DESCENDANTS OF ZACHARIAH DENNEY
There is no doubt that Zachariah Denney is the ancestor of
the three Denney boys who moved from North Carolina
to Smith County, Tennessee.
It is still yet to be proven whether he is the grandfather or father of
the three. After leaving the family farm
along the Staunton River, and spending a few years in southern Halifax County, Virginia,
Zachariah cast his lot with the back country of North Carolina. He obtained a grant of land from Lord
Granville on the Broad Branch of the Mayo, bordering the Virginia
line in what was then Orange County,
NC. He subsequently purchased land straddling the
border between Orange and Granville County,
and appears to have lived here until 1799, When he sold his land on the county
line and moved with Benjamin Denney (b. 1770’s d. June 5, 1844) to a new farm
on the Middle Fork of the Beaver Dam Creek near the border of Granville and
Wake Counties. While living on the first
tracts his farm was included in the portion of Orange
County that became Caswell County,
and then the section of Caswell County that became Person County,
so he can be found in the records of all four North Carolina Counties. He seems to be closely associated with a
Benjamin Denney who died in 1797 in Person
County, and is probably
his son. Benjamin seems to have been
living on the part of the Goshen District, Granville County land that belonged
to Zachariah in 1778 and 1780, 1782, 84, and 85, and then purchased a farm of
his own near Zachariah’s in Nash District of Person County in 1786. Claiborne Denney (b. 1770 d. 1830’s in
Tennessee or Arkansas) appears in the tax lists for the first time this year,
and in the next several years shows up next to first Benjamin (d. 1797) and
then Zachariah Denney in the list. By
the end of the 1790’s, John Denney (b. 1772-1773 d. 1847 Smith
County, TN) and Benjamin Denney
(b. 1774-1777 d. June 5, 1844 Smith
County, TN) are also
on the tax list for the Nash District. In
1799 Zachariah and Benjamin (d. 1844) moved to the Beaver Dam District of
Granville County, soon followed by John (d. 1847) and Claiborne. In 1802, Zachariah sold his farm to John
Denney and likely lived with him until his death, sometime after 1805 when he
last appears on the tax lists of Granville
County. I believe that John Denney remained behind in
North Carolina while his brothers moved to Tennessee because he
stayed to care for the elderly Zachariah or wife Mary.
I am unsure whether Zachariah Denney which is the correct
descent for the family of Zachariah Denney.
Evidence from the tithe lists for the Cumberland Parish of Lunenburg
County in the late 1740’s and early 1750s would indicate a birth date for
Zachariah Denney between 1732 and 1736, at that time the head of the household
was required to pay a tithe on each male over 16 in his household. John, Jr.’s name is
on the list with the elder John in 1748.
Zachariah does not appear until 1752, although the list from 1751 is non-extant,
and the list from 1749 and 1750 show the elder John Denney paying only one tithe. Evidence from Halifax County
in 1752 shows that at least some of the powers that be thought Zachariah’s
father was cheating on his tithes-so maybe Zachariah was older than the tax lists
indicate. It would also appear that
Claiborne Denney was born no later than 1770, as he first appears on the tax
lists of Caswell County in 1786. If he was born in 1770, that would make him 16
in 1786. North
Carolina had increased the poll tax age to 21 in 1784, but laws of
this nature were applied unevenly in the back country, and Caswell County
may not have changed its procedures immediately. The Census records of 1830 would indicate
that Claiborne Denney was born in the 1770s.
Combined with his appearance in the tax records in 1786 this would make
a birth date of 1770 as likely correct.
If Zachariah Denney were born 1736 then it is very unlikely he could be
the grandfather of a man who was born no later than 1770 (only 34 years in
between). If he were born in 1732 it is
possible, as the average age for Zachariah and the father of Claiborne at
childbirth would have been 19, a razor thin margin and early for the day. We know that Zachariah Denney was married by
January 15, 1755, as neighbor Elizabeth Gilbert received 10 lashes on her bare
back for stealing the hat of the Mary, wife of Zachariah Denney.
Zachariah and his wife definitely did not have two sons living
at the same time named Benjamin. This
means that if he was ancestor of both Benjamin who died in 1797 and Benjamin
who died in 1844 then one must have been his son and one must have been his
grandson. Of course this does not mean
necessarily that the two Benjamin Denneys were father
and son. One reference from the estate
records of Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) points toward him having been the father
of the younger Benjamin: from the county
court records of Person
County “Inventory of
Estate of Benjamin Denny, Senr. Decd,
taken 5 Oct 1797 by Barbary Denny.
Today, this almost always points to a father son relationship. This was usually the case in those days as
well but not always. Sometimes, it was
simply a way to tell two men of the same name in the same neighborhood apart
the second most likely outcome pointing to an uncle/nephew connection. It is unlikely that the two men were not
related in some manner.
Another item of interest, after the death of Benjamin Denney
in 1797, the county court of Person County provided for the care of the widow
and six children of Benjamin Denney out of the produce of his estate (…have
pointed out and staked off for the widow and six children of above [Benjamin
Denney] deceased all The Crops of corn on hand or that was on hand at last
December Court We believe about Eleven Barils & at This time about six Barils
and also The Crop of Wheat left on the ground of about Two & half bushel
_____ or sowed and also seven small Hogs already Killed for meat & five
Shoats or small Hogs to help out for meat given under our hands & seals
this The first Day of march 1798.” The
six children mentioned here are undoubtedly the six children who appear in 1817
selling the farm of Benjamin Denney.
Their names are Sarah (married Charles Eastwood), Lucy (married John
Walters), Mary (married Josiah Wade), Nancy
(married Benjamin Wade), Elizabeth
(married Joseph Farrow) and Thomas. In
fact, in subsequent records, there is no mention of any other descendants of
this Benjamin Denney, or of his widow Barbara who married John
Day after the death of her first husband.
That one estate record, however, does point to the fact that
someone else expected to receive something from the estate of Benjamin Denney. Benjamin left no will, so one could expect that
his entire estate would be left to his children and his widow. Unless he had a large number of outstanding
debts or other heirs, it would not be necessary to earmark part of the estate
for the upkeep of Benjamin’s children.
Could this indicate that there were older children who were no longer
minors and were not living at home and therefore expected to care for
themselves? Claiborne, John, and
Benjamin were all 21 by this time and therefore their upkeep would not be
provided for out of the estate of Benjamin Denney (d. 1797). On the same scale, they could expect to
inherit something from the estate if there was anything to inherit, giving a
reason for the county to earmark part of the estate for the upkeep of the minor
children. There is no record that these
three boys ever received anything from the estate, and the land stayed in the younger
family member’s hands until the last child (presumably Elizabeth) reached
adulthood in 1816 when Josiah Wade purchased the interests of Sarah, Lucy,
Nancy, Elizabeth, and Thomas. No mention
was made at this time of any other heirs that might own an interest in this
estate. Perhaps this right had been
transferred by an earlier unrecorded transaction or maybe out of sight meant
out of mind-Claiborne, John, and Benjamin were no longer in North Carolina. Later in 1832, when Barbara Denney Day died,
there is no mention of the Tennessee Denney’s in her estate records. If out of state meant out of mind, then one
could expect that there would be little contact between NC and Tennessee. This does not seem to be the case, however, as when Sarah Winfree
Denney’s father James died in 1822, she received a legacy even though she was
already in Tennessee. When her uncle Gabriel Jones died in the
1830s she was mentioned in his estate records as living in Tennessee.
And in the 1870’s her descendants received a legacy from the estate of
her nephew Charles Winfree of Kentucky.
We know that mail traveled back and forth between the two areas, and
Claiborne Denney received a letter from somewhere at the Post Office in Carthage in 1815. Possible explanations for this are that the
elder boys were left out of the estate or sold their interests to other family
members before moving to Tennessee, Benjamin Denney could have been married
twice with an older and a younger set of kids and that elder set were not
descended from Barbara, or maybe the three elder children were not the sons of Benjamin
Denney d. 1797.
Of course certain records could help us to identify the
proper identity of these individuals. We
know that Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) was old enough in 1778 to be required to
swear an oath of allegiance to the State of North Carolina. It is not known if he served in the
Revolutionary War, although he almost definitely did. A Benjamin Denney received compensation for
some sort of service at Hillsborough after the war (another
Benjamin Denney received compensation in the Salisbury District). Searches of the Pension papers of the other
men who swore the oath in the Goshen district show that large numbers of these
men served at least a couple of months of militia service. It is hard to believe that Benjamin would not
have given the same level of service as his neighbors or be labeled a
Tory. His death in 1797 and Barbara’s
death in 1832 mean that no pension was ever applied for by either of them. Nothing has been found that would indicate
that their heirs asked for any pension either.
In 1786, North
Carolina conducted a state census which listed the
number of white males between 21 and 60 and the number of white males under 21
or over 60 for each household. The
Census record for the Goshen District of North Carolina is extant, but Benjamin
Denney chose that year to buy his first farm and then move to the Nash District
of Caswell County, so he is not listed on census. The same Census for the Nash District of
North Carolina appears to have been lost at some time and is no longer available. The 1790 Census of Caswell County, North
Carolina has likewise been lost or destroyed, so we have no information for
that year either. By 1800, one Benjamin
Denney has died and the other has his own household in the Beaver Dam District of
Granville County. Claiborne and John
Denney are also on their own by now, although neither show up in the census
that year. I think it likely that John
was living across the VA line in Halifax County,
VA that year near his Winfree
in-laws, but Claiborne Denney is on the Person County
1800 tax list so I don’t know where he was in 1800. The 1800 Census of VA is gone as well as the
1800 and 1810 Census of Tennessee so we have little to work with from these
years.
As a poor substitute for Census records we can draw some
information from tax lists-such as who was living where, and the tax records
for Granville/Caswell/Person Counties do show us some interesting
information. First, Claiborne Denney
appears out of the mist in the 1786 tax list of Caswell County, NC. This is the first time we see Benjamin Denney
in Caswell as well. This was the year
that he purchased his farm from John Wilkerson on Donaldson’s Creek. If Claiborne Denney was 16 in 1786, as the
case has already been made, then it is likely that he would show up with his
father. Zachariah Denney appears on all
the tax records of Caswell
County between 1780 and
1785 with one free poll, indicating that there were no males in his household
of over 16 other than himself. In 1786,
Benjamin moves across the line from Granville into Caswell and appears with the
notation of 1 free poll and 100 acres. The next entry after Benjamin is Claibourne Denney with no land and 1 free poll. Most of the Tax lists of Caswell County were
divided alphabetically by first letter of the last name (all the A’s grouped
together, all the B’s grouped together, etc but not alphabetized inside each
letter grouping) so it is hard to tell how far apart each person lived, but it
is reasonable to assume that a teenage son’s name would follow the father’s if
they were living in the same household.
In 1786, this pattern would indicate that Claibourne
might have been living with Benjamin. Zachariah’s name appears two before Benjamin
with Hannah Donaldson between. 1787 shows
Benjamin Denney 100 acres and 1 free poll, Claiborne Denney 1 free poll,
Zachariah Denney 200 acres and 1 free poll, then Hannah Donaldson. 1788 shows Benjamin Denny 100 acres and 1
free poll, Claiborne Denny 1 free poll, Zachariah Denney 200 acres and 1 free
poll, and then Hannah Donaldson. But
1789 shows Zachariah Denny 200 acres 1 free poll, then Claiborne Denney 1 free
poll!!!, Edmund Deshazo 1 free poll, then Benjamin
Denney 100 acres 1 free poll. This order
is duplicated in 1789 and in 1790. This
could indicate nothing at all, but one would think that Claiborne Denney’s name
would follow his father’s in the list at least till he moved out on his own,
which is what may have happened in 1788-he would have been 18 years old that
year and this may indicate he now had his own farm. These Denney’s were all living close
together. Deed records indicate that
their farms at the very least shared neighbors and in the case of Claiborne and
Zachariah probably shared boundaries.
Claiborne Denney and Robert Bright witnessed a deed in 1790 between
Simon Bright and Robert Humphries for land on Donaldson’s Creek. Robert Bright witnessed the deed between John
Wilkerson and Benjamin Denney for land on Donaldson’s Creek in 1786. We know
that Claiborne Denney owned his own farm in 1792 from the tax records but there
does not seem to have been a deed registered at that time. In 1791 John Harris sold his son-in-law
Joseph Pitman a 100 acre tract of land on Aaron’s Creek in Caswell County
that bordered Zachariah Denney and Harris’s own land. John Harris and Zachariah Denney had been
trading land back and forth for 26 years by this time. This seems to be the same farm that was
registered as a deed between Joseph Pitman and Clayborn
Denney in 1799 and that was in turn sold by Clayborn
Denney to Thomas Webb in 1801. By the
time both of these deeds were registered Zachariah Denney had moved to Beaver
Dam District and one of the neighbors mentioned was still John Harris, another
was Meredith Daniel, who’s land also bordered the
estate of Benjamin Denney, Decd.
None of this completely answers our questions as to whether
our line of descent comes from Zachariah Denney, through Benjamin Denney (d.
1797) to Claiborne, John and Benjamin Denney and beyond.
Without another Denney male who could place in the mixture
this would seem to be the most likely line of descent, but there are other
options.
OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
Zachariah Denney had a brother named John who probably still
lived in Pittsylvania County,
VA. In 1785, a John Denny appears on the tax list
there with a household that included five white souls in his family. A John
Denney is also listed there in the 1780s being appointed to the job of
Constable. Not much has been found of
him after this point, although there is a John Dennis who appears in this
county’s records. It is possible that
three of the white souls in his family in 1785 are the three boys that moved to
Tennessee,
but as yet no way to prove it. We know
that the descendants of Elijah Denney (who died in 1863 in Kentucky)
and Zachariah Denney (b. 1770 and died in 1840 in Orange County, Indiana) are
also likely candidates to be members of our family, most of the previous
writing on these lines have pointed to the elder Zachariah Denney who lived in
first Virginia and then in North Carolina is their dad. This is based on two items.
The first is a biography of Dr. Zachariah C. Denney in Goodspeed’s Lawrence County, MO, written during the 1880s
which states that his father Levi was the son of Elijah Denney who was the son
of Zachariah Denney who lived and died in Virginia, and that Elijah and his
mother Mary had come to Kentucky in 1793, and that Mary had lived to be 104
years old (dying in 1838). Several of
these facts are in error. We know that
Zachariah Denney died in North Carolina and
that Elijah Denney did not move to Kentucky
until 1802. These Goodspeed
Histories are of dubious quality, often with both nuggets of truth as well as errors. Goodspeed’s
Histories were the equivalent of the Who’s Who books out there today, where for
a fee you can post your own biography.
They were collected by young men (often working their way through
school) who went door to door selling subscriptions to the book and for a
larger fee you get your biography in it.
At best, they were provided by the person who was being lauded in the
biography, sometimes they were provided by a family member or a householder who
was giving the bio and book as a gift to the person written about, and
sometimes enterprising young sales people wrote biographies based on info that
they new or gleaned from other people and then tried to sell it to the persons
in question. Sometimes these bios are
very correct, sometimes very poor, and it is often hard to determine which is
which. Dr. Zachariah Denney was very
young when Elijah died, and Elijah was relatively old when he had his first
children, so the information that Dr. Zachariah Denney was providing was
clouded by time. We know that it is very
unlikely that the elder Zachariah died in an state
other than Kentucky, we know that Elijah did
not go to Kentucky
in 1793 but instead went in 1802. It
seems very unlikely that the elder Zachariah Denney’s wife Mary would have gone
to Kentucky
with Elijah in 1802 even if she were his mother. Elijah lived in Wilkes
County, NC-a long distance from Granville County in 1800. A woman who is old enough to be the wife of
Zachariah is in the Zachariah Denney household in 1800 in Granville County. Zachariah is still living in Granville County in 1802, on the farm he sold to
John Denney in 1802. It seems unlikely
that his wife would leave him in 1802 to move to Kentucky with another child. Neither she or Zachariah appears on the 1810
census of Granville County as a part of the household of John Denney, so it is
likely that they had died by then (in her case between 1800 and 1810 and in
Zachariah’s case between 1805 and 1810), but it is possible that they were
living in the household of a someone else, possibly a daughter that we do not
know about. Elijah does seem to have
been married first to Mary Owen, daughter of William Owen. After Mary died young with either one or two
children, Elijah married Susan Simpson and had a large brood of children. There is no evidence that any woman of great
age lived in the home of Elijah Denney in the 1810, 1820, or 1830 census records. The 1810 Census of Kentucky shows a lady over
45 in the home of Zachariah (b. 1770 d. 1840), but this lady could have been
his mother-in-law, a ward, boarder, servant, or other relative. There is no older lady in subsequent census
records involving Zachariah (d. 1840). I
suppose that the Mary Denney who supposedly died in 1838 at 104 in Pulaski or Rockcastle County could have been living in another
place rather than Elijah’s house, but the census for 1830 in Rockcastle and
Pulaski County Kentucky do not show any woman over 90. Elijah Denney did apparently live to over the
age of 100 as most records show that he was born n 1758 and died in 1863. He signed an affidavit claiming a
Revolutionary War pension in 1832 stating that he thought he was 70 years old which
would mean that he was born 1761-1762. The
Census of 1860 shows him as 107. One
newspaper article in 1858 that circulated all over the United States
said that he was 119 at that time. One
would assume that Dr. Zachariah would have been named after his
great-grandfather, but he could have just as easily been named after his great
uncle. It is very likely unlikely that the elder
Zachariah Denney’s wife Mary moved to Kentucky, and it is conceivable that the
biographer or the person who provided the information had his information
garbled and the 104 years claimed for the life of Mary were a mistake just as
the date of 1793 or
the statement that the elder Zachariah Denney died in Virginia
were mistakes. It is also conceivable
that even listing Elijah Denney’s mother as Mary could be a mistake-this could
be a garbled memory from folk-lore in which the name of Elijah Denney’s first
wife was transposed into the place of his mother. The bio does not mention that Elijah was
married twice, but it really was not about Elijah, it was about Dr. Zachariah
Denney.
The second, and I think more credible piece of evidence, is
based on a statement by Elijah Denney, when he claimed to be 95, that he had
grown up near the home of William Owen, and that he had been present at the
marriage of Owen’s son David. The statement was made supporting the claim
of Owen’s children to Revolutionary War Pension money
due to them because neither of their parents had ever received a Revolutionary
War Pension. We know that William Owen
did live in the late 1750s and the 1760s in the area that our Denney’s
lived. Both of the men eventually moved
to Wilkes County, NC. Elijah
lists his state of Birth in the Census Records as Virginia.
There is no reason to think that the elder Zachariah ever moved to the Wilkes County
area, but Elijah was there when he first entered the Revolutionary Service in
1779. It is tempting to think that
Elijah Denney left his home in Virginia
with William Owen and his bride Mary, (the daughter of William). The fact that William Owen definitely lived
near the homes of both the elder Zachariah Denney and his brother John Denney,
Jr. and that Elijah Denney stated that he grew up near the home of William Owen
gives me great confidence placing Elijah Denney among the members of this
family. William Owen also seems to have
lived for a time in southern Halifax County, VA before moving to what eventually became Wilkes County, NC. This keeps William Owen and
his daughter Mary close to the family of Zachariah Denney and therefore close
to Elijah if he is indeed the son of the elder Zachariah.
The younger Zachariah Denney (b. 1770 d. 1840) is a little
tougher, but he shows up around 1790 in Wilkes
County and I believe that the 1789
census of Wilkes County shows him as a member of the
Elijah Denney household. In 1787 Elijah
Denney’s home included 1 male 21-60 (Elijah) and one female (Mary). In 1790 his home includes 2 males over 16
(Elijah and the younger Zachariah) and 2 males under 16 (Elijah’s sons Levi and
Simeon) and 2 females (Elijah’s wife Mary-or possibly by this time Susan-and
another woman-possibly Zachariah’s wife Sophia or a daughter of Elijah). It is clear that from the tax records of the
next few years that Elijah and Zachariah are connected, as the same land shows
up as first the taxable property of one man and then of the other. By 1800, Zachariah (d. 1840) was living in
neighboring Ashe County.
It appears that both of these men moved to the same area of Kentucky around the year
1802. Elijah and Zachariah (d. 1840)
were almost definitely brothers. An 18
or 20 year old Zachariah (d. 1840) could have moved west from the home of his
father the elder Zachariah to join his brother, or Zachariah (d. 1840) could
have been one of the five white souls in the home of John Denney, Jr. in the
1785 tax list of Pittsylvania County, VA and then moved west to join his
brother, possibly after the death of this John Denney.
I think it is equally possible that Elijah and this
Zachariah Denney were the sons of either the elder Zachariah Denney or John
Denney, Jr.
It is hard to say that the three Denney’s who moved to
Tennessee-Claiborne, John, or Benjamin were sons of
the John Denney, Jr. who was brother of the elder Zachariah. Their surviving children by the time the
census records show this information all state that their fathers were born in North Carolina. If they were the sons of this John Denney,
and still living in Pittsylvania
County, Virginia,
then the three boys were born in Virginia.—Very thin as proof goes but it adds
to the available information.
The three Denneys who moved to Tennessee seem to be
very closely connected to each other and to the elder Zachariah Denney. In fact they seem more closely related to
Zachariah Denney than to Benjamin Denney who died in 1797. We have already discussed the fact that
Claiborne Denney purchased a farm from Joseph Pitman that bordered Zachariah
Denney. Pitman purchased this land from
his father-in-law John Harris, the same man who sold Zachariah Denney his own
farm. (Interestingly, John Harris was
also the father-in-law of John Wilkerson who sold the land on Donaldson’s Creek
in Caswell County, NC to Benjamin Denney in 1786.) It would appear from the county records that
the elder Zachariah Denney sold his land on the Person/Granville County line
and moved to the Beaver Dam District of Granville County in 1799 at about the
same time that Benjamin Denney (d. 1844) moved there. Benjamin Denney (d. 1844) seems to have moved
to Beaver Dam District to live near the family of his new wife Kerrenhappuch Taylor.
In the late 1790’s Kerrenhappuch’s brother
John had been living in the Nash District of Person County. Benjamin undoubtedly met Kerrenhappuch,
who he married on December 19, 1798, in Granville County
through the good graces of his new brother-in-law John Taylor who signed on as
a bondsman at the ceremony. Benjamin and
Kerrenhappuch moved to Beaver Dam District before the
1800 Census when they appear there with their new son Lemuel
(or Samuel) Denney who was born in late 1799 or early 1800 (second son George
was born Oct 1800-according to another Goodspeed
History). It is interesting that the
elder Zachariah, now over 60 years old should leave at this time a farm he has
owned apparently for more than half of his life to move twenty or so miles
away. One would think there had to be a
reason. The 1800 Census shows both men
there and the 1800 Tax list shows Zachariah owning paying taxes for 125 acres
with 1 free poll, and Benjamin Denney paying taxes on 155 acres with one free
poll. The land Zachariah had was
purchased from David Parish and was registered in 1800 (he probably paid cash
or paid it off in one year). Benjamin
does not register any land purchase for a couple of years when he registers 100
acres from his father-in-law George Taylor and in 1803 when he registers 55
acres from Howard Nance (the deed says that it is the “plantation whereon Benjmain Denney now lives” The younger Benjamin probably had to
pay for his land on time, and the deeds were not registered until paid for. Claiborne Denney stayed in Person County
until 1801 when he sold his land there and moved to the Beaver Dam District purchasing
land from Willie Hooker in 1803. We don’t
know where John Denney (d. 1847) was in 1800 as he does not show up in the 1800
census of North Carolina
or either counties’ tax list for that year. He may have been in Virginia (the census of
1800 of Virginia is gone) or he may have been living in the home of Zachariah
Denney as Zachariah was too old to owe a poll tax. If so he did not make the Census of that year
in the home of Zachariah Denney. We do
know that John Denney (d. 1847) purchased the farm of the elder Zachariah
Denney in 1802. In each year except 1805
after this, the farm is listed as being the property of John Denney. In that year, the land is listed in the name
of the elder Zachariah Denney and no poll tax is listed as due from the
household. Interestingly, also in 1805,
a John Denney witnessed a deed between David Lay and John Atwell in Caswell County, North
Carolina-by now a long way away from where the Denney’s
were living. Is this man connected to
the unrelated family of Simon Denney who by now was living in Caswell County,
or had our John Denney (d. 1847) moved to Caswell. If he had, he was back in Granville County
by 1806, paying his taxes and also paying that of Benjamin Denney who was on
the way to Tennessee. Did John Denney try moving away and then
change his mind and move back. Maybe
Benjamin and Claiborne leaving for Tennessee
(Claiborne and Benjamin sold their land in 1805 and 1806) prompted him to
return to Granville to care for old Zachariah.
Or maybe the elder Zachariah died that year and with Benjamin leaving
his unsold lands under the care of John and no one left to run the farm that
the elder Zachariah had sold John meant that he had to come home to take care
of his business. Remember John followed
Benjamin and Claiborne to Smith County,
Tennessee sometime between the
taking of the 1800 census and the 1812.
My bet is that Zachariah and maybe Mary also were still living, that had
run Zachariah’s farm for a number of year, possibly back into the 1790’s and
that he now stayed behind to take care of the old couple. They died before 1810, and John wrapped up
his affairs in North Carolina and followed the
rosy reports from his family members in Tennessee.
There is no proof that Claiborne, John, and Benjamin were
brothers, but it boggles the mind to think that they were approximately the
same age, and packed up and moved not once but twice at about the same times to
a new place, unless they were very close-they must have been brothers or
cousins but I feel certain they were brothers.
They could have been sons of Zachariah Denney, but they could just as
easily have been his grandsons. The
farm Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) lived on was supporting their supposed younger
siblings or half siblings, and an aging Zachariah Denney would both have needed
and wanted to have his family, in this case possibly his grandsons near-by.
HENRIETTA DENNEY
This leaves one other question to be anwered. Who the heck is Henrietta Denney?
Never heard of her? I
hadn’t either but there she is big as day in the 1780 tax list of the Goshen District of Granville
County, NC and again
in 1782. In 1780 Henrietta Denny has no
land of her own but 12 cattle. The tax
list of 1780 for Goshen District is divided into two sections. The first section is people who own some
property (including both land and cattle) and the second section is for men who
are old enough to be assessed a poll tax (16) but who don’t own any land or
property. This second group is
subdivided into married and unmarried men.
Benjamin Denny is assessed a poll tax as one of the married men of the
district. No tax list for Goshen in 1781
survives but the 1782 tax list shows Benja Denny with
no land but 1 horse or mule and 4 cattle, valued at 9 dollars. The next reference is ditto for Henrietta
Denny 4 horses and mules and 6 cattle, valued at 22 dollars. Very obviously this Benjamin Denney was
paying the taxes for this Henrietta Denney as this was the notation used when
one person paid the taxes for the next listed person. There is no tax list for 1784 but the 1785
tax list is extant and shows Benja Denny assessed for
1 free poll and no land slaves, or wheeled vehicles (cattle and horses weren’t
taxed this year). In 1786 Benjamin (d.
1797) is in Caswell/Person County and remains there from that time. Henrietta Denney does not appear named in any
records that I have discovered other than these two tax lists.
What is the relationship of Benjamin Denney (this is
obviously the one who died in 1797) to this Henrietta Denney?
We know that Benjamin Denney was married already by the 1780
tax list because the tax list specifically says that he was. But was he married to this Henrietta
Denney. It would explain some things in
the estate records of Benjamin Denney.
If she was married to Benjamin (d. 1797), she would be the mother of
Claiborne, John and Benjamin (d. 1844), and they therefore would not be heirs
of Barbara Denney Day in 1832. The
children of Barbara all seem to have been born after 1785,
this would fit nicely with the theory that Benjamin (d. 1797) had two wives and
two sets of kids. It would not explain
why Claiborne, John, and Benjamin (d. 1844) did not receive a share of the
profits of the sale of the farm of Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) in 1816, but there
could have been a deed that is unrecorded that explains that, and they may have
received a share of Benjamin Denney’s estate at an earlier time that we have
never found. But I don’t think she was
married to Benjamin Denney.
Single women were allowed to own and sell property, testify,
witness transactions and etc. at this time in North Carolina. However, married women’s property was
generally considered the property of their husbands. It would not make sense for the property of
Henrietta and Benjamin to be listed separately in the record tax records, especially
in 1782 when Benjamin Denney is very clearly paying her taxes for her. It would seem likely, that as they did not
possess any land of their own, that they were living on land of Zachariah
Denney (he owned 200 acres that he had purchased from John Harris and that
straddled the Caswell/Granville County line although all the land taxes were
paid in Caswell/Person Counties during the time Denney owned it in every extant
tax record except for 1767 when the taxes were paid in Philip Pryor’s tax list
of Goshen District of Granville County by Zachariah Denney. Benjamin was obviously connected to Henrietta
in some way as he would not have otherwise been paying her taxes for her in
1782. It could conceivably be his widowed
mother, but if that is the case he was not the son of the elder Zachariah
Denney. The only other candidate for
father of this Benjamin Denney that I can think of is Zach’s brother John
Denney, Jr. who was still paying his own taxes in Pittsylvania County, VA
as late as 1785, so it is unlikely that Henrietta is the widow of that John
Denney.
She could also be Benjamin Denney’s sister, but that doesn’t
make sense either, for although a single woman could own property at that time
in North Carolina,
it was almost unheard of for one to be living on her own, unless she was
widowed or there were no other choice.
Zachariah was still alive and just over the county line. If she were his daughter she would have been
living at home or with a husband, not out on her own with cattle and horses but
no land. There is precedent for a single
lady living on her own in this County.
Jane Winfree (daughter of James Winfree and sister of Sally Winfree
who married John Denney (d. 1847) had
her own household in 1810 and 1820 and a whole houseful of kids with no
husband. This was extremely rare,
however.
My best bet is that she is a daughter-in-law of Zachariah
Denney and the widow of a son of his whom we have not yet discovered. This is the only option that makes sense
considering the times. Could she be the
mother of Claiborne, John, and Benjamin (d. 1844) who came to Tennessee?
Possibly.
The home of Zachariah Denney in 1800 Census of Beaver Dam
District, Granville County,
North Carolina, includes a woman
who probably is this Henrietta Denney.
His household includes one male over 45 (Zachariah) one female under 10
(?) one female 16-26 (undoubtedly Fannie Denney who married Thomas Cash in Sept
1802) one female 26-45 (Henrietta?) and one woman over 45 (Mary). If this is Henrietta in the home of
Zachariah Denney in 1800 then we have a new candidate for the mother of
Claiborne, John, and Benjamin Denney (d. 1844).
Now it is possible that this woman aged 26-45 in 1800 is another
daughter or someone else as well.
In an interesting aside, John Harris-who was so well
connected with Zachariah Denney for over 30 years, had a daughter named
Henrietta. This had to be an unusual name in the back
country of NC during this time period.
We know that this daughter of Harris married John Wilkerson (the same
one who sold Benjamin Denney his land in 1786) and that she had several
children by him including one named John Harris Wilkerson. So John Harris could not have been the
grandfather of John Denney (who died in 1847 in Smith County)
but could this daughter have first been married to a son of Zachariah Denney
whom we have not been identified, widowed with no children that survived her
father John Harris, and then married John Wilkerson. Probably not, Henrietta of 1780 and 1782 is
probably the lady in the 1800 census of Granville County
in the home of Zachariah Denney and also is probably the mother of Fannie Denney
who married Thomas Cash and who is also in the Zachariah Denney household in
1800.
If she was between the ages of 26 and 45 in 1800, and
assuming she was 45, this would place her as 15 in the year that Claiborne
Denney was born, making her barely able to be Claiborne’s mother. Of course that is assuming that she knew
exactly how old she was, and that she reported it correctly to the census
taker. People of the era were very
haphazard in record keeping, and you will notice them often saying that they
are such and such age as far as they can tell or that they are about such and
such age. This lady could have been
several years older and still thought or passed herself off as under 45.
CONCLUSIONS
These are tougher to come by than the theories I have
expostulated before. But let me try.
Zachariah Denney was the progenitor of all the Denney’s in
the Person/Granville area. He definitely
did not have two sons named Benjamin, so there must be two generations
mentioned here. There is no better
candidate for father of Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) than Zachariah Denney. They lived near each other. In fact Benjamin probably lived on Zachariah’s
land in Granville County while Zachariah lived on the part of the land
in Caswell County.
When Benjamin purchased his farm, he did so near Zachariah’s. I have long been troubled by the fact that
there is no 100 percent evidence of a tie between Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) and
Claiborne, John, and Benjamin (d. 1844) in the estate records of the Benjamin
Denney (d. 1797). But there has never
been anything that would indicate that there is another option. The arrival of this Henrietta Denney into the
equation gives another possible explanation as widow of another son. Of course there are also close ties between
Claiborne and Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) which one might expect from a father
and son but could also arise from a son and a father figure whom an Uncle could
easily become when that uncle even pays the taxes and works the animals of your
own deceased father. Possibly the
Claiborne, John, and Benjamin (d. 1844) even lived in the same home as Benjamin
(d. 1797) for a while, explaining both why Benjamin was paying Henrietta’s
taxes and why Claiborne seems to show up with Benjamin (d. 1797) in the first
several tax lists he appears on. The
listing of Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) as Senior, may also represent this close
tie as well instead of the two being father and son. Adding another son to Zachariah and listing
that man as father of Claiborne, John, and Benjamin (d. 1844) has the same
problem of being on a tight timetable.
The three generations still had to start no earlier than about 1732 with
another man born about 1751 and then Claiborne being born in 1770. Of course if Claiborne was actually 21 in
1786 then he could have only been the son of Zachariah or John, Jr. of Pittsylvania County,
but census records support his being born between 1770 and 1775. The tight time table continues with Claiborne
Denney’s first child being born about 1793 and John Denney (d. 1847) having his
first (another Zachariah) in January of 1794, but the records would show this
possible. It seems that Claiborne had a
farm by 1792 and was probably living on his own as early as 1788, and John
Denney is 21 by 1795, so he could have had children (and in fact probably had
two) before this time. If Zachariah
Denney was the father of Benjamin Denney who died in 1797 and if Zachariah
Denney could not have had two sons named Benjamin living at the same time, and
if Claiborne, John (d. 1847), and Benjamin Denney (d. 1844) were brothers, then
they must have been either grandsons of Zachariah Denney through another child,
or descendants of someone else. Their
close connection with Zachariah Denney and their joint move first to Beaver Dam
and then to Smith County, Tennessee seem to show that they were definitely
brothers, so there probably is a generation here that we have first started to
identify with the discovery of Henrietta Denney.
My best bet would be that the following is how our line
should show.
Zachariah Denney was the father of at least three
children---
Unknown
Denney (b. 1750-1752 d. before 1780) who married Henrietta _______
Benjamin Denney (b. 1750s d. 1797) who
married Barbara ______
Sarah
Denney b. 1760s who
married William Turner (we haven’t mentioned her yet but will eventually get to
her.)
And was probably the father of (if not then John Denney, Jr., brother
of Zachariah was probably their father)
Elijah
Denney (b. 1758-1762 d. 1863 in Kentucky)
m. William Owen
Zachariah
Denney (b. 1770 d. 1840 in Indiana)
who married Sophia ____
Benjamin Denney (d. 1797) married Barbara _______ and had 6
children who survived him:
Lucy Denney
m. John Walters
Sarah
Denney m. Charles Eastwood
Nancy
Denney m. Benjamin Wade
Mary Denney
m. Josiah Wade
Elizabeth
Denney m. Joseph Farrow
Thomas
Denney
Unknown Denney (b. 1750-1752 d. before 1780) married
Henrietta ______ and had at least three children
Claiborne
Denney (b. 1770 d. 1830s) m. ________
John Denney
(b. 1772-1773 d. 1847 TN) m. Sarah “Sallie” Winfree
Benjamin
Denney (b. 1774-1777 d. 1844 TN) m. Kerrenhappuch
Taylor
And likely
a daughter
Fannie
Denney (b. 1770s) m. Thomas Cash
I would welcome any questions, comments, corrections, advise, or etc.