BENJAMIN HATHCOCK

This is the most recently created Indian heritage myth in Stanly Co. genealogy. In 1986, Debra Baugh published a genealogy of Benjamin Hathcock with no mention of any possible Indian ancestry. Debra's grandmother, Mary C. Hathcock Furr, spent four decades researching the Benjamin Hathcock family and writing to other Benjamin Hathcock descendants. Apparently no one mentioned to her that Benjamin was an Indian. In the past few years various people on the Internet have started rumors that Benjamin Hathcock of Stanly Co. was an Indian and one person has even published a book about Benjamin Hathcock being an "Occaneechi Saponi" Indian. Unfortunately, these people have no evidence that Benjamin was a Native American. They base their claim on four points, two of which are dubious at best, one is meaningless, and the other is fraudulent:

1) Benjamin shares a common surname with some people who believe that they are "Occaneechi Saponi" Indians.

2) "Matrilineal" naming patterns and other genealogical errors or speculations.

3) Membership in an Indian association that accepts anyone as a member, not just descendants of Indians.

4) A fabricated claim that Benjamin Hathcock was listed as as Occaneechi Saponi Indian on a 1782 tax list.

I will address each of these arguments point by point. Then I will summarize what is known about Benjamin Hathcock from historical evidence.

1) The Occaneechi Saponi tribe does acknowledge some Hathcock families as Indians, but this group is not a state recognized Indian tribe. Other recognized North Carolina Indians do not accept the Occaneechi as legitimate Indians. The NC Indian Commission, which is composed of NC state recognized tribes, has repeatedly rejected the Occaneechi Saponis' petition for state recognition. Further, there is no evidence linking Stanly County's Benjamin Hathcock with the Hathcock ancestors of the Occaneechi Saponi group.

There appear to be two groups of Hathcocks in North Carolina: (A) Hathcocks who were listed as white, and (B) Hathcocks who were listed as non-white (free people of color, etc). For information on these people, see the section on the Hathcock family on Paul Heinegg's site on Free African Americans at http://www.freeafricanamericans.com.

Some descendants of Hathcocks from both groups today claim to be Indians. However, no research has ever uncovered any evidence that links Benjamin with any prior generation of either of these two groups. The fact is that we don't have any evidence whatsover as to whom his parents were. The only evidence that researchers have that connects Benjamin to the mixed race group that today claims to be Indian is that they have the same surname.

Hathcock (and its spelling variants) is quite a common surname of English origin. Even if one line with this surname had a proven Indian ancestor, it does not automatically follow that all other Hathcock lines have Indian ancestry. You might as well claim that all people named Smith are Indians, just because one Smith is. It's an extremely weak argument that does not meet the standards of proof for a genealogical claim to Indian ancestry.

2) Other evidence that people cite to suggest that Benjamin Hathcock was an Indian is that the two children of his daughter, Sally, Lloyd and Reuah Hathcock, used their mother's surname, not their father's. They claim that Indians have matrilineal naming patterns. However, bastardy is usually the only reason for children having their mother's maiden surname. The fact is that none of the children of Benjamin's other daughters used their mother's maiden surname--including those of Martha Hathcock Dick Whitley (wife first of John Dick and second of William Whitley) and Jane Hathcock Whitley (wife of John Whitley). This is further indication that Lloyd and Reuah Hathcock were illegitimate.

Benjamin's son Lee was charged with bastardy in Cabarrus Co. in 1816 (Bost, Cabarrus Co., North Carolina, Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, 1805-1817, pp. 192 and 205). Historians have uncovered the phenomenon of bastardy-prone families, with bastardy recurring in subsequent generations, and the Hathcocks may be an example. (Any records relating to the illegitimacy of Lloyd and Reuah no longer exist because of record destruction in Montgomery Co.) In fact, bastardy was common in Stanly/Montgomery Co. during this period. Dr. Francis Kron commented on the prevalence of illegitimate children in the region in his 1835 diary.

In addition, Lloyd's daughter, Sarah (b. 1841), had an illegitimate child, Silas P. Hathcock, with Simeon H. Efird in 1865. Sarah and Silas Hathcock lived with Lloyd for sixteen years after Silas' birth, and perhaps Lloyd's support of Sarah and Silas was the result of his own illegitimacy. Why do present day descendants of Sally Hathcock feel the need to concoct a story about Indian ancestors to cover up the sexual deviance of two people almost two hundred years ago, instead of accepting their ancestor's probable illegitimacy?

3) The people promulgating Benjamin Hathcock's hypothetical Indian heritage have also pointed out that the Appalachian American Indians of West Virginia, Inc (AAIWV) have accepted Benjamin Hathcock as an Indian. However, AAIWV accepts as members "all persons who identify themselves as Native American or as descendants of Native Americans, or who simply subscribe to the purposes of AAIWV" (quoting the membership pamphlet of AAIWV). You send them your pedigree chart and you are automatically a member. They do not verify your ancestry for Native American ancestry at all, and so membership in this group is not evidence that Benjamin Hathcock was an Indian. I could send them my family tree with Queen Elizabeth I of England in my Indian line and I would still receive membership in their organization.

I have seen no Benjamin descendants claim to be a member of either of the two Occaneechi Saponi groups. If Benjamin was Occaneechi Saponi, why aren't his descendants members of the Occaneechi Saponi groups? Why have they instead joined a pan-Indian "tribe" in West Virginia?

4) Some Hathcock researchers have been propagating fraudulent data concerning Benjamin Hathcock's supposed Indian heritage. One person has posted on the Hathcock mailing list that Benjamin was listed as "Occaneechi Saponi" on the 1782 Montgomery County tax list (nobles@gulftel.com to Hathcock-L@rootsweb.com, February 10, 1999. Ms. Nobles wishes to attribute her source. "The information that I sent to the Hathcock Mailing List was excerpted from the Occaneechi Saponi book: Occaneechi Saponi and Tutelo of the Saponi Nation: aka Monacan and Piedmont Catawba; Includes The Eastern Band of the Cherokee and Lumbee Nation and Southeastern Indian Nation, etc. Written and compiled by Richard L. Haithcock and Vicki L. Haithcock, page 306.") This is incorrect--no one else has seen such a notation on that document (an example is ghaithco@ix.netcom.com to Hathcock-L@rootsweb.com, May 1, 1999). Further, "Occaneechi Saponi" is a tribal name that was invented only in the last two decades. It did not exist in that form in 1782. Genealogists do make mistakes or incorrectly transcribe a record, but to transcribe something or see something on a record that does not exist falls outside of the realm of a simple mistake. When someone is known to have propagated fabricated data, then all subsequent statements from that person should be considered possibly fraudulent, and closely compared with the evidence rather than accepted at face value.

Facts about Benjamin Hathcock from historical evidence

The fact is that Benjamin was listed as white on all known records, and that no surviving records indicate that he nor his contemporaries ever considered him anything other than white.

What we do know about Benjamin Hathcock's early years comes from the Revolutionary pension application of William Poplin in 1840 Montgomery Co. when Benjamin testified in support of William Poplin's marriage to Lucy:

"On this 25th day of April 1840, personally appeared before me, Solomon Efird, a justice of the peace...Benjamin Hathcock, aged about 90 years from what he says and as his appearance indicates, and who duly sworn according to law, declares that as nearly as he can state, he is now about ninety years of age. That he was born and raised in the State of Virginia and came to the County of Chatham in this State before the Revolutionary War. He further states that he became acquainted with William Poplin and his wife Lucy Poplin before the war and lived in the same neighborhood. That they lived in Chatham...".

Note that Benjamin Hathcock was not described as Indian or Black, and was testifying for a white man. Applicants for pensions typically looked for the more reputable members of the community to testify for them--such as a clergyman--and thus would be unlikely to choose a person of color as their witness, either black or Indian, due to the prejudicial attitudes of the time period.

Benjamin's claim in this statement to be ninety years old places his birth in 1750, not 1742. This is a common phenomena noted by experienced genealogical researchers--as a person ages, their age often becomes inflated. Benjamin may well have been born later than 1750. Based on the birth year of 1750, it is extremely unlikely that Young Hathcock (b. before 1765, d. 1841) was Benjamin's son. Thus the theory that the maiden name of Benjamin's wife was Young because Young was Benjamin's son is incorrect. I have never seen any evidence given for a first or last name of Benjamin's wife. (Some researchers claim that Benjamin's wife was named "Nancy Young", but this appears to be founded on pure speculation, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.) Young Hathcock might have been a relative of Benjamin, but not his son. Young Hathcock was listed on the 1800 Montgomery Co., NC census. By 1814, Young had moved to Montgomery Co., TN. Young's son, John Hathcock, was imprisoned in Tennessee in 1840, and the following information was listed in his prison record:

"John Heathcock, alias Young. From Davidson County. Crime: maiming. Sentence: two years from 30 Dec. 1840. Rec'd 31 Dec. 1840. He is 26 years old, 5'9", high, weighs 170 lbs. Born and brought up in Montgomery Co., Tenn., about four miles from New York, where his father, Young Heathcock, now lives. Said Heathcock has a wife and one child at the mouth of Yellow Creek in the above named county. He has black hair, black eyes, very dark skin. Has a large mole on the under jaw on the left side, also a small mole under the right eye. His wife was the widow of Allen Nowlin, the brother of Wm. Nowlin." John Heathcock was discharged September 4, 1841 (Sherrill and Sherrill, Tennessee Convicts: Early Records of the State Penitentiary. Volume 1: 1831-1850. 1997, p. 145 and 225).

Another possible relative of Benjamin could have been Hosea Hathcock, who was listed in early Chatham Co. records and may be the "Ozey" Hathcock mentioned in the following Montgomery Co. record:

#98 July 2, 1779 Jesse Wooten enters 50 acres in Montgomery Co on Rockey Creek of Little Creek; border: "a small distance" above Ozey Hathcock's and joins Collins line. (Pruitt, Montgomery Co., NC Land Entries, 1779-1795, p. 7).

However, it is also possible that Young and Hosea Hathcock were not related to Benjamin at all due to the commonness of the Hathock surname in North Carolina.

Timeline of the early years of Benjamin Hathcock:

Benjamin was born in Virginia circa 1750 (from William Poplin's pension application).

Benjamin moved to Chatham Co., NC before 1776 (from William Poplin's pension application).

Benjamin moved to Montgomery Co., NC before 1782 (listed on tax list).

Benjamin appears on 1790 Montgomery Co. census.

Benjamin buys ninety acres of land on both sides of Long Creek in 1792 (Pruitt, Montgomery Co. Land Entries 1779-1795, page 48: number 726, dated January 20, 1792).

Benjamin buys one hundred acres of land in 1799 with the deed entered in 1816. (from Baugh, Descendants of Benjamin Hathcock, p. 12).

By 1849, Benjamin Hathcock was listed as a pauper in Stanly Co. records. His grandson, Lloyd Hathcock, was paid $38.75 for "keeping" Benjamin Hathcock for November 1849 to November 1850, and the same amount for November 1850 to November 1851. The last notation concerning Benjamin Hathcock is that he died January 18, 1852 ("Poor Relief in Stanly County, 1849-1854", Stanly Co. Genealogical Society Journal, volume 11, number 4, pp. 542-544). Thus the death date of 1857 that some sources have given for Benjamin Hathcock is incorrect. It is probable that Benjamin was a pauper before 1849, since by 1840 he was already living with his grandson Lloyd. Benjamin Hathcock was not described as black or Indian in this record either.

The fact that Benjamin died a pauper was ignored by his descendants, who recounted stories that Benjamin owned "quite a bit of property" and "had slaves and was fairly prosperous" (Baugh, The Descendants of Benjamin Hathcock, p. 18). There is no evidence that Benjamin owned slaves. The 1782 tax list, 1790 census, 1800 census, and 1810 census entries for Benjamin Hathcock do not reveal any slave-ownership. When Benjamin was listed in Lloyd's household on the 1840 Montgomery Co. and 1850 Stanly Co. censuses, no slaves were recorded as belonging to either Lloyd or Benjamin. This is another example of how people exaggerate in their family stories. It is much more exciting to be descended from an Indian or rich man, than from an average white farmer who died a pauper.

Benjamin Hathcock's race is listed as white whenever it is given in every historical record in which he appears. Since all the stories relating to Benjamin Hathcock Indian ancestry are of recent origin and are based on faulty logic or manufactured evidence, there is no reason to believe that Benjamin was an Indian. This is an exellent example of how a small group of people who have a strong desire to have Indian ancestry can create an "Indian" ancestor.