Molly Hockaday (Tashapiathacho)

The ancestry tree needs work - We have two separate lineages for Warrick Hockaday, that differ. Mary Molly (Tashapiathacho) is linked to both-

We either need to make another profile for (Tashapiathacho) for the two Warrick's

Biography

Molly Hockaday (Tashapiathacho) was born in 1729 in Charles City, Charles City County, Virginia, United States.

Mary married Warrick Hockaday, Sr.. Together they had the following children:

• Mary Ann Brister;
• William Franklin Hockaday.

Mary married Warrick Hockaday. Together they had the following children:

• James Hockaday;
• Elizabeth Hockaday.

She died in 1800.

• from http://genforum.genealogy.com/hockaday/messages/62.html

Tashapiathacho - Erroneous Reporting of Nancy Hockaday Being Tashapiathacho's Daughter

I have just acquired from Ann Nethro (a Florida Brister researcher supporting the current Tashapiathacho investigation) a copy of "The Brister Family of Mississippi," Compiled by Moses Andrew Brister and Arranged by Robert Hanks Brister. This article was published in the Mississippi Genealogical Exchange, Volume 30, Spring 1984. Ann found the copy she sent to me in the Orlando, Florida Public Library.

The first paragraph of this article reads, in part, ...

"Thompson Brister and wife, Nancy Hockaday, lived in Greenville District, South Carolina near Pendleton Courthouse in 1770. Nancy was the daughter of Molly Tashapiathacho, widow, or Molly Hockaday (Choctaw Indian)...."

Moses Andrew Brister (b. 1856; d. 1936) was my Great Grandfather and Robert Hanks Brister (b. 1890; d. 1965) was my Grand Uncle. Moses Andrew Brister wrote extensively on the Brister family genealogy. I have in my personal files originals or copies of what I believe to be every document he wrote. In particular, I have the original article he wrote from which was prepared this article published in the Mississippi Genealogical Exchange.

Between the time Moses Andrew Brister prepared his original handwritten article on April 1, 1896 (which date appears on the handwritten copy) and 1984, when the article appeared in the Mississippi Genealogical Exchange, the original text was reorganized - no doubt to enhance readability.

In addition, the party or parties who undertook the reorganization also took the liberty of embellishing upon the original 1896 version by adding...

"Nancy was the daughter of Molly Tashapiathacho, widow, or Molly Hockaday (Choctaw Indian)..."

That sentence was very definitely NOT included in Moses Andrew Brister's original copy. In fact, it was NOT included in what was a typed draft (which I also have) of the version submitted for publication to the Mississippi Genealogical Exchange. I am quite familiar with the Robert Hanks Brister personal papers as I reviewed them both prior to and subsequent to them being donated by his son to the University of Texas Special Collections Department, Arlington, Texas. His personal papers do NOT include any mention of "Tashapiathacho."

Elizabeth Hockaday/Hockadey is our Mother's/Mother's/Mother/etc... and therefore We get our MTDNA/mitochondrial DNA through her. Her Mother (MARY?MOLLY?) was quite possibly Native American.

Her Father was involved multiple times in diplomatic dealings with the Cherokee people.

If Sharon Barnett/Shannon Templeton/Colleen Granberry/Bryan Moore, or anyone who has the same matrilineal line of descent had their mitochondrial DNA tested they could prove or disprove this long held family belief.

Unlike many of the ancestors in this family tree whose genetic contribution to current descendants is extremely minimal, Molly?Mary? will always be a significant source of DNA as we get ALL of our MTDNA from her.

The article below disproves an oft-seen web assumption that Mary?Molly was a Choctaw or Chickahominy, following that article, I will post some somewhat iffy evidence supporting her possibly being Cherokee or other native group.

The best evidence would be an MT DNA test of a straight line of matrilineal descent individual. If Molly was fully Indian or her mother was Indian, this would confirm the story.

If the DNA was European this would at the very least prove her mother was White.

The likelihood of a white woman and a Native gentleman marrying at this time is extremely unlikely.... so for me.. this would completely disprove the Mary/Molly native story.

“THE TASHAPIATHACHO QUESTION”September 26, 1999Dennis K. BoswellStudy Team Coordinator and Contact PersonEmail: dennisb@primenet.com DISCLAIMER: The Study Team Coordinator and Contact Person and the Study TeamMembers (shown below) make no guarantee as to the accuracy of any information providedin this document and are not responsible for any consequences of its use. Most of thedocument content is based upon what is believed to be factual information, but some of thecontent is Study Team Member (s) opinions.ABSTRACT: For many years Hockaday, Bristow and Brister family members have heard thepersistent story of an ancestor who married an Indian woman named Tashapiathacho (one ofseveral similar spellings). Until recently, no comprehensive research study had beenundertaken to determine from among the story fragments what is true and what is false.During the summer of 1999, a team of family members developed a structured approach tostudying the alleged marriage, pooled their collective knowledge and were able to identifythree Bristow-Brister male ancestors who qualified as eligible marriage candidates whowarranted further research. While working from primary source records the study team alsodiscovered the existence of an actual Choctaw Indian woman named “Molly (widow ofTashapitahacho)” who lived in southern Mississippi during the early 1800s. Also, twelvequestions were identified that when answered should resolve whether the alleged marriageinvolved an early Virginia Hockaday family member. Two interesting study byproducts werethe identification of those persons who created the known versions of the marriage story andthe postulation of a possible motive to explain (if the story is eventually found to be false)why the story may have been created in the first place. A research framework andmethodology was also defined to provide a sharper, more objective focus within which toguide future family Tashapiathacho research efforts. I. INTRODUCTIONFor many years Bristow, Brister and Hockaday family tradition has alleged the existence of an as yetunproved marriage between Warwick Hockaday (b. ca. 1699; d. ca. 1758) of Virginia and an Indianwoman by the name of "Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho." Variations of the story suggest themarriage may have occurred at a later date in Mississippi Territory or the State of Mississippi.To date, many who have heard the story have passed it on without questioning its truthfulness;thereby perpetuating the story’s myth, romanticism and possible falsity from one generation to thenext. This has been done verbally, in writing and more recently, across the internet. Some may have

Page 2

2 attempted to investigate whether the story was true. However, to our knowledge none were able tolocate an 18 th or 19 th century Indian woman named “Tashapiathacho,”' nor were they able to verify thetruth of the story. Out of concern that further unfounded repetition may in time create its own “truth,” family memberstook a fresh, objective look at this story during summer 1999. Our objectives were to:1. Assess the likelihood that the marriage ever occurred,2. Better understand where and when it might have occurred,3. Identify male family members who were eligible marriage candidates,4. Establish a framework within which to conduct future Tashapiathacho research,5. Identify questions the answers to which will prove or refute the story once and for all,6. Encourage future researchers to conduct original research making maximum use of primary recordsources and discourage the continuing repetition of the story in its several unproved variations.The Bristow-Brister-Hockaday family study team was most fortunate to have fourteen members whograciously shared their genealogical data and volunteered their time and considerable expertise asspecialists in select areas, e.g., Hockaday-Bristow-Brister Genealogy, Colonial Virginia law, AmericanIndian relations, etc. This report is the product of that helpful attitude and willingness to shareexhibited by our Study Team Members whose names and email addresses appear below in alphabeticalorder:"Dennis Boswell" dennisb@primenet.com"Bill Brister" Billbrist@aol.com "Dee Brister" Deebrister@aol.com "James W. Catron" nepa@flash.net"Jodie Dobbins" jodiec@startext.net "J.W. Doyle Jr." JWDoyleJr@aol.com "Elaine Haggard" elaineh@lightspeed.net "Don Hockaday" hockaday@panam.edu "Bob Hopkins" BobHop@aol.com "Ann Nethero" jneth@gdi.net "Ann C. Peeples" ACPeeples@aol.com "Sherri Tate" Fnite@aol.com “Joan Wright” JOANorED@aol.com "Robert Wylie" rwyl@series2000.com We encourage the reader to perform his or her own original research using the methodology andframework described herein to independently validate, extend and improve upon the findings describedherein.For the benefit of future researchers who wish to study this question, much of the detailed data fromour Summer 1999 study is summarized below and posted in detail to the "Hockaday Family Genealogy

Page 3

3 Forum" (http://genforum.familytreemaker.com/hockaday/). Upon completion, this final report wasposted on both the “Hockaday Family Genealogy Forum” and the “Brister Family Genealogy Forum”(http://genforum.genealogy.com/brister/).This study occurred in two phases. In Phase I, we examined the likelihood that the marriage involvingTashapiathacho and Warwick Hockaday (b. ca 1699) occurred in Virginia during the early to mid-1700s. In Phase II, we examined the likelihood that the marriage might have involved another malefamily member and occurred prior to 1817 in Mississippi Territory (including present day Alabamaand Mississippi), after 1817 in the State of Mississippi or Alabama Territory; or after 1819 in the State of Alabama.During Phase II, we examined both the Warwick Hockaday (b. ca. 1699) and Thompson Bristow (b.1741 VA) male descendants to determine who among Warwick and Thompson’s male children andgrandchildren were “eligible” (“eligible” is discussed at length below) marriage candidatesAs is often the case, retrospective studies of this nature tend to raise more questions than they answer.However, it is felt that the identification and documentation of relevant questions for future research isreal progress toward eventually answering what we have called “The Tashapiathacho Question.”Historical or genealogical studies attempting to reach back two hundred years or more rarely discoverabsolute truths. We have taken care not to represent our findings as final, absolute truths – only “bestestimates” based on currently available data that is known to us. For this reason, we believe ourfindings should be of interest to those seeking to increase objectivity and reduce romanticism in futureTashapiathacho research. In this spirit, it is our expectation that as new internet data become available,future family researchers will build upon, refine, extend and perfect the findings described herein.As an aid to interpreting the data and historical considerations that bear on the study outcomes,following are several internet-accessible maps that describe the pertinent geography at times that areimportant to the events studied:1600 Powhatan Confederacy tribes http://geog.gmu.edu/gess/classes/geog380/natives.jpg 1607 Virginia Indian tribes http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1776w6.jpg 1646 Virginia http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1646d8.jpg 1755 North and South Carolina http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1755v5.jpg 1765 North and South Carolina http://scarlett.libs.uga.edu/darchive/hargrett/maps/1765k5.jpg 1798 Mississippi Territory http://www.rootsweb.com/msjasper/1798.htm 1803 Mississippi Territory http://members.aol.com/JORDANJM2/1803MT.html 1813 Mississippi counties http://www.rootsweb.com/msjasper/jasper13.htm 1818 Alabama http://members.aol.com/JORDANJM2/1818AL.html 1819 Alabama Territory http://www.archives.state.al.us/timeline/timefr.html 1817-1819 Roane County TN http://www.roanetn.com/historic.htm 1820 eastern Indian nations http://www.rootsweb.com/itchocta/cn-east.html

Page 4

4 1823 Alabama State http://www.archives.state.al.us/timeline/timefr.html 1818-1830 Alabama counties http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/nirvana/621/al-1800s.html 1822 Indian map of Mississippi http://www.holcomb.org/legacy/images/state400.jpg 1833 Mississippi counties http://www.rootsweb.com/msjasper/jasper33.htm 1839 Southeastern US http://www.rootsweb.com/algenweb/map1839.html 1860 Mississippi counties http://www.rootsweb.com/msjasper/jasper60.htm II. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND SUPPORTING DATAA. Phase I - VirginiaA review of the various statements alleging that Warwick Hockaday (b. ca. 1699) of Virginia married an Indian woman whose first name was Mary or Molly and whose surname included “Tashapiathacho”(or a similar spelling) reveals the marriage allegation appears to rest on three premises.First, that Warwick Hockaday’s will included the surname “Tashapiathacho” following the name of hiswife “Mary.” For example, “The Goodloe Genealogy” by Dr. Paul M. Goodloe states“…his will was dated 10 Sep 1757 naming wife Mary or ‘Mollie’ Tashapiathacho.”Second, that Warwick Hockaday’s wife, Mary (who was Warwick’s designated executrix) was an Indian. For example, Katherine Brister’s “A Brister Family in Mississippi” states“Nancy was the daughter of Warrick and Mary (called Molly) Hockkaday of Charles County,Virginia. Molly Hockkaday was an Indian having the Indian name ‘Tashepiatheche’.”Third, that Warwick and Mary were married in Virginia. This collateral belief appears to be based onWarwick having lived only in Virginia, never having left Virginia and his Indian wife belonging to one ofthe Powhatan Confederacy tribes located in the vicinity of Charles City County, Virginia.Following are three Phase I findings and their respective sets of supporting data that address each ofthese three premises. The reader should note that supporting data are of three types. Presented in orderfrom most to least significant, they include: (1) conclusions, based on the existence of recorded data, (2)inferences, based on the existence of recorded data that directly effects the subject of interest and (3)inferences, based on the absence of recorded data.Inferences based on the absence of recorded data are considered significant only with respect to thenumber of years during which not a single piece of recorded data has been found on the subject ofinterest; despite the best efforts of many researchers. Inferential significance varies directly with thenumber of years during which data sought has not been found. For example, inferences based on havingfound no recorded data after 50 years of searching are considered more significant than inferences basedon only 10 years of searching.

Page 5

5 On their own, inferences are insufficient to prove genealogical assertions; they only offer guidance inthe investigation of such assertions and occasionally - insights into non-traditional approaches that maybe required if missing data is eventually to be located. Inferences also sharpen our understanding of thequestions that must be answered if a genealogical assertion is to be proven. During our study, insightsand questions of this nature were uncovered and have been recorded for the benefit of futureresearchers.The degree to which our findings may be viewed as “factual” depends on: (1) the reader’spreconceptions about the stated finding and (2) the reader’s interpretation of the supporting data. Ourpurpose in publishing these three findings and their related sets of supporting data is to encouragefuture researchers to shift their research focus from previously unproductive areas to what we believewill prove to be several far more rewarding areas deserving future research emphasis:The following three findings have been stated unambiguously in the form of declarative sentences inorder to challenge future researchers to either prove or refute each statement of finding.1. Finding # 1: The Warwick Hockaday (b. ca 1699; d. ca 1758, Charles City County, VA) willdated 10 September 1757 did not include the Indian surname “Tashapiathacho” or any variationof that name.a. Suppporting Data # 1: Warwick Hockaday’s 10 September 1757 has been either destroyedor lost. Therefore, verification of whether it does or does not include Mary’s surname maynot be done at this time. On page 222 in “The Tugwell and Finch Families of Tennessee andAllied Families of Virginia and North Carolina” author, Sarah Finch Maiden Rollins, statesin footnote 10:“The fact that Warwick’s will is not extant was double-checked for me by WilliamLindsay Hopkins of Richmond, Virginia, author of “Some Wills From Burned Countiesof Virginia,” 1987. Reputedly, Warwick’s will gave the surname of his wife; However,the 1769 deed that gives details of the will merely says ‘…his wife Mary.’ ”It is not known if Mr. Hopkins’ search extended into counties adjacent to Charles CityCounty, Virginia. The reader will note a question has been included at the end of thissection on this question.As reported by study team member, Bob Wylie, there is a book in the Charles City Countyhistorical library titled, “Charles City County Inventory Circuit Court Clerk,” compiled byB. Kirke white, Jr., published by the Archives Division, Virginia State Library (VSL),Richmond, VA, March 1976, that indicates on page 3 that there are no original wills in theVSL dated prior to 1789 or in the Charles City County court house dated prior to 1808.

Page 6

6 Study team member, Bill Brister, suggests that there is some scant evidence to suggest thatthe fact that the 1769 deed does not show Mary’s surname may also imply that hersurname was also not originally recorded on Warwick Hockaday’s 1757 will. Bill’sreasoning is as follows.The purpose of the 1769 deed was to ensure that the two signatories to that deed(Warwick’s sons, Warwick Jr. and Samuel) were giving up any claim to title that they mighthave but without warranting that they had any title whatsoever. Whether the personpreparing the quit claim deed was acting on behalf of the seller (Warwick Jr. and SamuelHockaday) or on behalf of the buyer (John Minge of Charles City Co. VA) makes littledifference.The 1769 quit claim deed did mention an earlier 29 October 1765 deed that had beenexecuted by the surviving spouse, Mary, and the other children. We do not have the 1765deed, but arguably the one preparing the 1769 deed properly recited the names of thegrantors. If the 1765 deed was prepared by John Minge (the purchaser), or someone onbehalf of the purchaser, one would think that there would be some effort on his part toconform to the recitals made in the 1757 will. Certainly, that would be a competent practicetoday. However, if the one preparing the 1765 deed was acting on behalf of the seller, theremight not be the same degree of concern over consistency in recitals between the 1757 willand the 1765 deed.Therefore, the fact that the 1769 quit claim deed makes reference to the 1765 deed as havingbeen executed by Warwick Hockaday’s surviving wife, but does not include her maidenname is, at best, partial evidence that the earlier 1757 will may also not have includedMary’s maiden name.b. Supporting Data # 2 When legal documents were prepared during Virginia’s colonial period,it was customary to exclude the wife’s maiden name as pointed out by team member, JimCatron. This custom, when considered together with the immediately preceding discussionof the interrelationships between recitals in these three documents lends additional supportto the premise that Mary’s surname may never have been included in Warwick Hockaday’s1757 will.c. Supporting Data # 3: To the study team’s knowledge, not one primary record (created inVirginia by Colonial Virginians), including Warwick Hockaday’s 1757 will, has been foundto prove the existence in Virginia of an Indian woman named “Mary, Molly or MollieTashapiathacho” who, during Warwick’s lifetime:(1) was a member of the Powhatan Confederacy,(2) resided in or near Charles City County, VA or(3) married Warwick Hockaday.

Page 7

7 2. Finding # 2: Warwick Hockaday’s (b. ca 1699) wife, Mary (who Warwick named as hisExecutrix) was a not an Indian woman whose surname included “Tashapiathacho,” but a whitewoman whose surname is unknown at this time.To appreciate the following supporting data, it is necessary that the reader understand that inthe context of colonial Virginia legal proceedings and social discourse, blacks, mulattos andIndians were considered “non-persons,” i.e., little more than cattle. In view of this prevailingcolonial attitude, it is considered unlikely that an Indian would have been permitted to appear inthe Charles City County Court or any colonial Virginia court in any official capacitywhatsoever. The fact that Mary and her children all appeared in Charles City County Courtseveral times between 1758-1769 as parties or witnesses suggests they were all white people.More specifically, consider the following instances in the context of the laws cited:a. Supporting Data # 1: In 1691, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed an anti-miscegenation(anti-inter-racial marriage) law strictly forbidding intermarriage between whites (on the onehand) and Indians, Negroes or Mulattos (on the other). Per team member, Jim Catron, thislaw was not repealed until the 1960s (See 5 July, 1999 “Tashapiathacho” posting on theHockaday Family Genealogy Forum). The law states:“And for the prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereaftermay increase in this dominion, as well as by negroes, mulattoes, and Indiansintermarrying with the English, or other white women, as by their unlawfulaccompanying with one another, Be it hereby enacted by the authorities aforesaid, and itis hereby enacted, That for the time to see, whatsoever English or other white man orwoman being shall freely intermarry with a negro, mulatto, or Indian man or womanbond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed fromthis dominion forever, and that the justices of each respective countie within thisdominion make it their particular care, that this act be put in effectual execution."Assuming Warwick (the son of John Hockaday, a member of the Virginia House ofBurgesses) and Mary’s marriage occurred in Virginia and Mary had been an Indian, thentheir marriage would have occurred approximately forty to fifty years after passage of the1691 law and would have resulted in:(1) a huge scandal,(2) Warwick Hockaday’s banishment from Virginia as required by the 1691 law,(3) deep humiliation for the entire Hockaday family such that the incident would likely haveresonated across the centuries to this day.

Page 8

8 However, there is nothing to be found in the written or verbal record to suggest that such ascandal ever took place. To the contrary, Warwick Hockaday died in Charles City County,VA; not out-of-state as he would have had he been banished for having violated Virginia’santi-miscegenation law. Hence, Warwick and Mary’s continued residence to the end of theirdays in Charles City County, Virginia stands as supporting testimony to the fact that Marywas a white woman and not an Indian.b. Supporting Data # 2: From Volume III “The Statutes at Large Being A Collection of all theLaws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature In the Year 1619,” by WilliamWaller Hening, published 1823, there appears on page 298 an October 1705 Law of Virginiathat states,“XXXI … That popish recusants (one refusing submission to the authority of theChurch of England), convict(s), negroes, mulattoes and indian servants, and others notbeing christians, shall be deemed and taken to be persons incapable in law, to bewitnesses in any cases whatsoever.”From volume IV, published 1820, there appears on page 298 a May 1732 Law of Virginiathat states,“VI. Be it further enacted, That no negro, mulatto, or indian, either a slave or free, shallhereafter be admitted in any court of this colony, to be sworn as a witness, or giveevidence in any cause whatsoever, except upon the trial of a slave, for a capitaloffence…”Had Mary been an Indian, her children by Warwick would have been “half-breeds” or, touse more current terminology, “half-bloods.” Both the 1705 and 1732 laws cited would haveprevented her children from appearing in Charles City County Court as witnesses or givingevidence in either the 29 October 1765 or the 1769 deed proceedings. The fact that Mary’schildren did appear in Charles City County Court on these occasions strongly suggests thatthey were not “half-bloods” and Mary, in turn, was not an Indian.c. Supporting Data # 3: Not one primary record has been found in the State of Virginia insupport of the assertion that Warwick ever married another woman (either before or after“Mary.”) or to suggest that any of Warwick and Mary Hockaday’s five children (includingMary Anne “Nancy”) were “half-bloods”.In the event it is eventually proven that Mary and Warwick Hockaday married in England,then there is no doubt whatsoever that Mary was a white woman.

Page 9

9 This issue deserves further research and several questions regarding the extent to which coloniallaw limited Native American legal prerogatives are included below.3. Finding # 3: If a male member of the Bristow, Brister or Hockaday families named “Warwick”or “Warrick” or any other male family member living in the late 18 th or early 19 th centurymarried an Indian woman named “Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho,” the marriage didnot occur in Virginia, but more likely in Mississippi Territory or one of the politicalsubdivisions arising out of the old Mississippi Territory subsequent to 1817.a. Supporting Data # 1: Some claim that Mary or Molly Tashapiathacho was a member of theChickahominy Tribe (an original tribal member of the Powhatan Confederacy with tribalheadquarters currently located at Providence Forge, VA) In a 25 June 1999 letter to DennisBoswell, Chief Adkins of the Chickahominy Tribe states “the name ‘Tashapiathacho’ … isnot familiar to me.” The study team believes that if “Tashapiathacho” were a nameconsistent with the Chickahominy language, Chief Adkins would likely have recognized it.b. Supporting Data # 2: A Choctaw woman by the name of “Molly, (widow ofTashapitahacho)” is known with absolute certainty to have lived on the west bank ofTallahoma Creek in either Jones or Jasper County, Mississippi during the period 27 Sept1830 to 24 Aug 1831 as substantiated by a primary record source found in Mississippi in1998 by Dennis Boswell (See Hockaday Family Genealogy Forum “Tashapiathacho”posting dated 25 June 1999). The team does not know how long before this period “Molly,(widow of Tashapitahacho)” lived in this southern Mississippi area or where she camefrom. From the source in which her name was found it may be safely concluded that shewas a Choctaw Indian woman..The source in which the Indian woman, “Molly, (widow of Tashapitahacho) was found is"1830 Choctaw Roll", subtitled "Armstrong Roll", Published by HISTREE, 23011 MoultonPkwy C-8, Laguna Hills, CA 92653, Copyright 1985, 1988 by HISTREE, ISBN 0-942594-96-7.c. Supporting Data # 3: A Mississippi Choctaw linguist, responsible for preservation andtranslation of the Choctaw language at their headquarters in Philadelphia, Mississippi hasconfirmed in writing to Dennis Boswell that both the given name “Molly” or “Mollie” andthe surname “Tashapiathacho” translate cleanly (without awkward interpretations or havingto resort to proofs based on Anglo corruptions of the Choctaw language) from Choctaw intoEnglish as - “Wind” or “Breeze” (“Molly or Mollie”) “of the Mad Corn Stalk.”(Tashapiathacho). See Hockaday Family Genealogy Forum 26 June 1999 “Tashapiathacho”posting

Page 10

10 d. Between the early 1950s and the early 1980s several researchers having Mississippiconnections, who were investigating the Hockaday-Bristow-Brister families, have written,distributed and caused to be published (in very similar forms) the story of a marriagebetween a male descendant of the Hockaday family and an Indian woman by the name ofMary or “Molly” Tashapiathacho. These researchers include:(1) Pattie Norris, of Indianola MS, who contributed to “The Goodloe Genealogy” and who(via her personal correspondence) distributed her version of the Mary “Molly”Tashapiathacho story in the 1970s and 1980s. Selected versions of Ms. Norris’interpretation of this story include:(Undated letter, suspected to be from early 1970s) “…Thompson Bristow, whomar. Mary Hockaday, dau of Warwick Hockaday and his wife who was anIndian.”(27 March 1979 Letter from Andrew M. Brister) “In response to the question ofIndian ancestry, please note that Tomson/Thomson Bristow married 1762/65Mary Anne “Nancy” Hockaday, daughter of Warwick Hockaday who d. ca.1758/62; his will was dated 10 Sep 1757 naming wife Mary or MillieTashapiathacho. … This information was presented to my (sp.) by Paul MGoodloe, Ph.D. 175 Prospect Street, East Orange, N.J. 07017. He probablyobtained same from Mrs. Pattie Norris, Indianola, Mississippi, Miss MildredToaz, Kiowa, Oklahoma, or indirectly from Mrs. Nan R. Routson Wooster,Ohio.”(2) Katherine Brister of Vicksburg MS who in 1982 authored “A Brister Family inMississippi,” a hand-typed six page Brister family genealogy. Her unpublished storyhas been informally distributed to many during the last eighteen years and may be foundin several Mississippi libraries. Katherine’s version of the Tashapiathacho story was..“Thompson Brister, …, married Nancy Hockkaday sometime between 1762 and1765. Nancy was the daughter of Warrick and Mary (called Molly) Hockkadayof Charles County, Virginia. Molly Hockkaday was an Indian having the Indianname “Tashepiatheche”.”(3) Bessie Leola Hodges Townsend of Attala County, MS, in her 1950 handwritten notesmentions “Mollie Tashapathico.” These notes were kept in a 3-ring notebook dated1960. The notes were transcribed into typed form in 1990. In the typed version it isclaimed that

Page 11

11 “Thompson Brister’s wife, Nancy Hockaday, was the daughter of “MollyTashapiathico,” a full-blooded Choctaw Indian who lived in Greenville District,South Carolina (with her husband, “Pessy” Hockaday).”It is unclear who “Pessy” Hockaday was. Dennis Boswell was told by one whointerviewed Bessie before she passed, that she learned of the “Tashapiathacho” storyduring a visit to the Choctaw Reservation in Philadelphia, MS.(4) Sarah N. Spencer of Bogue Chitto, MS, in “Mississippi Bristers, Ancestors andDescendants, Twelve Generations, 1649 – 1995 , states on page 16“…that Nancy Hockaday was the daughter of Warrick Hockaday and Mary(Molly) Tashapiathacho Hockaday of Charles County, Virginia.”(5) The “Mississippi Genealogical Exchange” (MGE) of Jackson MS published in theirVolume 30, Spring 1984 periodical of the same name that“Thompson Brister and wife, Nancy Hockaday, lived in Greenville District,South Carolina near Pendleton Courthouse in 1770. Nancy was the daughter ofMolly Tashapiathacho, widow or Molly Hockaday (Choctaw Indian)….”This published article carries the subtitle, “Compiled by Moses Andrew Brister andArranged by Robert Hanks Brister.” Yet, these two Bristers predeceased by many yearsthe publication of this 1984 article. An examination of Moses Andrew Brister’s originalBrister family writings and Robert Hanks Brister’s personal papers (now residing in theSpecial Collections Department at the University of Texas, Arlington, Texas) confirmsthat neither of these gentleman made any written assertion concerning a marriageinvolving an Indian named Tashapiathacho.It remains unclear who (ca. 1984) embellished upon Moses Andrew Brister’s original1896 handwritten manuscript by adding the Tashapiathacho legend prior to it beingsubmitted for publication in 1984. However, it is quite clear that such an addition to theoriginal manuscript was done without Moses Andrew Brister’s knowledge or approvalfor he died in 1936, forty-eight years before the MGE publication date and existingversions of his Brister family genealogy papers do not contain the Tashapiathachostory.Dennis Boswell has sent a letter to the person who was the MGE Editor in 1984 todetermine who submitted this article for publication. As of the date on which thisdocument was finalized, a response had not been received.

Page 12

12 e. In 1946, the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) Act. This Actcreated a special tribunal within the U.S. Court system to handle cases for tribaldescendants seeking compensation for government inequities, treaty violations and landlosses. The ICC settled dozens of claims to varying degrees of satisfaction, in most casesawarding modest cash settlements as compensation.The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and their descendants sought at this time toredress U.S. Government treaty violations that extended across 160 years and six treaties(1786, 1801, 1805, 1816, 1820 and 1830). By the late 1940s and early 1950s, interestamong Mississippi residents who had any reason at all to believe they descended through amarital connection with a full-blooded Choctaw of the late 18 th or early 19 th century reacheda near fever pitch. An undetermined number of families filed land claims during this periodthat appear to have been based (at best) on fragmentary and unproved genealogical lines ofdescendancy. These claims were prepared and submitted to William T. Weir, the Attorneyfor Petitioners, with a “Let’s try it.” or “If it worked for family ‘X’ it should work for us.”motivation.One condition of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek (1830) as clarified in 1842 was that toqualify for a land allotment, the claimant must be one of the 1,832 individuals named onwhat is now known as the “Armstrong Roll,” prepared by Major Armstrong in the early1830s. As mentioned earlier, “Molly, (Widow of Tashapitahacho)’s name is recorded on theArmstrong Roll. It appears her name’s presence on the Armstrong Roll may be acontributing factor in the original creation of the several versions of the Tashapiathachomarriage story, the earliest of which appeared in the 1950s coincident with the ICC’s landclaim review activities.For a complete chronology of Choctaw treaty activities leading up to 1946, the reader isreferred to “BRIEF, INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION of the UNITED STATES OFAMERICA, The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Petitioners. vs. The United Statesof America, Defendant. Docket No. 52. Brief for the Petitioners prepared by William T.Weir, Attorney for Petitioners.”f. During our study, not one version of the Tashapiathacho story, researched, published anddistributed by Virginia genealogists, was discovered. The only extant versions of this storyappear to have been created in Mississippi by Mississippi researchers. Not one of thestories of which the study team is aware carries a citation with which to prove the story orfrom which to determine its origin.g. The one archival source that consistently arises in discussions about this alleged marriage isin Mississippi – The Attala County Library, a branch of the Mid-Mississippi Regional

Page 13

13 Library System, located at 201 S. Huntington Street, Kosciusko, MS 39090-9002.Telephone: (601) 289-5151.For these four reasons, the study team believes that if the alleged marriage involving an Indianwoman “Tashapiathacho” actually happened, the truth surrounding its occurrence willeventually be found in the records, history and genealogy of the Mississippi Territory asdiscussed below under, “Phase II - Mississippi Territory.”4. Unanswered questions relating to the possibility that an Indian woman by the name of “Mary,Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho” lived in Virginia and married Warwick Hockaday (b. ca 1699).During the Virginia phase of this study, several questions arose which the team was unable toanswer in the time and with the resources available. Since these questions relate in importantand material ways to the possibility that the marriage may have occurred in Virginia during the1700s, they are recorded below (in no particular order) for use by future researchers:a. When and where was Warwick Hockaday born?b. When and where was Warwick Hockaday’s wife Mary born?c. What was Warwick Hockaday’s wife Mary’s surname?d. When and where were Warwick Hockaday and Mary married?e. Did Mary immigrate to Virginia with Warwick Hockaday or did they meet and marry inVirginia?f. When and where were Warwick and Mary Hockaday’s children born?”g. When and where did Warwick Hockaday’s wife Mary die?h. Did Warwick Hockaday’s sons William and Warwick Jr. marry? What were the names oftheir wives?i. Does a filed and recorded copy of Warwick Hockaday’s 10 September 1757 will exist todayin counties adjacent to Charles City County, VA because Warwick may have ownedproperty in those counties or designated heirs who were residents of those counties?Adjacent counties include James City County, New Kent County, Henrico County andacross the James River, Chesterfield County, Prince George County and Surry Countyj. Under what, if any circumstances did Virginia law in the 1700s permit a Native American toappear in court in the capacity of Executrix? Similarly, did colonial Virginia courts make adistinction between “witnesses” and “parties” to a legal proceeding?

Page 14

14 k. Might Warwick Hockaday and “Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho” not have beenmarried but simply have cohabited or might an Indian named “Mary” have been WarwickHockaday’s live-in housekeeper following, perhaps, the death of Warwick’s white wife whowas also named Mary?l. As suggested by Joan Wright, might Mary, after the death (ca. 1758) of her husbandWarwick and the settlement of his estate, have moved to North Carolina to be with herchildren; taken up with a Cherokee, “Tashapiathacho,” and subsequently moved toMississippi Territory? This is an unlikely event, but nevertheless a possibility. Had thisoccurred (disregarding apparent age implications), it may relate to our having located one“Molly (widow of Tashapitahacho)” living in Mississippi Territory in 1831.B. Phase II - Mississippi Territory1. Historical BackgroundBetween 1785 and 1854, the United States Government ratified fifty-six treaties with theCherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Choctaw tribes of the southeast United States. As a directresult, millions of acres of rich farmland were opened to cultivation by white settlers at veryattractive prices when older Atlantic coast states were becoming overcrowded and their soilsdepleted. Simultaneously, the indigenous Indian tribes of the old southeast began their gradualforced relocation to Indian Territory, located primarily in what would become Oklahoma.Mississippi Territory was formed by an Act of Congress in 1798 and the Choctaw treaties of1801 and 1805 opened up for settlement the land that became Pike, Amite, Lincoln, Lawrenceand Adams Counties. Shortly thereafter, Mississippi Territory was divided into the states ofMississippi (1817) and Alabama (1819).The Indian treaties and the War of 1812 were largely responsible for attracting thousands ofyeoman farmers, merchants, ex-soldiers and missionaries into southwest Mississippi Territory.Included were our Bristow and Brister forebears who first encountered the Cherokee andChoctaw tribes of Alabama and Mississippi during this same periodDuring 1800-1835 the ratio of Indians to whites was larger than at any time after whitesettlement began in the Mississippi Territory. Hence, the likelihood of white/Indian inter-marriages occurring in Mississippi Territory was also greater during this period than at anyother time. For this reason, coupled with the need to bound the scope of the Phase II study,1800-1835 was taken to be the time period of Phase II analysis.

Page 15

15 2. Phase II Research Methodologya. Male Family Member SelectionPhase I (Virginia) examined only one male family member, Warwick Hockaday (b. ca 1699)as a potential Tashapiathacho marriage candidate. However, Phase II (MississippiTerritory) could potentially involve a much larger number of male family memberdescendants. Hence, it became necessary to further limit the Phase II study scope to includeonly the male children and grandchildren of Warrick Hockaday (b. ca 1699) and ThompsonBristow (b. 1741). This was considered reasonable since these two generations almostperfectly overlay the Phase II period of interest (1800-1835). It appears that these twoHockaday-Bristow-Brister generations include fifty-one male children and grandchildren.However, the team must admit that many of the records used to arrive at this number arelacking in reliability and consistency.For each of these fifty-one children and grandchildren, a time line was developed to identify,by year, the child’s birth date and location, residence locations, marriage date and location,wife’s full name and death date and location. Since only approximate dates were needed forthis study, “ca.” dates (calculated primarily from census returns) were used to identifybirth, and death events. Other collateral sources were used to establish event dates notreadily available from census data.The data used to construct the fifty-one time lines was, with few exceptions (census data),the same data that any Bristow-Brister researcher who has worked on the family lines for atleast 10-15 years is quite likely to have in his or her own files. In the present case, care wastaken to reconcile all these sources against each other and arrive at the most accurate datapossible in the time available. The detailed time line data was not included in this report inorder to encourage others to perform their own original research or, at a minimum, reconcilereport findings against their data.b. Tashapiathacho Marriage Candidate Selection CriteriaAfter time lines were completed, Tashapiathacho marriage candidates were selected byidentifying only those individuals who satisfied the following criteria during 1800-1835:(1) Married AND(2) Whose wife’s complete name is unknown AND(3) Whose adult residence is unknown OR is known to have been in Mississippi Territory(including the states of Alabama and Mississippi)

Page 16

16 AND those individuals who during 1800-1835 were:(1) Unmarried or marital status unknown AND(2) Of marriageable age (16-60) AND(3) Whose adult residence is unknown OR known to have been in Mississippi Territory(including the states of Alabama and Mississippi)Male family members, not satisfying either of these criteria, were discarded during thebalance of Phase II.c. Marriage Circumstances Not ConsideredDue to a lack of relevant data and study team time constraints, there were three marriagepossibilities that were not considered in Phase II. These appear to have a low probability ofoccurrence but are worth mentioning. They include Hockaday-Bristow-Brister male childrenor grandchildren who:(1) Were first married to a woman whose full name is known to us; she predeceased him andhe subsequently married a woman who could have been “Mary, Molly or MollieTashapiathacho.”(2) Could have first married “Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho;” he survived her andsubsequently married a woman whose full name is known to us,(3) Were married to a woman whose name is known to us and that woman was, in fact,“Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho” who at some point in time had changed hername or simply adopted a name that is known to us.3. Male Family Member SelectionThe Warwick Hockaday (b. ca 1699) and Thompson Bristow (b. 1741, VA) families include thefollowing fifty-one male children and grandchildren:FatherChildGrandchild WifeWarwick HockadayMaryJamesJudith ?WarwickMary E. ShawWilliamAnn PowellWilliam?Warwick Jr.?Samuel? Day

Page 17

17 FatherChildGrandchild WifeThompson BristowMary “Nancy” HockadayWarrickMary EstesJames?John A.Jane AckerageWilliam R.MarthaWarrick H.Lucinda ?Anselena Jane HeadGeorge W.Rachel LoeSamuel J.Elizabeth WalkerElisha ThomasDrucilla ErwinThompson M.Susan MitchellThompson M. Jr.Elizabeth EllisonSusie V. FugateWilliam T.Rosanna ?or Susannah ?Zedekiah orSusannah Brister *ZedidiahWilliamSarah JourdanDanielClarrissa JourdanBenjamin E. Sr.Sarah “Sally” DillardWilliamJoicy ChandlerAllison CurtisMartha M. TynesJames W.Elizabeth Ann BrewerAlbert W.ByrdRebecca HickmanL.E. BurnettTabitha Chandler? ClarkBenjamin E. Jr.Cynthia JonesLew Allen WalterSarah C. SmithGeorgeAnn or Anna SullivanWilliamEmily (Smart) Bradley

Page 18

18 FatherChildGrandchild WifeSamuelRosannah NolanThompsonMartha Ann HickmanWilliam B .Feriby HickmanGeorge WilsonLaney JordanLucinda RayburnWarrickMelinda MartinSamuel HockadayTemperance BristerTennessee TempleJohn A.Elizabeth “Betsy” Brister**HockadayAnna H. HodgesEdmondMalinda Holland NormanJudah E. (Miller) CoatsSamuelSerena GuessViola CrowderMosesSamantha RobertsDruryMary L. MooreGeorgia Ann BrennanHockaday Jr.Died unmarriedZachariahAmanda Rebecca MooreJohn Sr.Edna ParkmanThompsonLucinda WoodsJohn Jr.Maria HolmanAnn DurdenBenjamin?AllenMary C. RingoSamuel H.Elizabeth MerchantNeedham R.Sarah Ann BessFrancis M.Julie Ann Powell* Daughter of child, Samuel Bristow** Daughter of child, Thompson M. Brister

Page 19

19 4. Tashapiathacho Marriage Candidate SelectionThese fifty-one eligible male family members were reduced to three Tashapiathacho marriagecandidates by applying the two marriage candidate selection criteria against the known time lineevents for each eligible male family member.a. Warwick Hockaday’s male children and grandchildrenWarwick Hockaday’s male children and grandchildren were discarded during this phase forseveral reasons.(1) James and Samuel married women whose names are known to us and there is noevidence to suggest they traveled any further from Virginia than North Carolina.(2) William and Warwick Jr., although both have an unknown marital status, are likewisethought not to have traveled any further from Virginia than North Carolina. It is alsoquite likely both would have both been too old to be marriage candidates during 1800-1835, based on the estimated birth dates of their brother, James (ca. 1735) and sister,Mary “Nancy” (ca. 1743). Also, it is claimed by Hugh F. Hockaday in his work, “TheGenesis of the Hockaday Family in America,” that Warwick Jr. died while a prisoner ofthe British in the Revolutionary War.Note also that the unknown marital status of William and Warwick Jr. was captured inthe form of an unanswered Phase I question as discussed above.(3) Warwick Hockaday’s only two known grandchildren (by James), Warwick and William,married women whose names are known to us.b. Thompson Bristow’s male children and male grandchildrenBased on data contributed by team members and application of the two marriage candidateselection criteria, three Thompson Bristow descendants were selected as candidates for thealleged husband of “Mary, Molly or Mollie Tashapiathacho.” Of these three candidates,two are considered viable.The remaining candidate, although eligible according to the marriage candidate selectioncriteria, is considered non-viable because we have no basic genealogical descriptive data forhim other than his name. He is included below as a matter of record only.

Page 20

20 (1) Viable Marriage Candidates(a) WILLIAM R. BRISTOW (Thompson Bristow’s grandson by Warrick Bristow)William R. Bristow, is reported to have been born in either 1799 or 1805, possiblyin Tennessee. He is said to have married a woman by the name of Martha or MaryAnn (surname unknown) in 1837. By 1850 he was living in Madison Parish,Louisiana. During his youth, he also may have traveled through Alabama andMississippi as a member of his father’s household and during this period may havecome in contact with both Choctaw and Cherokee Indians. His occupation isunknown and his wife’s surname is unknown.(b) BENJAMIN BRISTOW (Thompson Bristow’s grandson by John Bristow)Benjamin Bristow is said to have been born about 1817. All that seems to be knownabout his whereabouts is what may be surmised from his father’s various reportedMississippi residence locations in Yalobusha, Yazoo and Lawrence Counties.Benjamin’s marital status is unknown.According to Dee Brister, there is a possibility that this “Benjamin” is the same“Benjamin” who is noted to be living with William Bristow’s sons, William Jr. andDaniel in the 1840 Census of the Republic of Texas, Liberty County. As of the dateon which this report was finalized, this had not been proven and is included hereonly as a possible research lead for others to follow.(2) Non-Viable Marriage CandidatesThe following Tashapiathacho marriage candidate, although satisfying the marriagecandidate selection criteria, has received no further analysis other than documenting hisname because he lacks even basic genealogical data. However, according to the criteria inuse, he does represent a potential Tashapiathacho marriage candidate.(a) JAMES BRISTOW (Thompson Bristow’s grandson by Warrick Bristow)(3) Other Possible Marriage CandidatesWARRICK BRISTOW (Thompson Bristow’s son) is carried forward for severalreasons. Strictly speaking, he does not satisfy the “Tashapiathacho Marriage CandidateSelection Criteria” for it is reasonably clear that as a young man he was married and hiswife’s name was Mary Estes. However, Warrick Bristow may also satisfy any of the“Marriage Circumstances Not Considered” which appear in section B.-2.-c.-(1), (2), (3).

Page 21

21 Briefly, the reasons he is being carried forward as a potential marriage candidate includethe following items, all of which are considered to be “loose ends”:(a) It is thought by some (Goodloe, Rollins and Spencer) that Warrick Bristow residedin Yalobusha County, Mississippi at some time between 1815 and 1818. To thestudy team’s knowledge, no information exists to prove or disprove this assertion.(b) Yalobusha County, Mississippi was in the northern section of the pre-1830Choctaw Indian Nation in Mississippi Territory.(c) The “Christian Advocate”, Nashville edition, January 11, 1855 includes a biographyon Warrick Bristow. The biography is silent on where he resided during 1815-1818.(d) According to Dee Brister, Warrick is listed in the Roane County, TN tax records forthe years 1814 and 1815 suggesting he left Roane County during 1815 for anunknown destination.(e) “Yalobusha County History”, (ISBN 0-88107-004-1; Page F233, Article F382)states, “a Jehu Cotter Murray married as his first wife, Mary Brister, the daughterof a Methodist Minister in the New Albany area.”(f) New Albany is the county seat of Union County which was formed in 1870 fromPontotoc County (originally formed in 1836) and Tippah County (originally formedin 1832). New Albany is about forty miles from Yalobusha County.(g) Warrick Bristow was a Methodist Minister and had a daughter named Mary born ca.1796. The only other Bristow-Brister Methodist Minister know to the study teamwas Benjamin E. Brister Sr. who lived out his life in Lawrence County, Mississippi,is not known to have traveled to Yalobusha County and did not have a daughternamed Mary.(h) Warrick Bristow was a circuit riding Methodist Minister. During the years he mayhave resided in Yalobusha County (1815-1818) his circuit could have been what ispopularly known as the “Choctaw Circuit” which would have served to introducehim to many Choctaw encampments and Choctaw women.(i) At a later time (1818-the 1840s), his Dekalb County, Alabama residence would,similarly have placed Warrick Bristow in proximity to Indians of various tribes.(j) Coincidentally, his wife’s given name was also “Mary,” the same name as ourelusive Indian woman and it is not known when Warrick’s wife, “Mary (Estes)Bristow” died or whether he remarried after her death.

Page 22

22 III FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONSIf you happen to find the framework for analysis used in this report appealing and wish to pursue thisapproach in further researching “The Tashapiathacho Question,” the following suggestions may assistyou in getting started:A. For Researchers interested in colonial Virginia1. Familiarize yourself with this document, the various colonial Virginia archival repositories andfind out who else is actively researching the Hockaday family.2. Familiarize yourself with colonial Virginia geography, history (with emphasis on the area in andaround Charles City County and surrounding counties) and social and legal customs relating towomen and Native Americans.3. Familiarize yourself with what is known about the Warwick Hockaday (b. ca. 1699) familygenealogy. Work with other Hockaday researchers to refine Warwick Hockaday’s familystructure and to establish connections between Warwick Hockaday’s family and his neighboringfamilies and the parent Hockaday branch.4. Among the unanswered questions identified above in section II-A.-4., select several closelyrelated questions that are of particular interest to you and focus your research on those fewareas instead of attempting to cover every issue simultaneously.5. Above all, attempt to discover primary source citations to support your workB. For Researchers interested in Mississippi Territory (including Alabama and Mississippi)1. Familiarize yourself with this document, the various Mississippi Territory archival repositoriesand find out who else is actively researching the Bristow-Brister families.2. Familiarize yourself with Mississippi Territory geography, history and the manner in whichthe various political subdivisions (territory, states, counties and communities) were createdwith particular emphasis on DeKalb County, Alabama, Yalobusha County, Mississippi and theother south-central and southwest Mississippi counties discussed previously.3. Familiarize yourself with Bristow-Brister family genealogy with emphasis on those familymembers shown above in section II-B.-3 and the three viable and non-viable Tashapiathachomarriage candidates identified above.

Page 23

23 4. Construct your own year-by-year timelines for each of the fifty-one Bristow-Brister malefamily members and determine for yourself who you believe to be the viable and non-viablemarriage candidates.5. Focus further research on viable candidates, resorting to your list of non-viable candidates onlyafter exhausting your viable candidate research possibilities.6. Having completed these first five steps, extend your time horizon from 1835 to 1860 andinclude Thompson Bristow’s male great grandchildren for any one of his sons you may wish tostudy in more depth; perhaps the one through which you descend.7. Familiarize yourself with the internet-accessible Native American data bases at the NationalArchives in Washington, D.C. and try working from a Native American point of referenceBACK TO what you know about the Bristow-Brister family members instead of from aBristow-Brister family point of reference TOWARD A Native American connection.8. In satisfaction of the need for an occasional needed diversion and as you learn more about theBristow-Brister male family members, you may wish to examine more closely the “Marriagecircumstances not considered” (included above under section II-B.-2.-c.) after completing step5., above.9. Above all, attempt to discover primary source citations to support your workGood luck and good hunting!Please forward your comments, suggested revisions, genealogical data corrections and supportingsource citations to Dennis K. Boswell. Following review and acceptance, they will be published inperiodic updates to this Version 1 document.Dennis K. BoswellTelephone: (916) 987-3599Email: dennisb@primenet.com

Here is the iffy evidence supporting Mary/Molly having been Cherokee....

Quote:

Forwarded message:

Subj: Warwick Hockaday

Date: 97-08-16 12:47:50 EDT

From: JWDoyleJr

To: HOCKADAY-L@rootsweb.comHOCKADAY-L@rootsweb.com

In Don Hockaday's post od 16 Aug 1997, there were two questions regarding

Warwick Hockaday.

First, regarding the father of Warwick Hockaday (b. c1699).

The immigrant William Hockaday settled on land south of Eltham, in New Kent

County Virginia. There is no record to indicate who his wife was or a

complete list of his children. We can say with certainty that he had a son

named John, as proved by the record of a patent to John Mohun (see extract in

Nugent, vol II, p.122)

JOHN MOHUN, 720 acs., New Kent Co., S. side Yorke Riv., 25 Oct 1672, [Patent

Book 6] p.440. A cr. dividing this & land of Lt. Col. Hockaday, now

belonging to his son John Hockaday.................200 acs. for trans. of 4

pers: Brian Henly, John Mohun, Warwick Mohun, Mary Capel.

From this we know that the immigrant William, also known in other references

as Lt. Col Hockaday, had died before this date. From the statement that at

least part of his land was in the possession of his son, John, we can only

say that John was alive, and probably of legal age. We cannot say whether

there were other children, but might be tempted to say that John was the

eldest, if not the only, son. It was the custom of that time, if not the

rule, to leave all land to the eldest son.

We may thus infer that John Hockaday lived as a next-door neighbor to John

Mohun (pronounced as "Moon"). A case has been made that John Mohun and

Warwick Mohun were sons of Jn Mohun of Megavissey in Cornwall, England. The

Mohun family has many examples of men named Warwick (pronounced as

"Warrick"). Megavissey is located only about 20 miles from the Hockaday home

town of Blisland in Cornwall, and one might speculate that the two families

were acquainted before coming to Virginia. (see Tidewater Virginia Families

Vol 4, No 4). My best guess is that John Hockaday married a daughter of

John Mohun, or, possibly, Warwick Mohun, and that is the source of the

Hockaday tradition of naming sons Warwick.

So, my best guess - and it is only a guess based on the above logic - is that

the first Warwick Hockaday (b.c1699 - d.1757) was the son of John and ( )

(Mohun) Hockaday.

Second, regarding the Indian ancestry of Mary (Tashapiathacho) Hockaday.

This is a tradition in the Hockaday family. I know of no documentation to

prove it, but there is some evidence which provides a basis for the

tradition.

I have seen, but cannot find the reference at the moment, an occasion where

the imigrant William Hockaday served as a negotiator in a dispute between the

colonial government and the Indians. He was said to have established

unusually good relations with the Indians. If anyone recalls the source, I

would be grateful for the clue.

There is a patent for 1400 acres of land in Lancaster County to Abraham Moone

& Thomas Griffin, dated 16 Sept 1651. (Nugent Vol I, p.219) This land seemes

to have been totally "paid for" in exchange for 28 head rights. However,

there is a note saying "The Remayner being by assignmnt. from William

Hoccaday of soe much rights due him by Vertue of a Patent of Land granted him

and regranted to the King of Chickyake." Note the name Moone, here. Is he a

relative of the Mohuns? More work needed on this -- could be interesting.

So, there are two indications that the Hockaday family had two formal

dealings with the Indians, both with agreeable results. While not too

remarkable at first glance, one would be hard pressed to find two documented

instances of dealings between any other colonial citizen and the Indians.

The above is offered for what it is worth. I wish we had better evidence,

but don't hold high hopes that it will ever be available.

Pat

This thread:

Warwick Hockaday by <JWDoyleJr@aol.comJWDoyleJr@aol.com>

Warwick Hockaday by <JWDoyleJr@aol.comJWDoyleJr@aol.com>

Fwd: Warwick Hockaday by <JWDoyleJr@aol.comJWDoyleJr@aol.com>

End Quote.

See http://genforum.genealogy.com/hockaday/messages/47.html for more information about Mary/Molly and her origins. ~jb