Introduction:
The search for the Britt/Brett family of Southeast Virginia and Northeast North Carolina is far from finished. When the definitive book of the family is finally written, it will probably encompass several volumes. But, as my first employer (God rest his soul) would remind me about once a week, “no man is promised tomorrow”. With that in mind, this essay is to shed a bit of light on just one aspect of the family that has baffled researchers for decades in hopes that it will not become obscured again for those researchers who follow – Who were the parents of Nathan Britt, who died in 1815 in Southampton County, Virginia, and from where did they come?
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Dot Barnum, who alerted him to the existence of the Northampton Deeds of Nathan and his brothers and supplied, along with other notes, the abstracts of some of those deeds.
And, of course, the efforts of Joyce Britt Dunning, the youngest 80 year old I have ever encountered, need to be recognized for, without her research and counsel, the Nathan problem would not have been unraveled.
The Legend: Fact or Myth
We know that Nathan Brett died in Southampton County, Virginia sometime just before March 20, 1815, the date his will was recorded in Southampton Will Book 7, page 436. We know from the will that Nathan had a wife, Elizabeth, and four sons and four daughters. Descendants of those eight children can now be found in nearly every corner of the country. We can find deeds in Southampton showing he owned the land he passed on to his sons. Little more is factually known of the Nathan who died in 1815.
Susan (Sue) McLaughan Brett was a Brett family researcher of some renown. She was descended from Nathan’s (d.1815) son John and wife Mary Liles – who were Sue’s Great-grandparents. Before Sue died in 1990 at the age of 88, she relayed a family legend to Joyce Britt Dunning that she had been trying to prove. Sue’s aunt, Missouri Brett Taylor, her father Henan’s sister, had said that they were descended from two Nathans and one was a bell maker. Further, Sue stated that the tale was handed down from her grandfather’s only sister. That would have been Nancy Brett Gatling, a daughter of John and Mary Liles Brett.
In genealogy, few things are less reliable than family legend; however, with this legend came a line of descent in the telling. The bad news is that Nancy Brett Gatling was born several years after her Grandfather Nathan died; therefore, she was relaying hear-say. Also, how often does one encounter bell makers in the records?
Nathans Everywhere
In his will written in 1811 (recorded 1815), Nathan referred to himself as “senior” to distinguish himself from his son Nathan, also known as Nathan, Jr. Southampton County, Virginia records involving a Nathan Brett (or Britt) seem to begin with a March, 1773 patent for land in Southampton very near the Virginia/North Carolina line (patent book 41, page 265). The records continue until November of 1821 when Nathan divided his property by deed between his wife and children. Between those 48 years, the names Nathan, Nathan Sr., and Nathan, Jr. appear in no less than 24 Southampton deeds and 8 tax lists. The names Nathan, Sr. and Nathan, Jr. appear together in no less than 7 deeds either as witnesses or in which they exchanged properties (usually from Sr. to Jr.).
All this seems fairly straight forward until one does the math. Analysis of the ages of the children of the Nathan who died in 1815 would seem to suggest that his offspring were born between about 1775 and 1795. This is based on the fact that two of Nathan’s daughters were under the age of 21 at the time of their marriage and required their parent’s consent to wed: Rhoda who married Robert Gilliam in 1803 (Southampton Marriage Bond Register page 339), and Cherry who wed Luten Jones in 1810 (Southampton Marriage Bond Register page 210). As for Nathan, Jr., we can assume he was probably the oldest, as he was named executor of his father’s will along with brother William Gatling Brett. We have a confirmed birth date for Nathan Jr.’s oldest child, Rebecca Eliza, who was born in October of 1808. Given the calculated and known ages of his siblings, and the birth years of his children, it is all but certain that Nathan, Jr. was not born prior to 1775, but (more likely) later.
There was a deed recorded on June 7, 1776 in Southampton Deed Book 5, page 231, in which “Nathan Brett, Senr.”. bought a 75 acre tract from John Barrett. The fact that the deed called this Nathan “senior” indicates the existence of a Nathan, Jr. of age to be in the records, that being at least 21 years old. Nathan, Jr. who was the son of the Nathan who died in 1815, was too young to be the Nathan Jr. implied by this deed by twenty years. This means there were two (or more) Nathan, Jr.s in the Southampton records.
On April 19, 1789, Nathan Brett, Sr. and Charity, his wife, sold “the last of my lands in Southampton” to Edward Brett. (Southampton Deed Book 7, page 222). The Nathan of the 1815 will listed his wife as Elizabeth. This basically proves the existence of two Nathan, Seniors, in the Southampton records. Further, analysis of the lands that the earlier Nathan, Sr. sold to Nathan, Jr. appear to be the same lands that the Nathan, Sr. in his 1815 will gave to his sons: Nathan, Jr., William G., Jesse, and John.
Conclusion: there are three Nathan Bretts in the records of Southampton County, Virginia. The first would have been born no later than 1751, and will be shown to have been born about 1715. The second would have been born no later than 1755, but was believed to have been born 1745-1750. The last Nathan would have been born after 1775. The first Nathan was known as either Nathan or Nathan, Sr. in the records. The second Nathan was listed as Nathan, Jr., then Nathan, and finally as Nathan, Sr. And the last was called in the Southampton records either Nathan, Jr. or Nathan after 1815.
Tax Lists
Old tax lists can be interesting. The tax lists for Southampton have survived from 1782 to the present. The lists do not tell who is kin to whom, but they can give some indications. In the tax list of 1782, there is both a Nathan and a Nathan, Jr. listed.
In the 1783 tax list, Nathan, Sr. is listed. Listed with him are Nathan, Jr. and Edward Brett. This is generally an indication that Nathan, Jr. and Edward, while of taxable age, were within Nathan Sr.’s household for whatever reason.
From 1784 through the 1786 tax lists, the three men (Nathan, Sr., Nathan, Jr., and Edward Brett) are listed separately but they follow each other in the tax lists as if they lived beside each other (and it is believed that this is the case).
The 1787 tax list is curious in that it lists both Nathan, Jr. and Edward, but also lists “Nathan Brett, bell maker”. Note: By her own admission to Joyce, Sue M. Brett never checked tax records in her quest to prove the family lore. She should have been thrilled when Joyce informed her of the bell maker tax reference.
Nathan, Jr. is listed in 1788 along with Nathan, Sr., but there are blank spaces beside Sr.’s name where the tax information would normally be. Generally this is seen when the tax payer has been exempted for reason of old age or infirmity. The tax list for 1789 is the same and is the last year the name Nathan, Sr. appears . In 1790, Nathan, Jr. is listed alone as Nathan, Jr. The implications are that Nathan, Sr. has passed away.
Daddy Nathan
No record has been found that says Nathan Brett and his wife Charity (Gatling) are the parents of the Nathan Brett who died in 1815 (who, bless his heart, left us a will). At this late date, some 200 years later, it is doubtful such a record will be found. Never the less, it is believed that Nathan and Charity were the parents of the Nathan who died in 1815.
Most of the lands that the elder Nathan obtained in Southampton eventually went to the younger Nathan. Some went to Edward Brett. At one time, the tax records show Nathan, Jr. to be in the household of Nathan, Sr. When not in the elder Nathan’s household, Nathan, Jr. lived adjacent to him.
Nathan, Jr., who died 1815, named his second son William Gatling Brett, clearly an acknowledgment of his mother Charity Gatling Brett. Finally, all the known facts fit the family legend, even down to the elder Nathan being a bell maker. The odds of any of the legend being true are small. The odds of all of it being true, especially the part of Nathan being a bell maker, are phenomenal – unless the facts fit the legend and the legend is true. How often does one encounter bell makers in the records?
There were three successive generations of Nathan Brett in Southampton County, Virginia from circa 1773 to circa 1825:
Origins of the Elder Nathan
A fragment of a page from an early Bertie County, North Carolina court minute book still survives. It is from 1738. In it is the request of Suzanna Bressie Brett to be the executrix of her husband’s estate as per his will. Her husband was John Brett.
John Brett was probably born about 1660. In a 1690 deed in which he bought land in the upper parish of Isle of Wight County, Virginia, he is identified as a blacksmith (Isle of Wight Deed Book 1, page 27). John, the blacksmith, married Suzanna Bressie about 1695-97. They are both listed on a 1698 deed that shows John sold the land he bought in 1690 (Isle of Wight Deed Book 1, page 277). This was the start of a pattern for John and Suzanna – buying land, buying more land and selling the previous land, and all the while moving south. John, the blacksmith, and Suzanna, his wife, bought and sold land in the upper parish of Isle of Wight, the lower parish of Isle of Wight, and in that part of Isle of Wight that would become Southampton County in 1749. John was involved in no fewer than 7 Isle of Wight deeds.
By 1703, John is identified as living on the north bank of the Meherrin River in what was then known as Chowan Precinct, North Carolina (Isle of Wight Deed Book 2. page 329). By the time of his death on May 23, 1738, John had accumulated at least 1,700 acres of land by either deed or patent. At the time of his death, John lived in what was then Bertie County, North Carolina.
To date, a copy of John Brett’s will has not been found. We know he made a will because his wife Suzanna was granted the administration of the will by the Bertie Court, and, in the ensuing years, there would be no fewer than 16 deeds referencing the will of John Brett as the origin of the property being sold. These deeds would be executed by four sons and one grandson of John, the blacksmith, Brett. These four sons have been identified as Thomas (probably the oldest as he bought land with John in 1719 – Chowan Precinct Deed dated February 12, 1719), Joseph, Benjamin, and Nathan. The grandson (also named John) inherited the last of the lands that John, the blacksmith, owned in Isle of Wight County, Virginia (Isle of Wight Deed Book 7, page 188).
Nathan Brett first enters the records of Bertie on January 23, 1739 when he witnessed a deed between his brothers Benjamin and Thomas. As a witness to a deed, Nathan had to have been at least 21. This would have put Nathan’s birth year at or before 1717. Nathan’s birth year has been estimated as 1715.
In 1741, Northampton County was formed from the western part of Bertie County. A large portion of the lands formally belonging to John Brett would be in the new county.
Nathan is first positively identified as a son of John when on 18 Nov 1751, Northampton Deed Book 1/502, he deeded 314 acres to Wm. Hart of Nansemond Co "devised 23 May 1738 by last will of FATHER, John Brett, Dec'd, of Bertie Co, NC.. The last we hear of Nathan being in Northampton County is on February 19, 1759 when he sold 60 acres of land (Northampton County Deed Book 2). When we next find Nathan, he is in Hertford County, North Carolina. Nathan did not move. In 1759 Hertford was formed from the eastern part of Northampton. Part of the John Brett lands that were acquired in Chowan, became Bertie County lands, and then Northampton County lands, would now be Hertford County lands. This included that part of the properties left to Nathan.
Other than a 1768 Hertford tax list that includes Nathan and his brother Thomas, Sr., nothing more is found of Nathan until he patented land on the Virginia side of the Virginia/North Carolina border in 1773. Unfortunately, the Hertford County Courthouse, along with the records it contained, burned – twice, once in the 1840’s and again in 1862. The result is we have no way to know what other properties Nathan may have owned or when.
The move from the Meherrin river in Hertford County, North Carolina to the part of Southampton County, Virginia where Nathan patented land was not a large move. From Nathan’s Southampton patent land to any point on the Meherrin in Hertford would have been from 4 to 10 miles. Even in Nathan’s three mile per hour world, from his old property to his new would have been a two to five hour walk. And at some point during that walk, he would have had to have passed by the Gatling plantation – the property of his in-laws. When the eldest Nathan sold that patent land to Edward Brett in April, 1789, note he described the property as “the last of my lands in Southampton” rather than the last of my lands. This implies that Nathan did own or still owned land elsewhere, perhaps on the Meherrin in Hertford County, North Carolina.
As is often the case when researching families in the early 1700’s, we have no one document that states that Nathan, the bell maker, Brett who patented land in Southampton in 1773 is the son of John, the blacksmith, Brett who died on the Meherrin in 1738 and Suzanna Bressie his wife. But the Nathan in Southampton is in or close to the right place at the right time to be the son of John the blacksmith. And with an absolute absence of any other records to suggest otherwise, it would seem that the Nathan in 1773 Southampton is the son of John the blacksmith - whom it would seem would be the ideal and only teacher available to teach a young Nathan to make bells.