Reading between the lines of Henry's will

Henry's will provides some basic facts, such as the names of his children -- at least the ones who survived long enough to inherit from him.

But what can we learn by reading between the lines of the will, and in light of the other facts available to us?

First, why does Henry leave his daughter Mary a note for $50 "upon" his grandson John Young? John is, by all accounts, the son of Henry's daughter Margaret, from her first marriage to Joseph Young. I assume that Henry is referring to a promissory note that John Young gave him on April 16, 1811 payable January 1, 1814, in the amount of $50. By giving the note to Mary, Henry is telling John to pay her the $50 when the note matures.

Second, Henry does not mention a wife in his will, but nearly all researchers believe that the Elizabeth Hastings who died on July 1, 1800 at the age of sixty is Henry's first wife. We are less certain that the "E.H. age 73" buried near Henry is his second wife, but I don't believe any other explanation makes sense.

The 1810 census shows Henry living with two women, one age 10-15 and the other 26-44. Neither one is old enough to be "E.H." So we know that:

1. Henry married E.H. after Elizabeth died in 1800;
2. E.H. died before the 1810 census; therefore
3. E.H. was born between 1728 and 1737 (because she was 73 at her death).

Third, the will demonstrates that Henry's son-in-law, Thomas Crabtree, is not the Archibald Crabtree who married Polly Hastings on May 22, 1813. I'm sure that Polly Hastings is Henry's daughter Mary; Polly is a common nickname for Mary.

Some researchers show that Archibald and Thomas Crabtree are the same person. I don't buy the argument. for several reasons:

• "Thomas" and "Archibald" are not the same name, or variants of each other;
• in his will, Henry refers to his daughter as Mary Hastings, not Mary Crabtree;
• Henry's will was written more than a year before Polly married Archibald, so in 1812, Archibald was not Henry's son-in-law, but Thomas was; and
• if Henry gave Mary Hastings a $50 note in his will, why would he leave a dollar to her "husband," Thomas Crabtree?

I believe the explanation is that in the early nineteenth century, "son-in-law" usually meant "stepson." I believe Thomas Crabtree is the son of Henry's second wife, E.H., from her first marriage to a man named Crabtree.

I have no idea who Thomas Crabtree might be. The 1800 and 1840 North Carolina censuses show two Thomas Crabtrees in Orange County; the censuses from 1810 through 1830 show one. I assume that the Thomas Crabtree mentioned in Henry's will was a relatively young man in 1812, but old enough to be the "caboose" of his mother's first marriage.

Nor do I know who Thomas Crabtree's father is.

But here is a really outlandish speculation: could Henry's second wife be Elizabeth Barton, the widow of Thomas Crabtree, Jr., who died in Orange County in 1774? This Elizabeth Barton is mentioned in Thomas Crabtree's will, but I find no trace of her after 1774. She had a son named Thomas (who married Elizabeth Campbell in 1792), and she was born on January 3, 1741 -- almost, but not quite, old enough to pass away between 1800 and 1810 at the age of 73.

Most researchers accept that Henry's son James married Hannah Crabtree in 1784. Hannah's parents are unknown, but only a handful of Crabtrees had moved from Maryland to Orange County by 1784 -- including Thomas and Elizabeth Barton Crabtree. Could Henry have married his son's mother-in-law?

I have no way to prove that Henry's second wife was Elizabeth Barton, but it's an interesting thought, and it would explain the identity of Henry's "son-in-law" Thomas Crabtree.

Finally, why did Henry treat his sons so generously and his daughters (except for Mary) so badly? Henry's sons each received at least $44 plus other items. Except for Mary, who got the $50 note, all of Henry's daughters received just one dollar from his estate. I don't believe it was common practice in the early nineteenth century to leave the bulk of an estate to one's male heirs, while nearly disinheriting the daughters. What's going on here? Did Henry not like his other sons-in-law?