THOMAS MOORMAN of New Kent Co. and ELIZABETH ??? by Linda Sparks Starr MAR 1996 [In the interest of making headway on this family, I've decided to examine only those parts of the MOORMAN/CLARK legend which can be supported with primary documents. The early vestry book for Upper Parish, Nansemond Co. was destroyed; therefore there is no source for an Anglican vestryman Thomas Moorman in that parish. I've searched many SC records; he was NOT a landed proprietor there as some earlier researchers said. Therefore I begin this study in New Kent Co. VA. LSS] The first appearance in VA of THIS Thomas Moorman MAY BE the one claimed by Capt. James Turner as one of his headrights in his JUN 1670 patent, book 6. [Nugent Cavaliers & Pioneers, vol. 2] What makes this entry so intriguing is Capt. Turner received land in New Kent Co. on "both sides Horse Path at Mahexem and upon up per side Whyting Branch". Doug Tucker, who used Nugent to plot CLARK and MOORMAN lands, says "our" Thomas Moorman eventually settled near Whiting Swamp and in the vicinity of the Mehexem (or Matrexem) path. Mary Stewart emphasizes we CAN NOT ASSUME ANY THING about the people listed as "transported" on patent records. This person MAY NOT BE "our" Thomas; he MAY / MAY NOT have been an indentured servant of Capt. Turner's. The above reference is the only MOORMAN (including all variant spellings) in the index to Nugent's volume 2; Charles is the only MOORMAN in the index to volume 3. Thus, Thomas did not acquire his land via the headright / patent route. This study and the one on son Charles will show Thomas Moorman and his sons remained in the same area for 30 plus years. Therefore, I think we can safely assume he eventually acquired land. With the loss of all will and deed records for New Kent Co., just "how" he acquired land as well as "how much" is lost forever. The cycle from indentured servant to landowner is explained in A Place in Time: Middlesex County, VA 1650-1750, by (historians) Darrett B. and Anita Rutman, Norton:NY 1984 ISBN 0-393-01801-6, page 75: "Freed servants rented or cropped to obtain the wherewithal to buy, then sold or rented part of what they bought to obtain the wherewithal to develop the rest." They explained this system began falling apart in 1670. As the number of im ported slaves increased, the number of white indentured servants decreased. Down the road, this meant fewer newly freed servants to rent a portion of the newly purchased land from those who ar rived before them. The other possibilities for acquiring land were: outright purchase from an individual, inheritance and mar riage. Thomas is the first documented MOORMAN in the area so it's probably safe to say he didn't inherit the land from his father; every other possibility is open for consideration. This brings us to 1677 and the first primary source for "our" Thomas Moorman. When King Charles II heard about Bacon's Rebel lion and extent of Gov. Berkeley's punishment of the offenders, he (? what else) appointed a commission to get to the bottom of everything. The Commissioners went around the countryside meet ing with settlers, asking them to compile a list of grievances for the King. In his 50 plus page forward to the 1935 edition of his Vestry Book of Blisland Parish..., Chamberlayne names all 87 signers at the "north church". Thomas Mooreman's name appears page xlv along with his neighbors based on the first St. Peter's parish processioning list. To have a grievance April 1677, SUGGESTS he was "on the ground" ear lier. The Rutmans suggest the cause of the rebellion was a build-up of frustration -- higher taxes, lower tobacco prices, weather related crop failures -- a general feeling of things going from bad to worse. Another specific reference to Thomas Moorman is found in Chamberlayne's Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent Co. 1684-1786, page 21. This apparently is the first time the vestry was divided into precincts for processioning boundary lines. Thomas's immediate neighbors in 1689 were: Char. Brya[], Char. Bostick, Chris. Baker, Tho. Moorman, Tho. Snead, Jam. Moor, Edw. Qorill / Dorill. Of these people, Charles Bostike signed the 1677 grievance im mediately before Thomas Mooreman. Others of similar surnames, but whose signatures on the list were farther from Thomas's, include: Henry Snead, James Moore and Edward Dorrell. Thus we can say with certainty that the Thomas Mooreman of 1677 is the same Tho. Moorman in 1689. These people didn't move; the new St. Peter's Parish boundary line just took them in. Long-term leasing is one thing, but surely in 12 to 15 years, Thomas saved enough to buy his own tract of land that passed to his sons. The names of near neighbors on the above processioning list re-appear in the first three St. Paul's processioning lists -- 1708, 1711, and 1716 -- as near neighbors of sons Charles and Andrew Moorman. The Rutmans, page 145: "The possession of land and wealth were clearly vital elements ... Those without land ... were virtually excluded from public tasks ... colony law restricted jury duty and the like to 'freeholders,' few who did not own or hold long term leases to property were selected ... Among the eighty-four men active in 1700 ... only three came from the bottommost level of free society, one serving as a sexton, two as appraisers." Without New Kent court records, we'll never know if Thomas was asked to appraise estates or serve on juries. The only time his name appears in Chamberlayne's abstract of vestry records is the above processioning list. Now lets go to The Parish Register of Saint Peter's, New Kent Co. VA from 1680 to 1787, published Richmond: 1904 by Colonial Dames of America. Page 22 is the primary source for Thomas's wife and two of his children: "Mary, ye dau of Thomas Moreman and Elizabeth his wife bapt ye 29th day of Aug 1686" and "Andrew, son of Tho Moorman bapt ye 4 day of Nov 1689". Family legends differ on son Charles' birthyear. I SUGGEST Charles was the older son, either born in Blisland Parish whose earliest register book is not extant, or more probably in St. Peter's Parish. The earliest extant pages were obviously deteriorated when abstracted one hundred years ago; large por tions of written entries are missing -- especially the birth years. Even though the title of the book says "1680", it's impos- sible to say in what year the first surviving entries were made. I SUGGEST whole pages of the very earliest entries are missing altogether -- including Charles' birth / baptism record. Based on three years between Mary and Andrew's baptism dates and the "usual" two between births, I PROJECT Charles' birthyear as c1683 to c1684. What is the Anglican policy on infant baptism? The St. Peter's entry for Mary and Andrew specifically says "baptized" not born. Could Mary and Andrew have been older than assumed when they were baptized? Although Mary and Andrew are the only "proven" children of this couple, ALL genealogies except Bro. Ambrose Moor- man name Charles as a son. Doug Tucker proposes another son Thomas (1688-1782) (hereafter "Jr.") to explain / identify the parentage of Thomas Moorman (hereafter "III") who was raising his family in North Carolina mid-1750s. [I'm out of my depth here, but I present Doug's case for those researching these MOORMANs.) In his MOORMAN / TUCKER FAMILY IN AMERICA study, page 8, Doug says this Thomas (Jr.) and the above Andrew, younger brothers of Charles, "led a small Quaker migration ... south to newly opened lands along what later became the North Carolina/South Carolina border. Thomas (Jr.) settled in Anson County, NC and Andrew settled across the (future) border in Marlboro County, SC." Doug added a bit more about this Thomas Jr. in his study on Fran cis Clark and his Children. Coming forward one more generation, Doug begins with a Thomas (III) who married Sarah CLARK; the births of their nine children were recorded in Cane Creek Meeting between 1754 and 1768. Doug says Moorman records say Thomas (III) was the youngest son of Thomas (Jr.) b. 1688 who reportedly married Elizabeth CLARK, daughter of the elusive Micajah and Sallie Ann (Moorman). Thomas Jr. and Elizabeth had three sur viving children: Andrew b. 1718, Benjamin b. 1722 and Thomas III b. 1730. Back to Virginia. Neither Thomas Sr. nor Charles appears on The Quit Rents of VA: 1704, compiled by Annie Laurie Wright Smith, GenPubCo: 1980. Doug's understanding is, "only land 'granted' free by the Colony was assessed quit rent. Land purchased from the Crown by cash payment, or equivalent, was generally assessed quit rent for three years after which no more rent had to be paid. Land acquired in private transactions generally remained on the quit rent rolls until the owner 'bought' the land from the colonial government in which case it was removed from the quit rent rolls." If Doug is correct, the absence of Thomas' name on this list cannot be used as a "death by" record. Thomas Sr's name does not appear on the first processioning order for St. Paul's Parish -- 1708. [Chamberlayne, Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover Co. VA 1706-1786]. I think this record can be used as a "death by" record; therefore, he died before 1708. The very last time we have a record for him is Andrew's baptism, NOV 1689. I hesitate to GUESS at his birth / death years, but logical dates seem to be birth in the 1650s and death late 1690s / early 1700s. As I see it, we have no primary source for Charles or Thomas Jr. as sons of Thomas and Elizabeth. However, I think a good "preponderance of evidence" case for Charles as son can be made -- and has been made by Doug Tucker -- by comparing the St. Paul's processioners with 1689 St. Peter's processioners and even the 1677 signers in Blisland Parish. [I will get more into this in my future update on Charles. I leave the NC MOORMANs to other researchers. LSS] In his February 24, 1996 study of the Moorman land records, Doug located the MOORMAN property in "the general vicinity of the up per reaches of Whiting Swamp (which joins Matadequin Creek just before the latter enters the Pamunkey River)." In other words, near the Pamunkey River. This is important, for SIMPSON is suggested by some as a LIKELY (not proven) surname for Elizabeth, wife of Thomas Moorman. On page 7, Doug says an "Edward Simpson lived directly across the Pamunkey River [from Thomas] along Simpson's Creek in an area com- monly known as Pamunkey Neck. In the late 1600's, Pamunkey Neck was part of New Kent Co. and St. Peter's Parish and a ferry was established across the Pamunkey to connect the sparsely settled Neck ... with the area south of the Pamunkey ... the presence of a Simpson family in the immediate neighborhood lends a bit of credence to the scant evidence that SIMPSON was the maiden name of Thomas' wife." The Simpsons weren't there in 1689, however, for the first St. Peter's processioning list specifically names the nineteen families living on Pamunkey Neck. Even though only 19 (probably fewer) families lived on the Neck 1680, the very first entry in the St. Peter's vestrybook charged William Atkinson with keeping the parish ferry for benefit of the few inhabitants who lived north of the Pamunkey River. The SIMPSONs not being there in 1689 is not that relevant, for Thomas Moorman and Elizabeth were married c1682 IF Charles is the oldest child. To date, we've found no primary source for Elizabeth's surname.