James, John & Simon Woody of New Kent & Hanover Co., Virginia
(St. Peter's and St. Paul's Parishes, near Richmond)

            The October 21, 1684, New Kent County, Virginia land grant of John Baughan provides the first undeniable reference to a Woody name in this area. Mr. James Woody was named as an adjacent landowner in the branches of Black and Mattedequin Creeks. The name of Black Creek can no longer be found on modern maps; however, Matadequin and Totopotomoy Creeks are both tributaries of the Pamunkey River which now forms the boundary between Hanover and King William Counties. Both of these creeks run generally west to east and the upper reaches were in New Kent County until Hanover was formed in 1721. They are northwest of Mechanicsville in Hanover and the now independent city of Richmond. In 1689 James Woody and John Baughn were recorded adjacently in the processioning records found in the The Vestry Book and Register of St. Peter's Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia (see below) . The quit rent rolls of 1704 New Kent County list three Woodys: Symon, 50 acres; John, 100 acres and James, 130 acres. Early Virginia quit rents were paid by owners or renters of land that had been acquired by government grant (patent). The typical rent for patent (grant) land was one shilling for every fifty acres. (£1= 20 shillings). If Symon, John and James did acquire grant land, no record of these grants has been found. We posit that James and John were very likely brothers and that Simon was possibly another brother. If not a brother, Simon was a son of James or John. We also posit that James was bor about 1752. A Samuel Waddy/Woddy has been transcribed in the in the New Kent boundary description of the 1688 grant to Charles Fleming. This entry is especially interesting since the land was described as being "in the branches of Mattedequin and Totopotomoy Creeks", which is exactly where the Woodys were first found in Hanover County; however, as our land grant research has shown (see below), the name seems surely to be Waddy. To reinforce this grant research, a Samuel Waddy/Waddey was processioned many times. In New Kent County, St. Paul's Parish was formed from the western portion of St. Peter's Parish in 1704 and, in 1721, Hanover County was formed from the western portion of New Kent County. In fact, Mattedequin Creek was the dividing line between the two Parish's after 1704.
          The "processioning" records found in Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, Virginia 1706 - 1786 of the mention a succession of Wooddy etc. landowners in New Kent and Hanover Counties. It is important to remember Hanover County was formed from New Kent County in 1721, so the pre-1721 events described in the vestry book occurred in New Kent County. The names of James, John and Simon Woody/Wooddy are mentioned over one hundred times in this book. The 1708/09 processioning orders and returns both list James and Simon in Precinct 29 and and the order and return lists John Precinct 33. In 1711/12, the order and return lists James and Simon are in Precinct 15 the order and return lists John and James in Precinct 19. Was the James in Precinct 15 the same person as the James in Precinct 19? They probably were, but we are not sure and the processionings of 1715/16 and 1719/20 are perplexing and almost impossible to explain. The complex details of this situation  are discussed at length on the Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia page. Our conclusion leaves the door open for a second James Wooddy, but this is almost complete conjecture. In any event, James is last recorded in the Quaker records in 1722, since he was not recorded in intact processioning records of 1731/32. This would mean that James or the two James died before 1731. Based on the only hard evidence we have, we have assumed that only one James Wooddy was record and that he died about 1727.
         We also considered our discovery of two baptismal records in the New Kent Vestry Register: James, son of James and Elisheba Woode on 16 April 1699 and Rebecka, daughter of Simon Woode on 21 Nov 1703. We remembered that in our research on the English origins of the Woody surname, the two syllable pronunciation of Woode was one of the surname variations that latter became Woody. A description of this surname research is at Woody Gleanings. We tested that possibility using all the available surname data of that area and time frame and concluded that Woode had most probably been used as a variation of Woody. This investigation is also detailed in the Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia page. We then correlated the baptismal record of Rebecka Woode with the data that is found in the recorded 1734 death record of Simon Woody. Simon left a will that named a daughter Rebecca who seems to have been his first child and this daughter  seems to be a very close match for the Rebecka in the baptismal record. This added to the evidence of the Woode/Woody assumption. Acceptance of this assumption meant that James Woode, baptized in 1799, was probably the son of James Woody, assumed to be born about 1754. This was not an impossible situation, but the alternative added a little to the possibility of a second James Woody; however, we have continued to posit the existence of only one James Woody. Perhaps more research will help clarify this situation.
            The introductory remarks of the compiler of the Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Churchill Gibson Chamberlayne, are very useful in understanding composition, importance and validity of this document. As Chamberlayne points out, all of the pre-1754 record is "merely a transcript of an older and long since disappeared, manuscript volume". In fact, we have found several contradictions and transcription errors. Similarly, Chamberlayne's explanation of the appointment of processioning, processioning orders and processioning returns is very informative and useful. Property lines where determined by an ancient and time honored surveying procedure called "metes and bounds". The system of metes and bounds used physical features, such as trees, creeks, rocks, roadways, etc. to describe property boundaries. Because these features tended to change over time, the Virginia Legislature created an act to address the problem in 1662. This act required adjoining landowners to meet regularly to resurvey and agree on new defining features. This process was termed processioning and was an important event in the lives of Colonial landowners. The act also stipulated that processioning was to be preformed every four years under the direction of the parish officials. In stark contrast, The Vestry Book of Henrico Parish, Virginia 1730 - 1773 and The St. James Northam Parish Vestry Book, Goochland County, Virginia 1744 - 1850 do not mention the Woody name one time. In an effort aimed at understanding this anomaly, the records of these and other involved parishes were analyzed and compared with other available records of that time period. This examination revealed some very large differences in the processioning procedures used by most of the parishes. These differences may account for the absence of the Woody name in the Henrico and St. James Northam Vestry Books. Vestry Books of St. Paul's, St. Peter's, St. Martin's, Fredericksville, Henrico and St. James Northam Parishes is a report on this research. Also, it cannot be over emphasized that the records found in vestry books relate almost entirely to freeholders (land owners). Because records found in vestry books, land deeds and land grants provide the bulk of surviving evidence, non-landowners are virtually invisible. There may have been many of these landless Woodys and, in fact, later records provide substantial evidence that this was very likely the case. 
            In addition to processioning records, a number of Hanover and New Kent County land grants have survived from this period. Images of most of the grants can be viewed in the Virginia Land Office Patents and Grants/Northern Neck Grants and Surveys archive found on the Library of Virginia web site. The wills of two Woodys from this period have survived: Simon and his only son Moor; however, Moor Woody left no descendants.
            In the records described above and in other records of Goochland, Henrico, Hanover and New Kent Counties, the given names of John, Martha, Micajah, Simon, James, Henry, and Samuel appear quite frequently; however, determining the relationships of these people can be extremely difficult. Pre-Civil War birth, marriage and land transaction records are very rare for this period, especially in Hanover County. So it is left to the family historian to first obtain and then subjectively interpret the meaning of the existing documents. Hopefully, yDNA comparisons and analysis will aid these interpretations. Many more details about this branch are in the  Database.

Henry & John Woody of Hanover, James Woody of Louisa & John Woody of Goochland
(The long & very complicated story of these men, their relatives & their residences)

            Two Hanover land grants have puzzled us for many years; the 1722 grant to Henry Woody on Turkey Creek and the 1732 grant to John Woody on Poor Creek. The most puzzling aspect of Henry's grant was that Henry was never mentioned once in the St. Paul's Vestry records. Conversely John Woody/Wooddy is found numerous times in the St. Paul's Vestry records; however, we could not understand why the elder John Woody would obtain the grant at this time in his life. Also, his assumed son, John, seemed to be too young for this situation, We now have found a few more Louisa and Albemarle records that have helped us and we think we have a much better understanding of the complex problem of correlating Virginia county records with Virginia parish records. As the population grew rapidly, many Virginians moved westward, mainly in search of affordable land. This population expansion necessitated the rather rapid formation of new counties and new parishes. This dual formation situation was not very well coordinated for the most part making the county and parish boundaries quite confusing in certain instances. A third puzzling event occurred in the early St. Paul's Vestry processionings. We discuss this situation somewhat below and in detail on the Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia page.
            To understand our research, reasoning and conclusions, a relatively good understanding of the very complex relationship between Virginia county formation and Virginia parish formation is required. St. Martin's Parish was formed from St. Paul's Parish in 1726. The newly formed St. Martin's Parish covered all the Hanover area lying between the North and South South Anna Rivers together with the area lying west of Stone Horse Creek, a tributary on the south side of the South Anna River. The the headwaters of Stone Horse Creek are very near the intersection formed by the boundaries of Hanover, Goochland and Henrico Counties. Louisa County was formed from Hanover Count in 1742. The new county border was just west of Turkey Creek. At this time, Fredericksville Parish was formed to serve Louisa; however, the area in Hanover between the Louisa border and the western border of St. Paul's Parish remained in St. Martins Parish, as well as, the area of Hanover north of the South Anna River. Complicated? Yes, but necessary to understand the following discussion.
            As we have tried to use the early Virginia land grant written descriptions to find their exact locations, we have encountered a rather significant problem. More than a few of the names of the waterways referenced in the grants are not to be found on modern maps. This should not be surprising, since today's culture seems to insist on eliminating and/or renaming many of the colorful place names that our Colonial ancestors created. After all, what realtor would want to advertise the sale of a home near Licking Hole Creek or Dirty Swamp?  However, Colonial researchers are extremely fortunate to be able to view one of the most important maps of American history in high resolution. In 1751, surveyor's Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson created a very impressive map of Virginia. The publisher, Thomas Jefferys of London, titled the map "A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the whole province of Maryland with part of Pensilvania, New Jersey and North Carolina". This map was made using three linen panels and one of the panel junctions appears on the small map section shown on the right. This 30 x 35 mile section shows the areas of the Woody land grants and deeds that were west of the of the original Woody settlements in eastern Hanover near the New Kent border. Although the map does not include county boundaries, it does show the waterways that were considered significant in 1751. Although other locations are discussed, much of the explanatory material below centers on the area  surrounding the "H" of Henrico on the east side of the map. This is the approximate of the intersection of the bounties of Goochland, Hanover and Henrico Counties. To the east of the "H"  is the untitled Chickahominy River and headwaters. To the north are the headwaters of Stone Horse Creek and to the south are the headwaters of Tuckahoe Creek. Almost all of the waterways discussed below can be found on this map section.
            On 28 February 1722, Henry Woody obtained 400 a acre land grant on the south side of the South Anna River adjoining Edward Trotman, John Glen, Nicholas and Richard Johnson, Capt Thomas Massie and the river. Examination of the adjoining land owner grants reveals that the exact location was on Turkey Creek which is quite close to the now border of Louisa County; howevr, this location fell into St. Martin's Parish when it was formed in 1726. On the above map, Turkey Creek is shown near the center between the "U" and the "N" of County. The next St. Paul's processioning was in 1727; however, the records of the precincts that usually contained Woodys have been lost, as well as, all of the vestry records of St, Martin's Parish. These are the almost surely the reasons why Henry Woody processioning records for Henry seem to be nonexistent. Considering this situation and the nearly complete loss of other pre-Civil War Hanover records, it does not seem very surprising that the next record of Henry is found in a 21 September 1745 Henrico County deed. This deed from Nicholas Pryer of Henrico County conveyed 170 acres at the head of the Drinking Hole Branch in the branches of Tuckahoe Creek to Henry Woody of Hanover County. Pryer/Pryor lived on this land that he had previously purchased from John Martin. We cannot find Drinking Hole Branch/Creek on any map, modern, old or ancient; however, the headwaters of Tuckahoe Creek are shown on the above map just south of the "H" in Henrico. Additionally, deeds of adjacent landowners that this location was near a Chickahominy Swamp. The Chickahominy River is not marked on the above map section; however, the headwaters are shown on just to the north of the "H" in Henrico. The Chickahominy is named in many of the records to the period and formed much of the border between Hanover and Henrico. Although the county borders are not shown on the above map section, this area of closely located river and creek headwaters was also the location the of the intersection of the Goochland, Hanover and Henrico Counties. Also, not far north of the "H" are the headwaters of Stone Horse Creek which marked the boundary between St. Paul's Parish and St. Martin's Parish. Tuckahoe Creek flows generally south to the James River while the Chickahominy flows generally east and south around Richmond and then joins the James River near the Chesapeake Bay. Much of the the land along both Tuckahoe Creek and the Chickahominy was marshy and/or swampy and there are many references to these swamps in Colonial records. The Colonial land grant term for these wet places was usually "slashy ground". On a modern map, this area is located just west of the village of Short Pump and very close to remnants of the historic Three Chopt'd and Pouncey Tract Roads. Using these facts, we conclude that then location of Henry's Henrico land was on the east branch of the Tuckahoe, now called Little Tuckahoe Creek. We also conclude that this Henry was the same person that obtained a 1722 land grand on nearby Turkey Creek in Hanover, Because of the almost total loss of Hanover County records and some loss of Henrico County records, we cannot prove all of these conclusions; however, they are based on facts and seem reasonable.
            On 28 Sep 1732, John Woody obtained a 400 acre Hanover land grant on both sides of Peter's Creek, by Little Creek and the low ground of Poor Creek. Adjoining landowners were John Smething, Capt. Clark and Gilbert Gibson. Later, on 5 Jun 1736, John Smething was granted 1645 acres on both sides of Poor and Peters Creeks on the north side of the Southanna River. This land adjoined the 400 acre grant John had acquired on 5 Jun 1736. Other adjoining landowners were John Woody, Nicholas Meriwether, Robert Netherland, Francis Smething John Burch and Capt. Clark. This location is a little difficult to find on modern maps, but with the help of Google, we seemed to have located it. It was on the north side of the South Anna River in that part of extreme western Hanover that became St. Martin's Parish in 1726 and Louisa County in 1742. It was very close to the boundary of now Louisa and Albemarle Counties. On modern maps, Peter's Creek is now Millington Creek, Poor Creek is now Poore Creek and Little Creek is not shown. On the map above, Poor Creek is located in the extreme northwest corner. Very fortunately, this location has been confirmed by a 1770 Louisa court order that addressed some of the provisions of the 1760 will of Gilbert Gibson, one of the adjacent landowners named in John's grant. If this John Woody lived on this property, he would not have been processioned on this property by the St. Paul's Vestry; however, we we think this person was the John Woody that was processioned in St. Paul's Parish until he died about 1745. It is possible that John sold the property or deeded it to a relative. We have suggested such a possibility in connection with the James Woody of Louisa, who is discussed below. Still another possibility is that this John was the John of Goochland; however, we consider this unlikely.
            We had not found another record of a very early James Woody in Virginia until one is mentioned as a witness, along with Richard Henderson and John Adams, in the 1743 Louisa County deed of William Harris to Stephen Harris. A little later, in 1752 Louisa, a Richard Henderson sold 100 acres on the north side of the South Anna to John Brooks. Also, in 1752, a James Woody was noted as a witness in the Louisa deed of Richard Henderson to John Brooks and later that same year, James Woody apparently sold all his considerable personal possessions to John Brooks. Henderson had acquired his land from the abovementioned William Harris. Other land grants and deeds identify the location of this activity as the "Dirty Swamp" on the north side of the South Anna River. Dirty Creek is shown on the above map east to the east of the junction of the map sections. Poor Creek, the location of the 1722 John Woody land grant, is not far to the west. Still later, in 1769, a court memorandum of Thomas Jefferson shows the suit of John Strange of Albemarle against James Woody and John Brooks. Another memorandum, dated 4 Apr 1769, mentions that James Woody had died leaving a son James Woody of Bedford, a daughter Elizabeth and a daughter Mary and husband John Brooks of Amelia. Again, on 12 July 1770, another  Jefferson memorandum states that the defendant, James Wooddie of Halifax, received the 400 acre Ballenger tract from a patent that his father, James Wooddie, had obtained about 20 years before. Jefferson added that he had not discovered an applicable patent in his search going 50 years back. Our search has not yielded such a patent either; however, James is noted as a resident of Halifax which had been formed from Lunenburg in 1752. Brooks researchers assert that Lunenburg was the location that the John Brooks Sr. family of Louisa moved to in about 1756. All of these related records have contributed to our assumption that that the James Woody found in 1743 Louisa was the same person as the James Woode baptized on 16 April 1699 in New Kent. He was likely the son of  James Woody, the progenitor; however, the early St. Paul's processioning records hint at another possibility. We discuss the details of this possibility on the Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia page.  It seems almost certain that this James Woody and John Brooks were somehow closely related to the David Woody (aka David Books) of Person County, North Carolina. Because of the close connection of David Brooks Woody with James, John and Thomas Woody of Pittsylvania County, we have assumed that these three men were the sons of James Jr. of Hanover and Louisa and that David Brooks Woody was also closely related, probably a half-brother.
            The bottom line to the 1732 land grant investigation of John Woody is that we are still puzzled; however, the above discussion may be related to this grant. This John seems to be the person that was processioned in 1715 and 1719 with a James Woody. This situation may have a bearing on the fact that a James Woody was recorded on Dirty Swamp which is quite close to the Poor/Poore Creek grant of John Woody. We cannot prove this suggestion; however, the connection is a possibility.
            A John Woody is recorded as a headright in the 1701 land grant of John Pleasants, a member of a very wealthy Virginia Quaker family that lived in St. Paul's Parish. The family paid for the importation of many of the people that worked for them and these headrights were used as the basis for land grant claims. There are no other Woodys listed on the grant with John and we do not recognize any of other headrights listed. So we have assumed that this John was at least sixteen and probably twenty-one or somewhat older; however, this is an absolute guess. Using only the recorded names of the early Virginia Woodys, we can find only only one lineage configuration of John that seems to fit the know facts that we have discovered.
            The first proven event associated with John Woody, my direct ancestor, occurred on 20 February 1738 when he was recorded in Goochland in the St. James's Northam Parish Vestry Book as a surveyor for the Mountain Road from Number 20 to Number twenty-six. These numbers were very likely mile markers and probably indicated the mileage from a starting point near Richmond. In Colonial America, the parish officials were in charge building and maintaining roads. The Mountain Road was also know as The Three Chop't Road and The Three Notch'd Road and sections can easily be found on good modern road maps. The "road" followed an ancient Indian trail that had been widened enough for wagons to pass. It was a very rough, unpaved and slightly improved trail that connected the Richmond to the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road near Staunton in Augusta County. Vestry official appointed different landowners to oversee the maintenance of various sections of roads within their jurisdiction, The officials also appointed the tithes of the nearby landowners to assist in this work. These appointments were termed Road Orders and the overseers were termed surveyors although most were not surveyors in the modern sense. Since John was appointed to this position, he must have been a mature, well respected land owner that lived in the area of his road assignment for a few years. This ownership is confirmed by his mention as an adjacent landowner in his 16 September 1740 land grant among the branches of Byrd Creek in Goochland. Byrd/Bird Creek is a tributary of the James River and is shown on west side of the above map section.
            The distance from any of these Woody locations on the above map varies from about ten to twenty-five miles. Not neighbors, but an relatively easy days travel by horse. John Woody of Goochland and his descendants are discussed in detail in Woody Family Roots. All of these locations were relatively distant from the first Woody residences in eastern Hanover. Many Wooddys still reside in this area; however, as we have discussed, primogeniture and cheap land were the prime motivators for westward migration, even short distance migration. We think that the Woodys that moved to the four western Hanover/Louisa locations discussed above resulted from the deaths of their fathers and/or their relative standing as potential heirs. From the available meager evidence, we posit that Henry Woody of Louisa and James Woody of Louisa were the was the sons of James of New Kent, who seems to have died about 1727 and that John Sr. who died about 1744 was a brother of James Sr. Since we have posited that James Sr. was the son of Robert Woody, born about 1721 and proven resident of Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, this conclusion would mean that John Sr. was also a son of Robert and that Simon probably was the same. In any event, the early St. Paul's processioning records faintly suggest another lineage. We discuss the details of this possibility on the Chronology of Selected Woody Events in Early Virginia page.
            In the future, additional evidence may be discovered that may clarify these family connection. Only time will tell. In addition, while an yDNA match can positively prove a male Common Ancestor and an atDNA match may hint at one, advances in genetic DNA testing and computer DNA comparison programs, as well as, the widespread DNA testing of millions of people may help prove some of these family connections.

The Quaker Connection

            The Colonial Quakers (Society of Friends) were prodigious record keepers and many of their records have survived and have been transcribed and abstracted by William Wade Hinshaw in the Encyclopedia of American Genealogy. Volume IV of this resource contains the abstracted minutes of the Henrico Monthly Meeting. The regional Monthly Meetings provided a wide range of services for the local (Particular) meetings. The Monthly meetings oversaw the business aspects of the region, but also authorized marriages and dismissals. It is important to note that, besides Henrico, the Henrico Monthly Meeting served the counties New Kent, Hanover Louisa, Goochland, Chesterfield and others. The Henrico Monthly Meeting reports include the male names of James, John, Micajah and William Woody/Wooddy. Also recorded are Martha, the wife of Simon and Cecilla, the wife of Micajah and their children. The Virginia Monthly Meeting records begint in 1672 and the Henrico Parish records start in 1699; however, the Hinshaw abstracts do not include the wedding witnesses. Fortunately, Suzanne Johnston has made complete transcriptions of the Henrico Monthly Meeting records from the LDS FamilySearch film # 0031762. Linda Sparks Starr then included these transcriptions in her Colonial Virginia Connections web site as Henrico County Monthly Meetings 1699-1782.  Suzanne's transcriptions include the list of marriage witnesses which are not part of the Hinshaw abstracts. On 5 June 1722, a James Wooddy was a witness at a Quaker wedding. To our knowledge, the connection between James and the couple is unknown. On the same day, a James provided funds to help build a meeting house. Also, John Wooddy was a witness at the 1739 Quaker wedding of Micajah Wooddy and Cecilla Johnson. The only early surviving Hanover County records are for 1733-1735 and they show that, in 1734, John Woody provided for part of the estate administration bond for Martha Woody, the widow of Simon. A little later, John was named in the estate probate of Moore Woody, son of Simon. Since John was not named in Simon's will, he was almost surely not a son of Simon, so he probably was the brother of Simon. Since John & Simon seemed to be about the same age, that relationship is our assumption. Conversely, Micajah Wooddy, his wife Cecilia, their only known son William and their daughters are noted in Quaker records from 1739 to 1789. Although Micajah's only son William seems to have been enumerated in the 1810 and 1820 Hanover censuses, we have not discovered the names of any of his presumed children. Also, we have not uncovered any significantly sourced research related to this branch of Virginia Woodys and very few lineages have been developed. If you know of other such research, we would appreciate hearing from you.
            Most of the children of Micajah and Cecilia were disowned by the Friends, mainly for marrying "out of unity" (marrying non-Quakers). Micajah and Cecilia also appear to have lapsed before their deaths because the 1771 will of Micajah Woody names the slaves he owned. In 1777, the Friends decided to disown slave holding members and, in 1784, Virginia allowed the Quakers to free their slaves. Because of the slavery issue, most  Friends had left Virginia by 1850. In 1800, when Ceciliah died in 1800, there were only three Friends Meeting Houses left in Virginia. Although Simon Woody is never mentioned in these records, the Quaker  marriages of his daughter's were recorded. In addition, Micajah, Simon and James were all processioned in St. Paul's Parish; however, none of these men were ever appointed as a processioner. This may have been  because they were not members of the Episcopal Church that appointed processioners; however, there were several other reasons for this. In fact, most of the non-Quakers that were processioned were never appointed processioners. In 1689 James Woody was processioned by the New Kent County Vestry and also, in 1699, he also seems to be included in the Register of the Episcopal Church. Based on these dates, we conclude that James and Simon Woody may have been converted to Quakerism between between 1699 and 1722; however, there is absolutely no proof of this and it does not seem to make much difference in our analysis. Although John and Martha Woody (Simon's wife and widow) are both recorded as witnesses in the Quaker marriage of one of Simon's daughters, we think this was because John was the brother of Simon, who was deceased or very ill at the time and anyone could witness a Quaker wedding. John was also recorded as a processioner in the first Hanover processioning in 1708. The processioning returns for 1747 do not exist, but in the processioning order for that year "Saml Wooddy instead of Jno Wooddy" was appointed a processioner. Since this John Woody was never mentioned again, we conclude that he had died or perhaps moved before 1747 and that Samuel, his assumed son, replaced him. The 1751 processioning record is intact and Samuel and Micajah were both processioned and Samuel was again appointed processioner. So, Samuel and perhaps Micajah may have also been recorded in the lost 1747 processioning event.

John, Micajah & Samuel Woody of Hanover Co., Virginia

            Because Hanover County, Virginia is one of the most difficult Virginia counties in which to do research, we avoided this area for almost twenty years. The Library of Virginia Lost Record's Guide states that "most county records, particularly deeds, wills, and marriage records were destroyed by fire in Richmond on 3 April 1865". However, since nearly all of our research on the Woodys of western Virginia suggests that their ancestors came from Hanover, we are going to try to correlate the scant information that is available.
            The processioning records  found in The Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish 1706-1786 mention Mattedequin and Totopotomoy Creeks many times, along with over one hundred references to the Woodys/Wooddys/etc. that owned land and lived in New Kent and Hanover. The 1763 Hanover tithe records include John Woody, 80 acres; Micajah Woody, 200 acres; and Samuel Woody, 120 acres. On June 13, 1766 the Virginia Gazette published an advertisement (image on right) concerning a lost/stolen horse belonging to Samuel Wooddy. On April 29, 1773, the same newspaper published another advertisement concerning John Woody of Hanover. The post Revolution land and personal property tax records for Hanover are extant and start in 1782. The earliest of these tax records list Samuel, Micajah, Cisley, John, Hartwell, Obediah, Lucy and William Woody. The 1782 land tax acreages for John and Samuel are identical to the 1763 records. The 1782 land tax acreage for Sisley (Celilia) Woody, the wife of Micajah, was 190 acres. So we are very confident that these were the same Hanover  families that were taxed in 1763. In addition, John, Samuel, Micajah and Lucy Woody were enumerated in the 1782 Hanover County census. Since there is a surviving will transcript for John and a surviving will abstract for Micajah, we know the names of their children and their death dates; however, Samuel Woody died intestate. John Wooddy Jr. died c. 1786, Samuel died c. 1788 and Micajah died c. 1774. William (c. 1750 - c. 1826) was almost surely the son of Micajah, but we dot know the names of any of his children. These records illustrate how landless individuals can be virtually invisible in this time frame. Lucy, Hartwell (born c. 1777) and Obediah (born c. 1761) were noted in the personal property tax records only and they were probably among those in the households of Samuel and Lucy in 1782, but neither Samuel or Lucy left surviving wills. Obediah is especially interesting because, in 1784, he was charged with a tax on two named slaves that had been charged to Samuel Sr. in 1782. So Obediah appears to have been the son of Samuel Sr.; however, he seems to have to have died about 1794. The identity of Lucy is unknown, but she may have been a second wife and widow of Samuel. She seem to disappeared after 1796. Hartwell was probably the son of Micajah Woody Jr., the son of Samuel and he almost surely died about 1802. Obediah and Hartwell were never taxed as landowners and they left no surviving wills. This is just about all we know about Samuel, Lucy, Obediah, Hartwell and the several other unknown individuals enumerated in the Samuel and Lucy Woody households of 1782 Hanover County, Virginia.
            However, there are other pieces of interesting and complex information concerning the estates of John and Samuel Woody. John's tax records were noted as "John Woody estate" from 1786 until 1800, when the property was conveyed to his widow Ruth as his will directed. Samuel's tax records are noted as "Samuel Woody estate from 1788 until 1797; however, in 1800, the property of Samuel Woody was transferred to his assumed son Micajah Woody Jr. The law of entail was abolished in 1776 and the law of primogeniture was repealed in 1786, so if Samuel died in 1788, these laws would not have been applicable to his estate. However, the years 1800 and 1801 coincide with some other important events. The youngest child of John and Ruth Wooddy arrived at his age of majority about this time about 1800, as did the some of the children of Ann Woody Talley, the daughter of Samuel Sr., so the delay in the estate settlement could the attributed to these events.  In the last Hanover processioning in 1784, Samuel Woody was listed in two different, but adjacent precincts. We think that  these two Samuels were the same person and another Samuel did not appear on the tax rolls until 1801. We suggest that this was the Samuel W. Woody who died in 1856 in Richmond and we posit that he was the sons of Micajah Woody Jr. This assumption is supported by the fact that, in 1802, Samuel Jr. was taxed in Chesterfield County, near Richmond, and made significant land purchases there in 1805 and 1806 (See Samuel W. Wooddy below). Based on the posited 1779 birth date of Henry Talley Woody who moved to Georgia before 1800, but returned to Chesterfield County shortly before 1812 when he died, we also posit that he was a son of Samuel Sr.  Ann, the daughter of Samuel Woody Sr. married Elisha Talley and the middle name of Henry Talley Woody suggests that his father may also have married a Talley. we suggest the Micajah, her brother, might have also done so,  We do not have a verifiable birth date for Samuel Sr., but based on what we know, he would have been 55-65 years old when Samuel W. was born. This assumption is reinforced by the 1809 record of the mail contractor John Woody Jr. in Augusta Georgia. The early 1800 Woody mail contracting business is discussed at Woody/Wooddy Mail Contractors. We have estimated Obediah's birth date from his first taxation in 1784 and he would have been 15-18 when Samuel W. was born. So we have a choice between a rather old father and a rather young one. From our experience with this line, we posit that Samuel Sr. was the father of Samuel W. Wooddy. Since virtually all of the records of Hanover County were destroyed in the Civil War, it seems impossible to prove this assumption; however, the alignment of these facts forms a body of significant circumstantial evidence. The events in the life of Henry Talley Wooddy (see below) are nearly identical to those of Samuel W. Wooddy. Based on these events, as well as, evidence showing Henry Talley and Obediah Talley, the son of Ann Woody Tally were living in close proximity in Wilkes County, Georgia and Chesterfield County, Virginia and the close association of Henry Talley Woody  with Obadiah Talley, the son of Ann Woody Talley, the daughter of Samuel Wooddy Sr., we have concluded that Henry Talley Woody was another son of Samuel Woody Sr. Although we are quite certain that the funds for the land purchases of Samuel W. and Henry T. Wooddy came from the sale of the land of Samuel Sr., there is the possibility of an intervening generation in the person of Obediah Wooddy (c. 1761-c. 1794). Except for the age of Samuel Sr., there is no evidence at all to support this scenario. If Obediah did inherit the property of Samuel Sr., this event was never recorded in twelve years of tax records. The evidence points to a significant event occurring in 1801 and both Samuel W. and Henry T. reached the age of twenty-one about this time; however, this event would apply to an inheritance from either Samuel Sr. or Obediah.
           Micajah and Cecilia Johnson Woody were Quakers (Religious Society of Friends) and they were married in the Hanover Friend's Meeting House on September 4, 1739. Micajah, Cecilia and most of their children are mentioned in the Friend's meeting records and later, in the Hanover tax lists. Micajah's will was dated September 23, 1771 and he died in 1800/1801. Although Micajah's actual will is not extant, he, his wife and his children were recorded in a 1819 law suit that included a synopsis of Micajah's will. A little known transcription of John's September 16, 1784 will is also extant and names his wife Ruth and ten children. Micajah Woody was a witness to the original document. John Sr. died in 1786. Samuel Sr. died between 1782 & 1787. William Woody was very likely the son of Micajah and Cecilia Woody and is probably the William Woody that, on December 29, 1789, bought 126 acres on Totopotomoy Creek in Hanover from Thomas and Susan Tinsley. By 1850, as family farming was becoming less and less profitable, a migration to the nearby city of Richmond was well underway.
            There are dozens, if not hundreds, of genealogies, lineages and GEDCOMs on the internet that flatly state that Micajah, Mary, Martha and Judith were the children of James and Martha Woody. We have never found any proof that James had a wife named Martha.  We have not found any other direct evidence concerning the children of James. The evidence seems to indicate that James was older than Micajah and that both were Quakers. As is usual, we do not know the original proponent of this story, but some very important, easy to find, primary evidence has been overlooked. In 1734, Simon Woody died testate in Hanover County and his will was probated the same year. He named his wife Martha, son Moore and daughters Mary, Martha, Judith and Rebecca. Unfortunately, his only son Moore died testate later the same year. Moore's will named his mother Martha and sisters Mary, Martha, Judith and Susanna. Simon's widow, Martha, lived until about 1769, when her son-in-law, Nathan Johnson, contested her will (not extant). The Mary, Martha and Judith Woody that married David, Ashley and Nathan Johnson were the daughters of Simon Woody, not James Woody. The complete transcripts (not abstracts) of the original Quaker marriage records can be found online. The marriage record of Micajah seems to imply that he was the son of John Sr. and that he converted to Quakerism sometime before his marriage to Cecelia.
            However, it is interesting to note that neither Micajah or his son William were ever appointed processioners by the Anglican church officials and this was undoubtedly because Micajah and William were Quakers. Likewise, neither James or Simon were ever appointed processioners, so it would seem possible that James and Simon were also Quakers; however, it is our opinion that their physical disabilities were the main reason for this situation.
            Some of the authors of the abovementioned lineages also assert that this same Micajah Woody married Mrs. Elizabeth Allen, widow of Littleberry Allen, on Aug 15, 1796 in Henrico County. While it is true that such a marriage was originally transcribed and published, Micajah Woody died about 1774, as detailed in the law suit filed by his daughter Sarah, but not settled until 1819. However, the abovementioned suit begins with the phrase; "Micajah Woody, Senr., of the County of Hanover, by his Will, dated Sept. 23d, 1771...". It should be remembered that the term "junior" and "senior" were commonly used to differentiate between two men with the same name and did not necessarily imply a father and son relationship. More recent primary research has shed some light on this puzzle. The minutes of the Henrico County Boar Swamp Baptist Church contain this short note: "Dec 1, 1787, Elizabeth Allen, now Woody - removed".  In addition, the will of Rev. Littleberry Allen, a Baptist preacher, was dated August 20, 1783 and recorded June 6, 1786 in Henrico. His will names his widow Elizabeth Allen and seven children; however, we have not seen the probate record of the Allen estate. The Boar Swamp Baptist Church was located very near the border of Hanover and Henrico Counties and close to the Woody homesteads east of Richmond in Hanover. So, a second Micajah seems to have existed in 1786; however, Micajah is not mentioned as an inheritor in the 1771 will of Micajah Sr. or the 1784 will of John Jr; however, in 1800, a Micajah Woody was assessed a land tax on 120 acres of land was had recently been conveyed to him from the estate of Samuel Woody. Since Samuel died intestate and Micajah's  sister, Ann, had several children, this conveyance delay may have been related to all of Samuel's inheritors reaching their age of majority. Micajah Jr. was also assessed a land tax on this property in 1801 and 1802. Micajah Jr. was recorded in Hanover County processionings 1775 until 1784 and he was also assessed personal property taxes in Hanover from 1786 until 1802. So, from these records, we have assumed that Micajah Jr. was the son of Samuel Woody, who died about 1788 and that he removed or died about 1803. Micajah Jr. probably did not have children with the widow of Littleberry Allen; however, the Hanover tax records strongly suggest that he did have at least two male children with a previous wife. These records suggest that these males were born about 1770 or so. Later tax records name some possible male candidates; however, some of these men were likely other sons of Samuel Sr. The 1775 processioning records suggest that Micajah Jr. was born before about 1754. Since his sister Ann was born about this time, we are positing a birth date of about 1751.  
            An important common thread connecting the early 19^th century Wooddys from King William, Hanover and elsewhere was the mail transportation business. The image at the right is from the "Mail Contractors" section of the 1824 National Calendar and Annals of the United States. Since these businesses probably employed various members of the families, it would seem that the Wooddys of this area regularly visited other localities, some quite distant. The Wooddys were employed as mail contractors as early as 1809 as the unclaimed mail newspaper advertisement from the Augusta Chronicle shows. Augusta is in Wilkes County, Georgia, the parent county of Oglethorpe County, the home of Henry Talley Woody, discussed below. Henry also used the Augusta post office to receive mail. For a more detailed description of the Mail Contracting business and other Woody/Wooddy Mail Contractors, click here.
            The Battle of Cold Harbor, in Hanover County, was one of the Civil War's bloodiest, most lopsided battles. Between May 26, 1864 and June 3, 1864, thousands of Union soldiers were slaughtered in a hopeless frontal assault against the heavily fortified Confederate troops of Gen. Robert E. Lee. For a time, the farmhouse of David Wooddy, about three miles south of Mattedequin Creek, was the headquarters of Union Maj. Gen.  Ambrose E. Burnside. The Wooddy farmhouse still stands and the adjoining property is home to a modern subdivision called Wooddy's Hundred. The nearby Cold Harbor National Cemetery contains the remains of Union soldiers that were originally interred on "Woody's Farm". This 1861 map of Hanover and surrounding counties shows the Cold Harbor area. This June 3, 1864 map of the battle clearly shows the "Woody house".
            Many of the descendants of the Hanover Woodys used the Wooddy variation, so it is relatively easy to locate more recent records. For instance, six Wooddys are buried in the Perrin (a.k.a: Snead, Wooddy) Family Cemetery in Hanover. This cemetery is about two miles north of Totopotomoy Creek. Also, there are Wooddys listed in current area telephone directories. So, Wooddys have lived in this area for at least 320 years.
            Mark W. Wooddy, the grandson of William Samuel Wooddy, has kindly provided us with the full names and exact birth dates of the nine children of James P. Wooddy (1772-1839), one of the sons of John and Ruth Wooddy mentioned above. Many of the Wooddys living in present day Hanover seem to be the descendents of James and his wife Mary Q. Jones Wooddy, who were married in 1795. This data confirms and considerably enhances the research that we have done. William Samuel received this data from his older cousin, Harriet Wooddy Wright. Also, Mark has provided us with several images of his forefathers. These images are here.
            We have been able to find only a very few published lineages or discussions of this line. This seems a little odd to us, but if the reader knows of such information, we will greatly appreciate your assistance.  Also, it would be very helpful to have a Woody DNA Project participant from this branch. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.           

 

            On February 28, 1774,  James Woody of Cumberland County purchased 30 acres in Southam Parish, Cumberland County from Hugh Woodson for £45. On December 28, 1778, James and his wife Lewcy Woody of Powhatan County sold this property to Creacher Baugh for £150, a significant profit. Since Powhatan County was created from Southam Parish, Cumberland County in 1777, the property was now in Powhatan County. This event is extremely important since it places James Woody very close to the Buckingham County Woody residences of that time and close to Hanover County, the ancestral American home of the Woodys. The dates also dovetail very well with the first record of James Woody in Pittsylvania County in 1782. No other Woodys are recorded in the early Cumberland County deed books; however, a Henry Woody is recorded as the plaintiff in a Cumberland County lawsuit with Bartlett Thompson in 1784 and 1785. This person was most likely the Henry Woody who signed a petition in nearby Buckingham County in 1779 and was first taxed in that county in 1782 (See Henry of Henrico, directly above). We have checked The Vestry Book of Southam Parish, Cumberland County, Virginia, 1745-1792 (part of Southam Parish was in Powhatan County in 1777-1792) to see if any Woodys are named in the processioning records: however, as with most Vestry Books (See  An Analysis of the Vestry Books of St. Paul's, Fredericksville, Henrico and St. James Northam Parishes), the processioners are named, but the landowners are only recorded occasionally. There is no record of any Woody in the Vestry Book, but Cruther Baugh is named as a processioner in 1779 and 1783. We now think it is quite possible that James Woody of Cumberland and Pittsylvania was a son of James Woody of Hanover and Louisa counties.
            The analysis of the early lineage of this Woody branch is complicated by several circumstances. First, the Pittsylvania Woodys lived in the southeast corner of the county, very close to the county lines of Halifax, Virginia and Person and Caswell, North Carolina. Pertinent records have been found in all of these counties. Also, some of these records present inconsistent, conflicting and puzzling evidence. The most perplexing evidence involves the several of John Woodys mentioned in these records. We now assume that one of these John Woodys was the brother of James Woody of Pittsylvania and the half-brother of David Brooks/Woody of Person Country. North Carolina.
            The 1782 Pittsylvania County, Virginia census includes James Woody with four other white individuals in his home. As mentioned above, Pittsylvania County was formed from Halifax County in 1767 and many land records have survived from the early days of Pittsylvania. However, it was not until 1780 that John Woody (over 21, thus born before 1759), "son of James Woody of the County of Pittsylvania", bought 235 acres along Sandy and Cane Creeks from the estate of Nathaniel Ayers. The wording of this deed suggests that the document is a copy that was first filed in another county; however, if so, we have not found the original. A little later, on August 1, 1781, Thomas Woody (over 21, thus born before 1760) purchased 100 acres on Sandy Creek from Uriah Owen. On February 13, 1785, William Owen sold John Woody junr 200 acres on the waters of Sandy Creek. Be aware that the term "junior" did not necessarily imply a farther-son relationship. The term was often used to distinguish between between two men with the same names that lived in the same area. In this case, it is proof that the writers of deed were aware of two John Woodys: One was old enough to purchase property (over 21) and one older than the property buyer. Cane and Sandy Creeks are tributaries of the Dan River located in the southeastern part of Pittsylvania County near the Halifax County, Virginia border and also, near the borders of Caswell and Person Counties, North Carolina. We have found Woody deeds along the state border of all four counties.
             James, John and Thomas Woody continued to buy and sell substantial parcels of land in this area for some twenty years. James died intestate in 1818, but the records of his estate settlement name a widow Lucy, sons James Jr., John and Thomas and daughters Frances Woody and Polly Arnett. By the time of James' death, his son John had moved to Georgetown, South Carolina where grandson, John Thomas was born in 1808 and enumerated in the census of 1840. John Thomas later lived in Charleston, South Carolina and, near the time of the Civil War, he moved to Chicago, Illinois with some of his family. In the mid-1850s, several descendants of James Woody Sr. moved to the adjacent Kentucky counties of Logan, Todd and Warren. James Woody Jr. was enumerated in the 1850, 1860 and 1870 censuses of Warren County. Pleasant Woody, the son of James Jr.'s brother Thomas married Permelia Walters on 21 Apr 1826 in Pittsylvania County and he was enumerated in this area from 1840 through 1860. The probate records of Archibald Walters, the father of Permelia, names Wesley Woodie as a grandson. Permelia died in Pittsylvania County when Wesley was an infant; however, he later became the father seventeen children. Wesley was enumerated in Logan County from 1860 through 1880. In 1860, he and Pleasant Woody lived on adjacent properties.             
            The yearly collection of Pittsylvania County personal property taxes began in 1782. We have viewed these tax records and discovered that James was the only Woody personal property taxpayer in Pittsylvania until Thomas was added to the list in 1807. Thomas' first tax date implies a birth date of about 1786 and this date is supported by the 1820 census birth date range of 1775/1794. If this is the correct birth date estimate for Thomas, the Thomas that bought property 1781 (described above) was a different person. Since James' son John was never assessed for personal property taxes in Pittsylvania, we assume that he was living in one of the nearby Virginia or North Carolina counties; however, the analysis of records is complicated by a second John Woody living in the same area. For example, the 1814 Person County, North Carolina records describe a sale of named slaves by John Woody to his "brother James Woody" of Pittsylvania County. These same named slaves were mentioned in the later estate settlement for James of Pittsylvania.
            Very conclusive primary evidence leads us to conclude that the John Woody that bought land in 1780 Pittsylvania was indeed the son of James. This conclusion has several implications: John was older than his enumerated birth date of 1770-1780 in the 1830 Georgetown, South Carolina census. Since this record of enumeration is a clerk's copy that was made from the original record, it may have been a transcription error. The transcription of the 1780 deed implies that John was at least 21 when he made the land purchase; however, John sold this land in 1801 and this transcript states that the land was a gift from James. So, we are estimating the birth date of John to be 1761. This birth date implies that John's mother was not Lucy and that his father, James, was older than we previously estimated. We now estimate James birth date as being before 1741. The 1785 deed that mentions a "John junr" as a land buyer again complicates the analysis; however, John, the son of James, also sold this land in 1801, so John Jr. was the son of James. Since there were other John Woodys living in the nearby Franklin County, Virginia and Orange County, North Carolina, one of these men could have been the implied John Woody Sr;  however, John Sr. was probably the brother of James mentioned in 1814 Person County slave transaction. We have discovered several land transaction records of John Woody(s) very close by in Halifax County and Caswell County, North Carolina; however, there are no records of land tax assessments in either county. In the Halifax 1794-1804 period, John Woody was assessed personal property taxes five times and, in 1804, he was recorded as John Woody Senr. However, by this time, there was a younger John Woody, son of David, living close by in Person County, North Carolina. The only Caswell personal property assessment was in 1786. So John Woody appears to have lived mostly in Halifax County, Virginia, but participated in real estate speculation in Pittsylvania, Halifax and Caswell.
            We know that James of Pittsylvania had a brother John and we assume that the older Thomas Woody and the David Woody of Person County, North Carolina were likely the brothers or close relatives. Their father/fathers would have been contemporaries of John of Goochland and Henry of Tuckahoe Creek. We have found a James Woody that is a likely candidate for the father of these men in Louisa County in 1743 through 1755. We assume that this James was the brother of John Woody Jr. as they were processioned in the same St. Paul's Parish Precinct from 1711 through 1731. If this assumption is correct, then James Jr. would have been born about 1688.  In 1752, this James seems to have sold considerable personal property from his "plantation" to John Brooks. Apparently, James did not own the land he was living on, since John Brooks purchased this property from Richard and Elizabeth Henderson earlier the same year. John Brooks is extremely interesting since there was a very strong Woody/Brooks connection in Caswell, Halifax and Person Counties. David Brooks, aka David Woody, of Person County, North Carolina We do not know what happened to this James, but we have also found a John Woody in 1757 Halifax County, Virginia. We have assumed that this John Woody was the brother of James Woody of Pittsylvania.
            However, the most perplexing thing to us is the source of money that all of these Woodys seemed to suddenly acquire in the late 1700s. Land ownership provided the major asset of most people at this time and, after the widow's dower, their assets were usually passed on to their children at their death. In fact, inheritance in Virginia was based on primogeniture law and customs until 1785. The result of this situation usually meant that the eldest son of the deceased received the bulk of the estate. Land and slaves were the most important assets in most Virginia estates and only a very few Woodys possessed such assets. We know of only a few candidate Woodys in this area that died owning land. Henry of Henrico died in 1766 and Samuel of Hanover died c.1788 (see above). However, since there are infrequent early Woody records in Hanover and the counties west of Hanover, it is quite possible that the early Pittsylvania Woodys were sons and/or grandsons of James and/or John Woody of Hanover.
            yDNA comparisons show that James Woody was very closely related to the other Woodys of western Virginia. The Woodys appearance in Pittsylvania in 1780 indicates that they arrived at that time or/and they suddenly came into a substantial amount of money at that time. There are several tantalizing clues that might lead to the parents of James Woody and our research continues.
           Our thanks goes to Charles Owen Woody for his excellent basic research and documentation of much of this line, Sharon Petersen for sharing her research on the descendants of Wesley Thomas Woody and Timothy Fisher for sharing information from the Bible of his great grandparents, William and Isadora Woody Fisher. In late 2011, Charles self published his research and family recollections as The Woodys of Fayette County Tennessee. In addition to the descendants of James Woody of Pittsylvania, this well researched book includes the collateral lines of Rodgers, Morris, Baldwin, Chappell, Ivy, Linton, Walker and Lea. 
            Many more details about this complicated branch are in the Database.

            William Wooddy was first taxed in Loudoun Co., Virginia in 1799 and in the 1810 census he was enumerated as being born before 1765. In 1804, he was appointed postmaster of Loudoun County and served in that capacity until his death in 1823. His son, William Jr. was a well known and successful printer in Baltimore, Maryland. The advertisement on the right is from the February 15, 1822 edition of the Baltimore Sun. The will of William Sr. names his 2nd wife Elizabeth, sons William Jr., John, David and James and daughters Mary Jane Wooddy, Ruth Jones Wooddy, Sally Hamerly and Kitty Rose. The sons names duplicate most of those found in the will of John Woody of Hanover County and John's wife was Ruth. John was the likely brother of Micajah Wooddy, who was a Quaker (Society of Friends). Loudoun County had one of the largest concentrations of Quakers in Virginia; however, we have not found any evidence that William Sr. of Loudoun was a Quaker and William's son James was a Methodist Episcopal minister in Florida. On the other hand, we have found some evidence that suggests that William Jr., of Baltimore, was a Quaker or lapsed Quaker. Even though the marriage of William Jr. and Ruth Atkinson took place in the Baltimore First Methodist Episcopal Church, Ruth is recorded as a witness to two Quaker marriages in Baltimore. William Jr. printed some thirty-five books for the Quakers and most of the children of William Jr. and Ruth are buried in the New Elkridge Meeting House Cemetery (Ellicott Graveyard) on "Quaker Hill" in Ellicott City, Maryland. Since the tombstones are engraved, it is not likely that these Wooddys were Quakers, however the Friend's Intelligencer death notice for William III terms him "a member of Baltimore Monthly Meeting".
            The census and tax records of Loudoun and Hanover Counties, Virginia lead us to conclude that William Sr. of Loudoun was the son of either John or Micajah Wooddy of Hanover. This conclusion is reinforced by the Quaker connection of William Jr. of Baltimore. The will of John of Hanover named his son William as one of his estate executors. This William was born about 1760 so he is a good fit for William of Loudoun. However, Micajah Wooddy the Quaker, also had a son named William who was born about 1751 and disowned by the Quakers in 1772. He is also a good fit for William of Loudoun. Neither William seemed to have stayed long in Hanover after John Wooddy died in 1786. The most persuasive evidence to us is the correspondence of the names of the children of John of Hanover and William Sr. of Loudoun. Both had male children named William, John, David and James. The wife of John of Hanover was Ruth and William of Loudoun had a daughter named Ruth Jones Woody. This is especially informative since James P. Woody, another son of John of Hanover, named his first son John Jones Woody. While this is not conclusive evidence, we have assumed that John of Hanover was the father of William of Loudoun. 
             There seem to be living male descendants from this line, so it would be exceptionally helpful to have a Woody DNA Project participant.
            Samuel H. Wooddy is another Wooddy found in Loudoun and Jefferson Counties, Virginia. Samuel H. was bc. 1814, but does not seem to connect to the other Wooddys of this area. Samuel was born in Baltimore, Maryland and married Mary Lott on 29 Jan 1839 in Charles Town, Jefferson County, Virginia. There is family tradition that suggests that Samuel assumed the Wooddy name when he came to Loudoun County as a young man; however, a probably brother, Everett Woody, has been discovered (See below). While this situation does not totally discredit this tradition, it seems to decrease this possibility. Again, there seem to be male descendants of Samuel H. and Everett Wooddy/Woody. The yDNA from one or more of these descendants might help solve this mystery. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.

Everett Woody of Maryland, Kentucky & Ohio       

            Everett and Sarah Locke Woody are first found in the 1850 Lawrence Co., Kentucky census with four children ranging from eight to one. Everett was enumerated as thirty and born in Maryland and Sarah was 28 and born in Virginia. Other documents reveal that Everett was born in Baltimore, Maryland and that Sarah's maiden  name was Locke. Their two oldest children were born in Virginia and the two youngest in Kentucky. Lawrence County is on the eastern edge of Kentucky and is separated from neighboring West Virginia by the Big Sandy River, a tributary of the Ohio River. West Virginia was formed in 1863 after seceding from Virginia and the Confederacy. So it is not surprising to find Sarah in Kentucky, but is astonishing to find a Woody from Maryland with her in 1850. While there were quite a few Woodys in different parts of western Virginia in 1850, virtually all of them came from the Blue Ridge Mountains in the area around Lynchburg, Virginia. Although there were no Lockes recorded in 1850 Lawrence, there were twenty-three in adjacent Carter County, Kentucky. All but one of these was born in Virginia or Kentucky. The exception was Nathan Locke, b.c. 1828, in Maryland. He was with Rachael Locke, b.c. 1791 in Virginia. The other two children with Rachael were born in Virginia. This was Rachael Market Locke, an apparent widow, who had married Neal Locke in Berkeley County Virginia on 9 Apr 1809. By 1860, Everett Woody had moved to nearby Lawrence County, Ohio and, by 1870, some of the Kentucky Lockes had joined him. Among them was Rachel Lock, age 79 and in born in Virginia, who was living with her apparent grandson, William Locke. Everett and Sarah Woody, along with their expanded family, were enumerated on the following census page and Albert Woody, the son of Everett and Sarah was enumerated on the preceding page. By 1880, Everett, Sarah and some of their family had moved to Athens County, Ohio, where Sarah died in 1890 and Everett died in 1892.
            So, we think that that there is virtually no doubt that Sarah Locke was the daughter of Neal and Rachel Market Locke and that she was most likely born in Berkeley or adjacent Frederick County, Virginia. The Woodys probably accompanied Sarah's parents to Kentucky. But what has all this got to do with Everett Woody from Baltimore, Maryland? Well, Berkeley County, Virginia bordered Maryland on the north. To the east of Berkeley was Jefferson County, Virginia and adjacent to Jefferson was Loudoun County, Virginia, both which also bordered Maryland on the north. Jefferson was formed from Berkley in 1810. Both Jefferson and Loudoun were home to Wooddy families in the early 1800s (See above). The families were probably not genetically related, but this has not been proven. Baltimore is about fifty-two straight line miles from Leesburg, the county seat of Loudoun and about sixty-seven miles from Charles Town, the county seat of Jefferson.
            Based on the following evidence, we conclude that Everett was most likely a brother of Samuel Wooddy, the progenitor of the Jefferson County Wooddys. Samuel was b.c. 1814 and lived in both Loudoun and Jefferson. The 1840 Jefferson census for Samuel shows two males in the 20/30 age range. In the 1850 census, Samuel was the only adult male enumerated. Records show that both Samuel and Everett were shoemakers. In 1965, the Charles Town, West Virginia "Spirit of Jefferson Farmers Advocate" reprinted the very short 1885 death notice for Samuel H. Woody, age seventy. Finally, although Samuel Woody was consistently census enumerated as being born in Virginia, we were fortunate to find the 8 June 1885 "Baltimore Sun" death notice for Samuel that states: "Samuel H. Woody, of Charlestown West Virginia, died last week, aged 70 years. He was a native of Baltimore."
            However, there is an addition possibility. William Wooddy, bc 1758, moved from Hanover County, Virginia to Loudoun County, Virginia before 1800 and was the postmaster of Leesburg for nearly twenty years. His son, William Jr., b. c. 1788, moved from Loudoun to Baltimore about 1815 and became a well known printer in that city. He married Ruth Atkinson in Baltimore on 12 June 1817 and they had four male and two female identified children. It seems that Everett Woody could have been the son of William Jr. or one of his brothers; however, the early Baltimore censuses do not seem to confirm this possibility.
            yDNA from a male Woody descendant of any or all of these men would likely help reveal their ancestral Woody line. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.

            Samuel W. Wooddy (1778 - 1856) was recorded in the 1810 Chesterfield County, Virginia census and he was very likely the same person that was taxed in Hanover County in 1801. He was also taxed in Chesterfield from 1802 until he moved to Richmond c. 1817. In 1803, Samuel Woody and Haley Cole had both testified for Obediah Hatcher in his suit against John Salle. This was probably the Samuel Wooddy that was mentioned in a May 11, 1799 Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle advisement concerning unclaimed mail at the Washington (Wilkes Co., Georgia) post office. A similar advisement was published for Henry Wooddy a year earlier in the same newspaper. During the War of 1812, Samuel was a Sergeant in Capt. Henry Heth's cavalry unit in the First Regiment of the Virginia Militia. Henry Heth was also the proprietor of an extensive coal mining operation in Chesterfield, across the James River from Richmond. In 1815, Samuel auctioned 320 acres, including Short's Tavern, near the Chesterfield coal fields between "Black Heth Coal Mines and Sally's Pitts". Samuel had acquired this property from Young William Short* in three transactions in 1805 and 1806. Ownership of this rather expensive property would seem to indicate that Samuel had received an substantial inheritance in the early 1800s. The estate of Samuel Woody Sr. of Hanover County (see John, Micajah & Samuel of Hanover Co., Virginia above) was settled in 1800 and his property was sold. Because Samuel Wooddy reached age twenty-one about this same time and because Samuel made significant land purchases shortly after, we have concluded that Samuel W. was a son of Samuel Woody Sr. and thus benefited substantially from the sale of the estate. The 1830 Richmond census records Samuel with five younger females and two males in the 20/30 age bracket. In 1831, Mary Woody died and her obituary reads "wife of Samuel Woody of Richmond, leaving husband and seven children".  The 1840 Richmond census shows two males in the 30/40 age bracket in Samuel's family, but when his son, Samuel Washington Wooddy, died in 1846 at age 41, his obituary mentions only his father and two sisters as survivors. There were very few Woodys in the Richmond area at this time and the William L. Woody, described immediately below, seems to be a good candidate for another son of Samuel; however, the obituary contradicts this proposition. Samuel lived until 1856 and he and two of his daughters, Amanda and Mary, are in the 1850 Richmond census. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.
            William L. Woody (c. 1809 - 1884) was first recorded in the 1840 Richmond, Virginia census. He was born in Virginia and had married Jane Williamson, a native of Scotland, in 1831. William and Jane had at least eight children, including Thaddeus M. Woody (1840 - 1906), a veteran of the Civil War. One of Thaddeus' grandsons was Thaddeus Braxton Woody (1901 - 2000), Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. There seem to be several living male Woody descendants of this branch. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.

            yDNA testing has resulted in one of the most interesting lineage discoveries known to us. The yDNA results of a descendant of William Woody, born about 1800 in South Carolina, have placed him in the Old Virginia Woody group. The northwestern portion of South Carolina has long been known as The Upcountry and, as the Spartanburg historian Dr. J. B. O. Landrum relates, "Many of the early settlers of the up-country were of English extraction and dissenters from the established church of the mother country. They were mostly immigrants from Virginia." Spartanburg is on the North Carolina border and was formed in 1785 from the old Ninety-Six Judicial District which was created in 1769. Directly west of Spartanburg is Greenville County, South Carolina where William and Sarah Persel Woody and many of their children lived for some time. William and Sarah supposedly emigrated from England to Virginia about 1740/1750, then moved on to North and South Carolina after a relatively short period. The story of William and Sarah, as well as, the names of their children and some of their grandchildren are related in the William C. Berry Day Book. So we were quite surprised when we found that William Woody of Spartanburg was part of the Old Virginia line.
            The 1817 Spartanburg will of George Rowland was witnessed by William and Nicholas Woody and mentions a daughter Nancy that William Woody apparently married about 1819. George's only son, Henry Rowland, was bequeathed the Rowland homestead at the death or remarriage of the widow Rowland.
            William and Nancy Woody were enumerated in the 1850 Spartanburg census and their family, at that time, apparently consisted of four sons and three daughters. Nicholas was one of their sons and another was James Madison Woody, who married Elizabeth Balinger. Over twenty years earlier, the Woodys and Rowlands were connected by the 1794 Richland Creek deed of Alexander Keenum which was witnessed by Henry Woody, John Woody and Geo Rowland. Also, the 1795 deed of Daniel White was witnessed by Samuel Woody and also notes Henry Wooddy and Thomas Hatherway as adjacent neighbors. A similar 1809 Spartanburg deed notes Jesse Woody as a witness. In an online message board posting, David Trimmier has referenced a Rowland family tradition alleging that George Rowland travelled from his Henry County, Virginia home to South Carolina in the 1790s and "chose a farm owned by one Thomas Hathaway, situated 10 miles above Spartanburg Court House". This tradition fits the above deed facts perfectly since the name Rowland, or such, does not appear in the 1790 Spartanburg census and a George Rowland was recorded as being taxed for 100 acres in 1782/1783 Pittsylvania County, Virginia and in 1790 Henry County, Virginia. Additionally, the 1780 Pittsylvania will of John Rowland contains a bequeathal of land on Marrowbone Creek to his brother, George Rowland who had a grist mill on this waterway. Marrowbone Creek ended up in Henry County when Henry was formed from Pittsylvania in 1790. This evidence leads us to conclude that it is very likely that the George Rowland of Spartanburg Co., South Carolina was indeed from Henry Co., Virginia as the tradition alleges; however, we do not see how that George the brother of John Rowland could have been this person. George from Henry seems to have been much too old to have had at least nine children the the period of 1790-1810. The will of John Rowland names another George Rowland, the son of his brother Gilbert. This could have been the person that moved to Spartanburg or it could have been another unrecorded George Rowland in this family.
            Unfortunately, we have not found any connection between the Woodys and Rowlands in Virginia; however, we have discovered a Virginia Woody occupation that may help explain the Woody presence in South Carolina. From the early to the late 1800s, the Virginia Woodys  are positively documented as Mail Contractors. In particular, newspaper documentation exists that places Woody mail contractors in Augusta, Georgia in 1809. Henry Talley Woody (see narration above) was born about 1779 and died in 1812 very near Richmond, Virginia; however, he was documented as living in the Augusta, Georgia area since 1798. Henry's Tally relatives from Virginia also lived in the same area at this time. We believe that Henry Talley Woody was born in Virginia and moved to Georgia at an early age and that his move was probably connected to the Woody mail contractor business. This business may have also been the reason that Henry Woody was in Spartanburg County, South Carolina and John Woody was in adjacent Laurens County. To see more about the Woody Mail Contractors, click here.
            The image shown on the right is a very small section of an 1825 Mills' Atlas map of Spartanburg County from the David Rumsey Map Collection. The area was surveyed in 1820 by J. Whitten and the section location is a few miles northwest of the town of Spartanburg. Of particular interest are the Rowland residence, Rowland's Mill, Belinger's Road and Richland Creek, all in rather close proximity. Henry, Samuel, Nicholas, Jesse, John and William Woody were associated with these names and places. Our thanks go to Susan J. Davis for sharing many primary records of Spartanburg and the surrounding area and for her research of William Woody and his descendants.
            On January 28, 1847, William Woody sold 200 acres, on the waters of Richland Creek, eleven miles from Spartanburg C. H. on the main road leading from Spartanburg C. H. to Mills Gap. Daniel White (mentioned above) and H. J. Rowland (Henry the son of George Rowland) were noted as neighbors. This property was almost surely the Woody homestead and the sale probably meant that William had inherited the property. Locating this property on a modern map is a little difficult; however, on the map above, we think that it was in the headwaters of Richland (now Mudd) Creek and fronted on the Rutherfordton Post Road (now Boiling Springs Road/SR9).
            On December 5, 1853, William Woody, Henry J. Woody, Frances Woody and John Laurence and his wife Demitney sold 222 acres in the Town of Spartanburg to E. P. Clements and H. H. Thomson. This "tract was granted to Nicholas Woody and surveyed by warrant for him by J. J. Rowland on 16 Nov 1820". This sale seems to be proof positive that William was the son of Nicholas. Henry J. & Demitney were almost surely the siblings of William. Frances was probably the widow of Nicholas; however, she she may have not been the mother of any of William's children. Unfortunately, we have not yet found a record of the warrant.
            We have also done an analysis of the Woody enumerations in the early Spartanburg censuses and this information is outlined below. The analysis completely supports the conclusion that William was the son of Nicholas Woody. The 1790 and 1800 Spartanburg censuses contain the enumerations for the family of Henry Woody/Wooddy. The 1790 census shows 3 males under 16, 3 males 16 and over and 5 females. The 1800 census correlates very well with 1790: It shows that Henry was born before 1755 and his home contained four males age 16-26 (born 1784-1774), two males age 26-45 (born 1774-1755) and four females age 10-26 (born1790-1774). This enumeration seems very unusual in that there were no children in the age 0-10 range in this large family. It is also significant to note that the given name of Henry was a favorite of the Virginia  Woodys, but was seldom used by the other Colonial Woody lines. Henry Woody was not enumerated after 1800, suggesting that he died; however, a John Woody and family were enumerated in 1810. John & his wife seemed to be age 26-45 and there was an older female suggesting the widow of Henry. Very importantly, only one listing separated John from George Roland. John were not enumerated again and because of his twenty year age uncertainty in 1810, he could have been a son or grandson of Henry. A Nicholas Woody/Wooddy/Woodie (b. 1770-1775) and family were enumerated in the 1820, 1830 and 1840 censuses. In 1830, a William Woody and family were enumerated one residence removed from Nicholas Woodie. Also, it appears that William Woody was part of the Nicholas Woody household in 1820 and 1840. These censuses reveal another unusual situation. Of the seven adult males enumerated in the Henry Woody household of 1800, only Nicholas remained in Spartanburg by 1820. As explained below, we believe that many of the other Woodys may have removed to Georgia.
            From the above deed and census data, we posit that John, Nicholas, Samuel, Jesse and William Sr. were probably sons or even grandsons of Henry Woody. William Woody Jr., one of the subjects of this section, was a son of Nicholas and a grandson of Henry. The deed, will and census data prove that this William was the son of Nicholas Woody.
            None of the abovementioned surnames are noted in the 1779 census of the old Ninety-Six District, the parent of Spartanburg County, so it would seem that these families came to Spartanburg between 1779 and 1790.
            Since Jesse was such an unusual Woody given name in the early 1800s, we think it is probable that Jesse, a younger Henry and possibly Samuel moved to Georgia before 1820, along with several other adult Woodys. The likely motivation for such a move would have been the eight "land lotteries" that were authorized in Georgia between 1805 and 1833. The 1820 Jackson County, Georgia census shows the household of Jesse Woody containing 1 male over 45 and two males 26-45. Also in Jackson was a Henry Woody age 26-45 with two young males and two young females. A Samuel Woody and the orphans of Henry Woody participated in the 1827 Georgia Land Lottery from Habersham County which was very close to Jackson County and, in 1830, a John Woody with five young children was enumerated in Habersham. Also nearby was Hall County, Georgia, where in 1830, a Samuel Wooddy born 1770-1760 was enumerated with two males born before 1800. If Jesse, Henry, John and Samuel, or any of them, were indeed the Woodys from Spartanburg, then these enumerations would account for many of the males enumerated in the early Spartanburg deeds and censuses and for the relative absence of Woodys in Spartanburg censuses after 1810/1820. Finally, a H. G. Wooddy, et al, sold land in Jackson on 30 Sep 1806. Since Henry Woody seems to have died or left Spartanburg between 1800 and 1810, this person could have been him.
            Although there is proof that William Woody was the son of Nicholas Woody, the father of Nicholas is more difficult to prove. Nicholas was very likely the son of Henry, but because we do not have a solid birth year for Henry, it is possible that there was an intervening generation. The close association between this Henry Woody and George Rowland, who allegedly lived in Henry County before moving to Spartanburg County, South Carolina in the 1790s, invites speculation. Based on the perfect yDNA match between descendants of Nicholas Woody of Spartanburg and William Banks Woody of Henry County, Virginia, it might seem possible that Henry was a son of William Banks Woody; however, if Henry was the oldest person enumerated in the 1790 & 1800 censuses, he seems to have been born at least ten years before William's oldest child, Biddy, who was born in 1765. William died in Lincoln County, Tennessee in 1817 and his lineage is documented in Woody Family Roots. Another candidate for the father of Henry is Samuel Woody of Hanover County, Virginia, whose 1782 household contained seven individuals. Samuel died intestate about 1788 and this event seems like a good match for Henrys arrival in Spartanburg. In any event, it is very hard to understand how Henry went unrecorded in Virginia. Hopefully, future research will result in other connections and an extension of the line. Many more details about the Nicholas Woody lineage are in Database.           
            Another relative is John A. Woody, first enumerated in the 1850 census of nearby Haywood County, North Carolina. The yDNA of a descendant of John has proven that he was also related to the Spartanburg Woodys. We believe that he was the son of William Woody, mentioned above. John was born in 1826 in South Carolina and was married to Minerva Bradshaw shortly before the 1850 census. John, Minerva and their family moved to Swain County, North Carolina between 1870 and 1880. This is quite intriguing since Sarah Woody Seay (b.c. 1835), the daughter of the abovementioned William Woody of Spartanburg moved from Spartanburg to Swain during the same period. Sarah was the second wife and widow of Wilson Seay, who was died in the Civil War. We think that it would be highly unlikely for a widow with children to leave her home and family and move to a different state without some expectation of family support. In addition, Harriet Seay, the daughter of Wilson Seay and his first wife, later married Western Woody, the son of John A. and Minerva Bradshaw Woody. After the death of Harriet, her half-sister, Frances Elizabeth Seay, also married Western Woody.
            So we conclude that John A. Woody was closely related to Sarah Woody Seay and was almost surely her brother. This conclusion is reinforced by the 1830 Spartanburg census which shows a young male child (0/5) in the William Woody household. A male child of this age was not enumerated in the 1850 census of the William Woody household. So these facts align well with what is known about John A. Woody.
            However, some unknown person has guessed that John A. Woody was the son of Talton/Tarlton and Elizabeth Loggins Woody and this guess has been copied & published by many "researchers". Unfortunately for the guesser and copiers, yDNA has proven this assertion to be incorrect. What is most distressing is that the foremost researcher of this line, Verl F. Weight (deceased), did years of thoughtful research on the lineage of Talton Sr. and even did considerable on-site research with Talton's descendants in North Carolina. He records the ten children of Talton & Elizabeth Loggins Woody in his book A Branch of the Family Tree (A Preliminary History) - A genealogy of the Woodie (Woody) Family of Northwestern North Carolina and the known descendants who have scattered thru out the United States self published November, 1960. John is not one of the children listed by Mr. Weight. Images of this document are online and, instead of guessing, anyone with a serious interest in this family should be able to find it. In addition, the November 22, 1819 deposition of Talton and Elizabeth Woody concerning their son Tarlton's War of 1812 pension benefits listed their living sons and the name "John" was not included. In any event, the yDNA of one of the many male descendants of John A. Woody has proven that John A. was not part of the William and Sarah line, so the issue has been completely resolved.
            Henry J. Woody, another likely son of Nicholas Woody, was enumerated in the 1850 census of nearby Henderson County, North Carolina. Henry was born about 1827 and married Mary Waldrop of Spartanburg. Henry and Mary had four children, including a Nicholas Woody, before Henry died in the Civil War.
            In addition, the James M. Woody (b.c. 1800), discussed in the following section, could also be related to the Spartanburg Woodys; however, such a relationship would have probably developed with Henry Woody's relatives in Virginia. In the 1820 census, James M. was enumerated in nearby Pendleton County, South Carolina and he seems to have died before 1838 when his widow remarried in Henrico County, Virginia.
            A very interesting assertion is that a Nancy Ann Woody married John Slatton, born 1739 in Hanover Co., VA and died before 27 Jan 1814 in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. John is alleged to be the son of William Slatton who, with his brothers Abraham and Arthur, lived near the intersection of Lickinghole Creek and the Three Notched Road in Virginia. Some of the Virginia Woody homes were on Bird and Tuckahoe Creeks which were also crossed the Three Notched Road in Goochland and Albemarle Counties. Nancy's 1748 assumed birth date makes her a potential daughter of John Woody of Bird Creek or Henry Woody of Tuckahoe Creek; however, we have not found any other evidence at all to support the assertion.
       
            yDNA from a male Woody descendant of any or all of these men would likely reveal their ancestral Woody line. Many more details about the John, John A., James M., and Henry J. Woody lineages are in Database.
 

Henry W. Woody of Richmond City, Virginia &
James M. Woody of Pendleton Co., South Carolina

            On April 10, 1838, Jane C. Wooddy and Thomas T. L. Taylor bonded to marry in Henrico County, Virginia. On June 7, 1841, Jane C. Taylor provided consent for the marriage of her son, Henry W. Wooddy, to Sarah E. Bohannon. On July 23, 1846, Jane C. Taylor, widow of James M. Wooddy, provided consent for the marriage of her daughter, Mary Jane Wooddy, to Will W. Taylor and on June 4, 1842, the marriage bond for Parthenia Woody and Thomas R. Jones names Jane C. Taylor as the brides mother. So it seems that James M. Wooddy died before 1838, when his widow remarried. In later censuses, Jane C. Taylor was enumerated as being born c. 1805 in Virginia; however, her son, Henry W. Woody, was enumerated as being born c. 1820 in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Several of Henry's sons also enumerated the birth place of their father as Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. A search of the early censuses of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina produces a James M. Woody in the 1820 Pendleton County, South Carolina census. Pendleton County was in extreme northwest South Carolina and was created in 1789 from the old Pendleton Judicial District. In 1826 the county was disbanded and Pickens and Anderson Counties were formed. Later, part of Pickens was used to form Oconee County. To the east, Greenville County bordered Pendleton and east of Greenville was Spartanburg. The 1820 census shows that James M. was born between 1794 and 1804 and the rest of the enumeration details seem to be a perfect fit with the few facts that are known about Jane C. and her children in Virginia. The 1830 Henrico County, Virginia census also contains a James M. Woody, born 1790-1800, and the enumeration details are a good fit with the 1820 census and the facts concerning James' wife and children. We have never found a record of James Woody that does not include "M", his middle initial. In a time when middle names and initials were seldom used, it seems that James M. made an obvious effort to insure that records included his middle initial.
            The interment records for Shockoe Hill Cemetery in Richmond show that Henry W. Woody, his wife Sarah and several of their children, were buried in this cemetery. The record also shows that Henry was born in Columbia, South Carolina. Even though Columbia is in central South Carolina, this birth place provides significant evidence confirming our assumption that Henry was the son of the James M. Woody found in the 1820 Pendleton County, South Carolina census. As noted above, there was significant confusion concerning Henry's birthplace. One logical explanation for this confusion is that James M. Woody moved about these states quite frequently. We now propose that James M. was part of the stage coach and mail contractor business that seems to have been started by John Woody of King William County in the early 1800s and continued through the 1880s by other Woodys. As noted above, a James M. Wooddy was recorded as a mail contractor in 1824, along with several other Virginia Wooddys. Because James M. seems to have left home at an early age, we suspect he was the son of Frederick Woody of King William. Frederick was the brother of John the mail contractor and died in 1804 as a relatively young man. Frederick had a son Robert and very probably another son, John W. Both of these men are discussed above and both also left home at an early age. Frederick did not seem to own any land when he died and this situation probably encouraged his sons to look for greener pastures. There seem to be many living male Woody descendants from the Henry W. Woody branch and this situation is a near perfect application for yDNA analysis. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.  
            Recently, the yDNA results of a descendant of Nicholas and William Woody of Spartanburg, South Carolina, have shown that these men were was connected to the Woodys of Old Virginia. William, the son of Nicholas, was born about 1800 in South Carolina and was probably the grandson of Henry Woody recorded in the 1790 and 1800 censuses of Spartanburg. We know very little about Henry except that he was born before 1755 and had six males over the age of sixteen in his 1800 household. Some of the details of William's lineage are in the section directly above. It seems quite possible that these two families are very closely related. Many more details about this branch are in the Database.

 

Woody Family Roots

        The results of the Woody yDNA Project have shown that virtually all the project participants with roots in Colonial Virginia have a Common Ancestor (CA). Our previous research was focused on Henry, Thomas and William Woody, the sons of John Woody of Goochland County, Virginia. The results of this research are found in home page and Database associated with Woody Family Roots.  The goal of Woody Family Roots and The Woody Family of Old Virginia web pages is to find the Common Ancestor of  most of the Woody descendants found in these two resources. As more and more genealogical related data is added to the internet everyday, we hope to integrate the information found in the two web pages with the yDNA results of the Woody DNA Project.  The ambitious goal of this research is to extend the lineages of each branch and create an all inclusive family tree.

Woody Gleanings

            Woody Gleanings is a discussion of the origin of the Woody surname and its variant forms, a discussion of a the document transcription process and reasons to be cautious when using transcriptions and a detailed listing of the other serious researchers of the Virginia line and the three other American Woody lines that have been identified by yDNA testing.  

Woody DNA Project

            The Woody DNA Project was initiated in May of 2007 as a yDNA project and the yDNA results for the first participant were posted at the end of June. yDNA is passed from father to son forever, so yDNA is the basis for all surname projects; however, since the Woody DNA Project was initiated, autosomal DNA (atDNA) testing and analysis techniques have been improved considerably and the price of these products has decreased sharply. Also, since atDNA is inherited about equally from both male and female ancestors, these tests can be utilized by both females and males. The results of an atDNA test includes about 700,000 discrete data points, so there is no way to display these results the way we display the results of yDNA tests; however, we will post a simple lineage chart for atDNA participants that join the Woody DNA Project. Also, we will discuss any "success stories" that are attributed to the analysis of atDNA results. We invite anyone with a close Woody connection to join the Woody DNA Project and order their atDNA (Family Finder) test using the link at the bottom of the page. As part of the project, we have included an extensive page describing DNA, yDNA, mtDNA, atDNA and xDNA, as well as, the procedures used to analyze the results derived from each type of DNA test. Since most people only have a very vague understanding of how atDNA results analysis is accomplished, we have included a very detailed description of this process. To see this page, click here.    
        However, make no mistake about this aspect: An autosomal test does not replace a yDNA test for most people. A yDNA test always provides valuable genealogical information, even if the information is not pleasing to the participant. If the yDNA test is a match for an existing surname line, no other research is necessary to prove this relationship. Conversely and for several reasons, many autosomal tests provide no useful genealogical information at all to the participant. To see a very simple recent case study that proves this assertion, click here.
        Some of the project goals are:
            To determine if the early Woody lines were related.
            To help determine the common ancestors of separate, but related, Woody lines.
            To help extend Woody lines that have reached a "dead end" utilizing conventional research.
         The project progress has been better than many DNA project start-ups and we have posted the results of over forty participants. Comparison of these yDNA submissions has already extended several dead-end lineages, proved the close relationship of many early Virginia Woodys and shown that there were at least four completely unrelated Woody lines in Colonial America. The genealogical benefits of DNA testing are explained in detail at Family Tree DNA; however, we have included an overview of yDNA testing/benefits/results/concerns here.

        Please browse the Woody DNA Project to view the current yDNA results and the Woody lineages that have been posted. For much more information about DNA testing, visit Family Tree DNA Projects, where you may also view some very successful surname DNA projects. These projects are successful because lots of people were willing to invest in their heritage. We are totally committed to this project, but we need your help in making the Woody DNA Project as successful as other DNA projects. If you are a female, please strongly encourage a male relative to join the yDNA project. To find relatives that might help in solving nearer term family history situations, both male and female Woodys, as well as, close relatives of Woodys can utilize an atDNA test. If successful DNA projects can be developed for other surnames, the Woody's can do no less.
        We understand that the expense involved may be a problem for some folks, so here is a suggestion that may work for you. Treat the testing fees like the group expenses of a family reunion. Divide the testing fees between all the relatives of one male. Make it a family project. In addition, most testing fees are substantially discounted when they are ordered at the project home page. 

      Analysis of the yDNA results and lineages of the descendants of Virginia Woodys has led to some interesting conclusions. These results have encouraged us to open a new traditional research project (See below).

Hanover County, Virginia Personal Property Tax Lists 1782-1803, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #159
Hanover County, Virginia Personal Property Tax Lists 1804-1824, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #160
Hanover County, Virginia Personal Property Tax Lists 1825-1840, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #161
Hanover County, Virginia Personal Property Tax Lists 1841-1851, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #162
Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790 - Records of the State Enumerations: 1782-1785 - Virginia, Bureau of the Census, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1908
Henrico County, Virginia Court Order Book 1763-1767, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #68
Henrico County, Virginia Personal Property Tax Lists 1782-1814, Library of Virginia County Microfilm Records, Reel #171
Hinshaw, William Wade. Encyclopedia of Quaker Genealogy - Virginia, Vol. VI, GPC, Baltimore, 1993
Hollowak, Thomas L.  and  Moore, J. Staunton.  The Annals and History of Henrico Parish, Diocese of Virginia : and St. John's P.E. Church, GPC, Inc., Baltimore, 1979
Hopkins, Walter Lee. Hopkins of Virginia and  Related Families, J. W. Fergusson & Sons, Richmond, Virginia, 1931
Hopkins, William Lindsay.  St.  James Northam Parish Vestry Book, 1744-1850, Goochland County, Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, 1987
Hudson, Frank Parker. Wilkes County, Georgia Tax Records 1785 - 1805, Vol. 2, self published, 1996
Hutchison,  Louisa Skinner, Index to Loudoun Co., Virginia Wills 1757 - 1850, Heritage Books, Westminster, MD, 1997
Internet Archive
Jackson County, Georgia Deed Index 1796 - 1895, LDS Family History Library, Film 325693
Jefferson Co., Kentucky Death Records 1852-1964, Ancestry.com
Jefferson Co., Kentucky Deed Book 121,  LDS Family History Library, Film #008308606