Philip Sr’s Life in NC & 1784 Death in SC, and his Son Bartlett
Herebelow I would like to present my version of some of the career of Philip Henson / Hinson Sr, said to be a son of John and said to have been born about 1715.
None of this research was copied from Ancestry or similar sources, which are all quite unreliable.
In those places below where I am not sure of a fact I will word the text is such a way that you will understand that I am not sure.
The subject Philip Sr was in Bladen Co NC by May 1741 when that county granted a warrant for survey to him for 360a on the northeast side of the Pee Dee River.
That land later fell into Anson Co NC when it was formed, and later still into South Carolina,as follows:
== 1750 Bladen Co to Anson Co
== 1764 Anson Co NC to St David’s Parish, Craven District SC when the border dispute was resolved
== 1769 St David’s Parish, Craven District SC to St David’s Parish, Cheraws District SC when Craven District was dissolved
== Chesterfield Co or Marlboro Co SC in 1785 when Cheraws District was dissolved
Note that I am not sure whether Philip’s land of 1741 fell finally into Marlboro or Chesterfield Co.
Philip Sr signed his will in 1777 while living in Cheraws District, but he died in or shortly before November of 1784 in Camden District SC, a bit west of Cheraws.He had moved there with, at least, two of his sons:Bartlett and Obediah.
The order of the six sons named in the will almost certainly agrees with their actual birth order, as was usually traditional, and that supposition is followed below.The deceased Philip Jr was not mentioned in his father’s will but was fit into the sequence of seven total as thought correct, although it may be that Philip Jr and Benjamin should switch places.
Benjamin... est. 1734
Philip Jr... c1736died by 1760;1760 inventory to Anson NC court submitted by Penelope Henson, presumably his widow
Bartlett... 1738
John... 1740
Isham... 1742
NOTE:
All of the above sons were 21 or over in 1763 when they appear on an Anson Co tax or tithe list, or in the case of Philip Jr had married and died by 1760.
The dates for those 5 sons all might have been slightly earlier, but the order is thought to be nearly correct.
(Actually John evidently did not appear on the tax / tithe list, but is included above because Isham was included on the tax list, and Isham was almost certainly younger than John.)
The calculation was made for the above five sons by placing Isham as 21 years before the tithe / tax list date (1763) and then each of Isham’s older brothers two years before him, and so on.
I have used the ever-popular two-year spacing plan for the sons, which is almost certainly not entirely correct.There were no doubt some sons born farther apart than two years after his next older brother.And there may have been daughters of whom we are not aware.Both of those factors would tend to move back the year of birth for each son, especially the first-born sons.My point is that each of the above five was almost certainly not born later than the years indicated.
The two sons below evidently, then, were not yet 21 in 1763, so I have tentatively assigned them to the years shown, or a bit later.
Obediah... 1744
Charles...1746
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Philip Sr’s Daughter(s)
Kisanna’s birth date is widely reported to be 25 Dec 1752.I suppose this exact date, for her only,might have been from her headstone.If that date is correct, then the years for the above listed Obediah and Charles probably should each be moved forward slightly.
It seems slightly unusual that Kisanna was born as the only,or one of the only two,daughters, and she not until after all of the sons.After 7 sons ... then a daughter ?Sounds very unusual.
Why were there seven sons but only one or two daughters ?Might not there have been other daughters not mentioned in the will because they were already married and had received their share ?
Some say there was a daughter named Mary, too, which would seem natural inasmuch as Philip’s wife was named Mary .... but I for one have seen no proof of Mary or any other daughter except Kisanna.
But Kisanna was mentioned in the will even though she had married in 1768, so why was Mary not mentioned if she indeed was a daughter ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bartlett’s Sons
Bartlett in 1790 has two males other than himself in his household, one under 16 and the other 16 or over.
Bartlett is listed next to Robert Hinson, the one who died in Fairfield Co in about 1820.Robert and his wife have no children in their 1790 household and are presumed newly married.
Bartlett mentions sons Benjamin and John---in that order, which is significant---in his 1800 will, and nominates Robert Henson and Benjamin Henson, in that order, as his executors, without giving their relationship to him.He mentioned no daughters in his will, although there were four females in his household in 1790.His widow was Elizabeth
So, from those clues, I construct the following speculation for three sons of Bartlett.
Robert was the eldest, and unlike his brothers had already married by 1790.His father had no doubt given him a plot of land next to his own as a marriage gift, which is why he received nothing in the will.
Bartlett nominated as his executors Robert and Benjamin.This, in my opinion, together with the order in which the other two sons were named,clearly determines their birth order.
The Sons’ Ages
(estimated without consulting the 1800 census except some years ago for Robert)
... John, the youngest, was born in Sep 1774 or later,
probably in 1774 ~ 1775
... Robert, the eldest, is shown on censuses to have been born 1755 ~ 1765, but I narrow that down to about 1764 ~ 1765, about right for a man marrying in 1789 more or less, and also making his year of birth agreeable with those of his brothers.
... Benjamin, the middle son, was born between the two above, so probably between 1767 and 1772.
1800 Census of Fairfield SC
Benjamin had married by 1800, with children, reporting his own age to be 26-44(1755 ~ 1774, agreeable with the estimate above)
John is not on the census in his own name, but we know from the 1790 that he is under 26 in 1800 if living.
But he evidently is the 16-25(1774 ~ 1784) male in Benjamin’s household.That age too agrees with the calculated range given above for him.
(Benjamin was unmarried in 1790 so he could haardly have had a son of 16 or more in 1800.)
By this post I hereby firmly disallow any and all postings in the Henson or Hinson genforum which express opinions contrary to the above.
I invite debate, questions, comments or whatever, either here or to my address below.
Graham Louer
Plano TX
Married 61 years last November