"Transcription and Discussion"

  

PART I:  "Transcribed & Digital-art Reproduced"   1828 Will of Henry Dickens of Smith Co., TN (Will Book #3, Page 23 [360A] (See Note #1)):

  

    

PART II:   DISCUSSION:

        

There seems to be hesitation amongst some Dickens researchers as to whether or not all who are named in Henry's will are indeed his children. This appears to be due to the fact that only "Jesse" is explicitly named in Henry's will as his son. 

  

Based on the available data that I have collected over the years - beginning with records in Bute, Warren, and Caswell Counties in NC, and working forward to Jackson, Smith, Sumner, and Wilson Counties in TN, there is no doubt in my mind, that ALL WHO ARE NAMED in Henry Dickens' will are indeed his sons and daughters.

  

The following is a partial list of chronological data for Henry Dickens:

  

In 1766, a Henry Dickens - is on the Bute Co., NC Tax List
 
In 1770, a Henry Dickens - is ordered by the Bute Co., NC Courts to work under William Shearin, surveyor of the roads...
 
In 1778, a James Jones acquires 120 acres of unclaimed land on "Haw Tree Creek" adjacent a Henry Dickens in Bute Co., NC
 
In 1784, a Henry Dickens - is on the Warren Co., NC Tax List (Note that Bute was disestablished and became Warren & Franklin Counties in 1779)
 
In 1784-87, a Henry Dickens - is enumerated in the North Carolina State Census, for Warren County (signed: March 1786)
 

  • Henry is Head of Household

  • 4 males (Under 21 or over 60) [William, John, Jeremiah, and Unidentified  (See Notes #2 & #3)]

  • 5 females [Susannah m: Hightower, Mary m: John Bush, Rebecca m: Jeremiah Bush, Martha m: Gower Whittemore, Henry Sr.'s Wife]
In 1789, a Henry Dickens - purchases 350 acres land on "County Line Creek" in Caswell Co., NC from Robert Sorrell of Caswell Co., NC
 
In 1790, a Henry Dickens - is on the 1790 Caswell Co., NC "RECONSTRUCTED Census based on Tax Records" with the following data:  339 acres, 2 white polls, 0 black polls (See Notes #3 & #2)
 
In 1791, a Henry Dickens is married to a Lydia Hews in Caswell Co., NC (See: Theoretical Henry Jr. at Unsolved #11)
 
In 1794 - 1800, a Henry Dickens is documented in numerous Caswell Co., NC deeds as selling off several tracts of land; witnesses were: William Dickens, and John Dickens
 
In 1800, a Henry Dickens - is enumerated in Caswell Co., NC Census
 

  • Henry = 45+

  • 1 male 10-16 (Jesse, born Abt. 1790) [26-45 in 1820, 30-40 in 1830]

  • 1 female 0-10 [Elizabeth m: Littleton Darnell]

  • 1 female 10-16 [Sarah m: Stephen Herring]

  • 1 female 26-45 (Wife?)
In 1800, a John Dickens - is enumerated in Caswell Co., NC Census [45+ in 1820, 60-70 in 1840]
 

  • John = 16-26

  • No males

  • 2 female's 0-10

  • 1 female 16-26 (wife) her name is Unknown
In 1800, a William Dickens - is enumerated in Caswell Co., NC Census [60-70 in 1840]
 

  • William = 26-45

  • No males

  • 3 female's 0-10

  • 1 female 16-26 (wife) known to be Priscilla Poston; she died about 1802 +/-
In 1802, a Henry Dickens is documented in a Caswell Co., NC deed as selling a tract of land; witness: Jeremiah Dickens.
 
In 1804, a Henry Dickens is documented in a Caswell Co., NC deed as selling a tract of land; witness: William Dickens.
 
In 1805, a Henry Dickens - is in Caswell Co., NC Court Records as being "Insolvent"
 
In 1808, a Henry Dickens - purchases 100 acres land on "the waters of Caney Fork" in Smith Co., TN from Henry Maggart of Sullivan Co., TN    [CLICK HERE FOR IMAGE]
 
In 1820, a Henry Dickens - is enumerated in Jackson Co., TN Census
 

  • Henry = 45+

  • 2 male's 10-16 (see Charlotte below, (& See Note #4) )

  • 1 female 16-26 [Loty (aka: Letsy) Dickens - who later married James W. Pendarvis]

  • 1 female 26-45 (Charlotte?     See Charlotte's UNSOLVED #1)
In 1828, a Henry Dickens - on August 11, 1828 signs his Last Will and Testament, proved in November Court 1828, and recorded January 1829; in Smith Co., TN.
 

   

    

NOTES:  

   

1.  The image of Henry Dickens' will above is a reproduction of the microfilmed handwritten copy, as the original image if posted here would be too difficult to read.  A copy of the original will as it was handwritten by the clerk "J. Pickett" in January of 1829 in Smith County Will Book Number 3, is available at the "Tennessee State Library and Archives (TSLA)" on microfilm;  a summary transcription is also available at TSLA in the book:  "Smith County Tennessee Wills 1803-1896, by: F.C. Key, Sue W. Maggart, and Jane C. Turner, Carthage, TN 1985". However, some of the names as transcribed by the authors in their book are NOT what the handwritten will (court record) says. 

  

It should be understood that even though an 1829 handwritten copy of the will is available on microfilm - that it is not the actual will itself - it is simply the recording of the document in a record book. Actual wills of the time would have been placed in a loose file for storage - and the handwritten record books were simply a fast search medium. The actual will itself has probably been lost/destroyed, or yet discovered. 

   

Also, note the date error by the clerk... instead of writing "Recorded 14 January 1829" he accidentally wrote "Recorded 14 January 1828".

   

2.  Unlike the first US Federal Census of 1790 (whereas the first column was for male head of household and males over 16, and the second column was for males Under 16 only),  the first column of the 1784 - 1787 North Carolina State Census was for male head of household and males between 21-60, and the second column was for males Under 21 and over 60. For Henry Dickens' enumeration in this 1784 - 1787 State Census (signed: March 1786), I am certain that 3 of the 4 males were "William, Jeremiah, and John", and nearly certain that the 4th male in this census was an "Unidentified" son of Henry (it is only remotely possible the 4th male could have been a male over 60). I estimate Jesse's birth at exactly 1790, so he was not born yet.

   

Based on my extended research into Tax Laws and Census data, it appears that the 1784 - 1787 North Carolina State Census was structured based on current Tax Law for the State.  That is, the first column for male heads of household and males over 21 but under 60, represented those of Taxable age. The second column for males under 21 and over 60, represented those who were Tax Exempt.

   

It should be noted that prior to the Revolutionary War, in North Carolina, male head of households and males over 16 but less than 60 were Taxable. In 1801, North Carolina changed the Law so that males over 50 were Exempt, and by 1835, males over 44 were Exempt.

   

3. The 1790 Reconstructed Caswell County Census shows that Henry was charged 2 white polls - obviously meaning that there were 2 people of "Poll Tax" age in his household (Henry himself, and another male 21 or over - but, less than 60).  My calculations are as follows:

1)  Unidentified was born between 1766 - 1786 +/- (if less than 21 in March of 1786), or: before 1736 +/- (if 60 or more in March of 1786 - however, I have excluded this later possibility)

  

2)  William was born roughly 1773-1774, thus being about 16-17 in 1790; 

  

3)  John was born roughly 1774-1775, thus being about 15-16 in 1790;  

  

4)  Jeremiah was born roughly 1776-1777, thus being about 13-14 in 1790;  and 

  

5)  Jesse was born roughly 1790, thus being under 1 throughout 1790.

  

   

Since a male over 60 would have been Tax Exempt in 1790, I can exclude an Unidentified male over 60 for the purpose of this analysis!  Therefore the 2nd "Poll Taxed" male in Henry's household in 1790 MUST HAVE BEEN an Unidentified SON of Henry Dickens; and thus, I can also conclude that the 4th male (see Note #2 above) in Henry's household in March 1786 was therefore in fact Henry's oldest Unidentified son - and NOT a male over 60.  (Note: in 1790, William, John, and Jeremiah were not 21 yet, and Jesse had either just been born or was soon to be born).

    

4.  Census Records between the years 1790 to 1830 which have been ordered Alphabetically, are actually a re-compiled list based on the original census records - a general practice of the period (thus creating an ordered manageable list of names).  My physical examination of the re-compiled handwritten 1820 Jackson Co., TN Census shows that the 2 males that were listed as 10-16, were actually in the 0-10 column before being crossed out and placed under the 10-16 column. Further examination of the same census page shows more than 14 such corrections/changes were made to that page's data alone - which is very unusual, and makes the accuracy of the numerous corrections/changes highly suspect/unreliable. 

  

This quantity of corrections/changes - indicates to me that while the enumerators were transitioning the data from the original as-built-records to the re-compiled ordered records, a large amount of data may have been miss-transcribed.  My contention: "it is my opinion that the 2 males were originally and correctly shown in the  0-10 column, and for whatever reason, they were erroneously placed in the wrong column". I repeat - this is "My Opinion", and it may NOT be fact.

  

As a side note: All of Henry's sons had already left home before 1820. Although some people believe that one of the 2 males enumerated as 10-16 in this 1820 census was "Joseph C. Dickens", who was the last born son of Henry Dickens - it should be noted that Joseph was born in 1801 and he would not have been marked within the first three columns of the census. Joseph was 19 years old in 1820 and he would have been marked in the 4th column for 18-26 - thus, it is highly unlikely that either of the 2 younger males in 1820 were Joseph. These 2 young males were probably Henry's grandchildren... but, who's children were they?

  

POSSIBILITY:  While some researchers believe that "Charlotte" was the wife of Henry Dickens Sr., I do not concur with this. It is my believe that "Charlotte" was a Widowed daughter-in-law of Henry Dickens Sr. living in his household in 1820, and that at least one of the 2 young males were/was her son(s). These 2 males are probably "John" and perhaps "Jesse" who appear in the 1840 Wilson Co., TN Census; whereas "Charlotte" would be the older female (age 50-60) living in "John's" household (see UNSOLVED #1).

   

Some might ask:  Well, if "Charlotte" was not Henry's wife yet we know that she was the oldest female living in Henry's 1820 household, and since we also know that Henry's wife was still alive in 1828 based on his will, then where was Henry's "well beloved wife" if she was not "Charlotte"? My answer to that is:

I believe Henry' Sr.'s wife was in fact the older female living in Jesse's household in Smith Co., TN who was enumerated as 45+ in 1820, and 80-90 in 1830. This is probably the reason that it was "Jesse", the 2nd youngest son of Henry Sr., who was named along with his "well beloved wife" to receive an equally divided balance of Henry' Sr.'s estate after all just debts were paid.

  

Thanks for visiting this site, I hope you enjoyed the information within!
 
Email Bob Tobin