Thanks for your additional comments.
How old would a man have to be in N.C. to appear on the tax list?21? 18? 16?Simply a land owner?I don't know the law on this question, but it would be helpful in determining his age.
Also, what is a "poll," exactly?If you know.I've never been entirely clear on this.The word seems to combine how many persons in a household who're able to vote, as well as how many persons in a household one is taxed on.My understanding of Heinegg is that non-white women over the age of 16 were taxed, whereas white women over 16 were not taxed.My understanding of Heinegg also is that all non-white males over 16, free or slave, were taxable.That is to say, that the head of the household had to pay taxes on not only himself, but on any non-white males over 16, regardless of their free or slave status.
Additionally, can a black poll also be a free person?Similarily, must a free poll always be white?Can a free poll also be a mixed race person?Or, black?(I assume a free poll can't be an Indian by definition, because of the constitution's clause excluding "Indians, not taxed.")
So, if Nathaniel is being taxed on one free poll and one black poll, what information exactly can we draw from that?Especially in light of the fact that 6 years later, he's the head of a household of 13.
As far as I can see, several possibilities exist:In 1784,(A) Nathaniel owns one male slave over the age of 16, or, (B) Nathaniel owns one female slave over the age of 16, or,(C) a free black male over the age of 16 is living in his household, or, (D) a free black female over the age of 16 is living in his household, or, (E) Nathaniel's wife is black, or, (F) a "black" poll doesn't necessarily mean racially black, but rather, it means non-white.
Now, it seems to me a scant six years later, with Nathaniel appearing as head of a household of 13, that some, if not most, of those 13 persons must have been his children.If we assume that half were his children and do the math, you still get a birth date of circa 1763.
I could be wrong about James being an Accomac Indian.I think he was, but he could have been Occahannock as well.Both tribes were Algonquian speaking, and were on the periphery of Powhaten's confederacy.
Yes, it was Wincewough who ran away.He ran away to the Nanticoke Indians and was gone for almost two years as I recall.
Unless I'm mistaken, it was the Sioux writer, Vine DeLoria, who wrote, "[ Before columbus, ] The white man had the bible and we had the land, now we have the bible and they have the land".(DeLoria is a wonderfully incisive Indian writer.)
Like you, I never accepted the conventional wisdom that all the eastern Indians were killed off by either war or by European diseases.Even as a child growing up, it made no sense at all to me, that, with one or two rare exceptions, that the only Indians in the United States were those Indians living west of the Mississippi River.
Simple, fundamental, common sense tells you that a whole race could not have been wiped out.Even in the bloodiest battles of the bloodiest wars, more often than not, more people survive than are killed.For example, D-Day and Normandy, or Pearl Harbor.Even when Hitler tried to exterminate all the Jews in Eurpoe, and managed to killsix million, there were millions more who survived.
The eastern Indians did what all cornered and pressured peoples do, first, theyfought back (e.g.- the eary wars waged by Powhaten and Opechancanough, as well as King Philip's War, and the Tuscarora War), and then, culturally and militarily crushed, they adapted.At least the ones of us who survived did.Those who didn't adapt, died.What's so strang about that?Adaptation happens all the time.
The best example of adaptation I can think of is England.England was home to the Celts.And when the Vikings/Saxons invaded and took over, the Celts adapted to, and blended in with the Saxons.Later, when William The Conqueror of France, and his Normans invaded and took over, the Saxons adapted not only their culture to the Normans, but their language as well.(That's why, to this day, we refer to fowl as poultry, and to oxen as beef.)
Anyway, our ancestors adapted.Sometimes, they married others like themselves.And the Lumbee, and the Coharie, and the numerous other tribes which dot the eastern United States, are the descendants of those original adaptees.And sometimes, our ancestors married white people, and sometimes they married black people.And they did so, so often, that after a while, they "disappeared" into those races.So, I don't know why people look at you funny when you say you're Indian, and you can see their minds thinking out loud, sort of like the word baloons that appear over a cartoon character, and you can hear their thoughts saying, "But you don't look Indian?"The implicit assumption being that only those Indians out west are "real" Indians.The further logical consequence of their assumption being that our ancestors should have chosen death, rather adaption and life, so that we, their descendants might therefore fit into their sterotypical definition of what an Indian should look like.
Anyway, I'll climb down from my soapbox now.