkes County. His age is given as between 20 and 30 (born 1800-1810), with a wife the same age. Two males between 5 and 10, and one male and two females under 5 years of age make up the household. The same family appears to have been listed in the Coweta County census of 1840, with the addition of one male between 80 and 90 years of age and a female between 40 and 50. This William Smith owned no slaves, and three members of the household were engaged in agriculture. The Coweta County census of 1850 lists a William B. Smith as age 48, a farmer with real estate valued at $3,000. His wife's name is Elizabeth, and his children are listed as Mulbury [?], a male age 21, Wiley C., a male age 19, and Seag [?], a female age 16. While there are some discrepancies, these figures accord well with those of the two preceding censuses. The problem is that William B. Smith's wife's name is given as Elizabeth, which does not accord with the Wilkes County record that William married Mary Snider. However, it may be that Mary had died and Elizabeth was a second wife. On the whole, it seems reasonably likely that the person identified in the Coweta County censuses was Nathan and Sarah Smith's son, as no other William B. Smiths have been identified in Georgia census records who match his age and family circumstances. If so, it appears that William was a reasonably successful farmer. James B. Smith James, the eighth and youngest child of Nathan and Sarah Smith, was born in 1803 and, after his parents' death, was under the Guardianship of Samuel Rice until January of 1824. During the years 1821-1823 Samuel Rice received several distributions from Nathan's estate for the benefit of his ward, and in 1824 Rice presented an accounting, which included a receipt by William for his share of his father's estate. Some indication of what it took to outfit a young man of the time can be gleaned from a faded account dated 1823, which sets out payments made in William's behalf to Thomas Daniel, apparently a local storekeeper. While difficult to decipher, it reads generally as follows: August 4 3 yards Linen @811/4 2.433/4 7 [?] @503.75 1 Pair Cotton Socks and Hat 1.871/2 2 Balls and 2 [?] .311/4 1 Pair Deer Skin Gloves 2.25 Dec 20 Powder and Shot .621/2 $11.25 Another statement, this one dated 1824 to William Dearing, who was either a storekeeper or a tailor, read: 8 yds Casinell [?] @ 1.25 10.00 1/4 " Lining .463/4 2 skeins silk .25 1 bunch thread .181/4 14 Buttons .621/2 1 [?] for Pantaloons .25 6 yds Hawless Linnen @50 3.00 2 doz Buttons .25 1 sash [?] 1.25 1 skein silk .121/2 1 sett Buttons .261/4 1 Yd for Lining .371/2 $16.841/4 James married Barbary Nash in Wilkes County December 13, 1827, but thereafter the familiar problem arises of identifying a person whose name is as common as James Smith. A James B. Smith is listed in the 1830 census of Gwinett County as having been born between 1800 and 1810; his household included two females also born within that time frame, two males between 5 and 10 years (born 1820-1825) and one female under 5 years of age (born 1825- 1830). Whether this James Smith is Nathan and Sarah's son is wholly conjectural. McCall, Roster of Revolutionary Soldiers in Georgia, p. 205. References to land ownership are derived from Hudson, Wilkes County Tax Records 1785-1895. The land in question was later described as 100 acres of second quality and 100 acres of third quality land. Conveyances of land are found in Wilkes County Deed Books and digested in Davidson, Early Records of Georgia. This William Shepherd Foster, who was Kimmie Foster's son, was involved in the land transactions with his cousin Nathan Smith referred to in the text. Sarah Foster Smith was usually referred to as "Sally" or "Salley" and was so designated in Nathan Smith's Will. However, because her daughter was also called Sally, Nathan Smith's wife will be referred to in this narrative as Sarah. It is worth noting that on a map of Wilkes County drafted by Thomas Callaway in 1877, a Mrs. Smith and a Rice are identified as living across the road from each other in the vicinity of Beaverdam Creek. Asbury, Journal and Letters, Vol. 2, p. 216. West, Before We reach the Heavenly Fields, p. 44. Shipp, A History of Methodism in South Carolina, p. 335. The payment of 27.621/2 to Elbert Smith no doubt represented reimbursement for expenses he had incurred as executor. The fact that Elbert Smith named two of his sons William and James has caused considerable confusion, since Elbert had younger brothers (sons of Nathan Smith) also named William and James. The fact that they have different middle initials helps some, but not much. Based on the same report of the Poor School Fund Trustees, Leonard and Polly (Smith) Chaffin's oldest son Jesse was also born the year preceding his parents' marriage. A William B. Smith listed in the Coweta County census of 1860 does not appear to be the same person. The 1870 census for Fulton County (Atlanta) lists a William B. Smith who is 68 years old. His occupation is given as clerk of the U.S. District Court, and his real estate and personal property are listed at $1,200 and $500 respectively. His wife's name is Elizabeth, and her age is also 68. The age checks with that of the William B. Smith previously identified, as does the name of his wife. However, the question arises whether someone who had been a farmer most of his life would have been appointed clerk of the U.S. District Court. A Smith Family Odyssey Nathan Smith and His Times Nathan Smith and His Times