Introduction
In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we have reviewed the evidence that is available for Samuel-II Gentry and Nicholas-II Gentry, the second and third sons of Nicholas-I Gentry (the Immigrant). The present article will review both what is known about Nicholas' oldest son, Joseph-II, and also whether there is a possibility that Nicholas-I had any sons younger than Nicholas-II.. Where children and grandchildren of Joseph can be clearly identified, they are summarized here. Possible grandchildren and their descendants that are ambiguous or unknown as to relationship will be discussed in a later issue of this Journal.

 
A.  Joseph-II Gentry
The vestry records of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, Virginia, are the only evidence we have concerning the identification of Joseph Gentry, for nowhere else is he mentioned in the few civil or church documents that survive of early Hanover County. From these records we have earlier concluded that:

1. Nicholas Gentry, the immigrant, was living in St. Paul's Parish up through the year 1709, but his name is missing from any of the records for 1712 and later. This suggests that he died sometime in the intervening period of time.
2. Joseph Gentry, whose name starts appearing in the vestry records in 1709, and continues at intervals up until 1751, must have been a son of Nicholas, and specifically his oldest son.
3. If we exclude references to Samuel Gentry and Nicholas-II Gentry themselves, whose history we have extensively covered in the immediately preceding journal articles, no records have been found in the vestry records to any descendants of either Samuel or Nicholas-II. It follows that the other Gentrys who occur in the St. Paul's records, by a process of elimination, must be either sons and grandsons of Joseph, or they could have been younger sons of Nicholas-I.

Very briefly, the references to Joseph in the parish vestry book can be summarized as follows⁽¹⁾, the page number in the reference being given below:

(p.32)	1709	Joseph assigned to assist Nicholas in a road maintenance crew.
(p.32)	1709	Joseph, together with Nicholas Gentry, included in processioning order for precinct 13.
(p.230)	1712	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 25.
(p.242)	1716	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 27.
(p.263)	1720	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 19
(p.89)	1720	Joseph delegated vestry responsibility for support of Sarah Tyler and child; to be repaid.
(p.111)	1724	Joseph assigned road maintenance duty with John Jones who was responsible as overseer.
(p.278)	1731	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 11.
(p.134)	1732	Joseph and William Gentry assigned road maintenance duty with Peter Harroldson's gang.
(p.283)	1735	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.
(p.292)	1739	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.
(p.176)	1743	Joseph (identified as Joseph Gentry Sr) assigned to road duty with John Jones' gang.
(p.302)	1743	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1.
(p.312)	1751	Joseph included in processioning order for precinct 1. [In this year, James Gentry first appears in a different precinct (#22), but one which must have been a closely neighboring precinct based on the names of individuals in that precinct compared to family names that in previous years had lived in the same area as Joseph.]

The following references have a bearing on judging when Joseph may have died:

(p.339)	1755	Precinct 1 processioning order, containing almost identically the same members as in 1751, is missing Joseph Gentry.
(p.389)	1759	A Joseph Gentry is included along with James Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.
(p.426)	1763	A Joseph Gentry is included along with James Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.

All but the final vestry entries are unambiguous in indicating that Joseph Gentry Sr. was alive and active in St. Paul's Parish. The entries for 1759 and 1763 are probably for Joseph Gentry Jr., both because there was an absence of Joseph from the 1755 processioning orders, and also because the 1759 and 1763 entries for a Joseph Gentry are for a different precinct than that in which Joseph Sr. had last been listed. While it is possible that Joseph Sr. gave up his land due to old age and moved in with one of his sons (or sons-in-law?), it is more likely that he died in the interval between 1751 and 1755.

As to the date of Joseph's birth, we see that he was assigned parish duties in 1709 that would be appropriate only for individuals who had reached maturity. This would suggest that he was born at least by 1688, and more likely several years earlier. His father, Nicholas, is known to have been occupying and farming a plot of land in 1684 that adjoined the land which was granted in that year to his brother Samuel-I (see articles 1 and 3 of this Journal). Nicholas almost surely was married at that time (though probably newly-so), thus we can estimate that Joseph was likely born in about 1784.

Beyond the bare statistics above, and the names of his presumed sons (who will be discussed below), we know nothing of Joseph--not the name of his wife or whether he had more than one wife, nor the size of his family, nor whether he had any slaves. He probably occupied the same parcel of land that was owned by his father (totalling some 250 acres in 1702), which was a very respectable size for that time and place. He was not sufficiently important to be a vestryman, and was not given the duty of being a road overseer, but overall Joseph appears to have been a respected and responsible member of his parish.

 
B.  Sons of Joseph-II Gentry (or Nicholas-I?)
From the existing records, there are four candidates for Gentrys who may have been sons of Joseph, namely: William, James, Joseph Jr., and John. The first three come from a reading and interpretation of the St. Paul's Parish records. John is an added possibility based upon records outside of the parish, in the western part of Hanover County that later became Louisa County, as well as records in Augusta and Botetourt Counties. Of these four candidates, William, James and John have a realistic possibility of being sons of Nicholas-I rather than Joseph. In the case of John, we have to ask also whether there is some other relationship besides being a son of Joseph. We will consider these possibilities as we review what we know about each individual.

In any cases where there is a consideration of an individual being a younger son of Nicholas-I (younger than Nicholas-II, christened in 1697), we can impose an approximate limit for a date of birth. Nicholas-I's youngest known child was Mabel, christened in 1702. We believe Nicholas died shortly after 1709. Accordingly a hypothetical youngest son could only have been born sometime before that date. On the other hand, a son of Joseph could have been born as early as about 1705, up until say the late 1720's. There is an overlap in birthyears, but only minimally so.

 
B1.  William Gentry
William is mentioned only twice in any records of which we are aware, both in connection with orders for road maintenance in St. Paul's parish. In 1732, he was named to assist the road gang of which his presumed father was a part^(2a). Three years later, he was assigned to a different road gang^(2b), and then he drops off the pages of history and we hear no more about him. Did he die soon afterwards of accident or illness? Did he move to the north side of the South Anna River or west of Stonehorse Creek into St. Martin's parish (for which early records are lacking) and then die before records for that part of Hanover County were created? Or did he wind up in a situation where he was living in St. Paul's parish but was not included in any parish records? In the latter two cases, one can speculate that he may have had children who survived to appear in various records at a later time, but William himself must have died before that time at a relatively young age.

By the year 1732, William must have reached maturity, or been so close as to warrant individual consideration as a member of the parish. Otherwise, he would not have been assigned road work, or he would have been a part of a phrase such as assigning "the tithables of Joseph Gentry" which would include male members of the family over 16, slaves, and indentured servants. Counting backwards from there, William was probably born in the vicinity of 1710, which strongly favors the presumption that he was a son of Joseph-II and not a son of Nicholas.

 
B2.  James Gentry
The next of the possible sons of Joseph to appear in any surviving records is James. While we don't find him in the parish records until 1751, there is a record of James in Hanover County Court documents for the year 1735 when James witnessed a deed of sale of land in St. Martin's Parish, and an accompanying establishment of a security bond for John Tyler Jr.⁽³⁾.

This reference by itself does not say a great deal about James' age at the time since it was legal for boys as young as fourteen to witness to legal documents in Virginia but it does indicate where James may have been living if not in St. Paul's Parish. The next reference to James is not until 1751 when St. Paul's processioning reports include his name for the first time (after an eight-year gap between 1743 and 1751 when no reports were recorded).

The parish records for James, Joseph Jr., David and Joseph are as follows:

(p.321)	1751	James included in processioning order for precinct 22 (note this is a different precinct than that in which Joseph was listed for that same year).
(p.363)	1756	There is no processioning return for precinct 22 in 1755 where it would normally be recorded in the vestry book, but in its place is a copy of a case in Hanover County court in which James, as one of the overseeing processioners, appeared in court to represent the vestry in a controversy concerning a boundary line between two land owners in the precinct.
(p.389)	1759	James included along with Joseph Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20. In the return James is mentioned as among those lately making land purchases, replacing Alexander Kersey and Joseph Crenshaw from the order.
(p.426)	1763	James included along with Joseph Gentry in processioning order for precinct 20.
(p.564)	1767	"James Gentry Heirs" included along with Joseph Gentry and David Gentry in processioning order for precinct 21.
(p.363)	1756	"James Gentry's Heirs" included with Joseph Gentry and William Gentry in processioning order for precinct 14.
(p.487)	1771	"James Gentry dec'd" included in processioning order for precinct 15.
(p.524)	1775	[Note. no returns filed for any order in this year, David Gentry assigned to oversee precinct 15.]
(p.555)	1779	"James Gentry's Heirs" included with William and Joseph in processioning order for precinct 14.
(p.556)	1779	David assigned to oversee processioning and included in return in precinct 15.
(p.573)	1784	David assigned to oversee processioning in precinct 15, no returns filed for any precinct.

As we see, James was not included in any parish records until 1751. In the years before that he was not listed for processioning orders, nor for road maintenance assignments, nor for any other parish responsibilities. Where was he during this time? One can rationalize the absence of his name in processioning orders, if during the entire time, James did not own any land of his own, but simply occupied land listed in Joseph's name, and assisted Joseph in working that plantation even though James would probably have lived separately in his own household. The absence of James from any road maintenance orders, such as the one in 1735 that involved William, and one in 1743 that involved Joseph Sr., is harder to explain if James was living with Joseph. It appears that early in his adult life, James may have moved to the north side of the South Anna River, into St. Martin's Parish and indeed later tax records show that he owned land in that parish. Since we are lacking early records for St. Martin's Parish, there would be no way of accounting for James' presence there.

 
The Stonehorse-Beech Creek Peculiarity
This is an appropriate time to discuss an unusual feature of the St. Paul's processioning records, as it could conceivably explain the failure of William and/or James or their families being present for a significant length of time in the parish records. This peculiarity involves the fact that beginning in 1735 and continuing up to but not including 1771, in the farthest west of the precincts, that in which Nicholas Gentry was listed, virtually the same land owners were reported year after year for the entire period. This precinct was designated precinct #1 in 1735, and as precinct #6 for the years 1739, 1743, 1755, 1763, and 1767. (In 1751, a processioning order was recorded in the vestry book, but no "return" recorded in the space reserved for that.)

For several of these reports, the processioning "return" included statements similar to that in 1759 (p.380), "In Obedience to the within Order, we the Subscribers have processioned the Lands within mentioned, and Other Adjacent Lands not mentioned in the Order". In each case, the "adjacent lands" were not named, nor in any of these returns was there any indication of the lands, "mentioned in the Order" no longer being correctly identified. This in spite of the fact that a number of irregularities are known to have existed, in particular we know that in 1736 Nicholas-II Gentry moved from St. Paul's Parish to Fredericksville Parish which later became a part of Louisa County. We can only guess at what might have prompted these presumably incomplete reports. Among the reasons might have been the fact that the precinct in question was at the far western end of the parish, lying between Stonehorse Creek (which was the western boundary) and Beech Creek, and thus less subject to parish oversight or involvement. The most likely explanation perhaps, is that the individuals responsible for processioning reports were lackadaisical and unless there was an obvious and distinctive change in the precinct land-holdings, they were content to simply submit the same report year after year without filling in details about boundary or ownership changes.

What does that say for the inclusion of Nicholas Gentry as a precinct land-owner during those years. George Gentry was reported in that precinct when it was newly constituted in 1771, and is known to have been living in that vicinity from at least 1765 onwards. Indeed George's father may have lived there before him, from the time Nicholas left, onwards. George may have been born in the Stonehorse Creek area, or at least moved there soon afterwards since his name does not occur in any other earlier records.

[Note. We make reference here to George Gentry living in the Stonehorse Creek area for a number of years before 1771. This is based on testimony that his son, George Jr., was born in the vicinity in about 1765. George Sr. will not be discussed in this article, but rather will be discussed in some detail next month in an article by John W. Reed devoted to George and his family.]

Consequently, it appears probable that Nicholas' land was occupied by one or more Gentry families in the years before 1771, and so it was simply reported each year under Nicholas' name. In fact, it is possible that it was actually owned by Nicholas during all those years. There are reasons for suspecting that James was the father of George Gentry which we will not go into here but will defer to John Reed's article. We have a different problem in rationalizing his move back to the eastern end of the parish near Totopotomoy Creek. We do not know just when that happened or why. As can be seen above, there was a gap in processioning orders between 1743 and 1751, so James could have moved back anytime during that interval. His exact date of death is likewise uncertain, but it was obviously some time between 1763 and 1767.

Before leaving James, there are two references to him in Louisa County Court records that we should mention. The first is one dated 1767 when new members of a road maintenance gang were appointed to replace the "hands belonging to the estate of [blank] Gentry deceased"^(4a). Given the timing of the action, this unquestionably refers to land in Louisa County owned by James. The court records continue in 1768 with two successive records concerning a suit by a James Gentry [Jr.] (and others), executors of the last will and testament of James Gentry [Sr.], deceased^(4b). This was an action to recover payment for a debt allegedly owed James Sr. While this younger James nowhere appears in any St. Paul's Parish records, his name occurs in a variety of other references in Louisa County and elsewhere, and unquestionably he was a son of James Sr. Moreover since he had been appointed executor of James Sr.'s will, it is probable that he was the latter's oldest son.

 
David and William Gentry in Parish Records
The appearance of David Gentry in 1767 as a landowner indicates that (1) he was of age by that time, and thus probably born in the vicinity of say 1740 to 1745; and (2) it is probable that he was a son of either James or Joseph Jr. The former possibility is much the more likely because James, being the older of the two, was the most likely to have had adult children appearing first in the records, and because, like George Gentry, David's first son was named James, and neither had a son named Joseph. A younger William Gentry (I will call him William-IV for the moment), was included in processioning orders in 1771 and 1779. Based on the 1771 record and using the same rationale as for David, we can guess that William was probably born in approximately 1745 to 1748. The question of William's parentage is an unusually complicated one since there appear to have been at least three William's living contemporaneously for a period of time in Hanover County, although only one was included in parish records. We will not attempt to answer the question at this time but defer it to a later article in which a number of other Gentrys, for whom relationships are uncertain, will be analyzed together as a group.

 
B3.  Joseph-III Gentry
We have already listed above, along with the processioning orders for James-III, those occasions when Joseph-III was included, apparently beginning in 1759. In addition, Joseph, specifically identified as "Joseph Jr.", was reimbursed by the vestry in two successive years, 1764 (p.433) and 1765 (p.437), for the care of George Cawthon for 7 months in each of those years. In the same fashion as for his brothers, we have to depend on the slenderest of clues in estimating Joseph's date of birth and age at the time of these records. The one clue we have to this is the 1743 vestry order assigning "Joseph Gentry Sr." to road duty. The necessity of specifying the senior Joseph implies that a younger Joseph was old enough to be recognized as an individual member of the parish, not just a child in the household. This suggests that Joseph-III was probably in his early twenties at the time, thus born about 1720. This is too early for Joseph to have been a son of William-III or James-III, nor could he have been a son of Nicholas-I.. Thus by default he must have been a son of Joseph-II. While we can renew the caution given in earlier articles, that in that time and place the use of the terms Senior and Junior did not necessarily imply father and son, in this case the relationship is very probable.

 
B4.  John Gentry of Louisa, Augusta and Botetourt County
Before proceeding further with extracting information about the early Gentrys from non-parish records, it is appropriate to complete the identification of sons of Joseph-II. A fourth probable son of Joseph never appears in any St. Paul's Parish or Hanover County records. Denny Ellerman was the first to give wide circulation to the theory that a John Gentry who appears in Louisa County records in the 1740's, and a John Gentry who appears after 1758 in Augusta and Botetourt County records, were the same person, and that this John was probably a son of Joseph-II⁽⁵⁾.

In 1740, a John Gentry was named in passing as an adjoining land owner, in a patent granting land to a John Cosby⁽⁶⁾. While the exact location of this land cannot be identified today, it was in the vicinity of the Little River and Elk Creek, a tributary of the North Anna River. The grant identifies the land as being in Hanover County but that was before Louisa County was divided, and the location described was in an area that later became Louisa County. The fact that this John was an adjoining land holder indicates that he must have been born before 1719 leaving very few choices other than for John to have been a son of Joseph or a son of Nicholas-I. There is no John known to be a son of Nicholas-II, nor would the fact that this John was a land owner as early as 1740 be possible for a son of Nicholas. Samuel-II did indeed probably have a son John, but one who was much younger than this John.

Could John have been a son of Nicholas-I? The latter possibility implies that John would have been thirty-five or so years old in 1740, and one has to ask why he did not appear in any of the St. Paul's Parish records before that time if this was so. The western limits of settlement had barely reached the Louisa County area by 1740 and one can understand a young John leaving his father's plantation to strike out on his own, as did James-III and perhaps William-III, if he was a son of Joseph. If he was a son of Nicholas-I, he might indeed, at a similar age (in about 1725 to 1730), have moved to the western frontier in the same fashion as Samuel-II and Nicholas-II did some ten years earlier. And as in the case we have seen with James-III, this would have placed John outside of St. Paul's Parish and thus outside its collection of records. Before answering this question of parentage, it will be necessary to consider what other information is known about John.

Following the land grant reference, John was mentioned in three Louisa County Court orders in connection with road maintenance in his neighborhood; once in 1743 when he was appointed overseer for the road, again in 1744 when he was reimbursed for preparing direction signs, and finally in 1747 when a new overseer was appointed to replace him, apparently after he moved away^(7a-c). John was also cited in court in 1744 for payment of a debt, the same case being continued some nine months later in 1745^(7d).

Moving from the eastern watersheds across the Blue Ridge Mountains into the Shenandoah Valley and the Great Wagon Road to the West, John's name next occurs in an Augusta County Court record of 1758^((8a). In 1768 he was paid as a creditor of an estate^(8b) and in 1779, he left a very brief will in Botetourt County (since this county had been split from Augusta County in 1769, he may well have lived in the same location for the entire period from 1758 to 1779). His will mentions his wife Mary, and leaves bequests to his children without naming them⁽⁹⁾. One of the witnesses of the will was Jean Gentry, whom we can assume may have been an older daughter. Two sons, believed to be Hugh (named for his grandfather Hugh Green) and Joseph, moved to Tennessee and were among the early settlers in that state. His father-in-law, Hugh Green, left a will in 1786 with bequests to his "daughter Mary Gentry and to each of her sons"^(8c). This does not name the sons, but it certainly implies there were more than one.

Considering the later stages of John's life, there are a couple factors that argue for him being a son of Joseph rather than Nicholas-I. Based upon what little we know about the ages of his children and his wife, it is probable that John was not married to Mary Green until he moved to Augusta County. If he had been born in about 1705, he would have been 45 to 50 years old at the time, which while quite possible, is a rather late stage of life for such action. Probably of more significance is the fact that he named two of his sons Hugh and Joseph, presumably for the two grandfathers, and there is no known record of John having a son Nicholas. All things considered, it is most reasonable to conclude that If he was indeed a son of Joseph, a reasonable estimate for the birth of this John is about 1715 to 1718, which would place him as the third son of Joseph.

 
C.  Tax Records as a Source of Information
Returning to the Hanover County Gentrys, after 1779 it is necessary to turn elsewhere than to parish records for information. Two types of records survive for Hanover County (some of which also apply to parts of Louisa County), both adopted by the new State of Virginia in 1782 at the end of the Revolutionary War. One was a listings of tithables, that is, those responsible for poll tax and personal property taxes (which included slaves, horses and cattle), the other was a listing of those responsible for real estate or land taxes. The earliest records combine these two functions and we find that a James Gentry was taxed for 400 acres in the portion of St. Martin's Parish that was situated in Louisa County (the eastern end of the county, adjoining Hanover County) in 1767, 1768, and 1769⁽¹⁰⁾. We assume that this was the same James Jr. who was executor for the estate of his father, James Sr. We don't know if this was land that James Sr. had owned in Louisa County which was inherited by James Jr. or if it was land that James Jr. had acquired separately. This gives us a clue, however, as to where James Sr. was living before he moved back to St. Paul's Parish.

We can benefit most from these tax records in trying to identify the families of James Sr. and Joseph-III. For example, there are multiple references to David Gentry in Hanover County tax lists that begin in 1782. The listing of land taxes for 1782 to 1796 show that David owned 397 acres of land in St. Paul's Parish⁽¹¹⁾, while the lists of tithables for the period 1782 to 1815 show him with a substantial number of slaves, horses and cattle⁽¹²⁾. With respect to Joseph, the tithables tax lists are somewhat ambiguous in their few designations of Senior or Junior but appear to include a "Joseph Sr" (that is, Joseph-III) for the years 1782, 1783, and 1785, and then another Joseph with less property (Joseph-IV), for the years 1783, 1785, 1786 and then continuously from 1788 onwards. In the same collection of tithables, a Susanna Gentry is listed for 1786 to 1792. The contemporaneous land tax lists for 1782, 1783, 1787, and 1788, show taxes being charged to Joseph for 100 acres of land. Beginning in 1789, the tax was assessed to the "Joseph Gentry estate". It seems certain that Joseph had died by 1789, so the land tax lists for the years 1786 to 1788 probably represent a time when the tax list was simply slow to acknowledge the fact that Joseph had died.

From the information given above, Susanna appears to be Joseph's widow. We can also propose that John and Gaddis (or Geddis), in the same tax records, were children of Joseph along with Joseph Jr. John appears in the land tax records beginning in 1787, owning 40 acres of land in the same vicinity as Susanna and Joseph. His ownership of this land continued at least through 1796, and he may be the "Jack Gentry" included in the 1810 Hanover County census. In one 1787 tax list, Gaddis was recorded by the tax enumerator on the same day as Susanna, and thus was presumably living very close, if not next door to her. Gaddis is not in the land tax records, but was in the personal property records from 1782 through 1815.

 
D.  Summary of Family of Joseph-II
So far we have reviewed the available evidence for the sons of Joseph-II, and mentioned briefly some of the fourth-generation Gentrys that were grandchildren of Joseph. A more complete summary of those that can be reasonably assigned to the sons of Joseph-II are as follows:

William-III

No information as to whether or not William survived to have children, and if he did, what the names of those children might be. Some of the unidentified fourth, fifth, and sixth generation Gentrys that will be discussed in a future Journal article could conceivably be descended from William-III. This possibility would depend upon the premise that William left home shortly after 1735 and moved either to his uncle Nicholas' land near Stonehorse Creek or moved nearby to St. Martin's Parish. This possibility would also carry the presumption that William-III died at a relatively young age, before records became available that might have shown his presence.

John-III

1. John's will was witnessed by a Jean Gentry. She was probably a daughter of John and may have been his oldest child.
2. Hugh has already been suggested as being a son of John of Botetourt County. Family Bible records indicate he was born in 1764. He was an early settler of Tennessee and as early as 1784, his name was listed as signing a petition to form the state of "Franklin" from land then a part of Washington County, North Carolina. He was listed in tax and elector rolls in Franklin County, Tennessee, with his brother Joseph in 1812⁽¹⁸⁾. His family eventually moved to Jackson County, Alabama where Hugh died in 1840.
3. Joseph is believed to be a brother of Hugh and son of John. He is thought to be the Joseph who was in 1778 and 1787 tax lists for Washington County, (then North Carolina, later Tennessee)⁽¹⁹⁾, and was in Franklin County, Tennessee in 1812 along with Hugh. This Joseph is believed to have remained in Tennessee and died there.
4. A James Gentry, who was listed in the 1810 Augusta County census (born about 1765-1770), may have been a younger son of John, who chose to remain in Virginia rather than move to Tennessee with his brothers.

Joseph-III

1. Joseph-IV ("Jr") who appears in the tax lists of HanoverCounty along with Joseph-III ("Sr") is presumably a son of Joseph-III. Within Hanover County, there is no other reference to him. A frequent question is: "Was this Joseph the one who married Winifred Oliver and moved to Tennessee?" This relationship is the most likely of any that has been proposed, but firm evidence is lacking. The Joseph Gentry listings in the Hanover County tax lists end in 1795, which is not out of line with the Joseph-Winifred family being in Tennessee in the 1790's. Like Joseph the son of John, this Joseph remained in Tennessee and died there in Johnson County in 1835.
2. Gaddis (or Geddis) has been mentioned as being listed by the tax enumerator in 1787 on the same day as Susanna, Joseph's presumed widow. He is included in a succession of lists of tithables from 1782 to 1815, but not in land tax records. Gaddis is listed in GFA as #244 (p.279) and is included in Hanover census records up through 1830. In the 1840 census, his name is missing but his widow, Martha, appears instead so Gaddis presumably died shortly before 1840. In 1843, Martha applied for Revolutionary War pension benefits and was awarded a widow's pension⁽²⁰⁾.
3. Like James-III, Joseph-III probably had a son William, the identity of whom has not been clearly established. His status will be discussed in an upcoming article.

E. Summary of Family of James Sr.
[Editor's Note. Since this article was first published, the author has come to the conclusion that his first assumption that James Sr. was a son of Joseph-II was wrong, and that it was much more likely he was a brother of Joseph and a son of Nicholas-I. Accordingly, this manuscript has been revised to show the family of James separately, and not as a part of the family of Joseph-II.]

James-III

1. A James Jr. has been noted as being the executor of his father's estate in court proceedings in Louisa County in 1768. James is listed in 1778, 1780 and 1781 among the tithables of St. Martin's Parish (northwest Hanover County and eastern Louisa County)⁽¹³⁾. James is also listed for land taxes for 186 acres in St. Martin's Parish beginning in 1783 until the land was finally sold in 1791 (presumably by his estate, although there is no notation to that effect in the tax records)⁽¹²⁾. A marriage bond for what must have been the second marriage of James, to Sarah Dickerson, is dated 15 Jan 1778 in Louisa County with Thomas Poindexter as surety⁽¹⁴⁾. James moved to Guilford County, North Carolina in about 1783. A will was proved for him in 1786, in which he left his estate to his widow Sarah, to his son Watson Gentry (which included land in Hanover County on which Watson was then living), and to two daughters, Nancy Sharp and Mimey Gardner⁽¹⁵⁾. It is interesting to note that Watson's land adjoined that of William Morris, presumably the same Morris as that who was in charge of processioning the Stonehorse-Beech Creek precinct for many years and lived there at least through 1779. This suggests that while Watson's land, (and by extension that of James-IV) was not listed in St. Paul's Parish, it was so close that it bordered land owned by Morris that was at least partly in the parish.
2. George, of St. Paul's Parish records, has been suggested as a possible son of James Sr.. As indicated earlier, a review of the information about his family will be published in the Gentry Journal next month, so will not be described further here. If he was indeed a son of James Sr., it is likely that he was younger than James Jr. but older than David.
3. Aaron was a probable brother of George Gentry. He served as a witness in 1759 for the sale of land in Goochland County by Ralph Crutchfield of St. Paul's Parish, to William Strong of St. Martin's Parish⁽¹⁶⁾, all implying that Aaron was living at the west end of St. Paul's Parish. George Gentry had a son Aaron, who was born long after the time of this Aaron, however, the correspondence of names is very suggestive of a family relationship.
4. Diana, who was married by the Rev. William Douglas to George Cothon (Cawthon) in 1761⁽¹⁷⁾ was probably another sibling of George. This is based on the prevalence of Cawthon family members in the precinct where George lived, and the fact that George was assigned by the St. Paul's vestry to care for an Edy Cawthon. In addition, members of the Cawthon family are known to have purchased land not far from Stonehorse Creek in Goochland County.
5. John was a probable son of James. We have already commented upon his presence in the lists of tithables in Hanover County beginning in 1782, and among those owing land taxes beginning in 1783. The tithables list for 1786 includes a Patrick Gentry ("a minor") as a part of the household, then Patrick is listed separately (as an adult) for 1788 to 1790⁽¹²⁾. John will be discussed further in a future Journal article along with a contemporaneous John Gentry of Louisa County.
6. David, who appeared with James Sr. in the late St. Paul's Parish records, is presumed to have been a son of James. David continued to live in Hanover County and appears to have been very prosperous. We have commented earlier on his ownership of land in the county. As well as the land, he owned as many as nineteen slaves at one time, along with half a dozen horses which were taxed with the slaves. An 1817 tax record shows a distribution from David's estate to James Gentry Jr., Henry D. Gentry, Bassett Gentry, Elizabeth, Nancy and Susanna Gentry and Matthew Gentry.
7. It is probable that James had a son William but whether he was the one in the parish processioning records is not certain. The question of this William and one who may have been a son of Joseph-III will be discussed in a later article.

 
Conclusion
We have seen that Joseph-II, the oldest son of Nicholas the Immigrant almost surely had four sons, William, James, John, and Joseph. We have also been able to identify a number of fourth-generation Gentrys whom we can relate to Joseph with a high degree of probability. There were other fourth and fifth-generation Gentrys that have not been clearly identified as to relationship but were living in the Hanover and Louisa County area during the latter half of the eighteenth century. These, by a process of elimination, must also be considered to be descendants of Joseph. One of this group, George Gentry, will be the subject of an article by John Reed in the next issue of this Journal. The rest of the group will discussed in detail in a following issue of the Journal.

 
References
1     "The Vestry Book of St. Paul's Parish, Hanover County, Virginia, 1706-1786", transcribed & edited by C.G. Chamberlayne, publ by The Library Board [of Virginia], Richmond, 1940, reprinted 1973. (Page references are given in text)

2.     Ibid,

(a)	1732 Apr 11	p.134 [114]
	"Order'd that the Tithables of Henry Tyler, Nich'o Madelin, Joseph Gentry, Sarah Archer, and W'm Gentry (if he be willing), be added to Peter Harralson's gang, to assist him in Clearing his road."
(b)	1735 Oct 18	p.144 [121]
	"Orderd, that there be added to Edw'd Sims gang, W'm Gentry, Alex'r Kersey and Nich'o Needin."
3.     "Hanover County, Virginia, Court Records 1733-1735. Deeds, Wills, and Inventories", Rosalie Edith Davis, Manchester, MO, 1979.
	1735 Jul 1 p.6 James Gentry witnessed deed and bond.
4.     "Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1767-1768", and "Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1766-1772" Ruth and Sam Sparacio, The Antietam Press, McLean, VA, 1999
(a)	1767 Apr 13	p.29 in 1767-1768 order book
	"... hands belonging to the estate of [blank -James?] Gentry deceased" assigned road duty.
(b)	1768 Apr 12	p.130 in 1767-1768 order book
	James Gentry, etc. Executors ... of James Gentry, decd. ... Plaintiff - In Debt.
	1768 Aug 9	p.217 in 1766-1772 order book
	[James Gentry case continued.]
5.     Denny Ellerman, "A Preliminary Hypothesis about John Gentry of Botetourt County, Virginia", "Gentry Family Gazette and Genealogy Exchange", vol 7, p.126-133 (Oct 1989).   6.     "Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants", "Vol IV (1732-1741)", edit. by Hudgins, Denis, publ by Virginia Genealogical Society, Richmond, 1994.
	1740 Jun 10	p.222 (Patent Book 18, p.693):
	John Cosby [granted] 3000 ac, Hanover Co. on both sides of Tanfat/Tanfatt fork of the Little Riv.; crossing brs. of the South fork of Elk Cr.; adj. ... John Gentry.
7.     "Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1742-1744", edited and compiled by Ruth and Sam Sparacio, The Antietam Press, McLean, VA, 1999
( a)	1743 Apr 11	p.17 [27]
	John Gentry apptd Overseer of the Road
(b)	1744 Nov 13	p.100 [124]
	[Payment] ..To John Gentry for setting up a post of directions.
"Louisa County, Virginia Orders 1744-1747"
(c)	1747 Jun 23	p.100 [232]
	Ordered that the Road wherof John Gentry was formerly Surveyor be divided ...
(d)	1744 Oct 22	p.145 [169]
	Nathaniel Chancey agst. John Gentry - In Case.
	1745 Jul 23	p.38 [162]
	Nathaniel Chancey agst John Gentry ... The Defendant ... is to be returned at next court.
8.     "Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia", extracted from the Original Court Records of Augusta County, 1745-1800, by Lyman Chalkley, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1965
(a)	1766	Vol I, p.492
	An Augusta County Court judgment "Christian vs. King," references some type of transaction by a John Gentry in 1758.
(b)	1768	Vol II, p.104 Will Book (4-124)
	John Gentry paid in settlement of John Cockran estate in 1768.
(c)	1786 Jun 14	Vol II, p.182, Will Book (7-108)   Hugh Green will.
9.     "Annals of Southwest Virginia, 1769-1800", by Lewis Preston Summers, Abingdon, Virginia, 1929.
	1779 May 13	p.285 Court held for Botetourt County
	[Comack [Cormick] McCafferty and Jonathan McNeel] presented the last will and testament of John Gentry dec'd ... Wit: Jean Gentry ...

10    "Louisa County Virginia Tithables and Census 1743 - 1785", edited and compiled by Rosalie Edith Davis, Manchester, Mo., 1988.

	From St. Martin's Parish			tithes/acres
	p.6	1767	James Gentry	5-400
	p.15	1768	James Gentry   Jno Watson	5-400
	p.20	1769	Gentry, James	6-400	s. Side of South Anna River

11.    "Hanover County, Virginia, Land Tax Books", compiled and edited by Ruth and Sparacio, The Antietam Press, McLean, VA, 1997, Book I (1782--1788), Book 2 (1789-1793), Book 3 (1793-1796) [Entries re-arranged and consolidated]

	Joseph Gentry   St. Paul's Parish
	1782-1783	100 ac.
	1787-1788	100
	Joseph Gentry est   St. Paul's Parish
	1789-1790	100
	1792-1796	100
	David Gentry   St. Paul's Parish
	1782-1783	397
	1787-1790	397
	1792-1796	397
	James Gentry   St. Martin's district
	1783	186
	1788-1790	186
	1791       sold land	-186
	John Gentry   St. Paul's Parish
	1787-1790	40
	1792-1796	40
	George Gentry
	1788       sold land	-66 1/2
	William Gentry   St. Paul's Parish
	1794       bought land	6
	1795	6
	1795       bought addl	39
	1796	6
	1796	39

12.   "Hanover County Taxpayers, St. Paul's Parish, 1782-1815", compiled by William Ronald Cocke III, Columbia, VA, 1956 Unless another individual indicated, also taxed for 1 adult (himself).

			slaves	horses	cattle
David Gentry	1782		19	3	25
	1783	Petitioner	18	3	25
	1784		17	3	26
	1786-87		17	53	28
	1788-1803		11	5	-
	1805-12		14	5	-
Geddes Gentry	1782		0	4	5
	1784		0	5	6
	1786-87		0	1	3
	1788-1802		0	1	-
	1803	+ 1 adult	0	2	-
	1805-12	+ 1 adult	0	2	-
	1815		0	4	9
John Gentry	1783		1	2	3
	1784-85		0	1	-
	1786	+  Patrick Gentry, a minor	0	2	3
	1787-89		0	1	-
	1790	+ 1 adult	0	2	-
	1791-1803		0	2	-
	1805-09		0	1	-
	1812	+ 1 adult	0	3	-
	1815		0	2	3
Joseph Gentry Sr.	1782		1	0	3
(Sr. or Jr.?)	1783		0	4	7
"	1785		0	2	4
Joseph Gentry Jr.	1783		0	0	3
(Sr. or Jr.?)	1784		0	0	0
	1785		0	1	3
	1786		0	1	3
	1788-89		0	1	-
	1790		0	1	-
	1791-93		0	1	-
	1794-95		0	0	-
Patrick Gentry	1788-90		0	1	-
Susanna Gentry	1786-87		0	1	8
	1788-92		0	1	-

13.   Davis, Op. cit.

	p.127	1778	James Gentry	1 tithe
	p.120	1780	James Gentry	5
	p.136	1781	James Gentry	5
14.   "Marriages of Louisa County 1766-1815", compiled by Kathleen Booth Williams, 1977, C. J. Carrier Co.
	1778 Jan 15		James Gentry   to    Sarah Dickerson      Sur: William Poindexter
15.   "Rockingham County North Carolina Will Abstracts 1785-1865", abstracted by Irene B. Webster, Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC, 1984. [Includes box of old wills discovered in 1957 in Rockingham Co. courthouse, that had never been recorded. Photostatic copies bound into a book entitled, "Old Wills Discovered in Office Dated Prior to 1804".]
	1783 Sep 28
	Will of James Gentry: to wife Sarah; son Watson Gentry, land in Hanover Co., VA adj William Morris; daughters Nancy and Minny [Mimey].
16.   File c6320001.txt, http://rootsweb.com/~usgenweb, transcribed by Karen L. Salisbury from Goochland County, Virginia records
	1759 Sep 6
	INDENTURE between Ralph Crutchfield and Alce, his wife of the Parish of St. Pauls in the County of Hanover of the one part and William Strong and Frances his wife of St. Martins Parish and County of Hanover aforesaid of the other part, ... for ...the sum of eighty five pounds ... doth hereby ... sell ... land ... in the County of Goochland containing by estimation one hundred and fifteen acres ... lying on the Branches of Allens Creek in the aforesaid County of Goochland ... [Wit: William Hawes, Adam Hunter, Aaron Gentry; Signed: Ralph Crutchfield]
17.   "The Douglas Register", transcribed and edited by W. Mac. Jones, Genealogical Publishing Co., 1977 (reprinted), p.65
	A. Marriages by William Douglas
	1761 Mar 22		Gentry, Diana    to    George Cothan       both in this parish
18.   "Index to Early Tennessee Tax Lists", transcribed by Byron and Barbara Sistler, Evanston, IL, 1977
	Franklin Co.		Gentry Hugh        1812
			Gentry Joseph     1812

19.   "Early East Tennessee Taxpayers", compiled by Pollyanna Creekmore, Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC, 1980

	p.190	Washington Co., 1778	Joseph Gentry    1 white poll,    tax £1  0/6
	p.205	Washington Co., 1787	Joseph Gentry    1 white poll     0 black polls    100 ac
20.   Revolutionary War Pension Applications, National Archives microfilm
	File W7512: Gaddis GENTRY, widow Patsey, of Hanover Co. VA Credited with 6 months service as a private in VA militia.
	Martha (or Patsey) Gentry, appeared in Hanover County court, VA, on 17 May 1843 to apply for widow's pension rights. Presented copy of marriage bond certified by clerk of Hanover County clerk, dated 7 July 1843. Original bond dated 24 Mar 1786 ... Martha/Patsy stated she had been a resident of Hanover Co. for 77 years. She had married Gaddis Gentry, 29 Mar 1786. George Gentry Sr. appeared in Albemarle County court, VA, 12 Jul 1843 to testify that he personally knew Gaddis Gentry and knew of the circumstances of 2 months of Gaddis' service that did not duplicate other service for which other witnesses had testified.

Revised June 2008 to show changed interpretation of James Gentry's relationship.

© 2001, W.M. Gentry - All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes provided that proper attribution (including author and journal name) is included.