James’ other known daughter, Martha, was named Bailey in his will. Assuming she was also living in Henry County at the time of James’ death, there were a number of Baileys around that time. The most promising is a Thomas Bailey who had a survey of 226 acres beside Smith Rivers on 16 Apr 1768. That was virtually the same time that James, Thomas & Moses Wilson (the latter two James’ sons) had surveys done, James’ being also on Smith River. Thomas was also in the 1778, 1779, 1780 and 1782 tax lists. I haven’t been able to find any other family trees that list a Thomas Bailey who would have lived in Henry County and would have been about the right age. My current hypothesis, as reflected in the ancestry.com tree, is that Thomas is Martha’s husband.
Other Bailey’s in Henry County about this time are Carr (1778, 1779), William (1779, 1780, 1782) and James (1779, 1782). None of them except Carr have any land records, only tax records. Carr is an interesting case since there are many Carr Baileys in Virginia and related pioneer states in the late 1770’s and early 1800’s. They are all almost certainly descended from John Bailey, Jr. and Elizabeth Carr. The Carr Bailey in Henry County was in the tax lists of 1778 and 1779 and bought land in 1779 on the south side of the Smith River. James Sr. also had land on the Smith River, as did his son Thomas (both sides). There is a curious entry for another sale from Carr Bailey and Mary Turner in November of 1779 (only 1 month after Carr purchased it in October of that year) for 2400 pounds. This land had been granted by patent to David Haley in 1755, and bought by Mary’s father John in 1757. It isn’t clear when or why the land was owned by William and Jeremiah Cox when Carr bought it. But, there are three odd things about this listing:
1) Mary Turner is listed as one of the sellers – since it is an abstract, it is possible she was only listed as relinquishing her right of dower (inheritance), since that was required in those days. Women couldn’t hold land in their own name unless they were unmarried or widowed, but they did have to consent to having their husbands transfer land since the wife was entitled to all or part on her husband’s death. But, Mary is listed with the surname of Turner which would be unusual if she were married to Carr. It does seem that she married Carr at some point since many trees have them married and moving to Kentucky.
2) There is only 1 month between the purchase by Carr and the later sale.
3) Based on the abstracted text, the 40 acres of land was bought for 50 pounds in October 1779 and sold for 2400 in November 1779. That would be a huge profit for a 1 month holding! It’s possible that there is a transcription error, since 600 pounds per acre is an exorbitant rate in those times. Or perhaps there was something else going on with this transaction, such as a way of paying a debt or passing on an inheritance. In any event, it is fortunate for Carr and Mary that there were no capital gains taxes in those days!
There is one other interesting deed involving a Martha Bailey – on 17 October 1783, Martha bought 100 acres on the Buck Branch of Snow Creek. A little Googling revealed it is now called the Finney Branch and is now located in Franklin County, which was formed from Henry and Bedford in 1785. I have identified two possible Martha Baileys in Henry County at that time – one would be the daughter of James, and the other is the former Martha “Patsy” Brashears, daughter of Ann Wilson Brashears (and thus the niece of the other Martha Bailey), who married Joseph Bailey (relationship to other Baileys still unknown). As I mentioned before, women usually only bought land in their own names if they were single (unmarried, divorced or widowed). I have tracked Martha Brashears Bailey into Floyd County up until 1850, and her husband Joseph Bailey up through the 1820 census, so she was not a widows in 1783. It seems much more likely that this is James Sr.’s daughter, and that her husband (Thomas, I believe) had passed away by this time. There was a James Bailey in the Henry County tax lists in 1779 and 1782, and then in the Franklin County lists in 1786. So it is a very good possibility that James was Martha’s son, and that he inherited the land from her or already owned land near hers. I haven’t done very much research into this since it doesn’t really help me understand more about James Sr.
While there is no solid linkage between James’ daughter Martha and the Baileys of Westmoreland, especially since I can find no record of a Thomas Bailey in that county, the nearness of Carr who almost certainly was of that clan provides a nice piece of circumstantial evidence that Martha married into that family. But it could have been in Westmoreland County or another area (such as Prince William or Fauquier) where the Baileys migrated.