no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Nathaniel Bailey (1717 - abt. 1792)

Nathaniel Bailey aka Bealey
Born in County Monaghan, Irelandmap
Son of [father unknown] and [mother unknown]
[sibling(s) unknown]
Husband of — married 1737 (to about 1792) in Ballybay, Irelandmap
Descendants descendants
Died about at about age 74 in Abbeville, South Carolina, United Statesmap
Profile last modified | Created 7 Apr 2012
This page has been accessed 4,574 times.

Contents

Biography

NATHANIEL BAILEY(JOHN1) was born Abt. 1717 in (possibly) Ballybay, County Monaghan, Ireland, and died Abt. 1780 in Abbeville District, SC. He married JEAN (JANE) UNKNOWN 1743 in Northern Ireland.

Nathaniel and Jean Bailey were married by 1743, had 8 children that we know of: Janet (1745), Joseph (1748), Elizabeth (1749), Isabel (1750), Ann[e] (1751), William (1753), James (1760) and Nathaniel [Jr] (1762). The ages of the children were given in the Council Minutes in Charles Town, SC, at the time the family appeared in court to claim bounty lands as Presbyterian refugees from Ireland according to that Colony's Bounty Act. The Baileys sailed from the port of Belfast, Ireland, on Sept 8, 1767, on the Brig Lord Dunagannon, and arrived at Charleston, SC, Feb 13, 1768. Nathaniel Bailey (age 50) was accompanied by his wife Jean (listed as Jane) (age 45) and eight children. The children were Janet (23), Joseph (20), Elizabeth (18), Isabell (17), Anne (16), William (15), James (8), and Nathaniel (6). This ship was between 180 and 200 tons and on this ship were 139 Irish protestants. Council Journal, SC, [1]

Children of NATHANIEL BAILEY and JEAN UNKNOWN are:

  1. JANET (JANNET/JENNET/JANE)3 BAILEY, b. 1745, Ireland; d. Unknown, Unknown.
  2. JOSEPH BAILEY, b. 1748, Ireland; d. Unknown, Unknown; m. CAROLINE WEST.
  3. ELIZABETH BAILEY, b. 1749, Ireland; d. Unknown, Abbeville District, SC.Buried Upper Long Cane Church; m. JOHN PETER KNOX.
  4. ISABEL BAILEY, b. 1750, Ireland; d. Unknown; m. WILLIAM C. MULLINS.
  5. ANNE BAILEY, b. 1751, Ireland; d. Aft. 1804, Pike Co, MS.
  6. WILLIAM BAILEY, b. 4 Aug 1753, Ireland; d. Unknown.
  7. JAMES BAILEY, b. 1760, Ireland; d. Unknown.
  8. NATHANIEL BAILEY, b. 1762, Ireland; d. Unknown, SC.[2]

Nathaniel Bailey received a warrant of survey on July 29, 1768, for 250 acres in Granville County on Holidays Creek, a branch of Long Cane. Various family members received additional grants of 100 acres each, including Jannet Bailey, William Bailey, Joseph Bailey, Elizabeth Bailey, Isabell Bailey, and Ann Bailey. The youngest two boys, James and Nathaniel, were apparently not yet old enough to own land and it appears that as head of household, Nathaniel Bailey (Sr.) may have received 50 acres each for each of the two boys as well as 50 acres for his wife, in addition to the hundred he received for himself.

Family members identified in the Lord Dunnaganon passenger records and in the Council Journal were:

  1. Nathaniel Bailey age 50
  2. Jane Bailey age 45
  3. Jannet Bailey age 23
  4. Joseph Bailey age 20
  5. Elizabeth Bailey age 18
  6. Isabell Bailey age 17
  7. Ann Bailey age 16
  8. William Bailey age 15
  9. James Bailey age 8
  10. Nathaniel Bailey age 6[3]

Event

Marriage - U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900 about Nathaniel Bailey Name: Nathaniel Bailey Gender: Male Birth Place: Ir Birth Year: 1718 Spouse Name: Jean ??? Spouse Birth Place: Ir/Ballybay, 5315, Ireland

Arrival BET 1767 AND 1768 Age: 50/Charles Town, South Carolina[4]

Death: 1792 Abbeville, South Carolina, United States

Immigrant Ancestor

Nathaniel and Jane Bailey and their children sailed on the Brig, the Lord Dunagannon from Belfast Ireland on September 8, 1767. They arrived in Charleston, South Carolina on February 13, 1768.

Family members identified in passenger records were: [5]

  • Nathaniel Bailey age 50
  • Jane Bailey age 45
  • Jannet Bailey age 23
  • Joseph Bailey age 20
  • Elizabeth Bailey age 18
  • Isabell Bailey age 17
  • Ann Bailey age 16
  • William Bailey age 15
  • James Bailey age 8
  • Nathaniel Bailey age 6

South Carolina Immigration Land Bounty

  • Nathaniel Bailey 250 Acres
  • Jane Bailey 50 to Husband
  • Jannet Bailey 100 Acres
  • Joseph Bailey 100 Acres
  • Elizabeth Bailey 100 Acres
  • Isabell Bailey 100 Acres
  • Ann Bailey 100 Acres
  • William Bailey 100 Acres
  • James Bailey 50 to father
  • Nathaniel Bailey 50 to father

Family History

The Bailey family were among the protestant refugees from Europe who came to South Carolina on the encouragement of an Act passed by the General Assembly of the Colony of South Carolina on July 25, 1761, called the Bounty Act. This act was a broadening of earlier immigration laws, for the special benefit of these religious refugees. Applicants had to have certificates showing that they were protestants and entitled to receive the benefits allowed by the new Bounty Act. These benefits included a warrant of survey for land in South Carolina, in addition to bounty payments of four pounds and two pounds sterling, according to their respective age, to the owners of the ship for the cost of their ocean passage. The cost of passage was normally a year's wages or become an indentured servant for a period of 3-7 years.Nathaniel and Jane Bailey and their children sailed on the Brig, the Lord Dunagannon from Belfast Ireland on September 8, 1767. They arrived in Charleston, South Carolina on February 13, 1768.

This ship was between 180 and 200 tons and on this ship were 139 Irish protestants. Council Journal, SC, from the book "Protestant Immigrants to SC, 1763-1773 by Jane Revill."Council Journal 34, pages 53-61.Meeting of 13th. February 1768."Ordered that the Secretary do prepare Warrants of Survey accordingly.The following persons presented petitions to his Excellency the Governor setting forth that they were protestants and arrived in this provence in the Brig Lord Dunagannon, Robert Montgomery Master, on the encouragement and Bounty given by the Act of the General Assembly of this Provence passed the 25th July 1761 and therefore prayed to be allowed the same. That the prayers of their petitions were granted and the public Treasurer was ordered to pay the Bountys of four pounds and two pounds sterling according to their respective ages in consideration of their passages to this Province to Messrs Torrans and Ponag in behalf of the owners of the said Brig and the remaining twenty shillings sterling to themselves agreeable to the directions of the said Act."

The South Carolina Council passed an act in 1763 that allowed Scots-Irish Presbyterians (wanted specifically because of their stubbornness and reknowned fighting ability -- apparently conveniently forgetting their tendency toward argumentativeness) who could pay the cost of their passage (4 pounds per adult, and 2 pounds per child) to claim South Carolina country land grants in 100 and 50 acres increments for all family members above age 12.This brought what the Council believed would be a very formidable population of fighting men to live in the back country to defend the low country by defending their own farms and families. Nathaniel Bailey and his family received their lands under this act.Nathaniel Bailey received a warrant of survey on July 29, 1768, for 250 acres in Granville County on Holidays Creek, a branch of Long Cane. Various family members received additional grants of 100 acres each, including Jannet Bailey, William Bailey, Joseph Bailey, Elizabeth Bailey, Isabell Bailey, and Ann Bailey. The youngest two boys, James and Nathaniel, were apparently not yet old enough to own land and it appears that as head of household, Nathaniel Bailey (Sr.) may have received 50 acres each for each of the two boys as well as 50 acres for his wife, in addition to the hundred he received for himself.Family members identified in passenger records were:Nathaniel Bailey age 50Jane Bailey age 45Jannet Bailey age 23Joseph Bailey age 20Elizabeth Bailey age 18Isabell Bailey age 17Ann Bailey age 16William Bailey age 15James Bailey age 8Nathaniel Bailey age 6

The ages of the children were given in the Council Minutes in Charles Town, SC, at the time the family appeared in court to claim bounty lands as Presbyterian refugees from Ireland according to that Colony's Bounty Act.The area that Nathaniel and family settled was known as Ninety Six District and embraced what is known as "the up country" on the Piedmont section.The land was supposedly located on a branch of the Upper Long Cane Creek near the town of Abbeville in the 96 District. Although the name "Holidays Creek" has not survived on any map and so far I have found no record of the land survey for their land, Jean Bailey's Will, dated 1780 and proved 1792, indicates that her plantation was located adjacent to John Bowie's.A map of Abbeville county, dated 1820, shows a Meeting House named "Bowie M.H." to the north of Rocky River, about a mile from the Pendleton County Border and a few miles east of the Savannah River. Although there is no plantation listed in this area under the name of Bowie, it is possible that this was the area of the Bowie plantation and that the Bailey plantation may have been in this area as well. Current maps of the area have a creek that flows into the Long Cane called "Bailey's Creek" that appears to have it's head waters near the town of Due West, SC, which is currently in Anderson County, and which has been part of Abbeville District/County and Pendleton County prior to the area being finally situated in Anderson County. My understanding is that there are still Bailey descendants living on what is most likely the original land This area was to become in a short while a virtual battle ground as the Revolutionary War began.

Sources

  1. "A Compilation of the Original Lists of Protestant Immigrants to South Carolina 1763 - 1773, by Janie Revill publ 1939 p 105-6 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008986799;view=1up;seq=109
  2. http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/r/e/e/Cheryle-L-Reeves/GENE2-0001.html
  3. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BAILEY/2009-02/1234101147
  4. Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s Gale Research. Ancestry.com Place: Charles Town, South Carolina; Year: 1767-1768; Page Number: 105
  5. "A Compilation of the Original Lists of Protestant Immigrants to South Carolina 1763 - 1773, by Janie Revill publ 1939 p 105-6 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008986799;view=1up;seq=109
  • FSFTID LZJ6-PK4




Is Nathaniel your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon contact private message private message private message a profile manager, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Nathaniel by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA. However, there are no known yDNA or mtDNA test-takers in his direct paternal or maternal line. It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Nathaniel:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 6

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
Bailey-25630 and Bailey-2727 do not represent the same person because: the other person's profile has only 1 source and a ton of unknowns meaning they don't really know, I adopted this profile from it being abandoned and this person had sources even and way more immediate facts than the latter, I don't trust the other profile.
posted by Lady (McDonald) Sherry
Bailey-25630 and Bailey-2727 appear to represent the same person because: Bailey-25630 appears to represent the same person as Bailey-2727 because: These profiles look like the same person, though -25630 is not as thoroughly sourced. Both born in Ireland, exactly one year apart which looks like a (common) clerical error. Both married a woman named Janet/Jannette/Jean .Both ended up in the same South Carolina town Looks like they should be merged and research efforts combined.

There are two other profiles also clearly of the same man. The approved way to eliminate the duplication, while preserving the trail of research, is to merge all of them into the earliest--and most complete--profile, Bailey-2727. I have proposed those other merges separately.

posted by Halsey Bullen
Bailey-24940 and Bailey-2727 appear to represent the same person because: Bailey-24940 appears to represent the same person as Bailey-2727 because: These profiles look like the same person, though -24940 is thinly sourced. Both born in Ireland, exactly one year apart which looks like a (common) clerical error. Both ended up in the same South Carolina town (see profile of -24940's son William Pinkney Bailey-24939.) Looks like they should be merged and research efforts combined.

There are two other profiles also clearly of the same man. The approved way to eliminate the duplication, while preserving the trail of research, is to merge all of them into the earliest--and most complete--profile, Bailey-2727. I have proposed those other merges separately.

posted by Halsey Bullen
Bailey-25630 and Bailey-24940 do not represent the same person because: These profiles ARE duplicates, not only of each other but of two other profiles also clearly of the same man. However, the correct way to eliminate the duplication, while preserving the trail of research, is to merge all of them into the earliest--and most complete--profile, Bailey-2727. I have proposed those merges separately.
posted on Bailey-24940 (merged) by Halsey Bullen
Bailey-15138 and Bailey-2727 appear to represent the same person because: These two profiles are about a man born in Ireland in the same year (1717 or 1718) who married a woman named Janette/Jean/Janet, removed to South Carolina and died in the same town there. They are clearly about the same man and should be merged, retaining the much more complete info and sourceing in -2727.

Two other profiles, also clearly of this same man, also exist: Bailey-25630 and Bailey-24940. They should all be merged into Bailey-2727, since duplicates damage our one WikiTree.

posted by Halsey Bullen
Bailey-25630 and Bailey-24940 appear to represent the same person because: These profiles look like the same person, though thinly sourced. Both born in Ireland, exactly one year apart which looks like a Ccommon) clerical error. Both ended up in the same South Carolina town (see profile of -24940's son William Pinkney Bailey-24939.) Looks like they should be merged and research efforts combined.
posted on Bailey-24940 (merged) by Halsey Bullen

B  >  Bailey  >  Nathaniel Bailey