Untangling the William Coxes of of early North Carolina: Orange County and surrounding areas

Early North Carolina land records can be a confusing spider web of black holes: Whole batches of records are missing. North Carolina counties could form and evolve several times just in one decade. And it seems everyone had the same name, even if they weren’t related.

For example, there are three (three!) William Coxes in the Orange County, North Carolina, tax list for 1755. At least one of them is not related to the other two and all three might be unrelated. So you can see how it’s a chore to untangle who’s who. 

The earliest land ownership (with 100% certainty) we have of “our” William Cox is a 1772 land deed in Orange County, North Carolina. He later sold this land in 1787 when he and a group of other related families moved en masse to the Greenville County, South Carolina, area. We know this is our William because of all the family names and neighbors, including his wife’s, that are included. 

We also know with 100% certainty that our William Cox was at least in the area by 1770, two years before he bought the above land. That year, Thomas Brazier made a will in which William Cox, along with John Pyle Sr., was named executor and he signed it. The Brazier/Brashears/Brashure/etc. is the same family (along with the Pyles and will witnesses Blacks and Panes/Paynes) that the Coxes would inter-marry and travel to SC. I doubt our William Cox -- who would be married with several children by 1770 -- would not have owned land at the time of the 1770 will witnessing. 

We also think he was in the NC area in the 1760s, if not the 1750s, but we’re still seeking definitive proof.

So where was our William Cox before 1770? 

Going through Orange County, NC, land records and those for neighboring counties helped at least distinguish where he WASN’T by process of elimination. Orange County’s boundaries changed several times so it’s a messy soup of locations. Many many records are missing. 

We have a couple of possible leads, but here’s who our William Cox wasn’t:

• Quaker Coxes – Our line is not related to them, as proved by DNA. The Quaker Coxes headed to NC in the 1750s, and just to make things interesting, the family was led by a man named … William Cox. He had several adult sons at this time: Thomas, Harmon, Solomon, John and … William Jr. They settled mostly around the Deep River area. Most of the Granville land grants are for this family. If you look at the grants and later deeds, most are full of their families’ names as survey chain carriers, deed witnesses or other indicators. [Much more info from someone researching this line ]

Another clue: This William Cox signed his signature on all of his transactions. That distinguishes him from other 1750s-era land records in which a William Cox (or multiple other William Coxes) were only making their mark. (Our William Cox also signed his name)

• William Cox (died 1783 Abbeville, SC) – There’s another William Cox on the early North Carolina scene, but this time we ARE related to them. We don’t know exactly HOW we’re related and he’s not in our direct line, but DNA puts us in the few hundred years ballpark of some kind of ties. This William Cox was the son of a John Cox who died in 1752 in Granville County, NC. A distant relative has done much work to show that this William Cox intermingled with the Couch, Stone and other families so that early grants and deeds with all of these names on them likely belong to this William. 

Here's where our William Cox wasn't: 

Out of all the deeds in the existing old land records for Orange County, and/or everything listed on this excellent resource here and here, most of the William Coxes in the existing land records are Quaker Coxes. (Here's a compilation of all the Cox mentions and showing my math of whose line they belong to if you really want details.)

Three entries were questionable, but I’ve ultimately ruled them out as our direct line.

1. The 180 acres on Haw River Cane Creek in 1755 is probably William Cox Jr. Quaker. At first, I thought this might be our William Cox, but the Jr. Quaker was a member of Cane Creek Meeting House nearby and all the witnesses to the deed are Quakers. The location – Haw River and Cane Creek – is where our William would buy land in 1772 and I didn’t think the Quaker Coxes bought land that far east. They tended to buy up all along Deep River. But there are several other tracts along the Haw/Cane Creek from Quakers, including one from Richard Cox (brother of the elder William Cox Quaker). All of that makes me ~80% sure this isn’t our line. There is still the 20% doubt, though, as this seems an outlier for the Quaker line, and it is in the exact area our William would buy a few years later and it's in the middle of where our related families bought land (Braziers along Terrell Creek, etc.).

2. and 3. The 70 acres on the Eno River in 1755 and the 350 acres along New Hope Creek in 1760 are both most likely the William Cox who was born around 1730 and died 1783 in Abbeville County, South Carolina. It is likely this William Cox (d. 1783 Abbeville) is behind  these two land transactions as they have many names and locations interwoven with this Cox family: the Stones, the Couches, Watson and Goss/Gess (Gess/Goss was guardian of minor-aged William Cox's siblings, for example). They even all appear near each other on the 1755 Orange County tax list. Here's more info from this family's researcher

Speaking of the 1755 Orange County tax digest ...

The 1755 Orange County tax list

There are 3(!) William Coxes listed in the 1755 Orange County tax list.  

• Page 4: William Cox, 3 white

• Page 7: William Cox, 1 white

• Page 22: William Cox, Haw River, 3 white

A note about the numbers next to names: These are not total household numbers. Instead, those numbers are of how many "taxable" males were in the household, called polls. According to NC state library guides, "taxable" males were defined as 16 and older in North Carolina until 1777 when they raised the age to 21. (Plus any slaves of any age and gender). So, a household may have had 10 people living there, but the numbers in the 1755 tax list would only count the males over age 16 (plus any slaves). More about this

So knowing what we know about all the above land transactions, we can make some educated guesses as to who all three of those William Coxes were. That’s not to say our William Cox wasn’t in Orange County and appears here, but we don’t have any proof. 

Also, our William Cox's sons would not have been born, or at least, not yet old enough to qualify as "taxable" (age 16+), so we can probably rule out the page 4 and the page 22 William unless other rare circumstances were at hand. 

One of the Williams with 3 taxable males was most likely the William Cox who died 1783 Abbeville, SC. His young adult brothers could be the other two listed, according to a researcher for that family. Remember, their father John Cox died in 1752, so William would be in his early 20s by 1755, and his two oldest brothers would be in their late teens/early 20s. The William Cox listed on page 4 on the tax list is also listed in proximity to Edward Stone and various Couch family members (see land records above) as well as William Goss/Gess, who had been named guardian a few years earlier for William Cox’s younger siblings after John Cox died. 

So that makes a strong argument for one of the William Coxes. 

The Quaker family is at least one of the remaining two. The page 22 William Cox is listed next to John Cox and Herman (or Harmon) Cox. It has “Haw River” out beside his name. IF we think Quaker William Cox (most likely Jr.) bought the Haw River 1755 property (see above), then this would make sense it’s him. The 3 taxable males would be a question mark, but perhaps they are his leftover two adult brothers (Thomas and Solomon, who’d each be around 20 years old, and do not appear anywhere else on the 1755 tax list, although there is a Thomas Cocks on a 1755 Granville County tax list). 

I believe (but don't know for certain) that much like Census records, these tax lists would show some kind of proximity related to the order they were listed. So it makes sense that the Quaker family would all be together on the same page as they probably all lived near each other. 

That leaves one other William Cox (page 7), listed as one taxable male. This is likely the William Cox who is the father of the Quaker line and all those brothers. 

We are making educated guesses about all of the above, of course. History and people are messy things so some weird circumstance we haven’t thought of could have happened. 

The 1779 Orange County tax list

The above scenarios would make sense if we also look at the 1779 Orange County tax list. 

By 1779, Orange County had been divided up into other counties and the Quaker Coxes, from what we can gather, were now considered mostly Randolph County. 

In 1772, we know 100% that "our" William Cox bought land off the Haw River that he kept until he sold in 1787 and moved to SC. That land was located in Orange County at the time. So the William Cox listed here is most probably our William Cox. 

page 58 in pdf
William Cox, 624 pounds
From the North Carolina Digital Collections

The Quaker William Cox died in 1767, and his son William is listed in the Randolph County 1779 tax list.

The William Cox (d. 1782/83 Abbeville, County) had moved in 1766 to South Carolina, along the Enoree River in what is now Spartanburg and Laurens counties.

Also in 1779 tax list, page 58 in pdf - same page as William Cox:

Isaac Cox (William's son, most likely), 400 pounds. He's the only other Cox listed in 1779 Orange tax list. 

The proximity of both of them to each other makes me even more confident that these two are "our" Coxes. 

From the North Carolina Digital Collections

So, we've eliminated some William Coxes from our line and records, and hopefully this will help us as we continue digging to find our William Cox before 1770. 

See any mistakes? Have other theories? Please e-mail me AmyLCox at gmail. The internet is full of wrong ancestry information. Fact-check and challenge me so that we can all be as accurate as possible.