James A. Cox

James A. Cox

Find A Grave Memorial ID # 83037956

James A. Cox came to Marion County, Missouri to grow tobacco. He brought his children and 9 slaves. In his Father's Will (Valentine Cox) made a request to not only James but others. He asked James." Also one negro Ned, who in consideration of his age and former services, I desire may be treated with that tenderness and humanity which his situation as a slave may admit of."

I believe "NED" and the others may have been bi-racial relatives, and some of the "9" were African-American relatives. I enclose the following conversation between me and Donald Cloven because he has an interesting Point of View.

Dear Don, I am going to add your conversation to James Cox's Geni information because it is very interesting.I hope you do not mind.I also try to be objective as I can.I guess, I may have "Jumped the Gun" on this. Chris L. Mathews

Donald Franklin Colvin yesterday at 9:43 PM Chris,

I'm an informal kind of guy, Don is fine...I appreciate the sign of respect, but feel free to be at ease...

I've found lots of instances where people gave their slaves the exact same shares of their property in their will as they did their own children. In some cases, I believe the slaves do prove out to be illegitimate offspring, but in a great many of them -probably the vast majority of them - there turns out to be no relation once the dna tests are done on all the descendants. The DNA tests are pretty accurate now - they definitely prove or disprove the relationship...

A lot of slaves took the names of their owners, and a lot of them had fairly good relations for generations after they were freed without actually being related. A close working relationship - even owner to slave - can exist without actual blood kinship. The very short New Testament book "Philemon" is a letter from the Apostle Paul to a rich guy named Philemon. Philemon was mad at his runaway slave Onesimus who had also recently converted to Christianity. Paul admonishes him to treat Onesimus "as a brother". He also instructs Onesimus to be "content with his lot". Paul doesn't throw out the entire institution, he simply reminds them both to behave as Christians and they won't have any problems. Its completely politically incorrect to sound like an apologist for the institution of slavery, but I think that often owners were extremely respectful of, and careful with their very valuable human property.

In fact - I can even point to Chancery Cause suits where testimony to that effect is given... One of my ancestors found himself settling the estate for his sister's husband who died. The oldest children weren't quite of age, and when they got older they brought suit against him for not properly handling the estate as their guardian. One of the central accusations that was made involved "bonding out" the slaves... My ancestor, Robert Colvin - asked the mother - who was a slave herself - if it was okay - and she replied that she feared that if her children were "bonded out" - essentially "rented" - they'd be mistreated... So - he didn't do it... He respected her wishes and found useful things for them to do under her supervision. Ultimately the court agreed with his actions, which indicates to me that in practice - slaves were property, but they definitely had rights that in some ways modern office workers lack... It was kind of ironic that Robert's sister, Priscilla - wasn't legally allowed to be guardian of her own children at the point in time - but Robert consulted with the slave about the work to be assigned to her own children.

The jist of the 140 page suit was that Robert felt that the slaves had been more productive because they were content, and that renting them out would have been bad for their morale, and in the long term the profits of the estate. He apparently agreed that some people who would want to "bond them out" might well mistreat them - and he found that both fiscally and morally repugnant.

So I'm sure abuses occurred, and I'm not by any means advocating a return to the system, but all social institutions are subject to abuse because people are people and they'll do bad things. However, most institutions have checks and balances in place that mitigate wrongdoing and tend to keep the abuses to a minimum or the whole institution falls apart...

In keeping with the fundamental concept of Clan thinking - even slaves are part of the extended family, whether actually related or not. I believe that more often then not - the last will and testament reflects appreciation for service well rendered, rather then any guilt over sexual abuse or an attempt to somehow provide for illegitimate progeny .

Tobacco has a long history in Virginia. 1619 was the year that both slaves and tobacco arrived on these shores, and they became forever entwined...

My great-grandfather raised some tobacco as a cash crop during the depression. So, my little grey haired 87 year old mother helped work the tobacco as a child and she had first hand knowledge.

Tobacco is very labor intensive during the planting and the harvesting. For the most part - even the planting isn't bad since its mostly just transplanting the seedlings. Tobacco seeds take a while to grow, so the plants usually have to be started well in advance in order to grow them large enough to be profitable.

In the old days - the seedlings got started in manure piles - so the heat kept them from being killed off until after danger of frost passed. In more recent times cold frames or green houses have become cost effective... The tobacco needs the longest growing period it can get to make the biggest leaf - and that translates to the best profit margin.

The harvesting - that's very labor intensive - it involves carefully cutting the leaves loose and preparing them for drying... Even today, that is something that does not lend itself to automation...

Tobacco does require some tending - keeping the weeds down - and getting rid of the bugs... A tobacco bug - or horn worm - is a truly ugly looking creature that would be at home in a B grade sci-fi movie...

But... The limiting factor is most often space to dry, cure, and store the tobacco... It takes large barns and warehouses for the processing...

I'm digressing - you have to excuse me when I go all pedantic... The bottom line is that a very large family - and 9 slaves - could very well have worked a fairly large acreage of tobacco...

My great-grandfather managed to grow a few acres and it was sufficient to pay things like taxes and pay for some of the necessities - like coffee and sugar - they couldn't grow or make otherwise... They did subsistence farming - so even an acre of tobacco was kind of a luxury, but even during the depression it still paid better then anything else they could have grown...

Bear in mind that the tobacco does most of the work... Its in the ground 3 or almost 4 months and during that time - just keeping down weeds and killing bugs is about all that happens... The actual harvest - getting it all cut and dried before frost hits - that's where everybody was definitely busy from sun up to sun down...

But - and I'm taking a fairly broad guess - it seems like 9 slaves and a fairly large extended family - is sufficient labor to probably take care of 10 or maybe 20 acres of tobacco given antebellum technology... Everyone was probably engaged in subsistence farming also - growing everything else they needed to survive otherwise - so its not like they were just waiting around while the tobacco grew - there was certainly plenty of other work to keep everyone busy...

Another thing - tobacco takes nutrients out of the soil, so its got to be rotated and fertilized... You almost have to leave the ground fallow or plant some kind of legume - peanuts or soy beans or something to put back nitrogen... So - it takes maybe a hundred acres to grow 10 acres of tobacco since you've got to plant it on a different 10 acres and maybe take 5 years before you use the same spot again...

Given that - if you had a fair tract of land - a few hundred acres - 10 or 20 just in tobacco - it could have been very profitable in that time period. Good rich land - near a creek or river - its possible that was the motivation for going to Missouri...

It would have been hard work getting started, but it held the promise of eventually providing for generations to come once it was established... Depending on how successful - you could always expand - buy more slaves and more land...

I think something most people would find surprising is that prior to the Late War - there were only about a dozen plantations here in Virginia that had more then 500 slaves... Typically, the "average" slave owner really only had less then a dozen - so in that respect James Cox was probably typical. He would have been considered well off because he owned slaves, but he was not exactly wealthy... Think of him as upper middle class with ambitions of being upwardly mobile...

d

Chris L Mathews yesterday at 7:18 PM Dear Sir, First, thank you for your reply. Second, can,I call you Don. I agree with your thinking about Sam . I believe some historians call it a Celtic or Clan thinking. Sam's brother John also went to VA and served with Sam. Also, I do agree with the fact Sam fought for his new life in MO.I have another odd question. Sam's Father James came to Marion County ,MO to raise Tobacco. James is in the Find A Grave system. The memorial states that James brought his family and 9 slaves.I found James' Father Valentine's Will and Valentine asks not only James but his other Siblings to care for certain slaves. I have been watching the show Who do you think you are? The show looked at Lionel Richie and one of his ancestors was a White slave holder who made provisions for Lionel's Great- Grandfather. I was wondering "IF" some or all of these 9 slaves were Cox relatives.I also think if you are going to run a Tobacco Plantation you would need more than 9 people. Tell me what you think? Please take care and have a good day. Chris L. Mathews

Donald Franklin Colvin yesterday at 9:28 AM Greetings Cousin Chris,

Its actually an in-law connection - I'm really related by blood to his niece's husband... (Or - at least that's the closest connection so far... He's probably related a few other ways as well once we get all the siblings lines fleshed out...)

Samuel H Cox is my fifth cousin thrice removed's wife's uncle.

Me → Kathleen Colvin my mother → Ashby Payne her father → Rebecca Catherine Payne his mother → Martin Luther Lohr her father → Rebecca Lohr (Phillips) his mother → Rachel Henton her mother → George H. Henton, Jr. her father → Persis Henton his mother → George Boone, III her brother → Squire Maugridge Boone, Sr. his son → Elizabeth Grant (Boone) his daughter → Sarah Hogan her daughter → Nancy Sanders her daughter → James Saunders her son → Sarah Ann Holmes his wife → Emily Cox her mother → Samuel H Cox her brother

I tried to find a photo, but I haven't had any luck so far... Sometimes those show up now and again... If there is a copy out there - its likely to turn up... I will keep an eye out for one...

I can't say for certain why he came back here to Virginia, but I do have a fairly solid conjecture based on what I've seen in a number of other instances... To modern sensibilities my answer may sound quaint, but your question isn't silly at all - its actually very insightful and its one of the main reasons I think I am interested in genealogy. The names and dates and places are good, but what's really wonderful is understanding the person and their context in the greater history taking place around them.

Virginia formed militias - local defense forces almost 10 years before the war actually started .. Virginians had a very strong sense that having Washington D.C sitting on their northern tip would result in any fighting happening here first and they'd been in preparation for a long time before the war started.

Almost all of those units were basically family affairs - they were formed from men in a local area - and almost all of those men were related by blood or marriage. Uncles, brothers, cousins, and in-laws were all together in units because they shared community, political, religion, economic and blood ties. There was a very strong sense of vested interest. Most young men - from early teenage years - were filled with the sense of duty to protect their homes and families - it was a part of the fabric of their lives. It made them who they were... They took a very long view of things - reputation was everything, and commitment was to generations yet to come, not just the immediate present.

I suspect that Samuel Cox strongly felt a camaraderie with the men of his unit, and he returned to Virginia to fight with them for that reason. When the initial fighting started - no one on either side actually believed it would come to war. Locally, people here went out with picnic baskets and blankets and watched the First Battle of Bull Run - fairly content that the local boys would thrash the Yankee opposition and let Succession quietly take place without further debate or discussion.

There was a strong belief that sheer courage, determination, and a righteous cause would so impress upon the USA the futility of arms, that there would be no further need for hostility. This was quickly dispelled when the Yankee troops began to fire indiscriminately on the civilian population and proceeded upon every opportunity to loot, burn, and pillage. Those actions, instead of breaking morale, ultimately galvanized public opinion against them and more strongly formed resolve in the face of the injustices. For Virginians - it ceased to be an academic debate over Constitutional Law - and it quickly took on the gravity of a real life and death struggle.

I'm willing to conjecture that Samuel Cox felt like fighting here when it all started - was far more likely to prevent incursions into his new found home in Missouri .

The CSA was an entirely volunteer force, so he was under no legal obligation to Company B of the 11th Infantry once he moved to Missouri. I also suspect that even having moved - he still strongly maintained ties here to friends and family that had remained. Communication may have been sparse and infrequent, but he had to have a strong sense of honor and duty to the folks in his native Virginia. He had a commitment to an entire way of life. It was plainly a sacrifice and a burden for him to have returned here, so I can only think that he was motivated solely by the sheer strength of his own convictions.

To modern sensibilities, most things are negotiable... People move, or change jobs, or churches, or even divorce with almost casual indifference... Most of the time the attitude now is very much one of living for the moment - and definitely taking the easy way out...

Men like Samuel Cox - had a sense of commitment, a sense of community, and a sense of duty - that is so rare today its almost hard for most people to even grasp. He made very hard decisions - decisions that had costly and dire consequences...

So ... Your question isn't silly at all. He and his brother could have stayed in Marion County, Missouri and probably gotten on with their lives largely oblivious to the larger history taking place... It would have in so many ways been the "smart," the "safe," the "sensible," the "easy" thing to have done from a modern point of view...

But that's just not who they were...

Chris L Mathews 7/20/2014 at 7:37 PM Dear Sir, How are you related to Samuel? The only link ,I see is on my Paternal Side, and Samuel is on my Maternal Side. Also, do you have a picture? I once saw a Tintype of him in a CSA uniform. Also, Sam is in the Cox Cemetery in Marion Co, Missouri check Find-A-Grave for information. The information you have shared is interesting, but do you know why Sam and his brother went back to Virginia to fight and not stay in Missouri? I know it sounds like a silly question but it is an important one.Have a could day. Chris L. Mathews