Harriet Tapscott and Harriott Tapscott

Today, a Fauquier County relative contacted me arguing that Harriet and Harriott Tapscott are the same person because Elizabeth would not have adopted her own daughter. She has a good point, but I believe the following argument from my book shows that they were different persons. (Forgive footnote numbering and formatting problems since I just cut and pasted from a Word docuemnt.) 

Harriet Tapscott was one of two people with similar names associated with James. That the Harriet of Fauquier County was not James’s sister Harriott (as assumed by some researchers) is unquestionable. She is designated as “Harriet Tapscott Orphan of James Tapscott” in Elizabeth’s guardian bond, issued at a Fauquier County Court of 23 June 1817, at which Eppa (Epaphroditus) Porter gave evidence that “Harriet Tapscott is the Legitimate daughter and only Heir at law of James Tapscott.”[i] Like James, Porter was a veteran of the War of 1812, but in the Virginia Militia, 41^st Regiment, rather than the U. S. Army.[ii] The 3 (or 9) July 1817 notification of the issuance of a bounty land warrant designates the recipient as “Harriet Tapscott only Daughter & Heir at Law of James Tapscott deceased.”717 That the final land patent was to be sent to “Post office at Fauquier Ct. House Va.” shows that it was for the Harriet living with Elizabeth. Some years later, on 27 August 1834, a Fauquier County court declared

It having been this day proved to the satisfaction of the Court, that Elizabett [sic] Tapscott is the widow of James Tapscott deceased a private in the Army of the United States in the late war - that said Tapscott died in the service of the United States in the Corps of Artillery leaving the said widow and Harriott Tapscott his only child - On the motion of the said Elizabett and Harriett Tapscott, the same is ordered to be certified.

The Fauquier County 1850,725 1860,726 and 1870727 censuses show Harriet with ages corresponding to a birth year between 1809 and 1820,[iii] well past 1798, the year of Ezekiel’s death. Moreover, as shown earlier, Harriott the sister of James was born no later than January 1796, which means that she would have been 21 or older when the guardianship bond was made by Elizabeth, and thus would have been of legal age and would not have been made a ward. In fact, the guardianship bond states that “Elizabeth Tapscott her executors or administrators, shall well and truly pay and deliver to Harriet Tapscott Orphan of James Tapscott deceased all such estate or estates, as now is or are, or hereafter shall appear to be due to the said orphan when, and as soon as she shall attain to lawful age,” a ridiculous clause if Harriet were already of legal age.

Thus, the Fauquier County Harriet is a daughter of James and, probably, though not certainly, Elizabeth and was doubtless named after her aunt Harriott, who may have died relatively young. Since a widow was not automatically a legal guardian (i.e., financial administrator) of her minor children, the guardian bond posted by Elizabeth provides no information about her relationship with Harriet. A parent of either sex was often made guardian of his or her child when that child had inherited property or was entitled to real or personal property (such as the bounty land discussed below).[iv] It is, however, just possible that Harriet was one of Elizabeth’s two illegitimate children claimed to have been fathered in Lancaster County by Richard Cundiff. James could have adopted one or both, legally or otherwise, and given them his name.

At this point, we need to take a closer look at the bounty land awarded for James’s military service. Sometime around 1817, a notification was sent to “Mrs. Harriet Tapscott only Daughter & Heir at Law of James Tapscott deceased” notifying her that a warrant dated 3 July 1817 (the actual warrant was dated 9 July 1817) had been issued with a note to send the final patent to the “Post office at Fauquier Ct.” A facsimile is shown below:

WAR DEPARTMENT

SECTION OF BOUNTY LANDS.

To - Mrs. Harriet Tapscott only Daughter & Heir at Law of James Tapscott deceased

SIR-Pursuant to the Law of the united States, of the 6^th of May, 1812, appropriating certain Tracts of Land, to satisfy the Claims of the Non-Commissioned Officers and Privates of the late Army, and in conformity with the preceding Regulations, you are hereby notified that the Land Warrant No. 10033 has been issued in your name, under date 3 July 1817, and will be deposited in the General Land Office; at the Seat of Government, where the Patent must issue--there to await your order for its location, which may be made so soon as the survey of the appropriated Lands can be effected; public notice of which will be given in all the Newspapers authorised to publish the Laws of the United States.

Nat Cutting

To be located in Missouri North and the patent to be sent to the Post office at Fauquier Ct. House Va.

Two years later on 6 March 1819, a patent was issued to Harriott Tapscott (the bounty land records give names of “Harriet,” “Harriott,” and “Harriot”) for 160 acres of land, the SW quarter of Section 35, Township 54N, Range 22W (today, Carroll County, Missouri). This patent causes no end of confusion. Why was Harriet (no matter what her relation to James) awarded land when Elizabeth, James’s wife, was still living? Under Virginia intestate succession statutes, a surviving wife would be a co-heir with any children, even if the children were not hers. Moreover, had a will been made (and none has been found), Elizabeth would still be required by law to receive a dower (one-third) portion. Despite this, Harriet is said to be the “only Daughter & Heir at Law.” There are no satisfactory explanations. Perhaps Elizabeth and James, despite the bond, never married (though a Fauquier Court of 27 August 1834 determined that Elizabeth was the widow of James). Perhaps the Elizabeth in the Fauquier County censuses of 1840 and 1850 was a different Elizabeth (exceedingly unlikely).

Harriet died unmarried at the age of 58 (birth year 1812 or 1813) on 12 August 1871 near Warrenton in Fauquier County.[v] Cordelia Tapscott, the informant in the death register, is named as her mother, an obvious error. Cordelia, in fact, is believed to be a child of Harriet, along with John and Maria Tapscott. John and Cordelia appear with Harriet in the 1860 census with ages that correspond to a birth year of 1829 to 1830 for John (listed as a laborer) and 1834 to 1839 for Cordelia (listed as a weaver). John is not found in other records.

---

[i].          Joan W. Peters, Military Records, Certificates of Service, Discharge, Heirs, & Pensions Declaration and Schedules From the Fauquier County, Virginia Court Minute Books 1784-1840, Heritage Books, Westminster, Maryland, 2007, p. 50.

[ii].         Index to Compiled Service Records of Volunteer Soldiers Who Served During the War of 1812, Record Group 94, Records of the Adjutant General's Office, Microfilm Publication M602,

[iii].        In the 1840 Census, Harrett was probably one of the two white females aged 20 to 30, making her birth year 1810 to 1820. From the official 1850 Census enumeration date (1 June 1850) and her age (30), her birth date range is calculated as 2 June 1819 to 1 June 1820. From the official 1860 Census enumeration date (1 June 1860) and her age (50), her birth date range is calculated as 2 June 1809 to 1 June 1810. From the official 1870 Census enumeration date (1 June 1870) and her age (56), her birth date range is calculated as 2 June 1813 to 1 June 1814. From her death date of 12 August 1871 and her age (58), her birth date range is calculated as 13 August 1812 - 12 August 1813. That Harriet is shown as illiterate in all censuses in which she appears (though an attempt appears to have been made to erase the illiterate mark in the 1860 Census) may explain the large discrepancies in ages given.

[iv].        John K. Gott, Fauquier County, Virginia Guardian Bonds 1759 – 1871, Heritage Books, Inc., Bowie, Maryland, 1990, p. vii.

[v].         Patricia B. Duncan, Fauquier County, Virginia, Death Register, 1853-1896, Willow Bend Books, Westminster, Maryland, 1998, p. 114.