Is your surname Hadley?

Research the Hadley family

Share your family tree and photos with the people you know and love

  • Build your family tree online
  • Share photos and videos
  • Smart Matching™ technology
  • Free!

Joshua Hadley

Birthdate:
Birthplace: Chatham County, North Carolina, United States
Death: May 12, 1853 (89)
Mooresville, Morgan County, Indiana, United States
Immediate Family:

Son of Jeremiah Hadley and Mary Hadley
Husband of Elizabeth Hadley and Sarah Jones Hadley
Father of Enoch B. Hadley; Hannah Barker Hadley; Simon Barker Hadley and Joshua B. Hadley
Brother of Lydia Cox; Jeremiah Hadley; Mary Graves; John Hadley; Jane Pounds and 1 other

Managed by: Private User
Last Updated:

About Joshua Hadley

From "Piedmont North Carolina Cemeteries"; Cane Creek Marriages HADLEY Joshua married Elizabeth Barker on 1-18-1787 son of Jeremiah and Mary of Holley Spring. BARKER Elizabeth married Joshua Hadley on 1-18-1787 dau of Nicolas and Hannah of Holly Spring. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Listed as Free Inhabitant on 1850 Census

Excerpt from Federalist Papers No. 42 by James Madison

http://madison.thefreelibrary.com/Federalist-Papers-Authored-by-James- Madison/1-8 

The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits. What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled, and has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils. And how the trade with Indians, though not members of a State, yet residing within its legislative jurisdiction, can be regulated by an external authority, without so far intruding on the internal rights of legislation, is absolutely incomprehensible

This is not the only case in which the articles of Confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom, by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain. The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions.

In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared "that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce," etc.

There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined.

It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State.
In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. 

What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.

Excerpt from Founders Constitution http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s17.html In the fourth Article it was agreed, the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the several States in this Union, that "the free inhabitants of each of these States,--paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted,--shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; The word "citizen" imports the same as the word "freeman" in our old Acts of Assembly; and means every white man, who, by birth or naturalization, is or may be qualified to exercise and enjoy, under like circumstances, all the rights which any native born, white inhabitant of the State does or can enjoy. And every white man, born or naturalized in any other State, is such a citizen of such other State as to be entitled, in this State, to all the civil rights of citizenship, and by residence and other qualifications to all the political rights.

Following comes from <http://www.aagsnc.org/columns/mar99col.htm> -- Buffalo Ridge Cherokee - Remnants of a Nation Divided According to tradition, the Allegeni, the ancestors of the modern Cherokee, were defeated by the Delaware-Iroquois alliance and moved into Virginia. The settled in New Holston Valley after residing for a period of time at the Peaks of Otter in Bedford County 4(Johnson, 34). In just twenty years, from 1880 to 1900, the Indians in Amherst County were systematically erased from the record books by the stroke of a pen. They were forced by law in 1705 to be called "mulatto" and then called "black" in 1900.

Many of the Cherokee descendants of Amherst County accepted this term without resistance. In fact, by 1850, as "Free Inhabitants" of Amherst County, the Cherokee families lived in the communities with blacks and whites and many of the families "went" for black or white, depending on the racial community in which they lived and felt secure ( p. 37).

view all

Joshua Hadley's Timeline

1763
August 11, 1763
Chatham County, North Carolina, United States
1790
May 17, 1790
1792
May 19, 1792
North Carolina, United States
1795
May 5, 1795
Plainfield, Hendricks County, Indiana, United States
1808
February 24, 1808
Randolph, North Carolina, United States
1853
May 12, 1853
Age 89
Mooresville, Morgan County, Indiana, United States