!1762 Note: Marr into Roberts Family?; a local preacher?
1762 Gran/NC TL Smith Cr; living separately; prob married
1763 Gran/NC DB F170 400a land from father
1771 Bute/NC TL (became Warren Co in 1779)
1774 Bute/NC DB 5-228 sold 150a
1782 Warr/NC TL Twitty's dist, 141a; also to 1791, 1-3 polls
1786 Warr/NC 1-5-5 state census; son Robert separate
1790 Warr/NC 3-5-5 alpha list
1790 Warr/NC TL J Daniel'd dist 200a 3 polls; 1791 ditto
1790 Warr/NC DB 12-226 sold 75a
1792 Warr/NC WB 6 p115; Aug; neither wife nor minor ch named
1798 Wake/NC marr bdsman was Paschal Roberts?

JAMES,I
by Clarence McDaniel June 1995

James seems to have been the old-fashioned farmer type. A man of the
soil with little or no care or concern for book learning. He was born
about 1739, probably in Middlesex County, New Jersey. James married
early in the 1760's but the name of his wife is unknown. Perhaps she was
from the Roberts family as a son was named Robert, the first of the name
in the North Carolina line. The 1762 tax list of Granville County shows
James living separately in Smith's Creek District so we assume James was
married at this time.

The 400 acres that James received from his father in 1763 were divided in
1765 when the new county of Bute was formed. James sold some or perhaps
all of the property that was to the west in Granville. In 1779 Bute
County ceased to exist and was replaced by Warren and Franklin counties.
James found himself a resident of Warren County in what was first called
the County Line District. In 1786 Granville County ceded Nutbush
District to Warren so that James and his brotherss as far west as Nutbush
Creek were in Nutbush District of Warren County. About that same time
the E-line descendants moved to the Beaver Dam District of Granville
County so no record confusion occurs between James,I, and James,E1, after
this date.

The 1785 state census lists James in Warren in an unidentified
district (county line). James is shown with five males under 21 and five
females. His son, Robert, has taken up residence by himself in Capt
Twitty's district (Smith's Creek). Robert is listed as under 21. The
district James was listed in bears the date, 1785.

Five years later the federal census of 1790 was taken. Unfortunately the
listing submitted to the government was alphabetized. This destroyed
neighborhood data and resulted in additional copyist errors. Some of the
Paschall names are hard to identify and may be mistaken for the name
Parker (Parkuk?). In this list James is shown with two males over 16,
five under 16 and five females.

In December of 1791, James made his will. This will was probated in the
following spring court of 1792. The will only named two sons, Samuel and
Robert; and two daughters, Patience and Elizabeth, who were of age.
James was apparently concerned for his minor children and wife and
devised the bulk of his property to his son, Samuel. It would appear
that there was an agreement that Samuel was to use the property to care
for his mother and Samuel's underage brothers and sisters.

It is indeed unfortunate that James did not name all of his family. This
does, however, give us a chance to put our genealogical sleuthing skills
to work. Warren County has an excellent supply of tax lists, marriage
bonds, deeds, and court records with which to work. Furthermore, several
of the other Paschall lines move to other areas making the work much more
certain.

The tax lists show us that the H-line moved to Caswell County before the
1791 tax year and the D-line, except for John,D4, left about 1796. From
the Warren County records we are able to derive the names of several sons
of James:

John, I3, b, c1772
James, I4, b, 1776
Joshua,I5, b, c1777
Edmund,I6, b, c1790

The first three are highly likely, the fourth was associated with the
others until about 1830. With the two older sons named in the will we
now have six. Neither James nor any of these six could write his name
which is a characteristic to make note of.

How were the records used to show these men as sons of James? Let us look
at the tax lists of Warren County.

In Warren County, the tax assessor put down, for each household, the
total number of polls living on the premises. This was so if the man was
over 21 and unmarried and thus not the head of a household. By listing
the poll data for each year, first James and then after his death,
Samuel, we can find the tax year in which a male in the household becomes
21. When this man marries, even if still living at home, he will have a
separate entry in his own name. The dates of birth of these sons can be
established from later records. Then they can be used to confirm that
indeed a man did become 21 in that year and when married he was listed in
Nutbush District. This has been done and a good correlation was
established. There is further evidence in the fact that none of these
men are claimed by other lines then living in Warren County and that all
the K and most of the J-line could write.

The following is a brief summary of the children of James.

Samuel,I1

Samuel married soon after his father's death and began to add his own
family to the household. Samuel does not seem to have fared well and his
records show indebtedness with trust deeds executed on the property he
inherited from his father. By 1818 Samuel appears to have been forced to
sell all the land remaining to the I-line. In 1823 Samuel executed a
pitiful deed in which he named his children (he used son-in-law's names
in place of daughters names). The deed gives each heir an equal share in
a slave boy, Nelson. This would appear to be the only property he had to
devise.

The Warren Reporter carried an article stating that Samuel, an old
resident, had been found dead a short distance from his home on Friday,
the 1st of February, 1825.

Robert,I2

The first record for Robert was the 1785 census in which he was listed
next to John,D4, in Smith Creek District (Capt Twitty's). He was
single and under 21, if 20 then he was born in 1765. We find that Robert
was on the tax list of 1786 and married in 1787. Thus we can assume he
was born in 1765. The court records of Warren County and the subsequent
movements of John,D4, and the I-line descendants show that there was a
close friendship between these two lines. Perhaps Robert worked for his
cousin, John,D4, in some capacity. We do not find other records of Robert
in Warren County but a Robert appears on the 1800 census of Chatham
County. He was married, had two sons and agewise matches our missing
Robert. We can conclude that this is our Robert because at this period
Robert is a unique name in the North Carolina branch.

Robert does not appear in subsequent records. A Richard, b,1795 ,NC,
appears in the Chatham County census of 1820; he married into the Bray
family and had descendants. No positive link has yet been found between
these two men; however, there is no justification in genealogy to ignore
the findings. That is to say until some new evidence can be produced to
show that Richard was not the son of Robert, the better position is to
assume that he was. From the facts Robert was present in Chatham County
and had a son, b, 1791-1800. It is far better for a genealogist to list
what little evidence he has and to record what he thinks it means than to
remain silent and withhold his findings.

John,I3

In the Paschall line the name John is a nightmare as it usually is in
other lines. How can we separate the records of the various Johns in
Warren? Further how can we tell if a record of a John in Warren is a
descendant of James? Some records, such as estate sales, attended by two
or three Johns can not be separated. In cases where two Johns are
present, markers such as senior and junior (no specific relation
intended) were utilized.

In our particular case there was in Warren an older John who became very
much senior when John,E, died in 1776. This was the second son of Samuel
who was John,D4, born 1756. He would then get the senior tag and be
identifiable. We can use our knowledge of the fact that the E-line left
the Warren area in 1785, the H-line left in 1791 and no John name was
used in the J-line. This leaves in Warren the K-line. We are in luck
that John,K5, was well known and rather rich - a good identifier.

A new John first appears in the 1798 tax list of Nutbush District with no
land and one poll. There is found written on the 1797 tax list a
notation to the fact that someone is complaining because he has been
accessed for the poll tax and he claims to be under 21. This statement
then confirms the belief that 21 was the age when the poll tax on males
was exercised. The age determination was usually carried out by
examination as no exact knowledge or certificates were in use. When a
man married he was considered to be "of age".

John,K5, lived in Smith Creek District and did not marry until 1807. Also
in 1798 a John married Patsy Wilson in Warren County and thus should
appear on the tax lists. Our conclusion is that the new John became 21
in 1797 and married in 1798. We find him listed with a poll on the 1800
and 1801 tax lists. In the 1800 census we find two Johns, listed as
senior and junior. The junior we consider our John as he matches the
profile we've established and John,K5, is still at home. Our new John
does not have children as yet having married in December, 1798.

Previous searchers in this line have misidentified our John due to a
misprint of a marriage in earlier publications. This marriage showed a
Walker Paschall and a Mary Hudson had married in Warren in 1793. A
presumption was made that this was a John Walker Paschall, son of
James,I. When the marriage bonds of Warren are consulted one finds that
a Walker Pickeral had married Mary Hudson. This unfortunate mistake has
caused considerable problems in this line.

After 1800, things could get a bit mixed. Our John,I3, was reared as his
father was so he would most likely follow in the planter trade. We find
in 1803, in Granville County, a deed in which James Burchett,
brother-in-law to James,E1, sells land in Beaver Dam District to John of
Warren. This John moves to Granville and resides on the farm for the
rest of his life. In 1839 John,I3, wrote his will naming sons James,
Robert, Richard and daughters Patience and Elizabeth among others. The
reader will no doubt but note the consistency of the given names. This
John could not write. A further point remains. One of the deed
witnesses (who signed) was John Paschall, he was most likely John,E4.

James,I4

This James, being the namesake, was not much of a problem but there was
another James, the son of John,E. As has been noted this James,E1, moved
to Beaver Dam District of Granville about 1785. The tax lists of Warren
show the presence of James,I4; and after his marriage in 1802, he is
shown on the tax lists as the head of a household. James like his
younger brothers, did not have an inheritance so did not have much to
start married life on. He appears in the 1810 census of Warren with
family. In 1811 James is listed in an estate proceeding for his wife's
father, Henry Wilson. James had a trust deed excuted in 1815 for his
personal property which shows he did not own land as land would be the
preferred mortgage.

James moved from Warren to Caswell County and appears on the 1818 tax
list with Edmund. He then moved to Rockingham County and appears there
for the 1820 and 1830 census. We find an interesting deed in Rockingham
in which James and wife with others sell their interest in Henry Wilson's
estate. In the 1830 census there are Joshua, Edmund and Wilson in-laws.
After 1830 they separated from one another and went their separate
routes.

The 1835 tax list of Henry County, TN, shows an older son of James, and
the 1840 and 1850 census of Henry lists the son and James as well. In
Henry county, men were excused from paying the poll tax at age 50 so we
would not expect to find James,I4, in the tax lists. About the year 1859
James moved across the state line to Calloway County, Ky; or perhaps
because of a state line change in 1859, he appears to have moved. He was
living with his son, James,I44, in the 1860 census. This is the last
record found of James. He is presumed to have died about the year 1861
and to have been buried locally.

Joshua,I5

Joshua grew up in Nutbush District of Warren County. Joshua married in
1809 and appears in the 1810 census. He was listed in the 1811 tax list
of Granville County with John and Edmond. He is listed in the 1820 and
1830 census of Rockingham County. In 1840 we find Joshua has moved to
Grainger County, TN. Joshua died there between 1840-1850. Joshua's widow
and children can be found in later Grainger and Henry County, TN records.
Strangely, Priscilla, a daughter who was by tradition a twin to Aquilla,
is believed to have married Silas, E22.

Edmund,I6

Edmund is not well known and his descendants remain unknown. He fits in
a slot so we put him there. He was reared in Warren, he married there in
1815, he had a land deed, and he appeared in a 1811 tax list in Granville
County with John and Joshua. He appears in Caswell in 1818 with James.
He stayed there for the 1820 census but was on 1830 Rockingham County
census with others. There is no further record of him or family. The
author believes he likely left Rockingham County after 1830 and moved to
TN/KY where some unknown Paschalls later appear who named a son Edmund.

Daughters of James

James named two daughters, Patience and Elizabeth in his will. An
Elizabeth married Turner Johnson, 1795. This marriage does not belong to
the J or K lines so most likely she was the daughter of James. No
information has been found for Patience. There are two other marriages in
Warren that do not fit into other lines and so have been "adopted" into
the I-line. These were Eluena, who married Eppa Booth in 1791, and
Sarah, who married Zacharias Rivers in 1802. Eluena's bondsman was John
Paschall who x'ed his name. We assume this was her brother, John,I3.