I was reviewing some old research done by Sherrie Boone, and discovered a note that I forgot about, or was too involved with the other children to followup with. 

Lets review for context. Keziah was taken to the John Nichols family to grow up as she was abandoned by her mother Mary Burgess in 1790. After she grew up and presentably on her own she bore Armstead in 1810 at the age of 20 or 21. 

She later had two more boys:

Armsetad July 1810  Father was a Hale (or Haile)
Sperril July 4,  1820  Different father unknown in 2016
Oliver              1824   Different father from the other two, unknown in 2016

Sherie states that she found this statement in the court records of Bedford County. 

*Bk 18, 1822, June ct “Archibald Nichols who was recognized to appear here this day on the charge of being the father of a bastard child begotten on the body of Keziah Burgess--called and failed to appear This therefore ordered that the said default be recorded.”Bedford Co VA ob 18, p 254

This puts a new sibling Keziah Jr. right in between her two brothers Oliver and Sperrill. And of course is now, four known children. 

Sherrie also states that she think this may be a female. She checked the Nichols DNA and the other two testers of the two brothers, that do not match the Nichols DNA. The John Nichols DNA is also represented as well as a son Archibald. However other relatives (probably John's brothers), also have son's names Archibald; a total of three. 

John Nichols died in 1803 at 83, just 3 to 5 years after Keziah was released from indentured servitude.  

When we look at the Nichols children we find at least eight children starting with Flayl in 1747 to Jessie in 1767. 

This would make the youngest child 33 years old in 1790 when Keziah at about 1 year old was bound to the Nichols. John was 70 and his wife Martha was 60 then. 

It seems like an advanced age to raise another child (although they certianly were experienced!) However according to John NIchols will, at lease two sons had farms given to them adjacent to the homestead. In addition, two domestic slaves were willed to Marta in 1803, So they may have had domestic help when Keziah was young too. 

At least three sons including Archibald are on land owned by John and adjacent to the home place, when Keziah was with them. This land was given to them or sold cheaply in the will.

Sherrie also has researched all the Archibalds. Her notes are below. 

"And Ron to clarify, there are 4 Nichols families  in Bedford same time and place, I suspect they were all brothers. 1.) John, to whom Keziah & James were bound did have a son Archibald. But 2.) George and 3.) William also had sons "Archibald". 4.) Bazdel, did not have a son named Archibald. 1820 tax list for Bedford shows all 3 Archibalds.

 
1.) John's son Arch appears to be older, marries:

Nov. 25, 1779; Archibald Nichols & Sarah Woolington; John Payne, Surety.

 
2.) George's son Arch is a bit younger, marries:

Dec. 10, 1792; Archibald Nichols & Judith Hatcher, dt Richard; Ward Hatcher, Surety; Married by John Ayers, Dec. 20, 1792

 Arch is admin for her estate 1823..... and he's in the neighborhood...

 
3.) William's son Arch is also younger, marries:

Jan. 1, 1819; Archibald Nichols & Polly Updike; Daniel Black, Surety; Consent of Amon and Hannah Updike; Married by William Leftwich, Jan. 10, 1819.

note they live a bit to east, Just married I doubt he's the Arch.
Sherrie."

So it is established that the Archibalds are from the mid twenties to the the mid forties in 1822. Keziah was herself, thirty two or thirty three, with one young son (Sperril) living with her at the time. Armstead was bound to a Hollihan in about 1807 and was probably still there until 1820 or 1822. Sherrie is right, it is unlikely that the younger Arch would be with Keziah unless she was a prostitute. So that leaves John's son or Williams son. 

What does this mean overall to the narrative we have now?
 
Keziah may have been supported by a Hale while Armstead was young. The Hales were prosperous, married and generally respected, so this would have been a quiet affair. For some reason, Keziah released Armstead at about seven, so I'm thinking she lost support or work. 

She survives somehow then gets pregnant again in 1820 with Sperril and then '22 and '24. we know that all are back together by 1835 or 1836 when they went to Kentucky, so her baby in 1822 probably died young or was given up for adoption never to be seen again. 

The big question then remains, what did she do from 1820 until 1835? 
With four children now, each with different fathers, it becomes more clear that she was a loose woman, a prostitute (following 1807) or an extremely unlucky woman with four marriages, none recorded. This is very doubtful, leaving the first two options. 

Clearly Keziah had a jaded life from early 1800's until at least 1824 and perhaps until she went to Kentucky. I believe the evidence points to informal prostitution at the minimum, if not a "professional" participant to survive this difficult situation with children in those days.

A special thanks to Sherrie Boone genealogist, for all her work on the Burgess Family! 

If you would like notifications when blogs are published sign up to the right under "RSS."

Since my last blog, I have upgraded to the 67 marker test. This matches with about 8 Hales and one Chilcut, who I believe had a similar situation in his line, although he knew he had Hales in this line earlier. 

It is very clear that the Hale family is related to Nicholas Hale (also spelled Haile frequently prior to 1700), of "Baltimore." Baltimore is really Hicholas II however, and his father was Nichols I who lived in Ann Arundel County, VA and across the river in Maryland. More about this in a later post. 

The probability for all this is over 98%, so many generations ago. So this is put to bed. The issue now is to attempt to determine who the Hale lines were in between Keziah and Nicholas. 

Nicholas IV had moved to Bedford County, in the 1740's and 1750's. Many Hales were living there. However most moved on to North Carolina in the Washington County (Watauga Colony). This is now North West Tennessee, and had a a very interesting history in the Revolution. Again this is a story for later. 

Roy Hale of another line, but a cousin and exact match to me, reports that Nicholas Hale had four sons in Bedford/Franklin Counties. They are 
Shadrack, Meshack, Abednego, and John. They are probably too old to have had direct contact with Keziah, but their sons and grandsons would be the right age. 

The Bedford County census of 1810, the year Armstead was born, shows a John and Thomas. Each had small children, wife and Thomas had some slaves. This children were under 10, and they and the wives were between 26 and 44. The children would probably make them closer to 28 than 44. 
This makes both a few years older than Keziah who was 20 then. They make good prospects, but as of yet, I have been unable to connect either to their lines. 

Looking at Franklin County is much more difficult. In Franklin County, there are three more John’s; one with family and 30 slaves, Joseph, family and 5 slaves, James and two Thomas’, most with some slaves. One Thomas is over 45 with a younger wife and family, the other the same with 10 slaves.


Any of these could have also been Armstead's father. So as the hunt is complex, one thing is nearly certian. It is that no young men of Keziah's AND un-married were found. Of course the Hale family were heavy travelers, south to Tennessee and nort to Baltimore. So anyone coming through town may have also been our father. 


But if my guess is right. John or Joseph of Bedford are the top suspects. Keziah at 20, would have had no support for Armstead unless she was employed, or got support from the father. When Armstead was older about 6, he was also bound by the Overseers of the Poor in Bedford County to anther family. Keziah no longer could support him. Why? 


Could it be because like moved Hales, they moved on to the south.  Or the wife found out about an affair and stopped it. In any case Keziah was no doubt forced to give up Armstead. This is truly a tragedy, as a boy who knew his mother, would have had a difficult emotional time being separated and given to a family completely unknown. It must have been horrible. 


Keziah a decade later has two more boys, but manages to support them. How? Unknown so far, but we'll continue to work on it. 


So until other projects are completed, what we know is that one of several Hale men were ultimately related to Nicholas II or III and they moved on eventually. 
 

Armstead Burgess was apparently married to Lutitia March 16, 1866. Where did she come from? 

Records in Anststry.com indicate she married Thomas Meador January 9th in Barren County, KY. Lutitia’s father was Nehemiah Meador of Prence Edward County (B. 1775). Her mother was Margaret Payne who was born in Bedford County, VA. They were also married in Franklin (Bedford) County December 10 1821.

Thomas and Margaret had the same great-grandfather making them distant cousins. They would have come moved to Kentucky some time after that their marriage date in 1854.  Many Paynes are in Barron County, Jubal Payne her grandfather had several children born in Barren County as early as 1820.