George Sutton (c.1613-1669) and his wife Sarah Tilden (1613-1677) were immigrants to Massachusetts (1634) and later became among the earliest colonial inhabitants of North Carolina in 1668, settling in a quaker community in Perquimans Precinct, part of old Albemarle County, Carolina. Many of their descendants appear in Quaker records and they are widely believed to have been Quakers themselves.
The records identifying members of this family are unusually robust for the colonial south of this time period, and they have been thoroughly dissected by various genealogical works, most notably Marjorie Sutton Oliver’s The Suttons of England and North Carolina, U.S.A. 1620-1974 and History of Perquimans County by Ellen Good Rawlings Winslow.
While the study on this family has been extensive, every genealogical study has found itself with a handful of unidentified Suttons from the record period of approximately 1723 to 1770. They are:
James Sutton (c.1712-1770) married Anne Penrice (Perquimans & Bertie County 1753-1770);
Ephraim Sutton (c.1720-bef.1772) is closely associated with James Sutton;
Samuel Sutton (c.1722-1764) (Perquimans 1752-1764); wife Sarah Robbins
Given the isolation of this particular Sutton family and the close proximity to known George Sutton descendants, it is very likely that these men fit into the descendants of George Sutton and Sarah Tilden somewhere; they are unlikely to have been other colonists of the same name who found themselves in tiny Perquimans Precinct and its surrounding coastal counties.
A careful examination of colonial-era documents shows these Suttons can be placed within the family by means of an often-overlooked provision of the will of Nathaniel Sutton (c.1643-1682), documented son of George Sutton and Sarah Tilden, and places these “lost” Suttons as sons of Nathaniel’s son, also named Nathaniel Sutton (1681-c.1743). There is some other circumstantial evidence supporting this theory, which will be addressed below.
IDENTIFYING THE CORRECT SUTTON LINE IN PERQUIMANS
John, James, Ephraim and Samuel Sutton show some evidence of relation to each other and don't fit into other Sutton family groups in the northeastern North Carolina coastal counties (Perquimans, Currituck, Pasquotank, Chowan, Tyrrell).
As I'll demonstrate here, they are likely sons of the only Sutton of the previous generation to not have a will, Nathaniel Sutton (1681-c.1743), who has only two confirmed children via his probate and orphan records: Deborah Sutton and Joseph “Riverside Joe” Sutton.
The first major clue is the will of Samuel Sutton (c.1722-1764) of Perquimans County, the abstract being as follows:
1764 SUTTON, SAMUEL; Sarah, Samuel, George, John
Written Jan 30, 1764 (recorded in 1764, no date)
Loving wife Sarah, 3 Negros, livestock etc, "use of part of my plantation and land that I now live on which is that part my grandfather gave to my father in his last will and testament until my son Samuel Sutton comes of age" then he to have 1/3 part and my son George when he comes of age to have 1/3 part, daughter Mary when she comes of age, son John Sutton land I bought of Sarah Jones of 405 acres from 2 patents, "give to my son Samuel Sutton the land I hold which was patented by my grandfather by estimation one hundred and fifty acres also 15 acres to son Samuel which Uncle Joseph Sutton is duty bound to make a deed for and I hope he will keep his promise, also to son Samuel 25 acres out of a new patent, son George rest of my land which came from a new patent, lot of negros, brother William Robbins my best beaver hat and suit of clothes, and to "continue to be overseer for my wife as long as she continues a widow." Exex Charles Blount, Tulle Williams, and William Robbins. WIT John Clayton, Joseph Sutton, John Whedbee
There are some vital clues here as to his immediate family, which are as follows:
1. The 150-acre patent by his grandfather bequeathed to his father in his grandfather's will.
2. He had a close relative named "uncle Joseph Sutton", a legal adult in 1764.
What Sutton genealogists seem to have missed is the 150-acre patent that was bequeathed from Nathaniel Sutton (1643-1682), son of George Sutton, to his son Nathaniel Sutton (1681-c.1743) in his will of 1682, per the following abstract:
Sutton, Nathaniel (1), died Dec 29, 1682. (His will Grimes, p Mar 12, 1682.) He left to son George, "plantation where I now live," to Joseph plantation where Edward Poulter lives, son Nathaniel 150a of land "belonging in the forks between his two brothers," d Rebeckah, cousin John Godby (Gosby). Wife not named, but she survived him, & m 2d John Whedby, May 10, 1685, who died leaving her a widow, when she m for her 3d husband, Dennis Macclenden. https://ncgenweb.us/perquimans/sutton/
The patent in question:
GRANT: Sutton, Nathaniel. 150a "in ye precinct of Perq, on ye East side of Suttons Creek, by a Branch, called 'Eye branch' along Joseph Suttons, line." (No date; bef. 1682)
This will is the key to understanding where these “lost” Sutton men belong because there is no other will in the Sutton family that shows a 150-acre tract being handed down from father to son in these early generations.
Samuel Sutton seems to have lived at Fork Creek, and sold a small parcel adjacent George Sutton and Nathaniel Sutton; while "George" named in the will could be the George Sutton who was then living (1696-aft.1763), there was no living Nathaniel Sutton in 1760 aside from Nathaniel, the son of "Riverside Joe", who was not older than 13; this suggests the George and Nathaniel referenced in the deed were George (1669-1700) and his brother Nathaniel Sutton (1681-c.1743), both of whom were long deceased:
BOOK F
#382 - 19 Sept 1760 - Lord Prop to Samuel Sutton - 340 acres on ES Sutton's Creek at mouth of Fork Creek to line of Richard & Nathan Sutton on Bridge Branch
#389 - 4 Oct 1760 - Samuel Sutton to John Clayton - 3 pd for 8 acres - adj George Sutton & Nathaniel Sutton. WIT Sarah Sutton, William Robins
This establishes Samuel Sutton as a son of Nathaniel Sutton (1681-c.1743), son of Nathaniel (1643-1682). So the "Uncle Joseph Sutton" who is uncle to his son Samuel is probably "Riverside Joe" Sutton (1727-1789).
While there is no dispute that Nathaniel Sutton (d.1682) had a son Nathaniel born in 1681, most genealogies you'll see online claim that Nathaniel Sutton (b.1681) is called Nathaniel Sutton Sr. and died in February 1724. They also say that Nathaniel, son of Joseph Sutton (c.1637-1695), married Elizabeth Chancey in 1726 and had children Joseph and Deborah.
Put more simply, the most popular theory is:
1. Nathaniel Sutton Sr. (1681-1724) son of Nathaniel Sutton (1643-1682) died leaving a will but naming no wife or children.
2. Nathaniel Sutton Jr. (c.1682-c.1743), son of Joseph Sutton (c.1637-1695), died intestate, two children Joseph and Deborah known from birth records.
If this were true, Samuel could not be a son of Nathaniel Sutton (b.1681) and grandson of Nathaniel Sutton (d.1682), because the "Nathaniel Sutton Sr." who died in February 1724 left a will naming no wife or children and leaving only "cousins" as legatees.
His abstracted will:
On the contrary, there is sufficient evidence that Nathaniel (b.1681), son of Nathaniel (d.1682), died c.1743 and Nathaniel, son of Joseph (d.1695), died in 1724, allowing Nathaniel, son of Nathaniel, to be father to the "lost" Suttons.
What has thrown genealogists off for several decades is a confounding vital record that confuses two contemporary Nathaniel Suttons. You can see it below. It reads: "Nathaniell Sutton Senr: Departed this life the 23d of Feb'y 1724/5."
The "Senr" is unmistakable.
I contend that the Nathaniel Sutton in this record was not "senior" (i.e. born in 1681, making him the oldest Nathaniel Sutton then living) but was actually "junior," born right around 1689 and the younger of the two Nathaniel Suttons in Albemarle.
In case there is any confusion, it is important to note that during the colonial period Sr. and Jr. didn't just refer to fathers and sons; it was a way to distinguish any two men of the same name living in the same jurisdiction in legal documents.
PROVING “SR.” WAS ACTUALLY “JR.”
Note that in the 1694 will of Joseph Sutton Sr. (c.1637-1695), Nathaniel is twice mentioned last in the list of his younger sons ("sons Christopher, George, Nathaniel"), suggesting he was the youngest of the family. Christopher and George were born in 1685 and 1687, placing Nathaniel's birth around 1689. This is also true for the will of Joseph Sutton Jr., which bequeaths items to brothers "George Sutton and Nathaniel Sutton." This suggests that the “Nathaniel Sutton Sr.” who died in 1724, the son of Joseph, was actually Jr., being almost a decade younger than his cousin that was born in 1681.
This later birth is supported by an entry from the orphan's court:
Apr. 14,
1702: Upon A peticon of Georg Sutten and Nathanell Sutten to Chuse thare
Garden ordered that Nathanell Nicholson take Care of George Sutten he
Haven Chosen Him for his garden And that Joseph Sutten Juner take
Nathanell Sutten Into his Care He Haven Chosen him for his garden.
(Perquimans Co. NC)
This proves that Nathaniel Sutton, son of Joseph, was not only still a minor in April 1702, but that was so young he was only then old enough to choose his guardian-- seven years after being orphaned. So its clear that he is likely the youngest in the family. He also cannot properly be called "Senr" as his death record indicates, since he is clearly younger than Nathaniel Sutton, son of Nathaniel, b. Aug. 1681, who turned 21 in 1702.
Evidence from tax lists supports this conclusion: "Nathaniel Sutton Jr." is grouped by household with the definite sons of Joseph Sutton Sr. (c.1637-1694), while Sr. isn't close to any Sutton family:
1713: Nathaniel Sutton Jr. (1), Joseph Sutton Jr. (2) and George Sutton (1) appear as next-door neighbors in poll tax. It's clear these are the sons of Joseph Sutton Sr. (1637-1695) because George the son of Nathaniel was dead by 1700. Joseph Sutton Sr. (4) Nathaniel Sutton Sr. (1) appear elsewhere.
1715: Poll tax has entries "Jo. Sutton sons" (4) and "Nath: Sutton sons" (1) as well as "Nath: Sutton Jun" (1) who lives far away. Also "Jo. Sutton Jun" (2), George Sutton (1) and "Richard Sutter" (x). Evidently Nathaniel Sr. had sons over 16 at this point, while Jr. did not. Both Joseph Suttons had extra tithables, but evidently the census taker wanted to differentiate between one that had sons and one that did not. The one with sons lived next door to Deborah Sutton McKlendon, widow of Nathaniel Sutton (1643-1682) and mother of Nathaniel Sutton (b.1681).
1718-19: Nathaniel Sutton Jr. (1) is again next door to Joseph Sutton Jr. (3) and George Sutton (2) in 1718; Nathaniel has only one tithable both years (himself), Joseph has 3 both years (himself and sons George and Thomas) and George has 2 in 1718 and 3 in 1719 (undocumented older sons). "Nathaniel Sutton Senr" has two tithables, probably himself and a son over age 16. Though court records show he was charged with being guardian of Richard Sutton in 1705, this son cannot be Richard, who has his own household nearby.
It is also important to note there are no children named in the 1724 will of Nathaniel Sutton "Senr" (b. c.1689, Jr. in the tax list), son of Joseph (d.1695), which corresponds to his lack of tithables besides himself in 1718-19. He left everything to his two brothers, Joseph, son of Joseph, and his named "cousins," also sons of his brother Joseph Jr. (c.1674-1723).
By contrast “Nathaniel Sutton Sr.” (b.1681) shows 2 tithables in both 1718 and 1719, indicating a son born around 1702, (possibly the John Sutton who first appears in Bertie County in 1723); this shows he had sons long before his first documented marriage in 1726.
We know this because the Nathaniel who was next door neighbors with the sons of Joseph (d.1695) is called "Nathaniel Sutton Jr." in the 1713, 1715, 1718 and 1719 tax lists. Therefore, the death record calling him "Sr." in 1724 is a mistake; Nathaniel Sutton b.c.1689, son of Joseph, is the younger of the two Nathaniels of his generation, and properly called "Jr."
Circling back to the will of Nathaniel Sutton in 1724: taking note of his naming Parthenia Sutton a "cousin" and Richard Whedbee a "brother" (i.e. brother-in-law) shows he followed the typical naming conventions of his time, with brother/sister indicating actual siblings or their spouses and "cousin" indicating any relative outside the nuclear family. We know Parthenia was married to Joseph Sutton who died between January and March 1723/4.
According to deeds, wills, parish records and tax records:
Joseph Sutton Jr. is husband of Bennett
Jr. bought land of Richard Sutton
Jr. mentions land bought of Richard Sutton in his will, wf. Rebecca executrix
Jr. died Jan. 18, 1723/4
Jr. grouped with sons of Joseph Sutton (d.1695). in tax lists
Joseph Sutton Sr. is son of Deborah and Nathaniel
Sr. was born Aug. 6, 1673
Sr. married Parthena (since Jr. married Bennet/Rebecca)
So it seems clear that Parthenia Sutton being "cousin" rather than "sister" to the Nathaniel Sutton who died in 1724, and her husband Joseph being a definite son of Nathaniel (d.1682), that makes it even clearer that the Nathaniel Sutton who died in 1724 was a son of Joseph (d.1695), not a son of Nathaniel (d.1682).
Now there is a single confounding factor: the will of Nathaniel Sutton in 1724 names "my brother Joseph's son Joseph Sutton." The will of Joseph Jr. (c.1674-1723) husband of Bennett Stipney and son of Joseph Sutton (1637-1695) in 1723 doesn't name any sons named Joseph; however it is known that Joseph Sr. (1673-1723) husband of Parthenia Durant and son of Nathaniel (1643-1682) did have a son named Joseph (1707-1771). This is a troubling fact that has to be acknowledged. However a will omission is not uncommon, especially if an older son is already established and has been deeded property. It is also possible he is the Joseph Sutton who married Rachel Lee in January 1732. I'll leave it for readers to decide which theory is correct.
The bottom line is that John, James, Samuel and Ephraim Sutton of Perquimans County, all born c.1700-1730 have to fit in somewhere. The early generations of the family are so well documented with wills that the Nathaniel Sutton (d.1743) is the only Sutton who could be their father. And the only way that makes sense, considering the facts of Samuel Suttons will, is if the Nathaniel Sutton who died c.1743 was the son of Nathaniel Sutton (d.1682). Considering Nathaniel Sutton (d.c.1743) doesn't have a documented marriage until he was 45 years old strongly suggests there was an earlier one, along with older undocumented children. The tithables in his household in the tax lists seem to bear this out.
Research and documentation by Jason M. Farrell
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment