Wanted to let everyone know there are now approx. 130 people on the
CATO-L list. With this many people together, maybe we can make some
real progress on some of these problem lines!
DR HENRY B BRACKIN JR wrote:
Apparently she was married to Ozeas
Beamon before she was married to George Cato.
I Have to concur that George in Sampson/Wayne was the George in Bertie,
probable son of Stephen. I also looked over the NC records again & saw
where an Ozeas BEAMON was there (in Bertie) with Stephen & William on
the same tax roll. Maybe there were 2 Ozeas's & Martha was m. to one &
then widowed. They could have had the children, Ozeas Jr. & James
(who's also in either Sampson or Wayne later). That would explain why
there was an Ozeas involved in the sale of George CATO/CATER's
property. He could have been George's stepson & an heir of Martha.
Since George wrote his will as he did "I give and bequeath to
the
legitimate children of John Cater, deceased, which was called my son",
I must assume that John may have been born out of wedlock and the
mother of John claimed John was George's son but George was not sure.
Regardless it seems to me that John was probably much older than John
the grandson of Mary Poole since I suspect that John was the John
that received a Rev. War land grant by the State of North Carolina
(land that apparently was in Sumner Co., Tn.) that was sold in 1785
by Lewis Cato, heir of John Cato. This does make one think about the
family tradition of the Wilson Co., Cato's who have mentioned a Rev.
War grant in their family.
We can't count on the grant from John CATER/Lewis CATER. It was one of
the ones that got marked as improbable for being legit in the big land
fraud deals in TN. This means the names could have just been "picked
out of a hat" & put on the grant.
The John who was the son of Mary POOLE would have probably been born ca.
1740s or so. (This same John who was m. to Judah had a sons (John &
George) who were born around 1770.) We know the older John d. within 9
years after John & George's birth because of the guardianship records.
John Jr. would have then been the correct age to be the father of the
John, George & Brittania (all born around 1800) who move to TN & claimed
in family stories that there was a military grant there.
Generation I: John, b ca 1730s - 1740s d ca 1778 - parents = Mary
POOLE-CATO (& George???) & had son John.
Generation II: John, b ca 1770 (John/George w/guard. records in Norfolk)
Generation III: John/Geo./Britainia, b ca 1800 (family story says move
they to TN w/ grandfather - John II shown here.)
The reasons I think John (I) above was George's son (of Wayne & Sampson
Co.) is the following:
Mary POOLE CATO had only 1 son & his name was John.
George had only 1 son & his name was John.
All other John's seem to be asscociated with other siblings.
John was the correct age to be both Mary & George's son.
John (I & II) named one son John & the other one George (highly unusual
-HA HA!).
George's 1st wife(?) had apparently died because Martha BEAMON is almost
certainly his 2nd wife & Mary POOLE CATO d ca 1752.
John (I? above) was dead previous to George as shown in George's will.
The John (II) & George who were Mary POOLE's grandsons had father John
who was dead previous to George's will.
Your thoughts?
Bonnie