Monday, January 20, 2014

Waight Emigrant Family Analysis

Waight[1] Emigrant Family Analysis[2]
By Wally Waits[3]
©2014

Colonial South Carolina Council Journal entries record passengers requesting both bounty fees and Warrants of Survey during the second weeks in January, February and March, 1768.  Thus, it seems likely that the St. Helena arrived between the previous January 12th and February 13th when the Waight names appear in a journal entry.

Here are the passengers debarking from the St. Helena who are listed as requesting bounty fees:

                   John Waight                          60
                    Mary Waight                          52
                   John Waight                          19
                   Samuel Waight                      15
                   Benjamin Waight                   13
                   Sarah Waight                           8

According to the formula outlined in the British Public Records Office, the Colony of South Carolina began granting 100 acres to each “Master or Mistress of a family for himself or herself.”  A Master or Mistress was whoever was thought to be the “Head of Household.”  In most cases, it would be the husband and/or father.  This instruction from the British government promoting immigration is dated 1 Nov 1755.[4]

More allotments would be made for each person traveling with this family.  After the allotment to the head of household was made, the wife’s share of 50 acres would be added to the head’s 100 acres.  For each additional person over two years of age, but under age 16, more 50-acre allotments were added in.  These 50 acre allotments were made to any additional person traveling with the “Master or Mistress.”

If a Head of Household was paying passage for an indentured person over 16, he would have been allowed to request 100 additional acres for each one.  If the servant was under the age of 16, the amount allotted was 50 acres just like a family member of the same age.

If the Waight passengers were a nuclear family, consisting of a father, mother and four children, of the stated ages given above, the following would be the warrants allotted them:

          John Waight, Sr.           300 acres for a head and 4 dependents
          John Waight, Jr.           100 acres as an adult

This is because the 300-acre allotment would have been for the father (100 a.), plus his wife (50 a.) and 50 a. for each of the three younger children (150 acres).  Children over 15 were authorized 100 acre allotments like John Jr. was.  This is all the land the Waight passengers would have been entitled to as a nuclear family.

The clerk on February 13th wrote that there were four emigrants over the age of 16 who requested Warrants of Survey for 100 acres.  They were:

                   John Waight, Sr.          100 acres (out of 250 acres total)
                   John Waight, Jr.           100 acres
                   Samuel Waight            100 acres
                   Sarah Waight               100 acres

The person listed as a passenger of the St. Helena named Sarah Waight was recorded as being eight years old.  A child of this age would not have been eligible in her own right for a land bounty for 100 acres.  Her father, or “Master” of the family, would have received 50 acres on her behalf.  So, Sarah’s petition was certainly a mis-named application that was really Mary’s.

Yet, Mary Waight’s name does not appear on the list of petitioners who are requesting the Crown government in Charles Town grant Warrants of Survey.  Because she had land platted in her own name, her request has to be listed under the name of “Sarah Waight.”

It is clear that the clerk omitted Benjamin’s name from the list of petitioners requesting Warrants of Survey for a reason.  That reason was his youthful age.  This seems to mean that the request in the name of “Sarah Waight” was intended for an adult woman, i.e., one over the age of 15.

The clerk erred a second time when he reported that Samuel Waight requested a 100-acre allotment.  Samuel was not entitled to make that request in his own name because he was not yet 16 years of age.

I have not found a plat for Samuel Waight recorded in the South Carolina Council Journals.  No plat filed by the Deputy Surveyor in Charles Town means Samuel’s warrant was not used.  His Warrant of Survey must have been cancelled because he was too young to be eligible.  Furthermore, there is no record of Samuel having obtained “his” 100 acres even years later when he was of age.  Samuel did not keep the warrant and use it later.

John Waight, Jr., on the other hand, was eligible for and did request a Warrant of Survey in his own name.  This was because he was over fifteen years of age and was thus considered an adult who was permitted to obtain a land grant independently.

Here is what seems to have occurred when the land was surveyed.

John Waight, Sr.          granted 100 acres as John Sr.
Mary Waight                 granted 100 acres issued under Sarah’s
name, but used under Mary’s name
          John Waight, Jr.          granted 100 acres as John Jr.
          Samuel Waight            granted   50 acres with John Sr.
          Benjamin Waight         granted   50 acres with John Sr.
          Sarah Waight               granted   50 acres with John Sr.

John Waight, Sr., as a head of a household, was granted 100 acres as would any other “Master” who was over the age of 15.  Samuel, Benjamin and young Sarah fall into the under-16 age category.  John Waight, Sr. thus had an additional 150 acres added to his own 100 acres.

If Mary was married to John, she would not have been allowed to petition for a Warrant of Survey independently as was the case.  Only if the couple made fraudulent statements might both events have occurred.  More than likely, confusion caused the clerk to err while writing the journal entry.

Journal errors aside, here are the scenarios under which Mary would have been entitled to a 100-acre bounty land allotment.  Colonial South Carolina followed English law pretty closely.  Under the law she could have been considered a feme sole or a feme sole trader.[5]

“Feme sole trader” means a woman was married, but had permission from her husband to transact business or own property independently.  This practice was a common law practice in Colonial South Carolina, but was limited in this colony to giving a woman permission to only trade in merchandise.[6]

There are some factors worthy of consideration.  First of all, it is possible that Mary Waight bought and sold trade goods in South Carolina.  However, her actions argues against this.  It was a sparsely populated area where her land was platted.  Commercial opportunities were limited in the South Carolina Up-Country at this time.

It is believed Mary would have had some say-so in the matter of where her grant was located.  Her choosing to locate her property next to that of John Sr. and John Jr. also argues that commercial trading was not her intention.

Her plat was likely surveyed last because the deputy surveyor would logically have measured the largest tract first.  I believe Mary then chose land adjacent to the land already chosen by the elder and junior John’s.[7]

After eliminating the possibility that Mary Waight was a “feme sole trader,” it is time to consider Mary Waight as a “feme sole.”  This phrase refers to a woman who was widowed or separated from a husband or was an unmarried woman.[8]

Let us take the case of separation first.  There are two possibilities in this situation it seems.  Was she separated before her arrival in Charles Town, or afterwards?

When Mary becomes separated from John Waight, Sr. is not really an important question.  The consideration of timing, however, does bring out several possibilities.

If Mary was ever married to John Senior, it was before they arrived in South Carolina.  If she was already separated from John before they arrived, why would she travel with him and subsequently locate land adjacent to her supposed former husband?

Surely she would have known that her age meant that she was leaving behind, probably forever, any hope of seeing her family who remained behind.  These points argue that she was not separated before the St. Helena set sail out of Bristol.

Next, let’s consider if Mary become separated from John Waight, Sr. after their arrival in Charles Town.  If this occurred, it came about pretty quickly.  It had to have happened fast because of the short time between the docking of the St. Helena and the time when Mary applied for a land warrant in her own name.  This could have happened sometime in late January or early in February, 1768.  She might have called upon the assistance from people like Abraham Waight[9] to help her accomplish a legal separation.  Advice would certainly be needed.

Even if she should have simply renounced her marriage to John Sr. upon arrival even without taking legal action, she would still have faced a new environment in South Carolina.

Upon landing at the Charles Town pier, she would have faced great insecurity.  Separation between a husband and a wife often meant the wife moved into her own residence, forsaking her husband’s support thereafter.  The uncertainty usually causes a person to be reluctant in taking such a break.

Since John Waight, Sr., John Waight, Jr. and Mary Waight all selected adjacent land in the Upcountry, they logically planned to live collectively.  Locating her land adjacent to both John Waight, Senior and John Waight, Junior, also suggests that Mary had dependent relationship with these two.

Furthermore, the land they chose was suitable for farming.  This means that the possibility of Mary being a “feme sole trader” is more unlikely. Farming requires a lot of land.  This limits commercial enterprise which needs a lot people.

So, how could she have requested a warrant under her own name without a husband’s direct authority?  There are two possible ways.  One might be if Mary was John’s sister.  One of the ways was if she was an unwed sister who was bringing an illegitimate son named Benjamin with her.  While possible, this statistically is a less likely probability.

Suppose instead that Mary Waight was John’s sister-in-law.  John might have been accompanying her and her child to the New World.  That would enable her to have applied for a grant in her own name.

When the clerk was writing the names of immigrants requesting Warrants of Survey, he seemed to realized he had not recorded the passengers’ names for requesting bounty fees.  At this point, I believe the clerk thought Mary was the wife of John Waight, Sr.

In reality, I doubt that Mary Waight was ever the wife of John Waight, Sr.  Only as a unmarried or widowed immigrant would this “Mistress” have been eligible for a grant of 100 acres.  It appears that she was considered a feme sole by the officials of the Colony of South Carolina in 1768.

Unfortunately, the clerk was having a bad day and, faced with an unusual family cluster, seems to have failed to properly question the circumstances.  As a consequence, family historians will hereafter question who was the parent or child of whom.

Mary Waight’s allotment of land in her own name means researchers may no longer assume standard relationships.  John Waight, Sr. might have been the father of some or of all four youngsters, or he might not.  Mary was old enough to be the mother of all the young Waight children, but is documented as the mother of only one, Benjamin.  She may not have been the mother anyone but Benjamin.


[1] The “Waight” spelling, an apparent variation of “weight,” is likely based on the spelling used by Abraham Waight’s family.  He was a well-known and prominent low-country planter.  It is doubtful that anyone in this study was either literate or had a “defined” surname.  Even when the surname became simplified to the “Wait” root, variations continued to blossom among the descendants.
[2] I am indebted for the advice and encouragement of Dick Waits of San Antonio, Texas, and of Myra Vanderpool Gormley of Seattle, Washington.
[3] 4404 Fondulac Street, Muskogee, OK 74401-1533, wwaits@gmail.com.
[4] British Public Records Office, Colony of South Carolina Council Journals, v. 24, pp. 314-16.
[5] Black’s Law Dictionary, De Luxe Fourth Edition, p. 745.  “Feme covert” is generally used to refer to a married woman who did not possess the privileges of a “feme sole.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] She would subsequently have a connection to the low country, but that is not a part of the topic under discussion here.  That was nearly a decade later when she was transferring this property to her son, Benjamin.
[8] Black’s Law Dictionary, De Luxe Fourth Edition, p. 745.
[9] Abraham Waight was just one of several of the Waight name who might have helped Mary.

No comments:

Post a Comment