Sometimes Taxes Are Fun

As genealogists, we learn that tax records can be useful. Then we often find that the records we need no longer exist. However, a recent acquisition of Virginia tax records for Clayton Library by the Clayton Library Friends provides a major and valuable resource for researchers working on Virginia ancestors. At this time Clayton Library is one of only a handful of libraries to own this collection.

Original tax records in the Virginia State Archives have been microfilmed so far for the years 1782-1850, and records after 1850 are available for use at the archives. (The land tax records from 1851 to 1870 are in the process of being filmed.) These records come from about 147 counties and cities, including counties that separated in 1863 to become the state of West Virginia.

Since so many of the Virginia census records before 1820 no longer exist, the microfilm collection at Clayton Library first concentrated on tax records prior to 1820 and does include some of the early West Virginia counties.

By 1782, the American Revolution was finally over and the Virginia General Assembly revised its tax laws to create a permanent source of revenue for the state government. Over the years, the assembly has changed the tax rates, the collection procedures, and the specific items to be taxed, but the taxes have affected two classes of property: land and personal property. Thus, the microfilm is divided into land tax records and personal property tax records for each county. Researchers should use both because they give different but complementary information. In addition, just as genealogists need to read every available census record for a given ancestral family, we gain the most benefit from these tax records when we look in every year’s list for the ancestral family.

Although the law described collection and recording procedures and the assembly eventually produced standard forms for recording the tax information, the lists for the earliest fifty to sixty years sometimes vary slightly from county to county. The early forms were homemade and not all columns had a heading except on the first page of that year’s list. It is important for researchers to record in their notes the column headings for each year because they changed from time to time and occasionally differed from one district to another within the county, depending on the person recording the information and his understanding of his instructions.

What then do these tax records tell us and how can they help us?

• The tax records, with other county records when available, help fill the gaps between censuses and help form substitutes for lost census records. For Virginia, all the 1790 census has been lost as well as all but two counties of the 1800 census and a good portion of the 1810 census. In the case of counties with burned courthouses, these records are extremely valuable for information on the population and land ownership.

• Through the years, the tax lists can show changes and fluctuations in a person’s economic standing: when he acquired land or enlarged his holdings and, sometimes, from whom he acquired the new land; whether or when he became a slave owner and how many slaves he held; whether he owned a carriage, a gold watch, a piano, a clock, or other designated property, including horses and cattle; and whether a tax increase may suggest a new house or an extension to an existing house.

• The tax records can help determine when a person died or moved from the county. For example, Peter T. Phillips of Cumberland County appeared on the 1832 tax roll but in 1833 was listed as “Peter T. Phillips estate.” (Other records show he died in June 1832.) Such a person was usually designated deceased or estate until the estate settlement was completed. In the case of William Coleman of Cumberland County, no exact death date has yet been uncovered. He wrote his will on 23 May 1810 and his estate inventory was presented to the county court in May 1811, giving us a one-year range for a death date. The tax records narrow this range considerably, for the tax commissioner visited him on 19 April 1811 and did not list him as deceased at that time. Thus, William seems to have died between 19 April and early May 1811. The 1812 tax list even showed his 545 acres from previous years’ lists now in the hands of William Coleman Jr. (200 acres) and Ferdinand G. Coleman (345 acres). William’s will supports this division.

• Relationships are sometimes expressed in the tax records: “William Coleman, son of William” (1817, Cumberland County); “Henry Coleman, son of William” (1828, Cumberland County); and “Lucy F. Coleman, daughter of H. Coleman” (1834, Cumberland County). In one Loudoun County family, not only did the tax records furnish the names of sons but they proved the three married names of the mother. In 1795 and 1796 Mary Gregg was charged with the tax and listed with her were her “sons John and Alexander,” over the age of sixteen. Next, in 1797, the tithables (taxable men) in Mary Gregg’s household were her “sons J. Mudd and A. Norton.” The following year John Mudd was charged with the tax and in his household were Alexander and William Norton. Then in 1799 in Mary Gregg’s household were her “sons Alexander and William.” These particular lists help clarify the confusion that could occur if a searcher was not aware of her several husbands, and earlier tax lists offer a more complete picture of Mary’s three marriages, her husbands, and her sons once the multiple marriages are solved.

• Relationships are sometimes implied or suggested in the tax records. For example, Mary Orgain of Brunswick County was shown in the land tax records by 1814 as owner of two tracts totaling about 2521/2 acres. In 1816 the list adds “John Orgain (infant)” with 431/2 acres. (Infant means he was a minor.) In 1818 the record shows “Mary Orgain deceased” with 192 1/3 acres and John Orgain (infant) with his 431/2. Then in 1823 Mary is no longer listed and John Orgain (infant) is shown with two tracts: 43 and 192 1/3 acres. This suggests that the young John was the son or possibly the grandson of Mary. Land and probate records would be good sources in which to search for a specific relationship.

• In certain cases, occupations were mentioned, especially if the person had to pay a license fee or if income from the occupation was taxed. For example, the 1790 Loudoun County record listed Thomas Gregg, potter.

• Especially from 1814 forward, the land tax lists usually included some description of the location of the property. For example, the land tax lists for 1814-1817 show William D. Orgain’s 321 acres lying near Edmund’s store and ten miles northwest of the Brunswick County courthouse. Then in 1818 and succeeding years, the lists locate the same property on Great Creek.

• Occasionally, slaves were named in the personal property tax rolls. Like other data in these records, this kind of information varies from county to county. In Cumberland County before 1825, slaves were named only in 1783 and 1804. The names alone do not prove slave relationships, but in households with only a few slaves, the names could suggest family groups and could support data from other sources to help determine slave families. Especially in families with only a few slaves and especially if the slaves’ names were rather unique, it is conceivable that slaves could be traced from one household to another, as in an estate settlement when they passed from a deceased owner to his son or daughter.

• Although the tax lists are loosely alphabetical, under the beginning letter of the surname, some lists are dated to show when the tax commissioner visited each taxpayer. By isolating names of residents visited on the same day, searchers can begin to determine groups of neighbors. Using this information in conjunction with land, census, and other records, genealogists can work on such problems as identifying potential in-laws and maiden names, locating relatives and close associates of an ancestor, and sorting out people by the same name in the same county.

• The tax records can play a role in suggesting birth order and birth years for the free men of the family. This is a result of the government’s interest in the number of tithables over the age of 16, or between 16 and 21, or over the age of 21. Whether these tithables were named or simply numbered often depended on the tax commissioner and varied from district to district and county to county.

Just as in the censuses, in the tax records young people in the household were not always children of the head of household. For example, in the 1804 tax list of Cumberland County, one of few times in that county when men of the households were actually named, William Coleman reported and named three free males over 16: himself, William Jr., and William D. Coleman (known from probate records to be a grandson of William Sr.). This tax roll indicates that William D. had turned 16 by early 1804 and thus suggests his birth by early 1788, possibly in 1787. In fact, the 1850 census gives his age as 62, which supports a 1787-1788 birth.

Another caution in using the tax records to study birth order and age is that not all eligible men were reported every year. Thus, it is conceivable that some were not reported as soon as they turned 16 or 21. Nor were these age groups asked for in all years. Thus, birth order and birth years can be suggested but not necessarily proved with the tax records.

A case in point is the seven sons of Elliott G. Coleman of Cumberland County, all named in their father’s 1818 will. In the personal property tax lists, Elliott reported one white tithable male over 16, presumably himself, until 1811, when he reported two, and 1812-1814, when he reported three. This suggests that one son turned 16 by 1811 and another turned 16 by 1812. These two apparently were his sons Newton and Ferdinand. Then, in 1815 and 1816 Ferdinand was listed under his own name and the record still showed two men over 16 living with the father, Elliott, suggesting that another son had turned 16. These two seem to have been Newton and Elliott R. Coleman. In 1817 Ferdinand and Newton were both then listed under their own names and one young man over 16 was still numbered with the father. In 1818 Ferdinand, Newton, and Elliott R. were all three listed under their own names and no male over 16, other than the father, was indicated in his household. Although Ferdinand apparently left home and established himself on his own land earlier than Newton, it is not clear which was actually the older. In his will,their father named Newton as his executor. When Newton died shortly after their father, Ferdinand was named executor. This occurrence could suggest that Newton was actually the eldest son. In other words, the tax records give clues but do not determine which of the two was older, but the records provide evidence, which census records support, that they both may have been older than Elliott R.

The fourth brother, Archer A. Coleman, was named among the over-sixteen in the 1829 list, indicating that he was born by 1813 and was perhaps older than his brothers John Henry and Creed. These two first appeared by name as men over 16 in the same year, 1834, indicating they were born by 1818. Indeed their father’s 1818 will said they (and Archer) were then under age. (The seventh brother, William, was named only in wills, never in census or tax records. He was among the four younger sons who were minors when their father died.)

Of the seven brothers, only three lived to be counted in the 1850 and 1860 censuses: Ferdinand, John Henry, and Creed. The censuses suggest birth years of 1793-1795, 1807-1810, and 1800-1810 respectively, but neither the censuses nor the tax records determine whether John Henry or Creed was the older.

In a number of ways and in spite of their limitations, these tax records are a tremendous resource and researchers are fortunate to have them available at Clayton Library. At Clayton, this microfilm collection is located on the second floor in the drawers with the other Virginia county records.

In December 1996 the Clayton Library Friends executive board voted to use additional funds to purchase more of this important collection in memory of Mrs. Mary Flo Ulmer, former head librarian (manager) of Clayton Library, who died on 30 November 1996. The new acquisitions will focus on the Shenandoah Valley counties because of the large migrations into that area. Researchers who wish to contribute to the Ulmer memorial gift or to make separate gifts toward the purchase of more Virginia tax records may send their checks to CLF at P.O. Box 271078, Houston TX 77277-1078, and should designate this project on their checks.

Emily Croom is a CLF member and the author of Unpuzzling Your Past: A Basic Guide to Genealogy, The Unpuzzling Your Past Workbook, and The Genealogist’s Companion & Sourcebook.