NOTE: this post includes the horrible subject of slavery and the disgraceful way enslaved persons were treated and referred to.
It isn’t often when perusing genealogical records that I find one that reveals personalities, family dynamics and awful statements like the 1776 Chancery Court Case between the heirs of Robert Estes, Sr. of Lunenburg County, Virginia.
On 15 Mar 1775 Robert Estes, Sr. wrote a will leaving property, including land and enslaved persons, equally between his 7 children:
Robert Estes, born about 1724 (“being now near fifty three years of age” in 1776)
Elisha Estes,
Benjamin Estes
George Estes, who married Mary, who married second William Thompson by 1779
Bartlett Estes
Zachary / Zachariah Estes
Mildred “Milly” Estes, born about 1742, who married Frederick Cox
He only named one enslaved person in his will, Sam; however, the Chancery Court Case and the division of his estate in 1795 revealed the names, and some of the relationships, of the others.
The rift in the family began much earlier, though. About 23 Jul 1751, Robert Estes, Sr. purchased three enslaved persons from Col. John Chiswell, Jacob, aged 12 (born about 1739), Kate, aged 11 (born about 1740), and Jack. Per the deposition of Micajah Estes, Milly was about 9 years old at this time (born about 1742).
The marriage of Frederick Cox and Milly Estes was a bit irregular. Frederick was underage, so he had to get a certificate before the parson would marry them. He didn’t get it from his father, Capt. Cox, though, but from a Mr. Whitehead, and Milly wasn’t given away by her father, but by a man named Sylvanus Walker. It’s unclear exactly when they married, but “it was in the last of July or the first of August” about 1763.
On 18 Nov 1767, Robert Estes, Sr. lent his enslaved person Lucy to Frederick and Milly Cox “during my pleasure Let time be long or short.” Per other deponents in the lawsuit, Lucy was the daughter of Kate and Jack.
By the following year, Robert Estes, Sr. believed that Frederick Cox was in debt, and he worried that that his son-in-law would sell Lucy to pay off his debts. His concern was compounded when Frederick and Milly removed to Pittsylvania County, taking Lucy with them. Robert Estes placed a notice in the Virginia Gazette, published 5 May 1768, which read “where the negro may be disposed of before I can be informed of it.”
Per the testimony, it appears that Robert Estes, Sr. doted on and spoiled his daughter Milly, which led to jealousy amongst his other children. Mary Estes, aged about 65 (born about 1711, I wonder if she is the wife of Richard, brother of Robert Estes, Sr.), deposed “that she has heard George Estes, the son, & Mary Estes, the daughter in law of the said Robert Estes, & wife of Elisha Estes say they thought it a hard thing, that Milly, the wife of the said Frederick Cox, should have all these negroes, who never did any thing for it, but was always kept like a gentlewoman.”
It seems to me that Frederick and Milly Cox could be selfish, disrespectful, and pushy, for by early 1771, there was clearly no love lost between Robert Estes, Sr. and his son-in-law. Robert has been purported to say some very unflattering things about his character, such as “Every time Fred & his wife or either of them came down they were perpetually at him to give them the negro girl Lucy. He never would give her to them, for if he did, Frederick would make her go the same way as those his father had given him.
About Sep 1774, Robert Estes, Sr. evidently told Daniel Dejarnett over dinner at Robert’s home “that he was afraid the said Frederick Cox would put a cheat upon some person in selling the aforesaid negroes lent to his wife Milly & put him to some trouble to get his property again.” Later in the same conversation, Robert also stated his displeasure with two of his other children: He “intended that at his death the above negroes lent aforesaid should be called in & that his estate would be equally proportioned among his children, some of which, Benjamin, Bartlett & Frederick Cox would know the want of an estate, or he imagined they would spend what they were to have.”
Then about Feb 1775, Robert Estes told John Smith that “he was very uneasy about it, because he imagined Frederick Cox would not bring in the negro to be shared or divided with the rest of his estate…because he was a stubborn body.”
James Bell said that just before Robert Estes, Sr. death he told him “He was afraid his estate would go to pay off the other to clerks, sheriffs, and lawyers, & that he was afraid that Frederick Cox would be troublesome to the rest of the children, and if he did, the consequences will be bad on the side of the rest of the children.
Well, he had it half right, for the lawsuit proves his point, but in the end, his property was divided up fairly.
His son Elisha and his wife (my 7th great-grandparents) weren’t spared the ire of Robert Estes, Sr. either. In the spring of 1774, Robert Estes, Sr. told Dejarnett that “the wife of the said Elisha (Elisha then being away from home) had someway offended him, & for these reasons he intended to disinherit the said Elisha.” A few days later “He had seen Elisha, & that Elisha had satisfied him & that he was very sorry for expressing himself angrily at the former meeting against Elisha, and was glad” Dejarnett “opposed his then passionate intention” and said “if he had executed his intentions he would have hurt one of his most dutiful & obedient children.”
This paints the picture of a hard man, quick to anger and take offense, and quick to forgive. In the end, he obviously trusted Elisha, making him a co-executor of his will. He also recognized that spoiling Milly did her no favors, and he realized he should treat all his children equally and fairly.
There was also rancor between Frederick Cox and Elisha Estes and his wife Mary, for about Dec 1775, William Parrott, Robert Estes, Sr.’s overseer, met Frederick Cox and Cox asked him “if Elisha Estes was come home that damned negro stealing son of a bitch. I told him I had heard he was going to steal some of the negroes down here, so it would be steal for steal, don’t you think they could hang you for stealing, he said he knew they could, & he said he only took them but did not carry them away, & that what he had done was to fret Molly Estes, the wife of Elisha Estes.”
There were several genealogical goldmines found in the lawsuit, the estimated birth years for Robert Estes and his sister Milly, the death year of their mother Mary, which was 1774, and that she “was reported to be illegitimate” per William White, who from his youth knew Robert Estes, Sr. and lived with them for some time.
Per the depositions in the lawsuit, enslaved persons Jack and Kate (born about 1740) had nine children: Lucy (who had a daughter Lydia), Jack, Kate, Lydia, Peter, Sam, Sarah, Tom, and Will.
The estate division was as follows:
Robert Estes Sarah, Phil, Joe
Elisha Estes Tom, Kate the younger
Mary, widow of George Estes Peter, Jack
Benjamin Estes Jack, Kate his wife
Zachariah Estes Phyllis, Lydia, Jack the son of Kate
Milly & Frederick Cox Lucy, lydia, Hannah
Sources:
Virginia, Lunenburg, Chancery Court Case 1776-001, Frederick Cox and wife vs. Robert and Elisha Estes, Library of Virginia, Virginia Memory,
https://old.lva.virginia.gov/chancery/case_detail.asp?CFN=111-1776-001#img
Virginia, Lunenburg, Will Book 2, pages 417-419, 442-445, 451, FHL #007645430, Images 421-422, 434-435, 438 of 659,
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89P6-TWDS
