BOB'S GENEALOGY FILING CABINET

John Bynum

(c1616 – 1691)

 

John Bynum seems to have been the ancestor of most American Bynums.  While it is tempting to consider the possibility that he was related to the earlier John Baynham of Jamestown, there is no evidence of any connection – in fact, we know that he could not have been a son or grandson. 

 

His first appearance is in Surry County Virginia, which had been formed in 1652 from the part of James City County which lay south of the James River opposite Jamestown.  Records before 1652 were kept in the James City courthouse, and were later destroyed.  We have no record of John Bynum prior to 1663 in any of the counties for which records do exist, so the question of where he came from may never be answered.  It seems likely that he had been in Virginia prior to 1663, since 47 was an unusually old age for an immigrant.

 

He perhaps first appears in the Surry records in a deed dated 28 February 1663[1], in which the widow of Henry Meadow sold 100 acres to “John Bineham” or “Bingham”, apparently carrying out an agreement between her late husband and Bineham.[2]  On 5 December 1663, George and Margaret Blow sold two portions of a patent granted earlier that year, one of them to “John Bynam”.[3]   John Bynum would live on this land for almost sixteen years.  It was located just west of Green Swamp, on the south side of a creek which is now called Mill Creek. 

 

John Bynum does not appear again in the Surry records until the 1668 tithables list, the first of those lists in existence.  However, from March 1665 through February 1671 a John Bynum appears four times as a witness in Old Rappahannock County[4].  I doubt this was the same person, but it is possible.  Our John Bynum clearly was residing in Surry County, for he was listed in the annual Surry tithables from 1668 through 1690, for the first several years being adjacent to Richard Smith, who had married George Blow’s widow.[5]  In each year he was listed in Lawnes Creek parish, the parish in which his land lay.

 

He is mentioned relatively infrequently in the records, appearing in neither the court nor deed records for fifteen years after his land purchase.  In late 1678 he was one of several residents indicted for not attending church, but successfully pleaded that “he did frequently goe to church before his sickness and that at the last court he was desperately sick.”[6]  A few months later, on 4 March 1679, the inventory of John Twyford was presented to the Surry court by Richard Smith, who had married Twyford’s widow Mary (Margaret Blow apparently being dead).  According to this record, a small piece of land belonging to Twyford had been leased to John Bynum.[7]  Later the same year, on 29 September 1679, John Bynum sold to Richard Jordan Sr. the land he had purchased from George Blow back in 1663.[8]  The deed was signed by the marks of John and Rosamond Bynum, thus giving us our first mention of his wife.  When both appeared in court on 6 January 1680 to acknowledge the sale, the clerk recorded her name as “Rose his wife”.[9]  The implication of her relinquishment of dower is that they were married when the land was originally purchased.

 

He apparently sold that land to move onto 215 acres for which a patent was issued eighteen months later on 23 April 1681.[10]  This land was located on the Mill Branch (a different stream) about three miles further south and not far from the Isle of Wight County line.  Later that year, on 1 October 1681, John Bynum and “wife Rosamond” sold 100 acres of this land “on the west side of the branch John now lives on” to William Webb.[11]  The remaining portion 100 or so acres of the patent would remain in the Bynum family for several decades.

 

In the 1681 tithables “Jno. Byneham Senr. & Junr.” are listed, the first appearance of his elder son.  The following year, the son James Bynum first appears in the tithables.  Through 1684, both sons are listed in the tithables with or near their father in Lawnes Creek parish.  But by 1685, both sons were listed with Richard and George Blow, sons of George Blow Sr., in Southwarke parish.  They were apparently living on Richard Blow’s land on Pigeon Creek, several miles to the northwest and across the parish border, perhaps with their older sister. 

 

John Bynum’s birth year is roughly established by a subsequent court record.  In May 1687 he petitioned the Surry Court: “that he is seaventy yrs of age and thereby soe disabled that he is hardly able to keepe himself from being a parish charge and therefore humbly prayed that he might be exempted from paying levies, beareing of armes, and cleareing of high waies, and it appearing that he is very aged & poore,  he is exempted for the future…”[12]  This is particularly interesting, because it suggests that he was in his late forties when he first appears in the Surry County records, and well into middle age when he married and had children.  That is not inconsistent with the times, when men generally married late in life – partly due to the severe shortage of women.  However, it was also typical of the times that people were often only vaguely aware of their own ages.  Though he was probably close to seventy, we can’t really be sure that this was a precise statement of his age.  On the same day he made his petition, his wife Rosamond proved the will of Alice Jordan, showing that Rosamond was still alive.[13]  She would evidently die before her husband, sometime in the next four years.

 

He appears infrequently in other records, of a mostly inconsequential nature.  One of those is our last record of him.  In January 1688 he accused a neighbor named Joseph Wall of killing a yearling cow.  After a two-month delay, a jury was formed, found for Bynum, and awarded him three hundred pounds of tobacco in damages.[14]  The loss of the cow was probably a serious one for John Bynum.  When he died a few years later, the bulk of his estate consisted of one calf and two cows, one of which was barren.

 

This is nearly our final record for John Bynum.  He appears in the June 1690 tithables in Southwarke parish, apparently having moved to be near his sons.  He is not in the June 1691 tithables, and had likely died before that date.  On 7 July 1691 his eldest son John Bynum Jr. was granted administration of his father’s estate[15].  Appraisers were appointed and John Bynum Jr. was ordered to produce an inventory.  On 1 September 1691, John Bynum Jr. “came into Court and declared that the appraisement of the said deceds Estate was burnt the last night in his house which by some accident with all that he had in it was burnt.” [16]  The inventory finally produced on 17 May 1692 showed a minimal estate, totaling 2,460 pounds of tobacco.  It included “one cow & calf, one barron cow, one yearling heipher, one old feather bed with a canvas ticking &  ragged blkt, two old gunns, one iron pott & pott hooks, one brass morter & pestle & brass ladle, one brass spoon, some old bowles & trays, one grubbing hoe, one old coate, one pr of old shooes & old stockings” and some lumber and powder.[17]  There was no mention of Rosamond, nor any indication of a trade other than a farmer.  From later records, it is clear that John Bynum Jr., the eldest son, inherited the land.

 

Rosamond is assumed to have been the mother of the two known children, and was probably married to John Bynum by the time he first appears in Surry County.  There are no clues as to her age or to her maiden name.  An old, and quite bogus, genealogy published in the 1920s gives her name as Rosamond Blow – but this is unfounded speculation that is almost certainly inaccurate.[18]  Based on this, it has been widely thought that Rosamond was the daughter of George and Margaret Blow.  For a thorough analysis of this question, see the separate page on Rosamond the wife of John Bynum.

 

Two sons are certain, and a daughter seems likely .

 

1.      John Bynum (1664/5 – 1715)   See separate page.

2.      James Bynum (1665/6 – c1723)  See separate page.

3.      Elizabeth Bynum (c1660? - ?)  See separate page.

 

 

 


[1] All dates are corrected for the present-day calendar.  The Gregorian calendar used in Britain and its colonies until 1752, had the year starting on March 25.  Thus March 25, 1700 was followed by March 26, 1701.  In this case 28 February 1662 was the original date, which was actually 1663 in the present-day calendar.

[2] Surry County Deeds & Wills 1652-1672 Book 1, p204

[3] Surry County Deeds & Wills 1652-1672 Book 1, p232. This indenture gives the date as 1653 in one place and 1663 in another.  However, Blow did not acquire the land until 3 August 1663, so the 1653 date is clearly a recording error.  This error, which appears in some secondary sources, has lead some people to claim John Bynum was present in Surry at its formation.

[4] As “Jno Bynam”, Book 1663-68, p28 and 37; Book 1668-72, p117 and 532.

[5] The tithables consisted (for our purposes) of all free males above the age of sixteen as of June 10.  There exist tithables lists for Surry County for the years 1668 through 1703, with 1671-3 and 1676 missing.  All these lists are contained in the Surry Deed Books.  The law specified that the tithables be taken on or about June 10th each year.

[6] Surry County Orders 1671-91, p232.

[7] Surry County Deeds Book 2, p199.

[8] Surry County Deeds Book 2, p246. 

[9] Surry County Orders 1671-91, p268

[10] Virginia Patent Book 7, p28.

[11] Surry County Deed Book 3, p9.

[12] Surry County Orders 1671-91, p. 564

[13] Ibid., p565.

[14] Surry County Orders 1671-1691, p612 and p633-4.

[15] Surry County Orders 1691-1713, p2 and p4

[16] Surry County Orders 1691-1713, p10

[17] Surry County Deed Book 4, p268-9.

[18] The Compendium of American Genealogy, p596, prints the genealogy of LeRoy Kramer, apparently compiled in the 1920s.  It not only claims Rosamond was a Blow, it also connects John to the John Bynum of Jamestown and erroneously connects John Bynum to a person who was not his grandson.  Mr. Kramer was not descended from these Bynums at all, but from an unrelated immigrant.  This appears to be the source of the Bynum-Blow legend.  Despite warnings from virtually every genealogical society and magazine about the accuracy of the Compendium, this claim is widely repeated with no proof whatsoever.

Return to Main | Search This Site | Contact Me

Revised on September 13, 2003   |   Copyright © 2001-2003 Robert W. Baird, All Rights Reserved