Col. John West of West Point, Virginia - @Colonel John West II

This is not an original suggestion but I bring us back to it because it is relevant here.

There is an idea that Totopotomoy was an illegitimate son of the 3rd Baron by Rachel, a cousin or sister of Pocahontas who went with her to England in 1616. I've scoffed about this story.

If Toby West is not Totopotomoy, it's still possible that Toby West was son an illegitimate son of the 3rd Baron, and very temptingly still possible that Toby West was the Baron's illegitimate son by Rachel Powhatan.

We could then imagine a different life story for him. Instead of being brought to Virginia as a baby, raised as an Indian, and becoming Totopotomoy, he might instead of been raised in England, received an English education, learned his letters, and come to Virginia (it seems) only in 1653. Perhaps then, as the half-Indian but fully acculturated English colonist, it made sense to give him a grant near the Pamunkey and hope his presence would benefit English interests.

Obviously the all caps is a comment. It is not said where these 500 acres on the Pamunkey come from nor does it describe where it is exactly. Could be the Saunders estate or other property in the area. In 1682 the Toby West 500 acres should be found in Edward Jennings holdings, and you're still 30 years away from Pamunkey River property held by Maj West.

How is Toby West "given" a grant? The head right claims in 1659 are for Croshaw relatives - is that retroactive by Joseph Croshaw, or did in fact Toby transport them ?

And isn't there some garble about how Unity Croshaw was part native herself? And something about education in Barbados?

Yes, the all caps is a comment. I didn't try to correct it or integrate it, but I think it goes a bit astray.

Think about how landowners think about their holdings, and you'll get a better idea of what I'm saying. When I say the "Toby West" tract, I'm not saying it still belonged to Toby. I'm saying this is the tract that came down through some chain of title from him.

I think the comment (in all caps) goes astray because it thinks this 500 acres is part of the 1000 acre to Gov West. Almost certainly not. If it were, it should say "part of 1000 acres". That's the way conveyancing works at this time. It's still 500 acres. In their minds it's still the "Toby West" tract. It doesn't need better definition because nothing has changed. It's still within legal memory.

Contrast this with the 300 acres in the will, It still has to be more specifically the 300 acres he bought from William Green.

Yes, it could be a different 500 acres. I said that. And it would be worth looking for a different 500-acre tract that it might be. But I doubt it. This tract must be part of his core holdings. It doesn't need an explanation where it came from like the Green property, and it doesn't need an explanation of which tract it is like the ones where various people live.

> How is Toby West "given" a grant?

You provided the answer yourself.

> 1654, Capt John West, Esqr, one of the councils of state, 1000 acs ... (as above in footnote 7 from GFA) ... Transport of 20 persons .. [no Wests listed]

> 1654, Toby West grant (as above in footnote 8 from GFA), for transport of 10 persons. *

> 1659, Major Joseph Croshaw, [text as above in GFA]. ... Granted to Toby West & by him assigned to Joseph Croshaw, due for transport of 10 persons (listed)

These are the 1654 patents recorded in Book 3, page 10, Gloucester County. The 1659 document is an assignment (transfer) of the 1654 grant to Croshaw.

Gov West receives this grant for the transport of 20 people. Toby gets his for the transport of 10 people.

They were entitled to this much land, but it's the Virginia authorities who decide where it will be. In this case, Virginia decided to put them next to each other (as evidenced by the Thomas Sanders boundaries we talked about earlier). Placing them next to each, and on the same day, is a major clue.

The different amounts are also a major clue because how they divided the available heads is something that would have been decided by the family. John Barrow gets credit for transporting Toby. Toby gets credit for 10 others. The Gov gets credit for 20 others. They're essentially milking the system. It doesn't have anything to do with who really paid for the transports.

(BTW, the fact that John Barrow got a grant in Surry for transporting Toby doesn't mean he transported Toby to Surry. It means that's where the government decided to give the land.)

Review your quote this morning. I think this piece has it right:
https://www.geni.com/discussions/169645?msg=1159008

> And isn't there some garble about how Unity Croshaw was part native herself? And something about education in Barbados?

I'd be interested in sources, but until then I'm thinking romantic fiddle-faddle.

What I'm asking is

- these are Croshaw relatives transported by Toby. It is not clear to me - because the names were named in 1659 - whether they are in fact that persons Toby transported, or whether Croshaw filled in names. If they are Toby's it implies he's related to the Croshaws in 1654 - which is, I believe ? - before Unity married John West. Or it's a wedding gift to his kinsmen.

- surely there's a way to better define the 1716 500 acres. Because I don't think Indian John West can be in 2 places simultaneously, & he went to North Carolina in the 1690s apparently. Never mind that there's no evidence he could read / write English or held any sort of English military rank

Another possibility is the col John West in fact was doing the transporting for his father in law & Toby took the credit, so its not necessary that Toby have been related to Croshaw. It might be nice to know when they actually arrived but I'm not sure that makes any difference.

I do like the idea Toby was a natural son, he wouldn't have the West name in English records. Why does he need to be part native ?

This seems to be a paraphrase of the Deyo theory:

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=39&p=...

I cannot give all of supporting evidence, but the story goies that Pocahontas took a number of her relatives to England, with her, including her first cousin, daughter of Powhatan's sister, name unknown (but Leonard-reacher)called her Rachel as a possibility, since that name came down in the Crowshaw family. The Indians all took Christian names upon baptism. Pocahontas' name was Rebecca. Anyway, Pocahontas and her relatives stayed at the esate of Lord Delaware, Thomas West, in England, were Rachel supposedly bore an illegitimat son by Thomas West called Toby West or his Indian name, Totopotomoi. Rachel ended up marrying Joseph Croshaw and moved back to Virginia. Her daughter, Unity Croshaw, married Col. John West, nephew of Lord Delaware. Before marriage to Unity. John West has a known illegitimate son, John West by Cockacoeske Queen of the Pamunkeys. Cockacoeske was also married at one time to Totopotomoi,

Pocahontas' son, Thomas Rolfe, moved back to Va. where he had a daughter, Jane, who was ofen cared for by Unity (Croshaw) West. The connections seem to be endless.Rachel would have been in line for the ruling position of the Pamumkeys.

When Totopotomoi took over, it would mean tht his mother had to be dead. Checked the Croshaw's family and sure enough, at the time Totopotomoe took over, Joseph Crowshaw's first wife had recently died.

Also, you willsee in Cavalier's and Pioneers by Nugent that Toby West has a paptent for 500 acres of land that was later taken up by Col. Joseph Crowshaw. One of the early writings states that Totopotomoi's land was overtaken by an English Colonel.

Somehow, that 500 acres to have gotten back to Cockacoeske's son, John West, By Col. John West, as Indian John West left a will in Stafford Co. in which he left 500 acres "at Pamunkey" to his son.

Also, Col. Joseph Crosshaw's father, Raleigh Croshaw, appears to have had an Indian wife (not Joseph's mother, howver) fromhis long residence with the Patawoneck Tribe in Va. William Crowshaw, the Indian, was probably a son by the Indian marriage of Raleigh Crowshaw. This information was supplied to me by William L. Deyo

Which is pretty much where we started. :).

I would modify the story this way:

- Toby West of the 1654 patent is not the same person as Totopotomoi
- Major John West of Stafford is not the same person as "my sonne John West"

> It is not said where these 500 acres on the Pamunkey come from nor does it describe where it is exactly.

Kind of.

Going back to the piece you quoted this morning:

> This tract was also patented on 27May1654 and in the same area on the northeast side of the Mattapony. The identity of Toby West is unknown, but given the matching dates and locations, it is likely that Toby West was a kinsman of Colonel John West Sr. On 8Jun1659 Major Joseph Croshaw filed a patent for this same 500 acres, abutting Thomas Saunders. However, in the Croshaw patent the land was described as being on the southeast side of the Mettapony [sic]. Sometime between 27May1654 and 8Jun1659 Toby West assigned this tract to Joseph Croshaw, who filed a patent due for the transport of ten persons, incluing Cuthbert Chroshaw [sic] and Noy Chroshaw.

The two 1653 West grants are explicitly on the NE side of the Mattapony. The 1659 Croshaw grant says SE side, even though it is obviously an assignment of the earlier West grant.

What's going on there? Dunno. The Graves Family Assn thinks it's a mistake. Maybe.

I ran across an article the other day. Should have made a note of it but I was hot in pursuit of something else. Basic idea -- today the York River is formed by a conjunction of the Mattaponi River to the north and the Pamunkey River to the south, with West Point at the conjunction. But, so they were saying, the early colonists originally called the Mattaponi the York River, and at another time the Charles River, and that led to some (supposed) confusion in early records whether the Pamunkey River was the Pamunkey or the Mattaponi.

Without looking further, I'd be inclined to think the description in the Croshaw grant is a mistake, but perhaps compounded by some kind of contemporary variation in naming.

West Point is at or near the Gov. West grant and it's at the confluence but described in the 1653 grant as being on the NE side of Mattaponi River. One article posted early says West Point was 3000 acres patented on March 6, 1653. It describes land on the NE side of the Mattaponi. "The said land being due John West 850 acres in the olde book and 2490 acres acres (thereby?) and for the transportation of forty and nine persons to the colony." The article continues, "This was the 'West Point Plantation,' without the marsh lands, from the upper boundary to the point."

- I would also "vote for" Col (not Gov) John West as candidate for "my sonne John West"'s father but I'm fine with leaving him as unknown English Colonel, it seems like it could be ruled in / out someday.

I just have too much cognitive dissonance in trying to see Maj John West d 1716 as Indian John.

> What I'm asking is - these are Croshaw relatives transported by Toby.

I don't think that's as clear as it might seem. Toby got the headright for transporting them. Maybe he paid for them himself, but it's just as likely someone else paid for them and allocated the credit to Toby in an unrecorded instrument. Maybe the Governor paid for them. Maybe Col. John paid for them. Maybe the Baron paid for them, as a way of establishing his illegitimate son in Virginia. No way to know.

The headright included Croshaws. Toby got the patent, then assigned his headrights (meaning the patent) to a Crowshaw. That hints at something, but no way to know what. Maybe there was an indenture, essentially a loan now paid back by the Croshaws. Or maybe it was in the nature of a wedding gift, one of the Wests -- perhaps Col John -- paying for the 1659 assignment because Col. John had married Unity Croshaw in 1654, perhaps with an expectation the land would eventually descend to Unity's heirs. Her brothers were already dead. We can make up just about any story here as long as the central plot is that Col John probably wanted that tract for himself ;)

> Why does he (Toby) need to be part native ?

He doesn't. There's no evidence. I said that.

The one advantage is that it would explain the origin of the odd story that Totopotomoy was born in England, the son of Rachel Powhatan, then seemingly brought to America to become an Indian without anything thinking to exploit that connection for political purposes.

If Toby West was the son of Rachel, and he later became confused with Totopotomoy, the origin of the story become clear, and the story itself is much more plausible.

So all (??) that land the Col craved (and no hint he shared it with any Pamunkey people), "overlooking the York River," was sold by him & Unity Croshaw to Edmund Jennings, who built upon it the opulent estate of "Ripon Hall," named for his hometown in Yorkshire. It was seized by "King" Carter for debt in ? 1726. ? Therefore not part of his estate.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uYuSDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA70&ots...

---

Jennings will is here

https://books.google.com/books?id=98Y9AQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA307&ot...

Encyclopedia of Virginia https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Jenings_Edmund_1659-1727

Mike Marshall's page with property extracts noted http://www.colonial-settlers-md-va.us/getperson.php?personID=I06810...

And the geni profile Gov. Edmund Jennings

Re: If Toby West was the son of Rachel, and he later became confused with Totopotomoy, the origin of the story become clear, and the story itself is much more plausible.

Absolutely. It actually feels sensible.

> I don't think Indian John West can be in 2 places simultaneously, & he went to North Carolina in the 1690s apparently.

Not buying it.

Maybe, but the supposed evidence is so weak as to be worthless.

> was sold by him & Unity Croshaw to Edmund Jennings

Maybe. But Poplar Neck (later Ripon Hall) is not West Point, unless I'm totally confused. John and Unity sold Popular Neck, her father's property in York County, to Edmund Jennings. As far as I can see, they kept his property, West Point, in King William County.

Right. BUT the Toby West patent came to her from her father, so it's the Croshaw property, not the West property, and mingled with Croshaw's other property. (Although anyone would keep the Pamunkey river property together of course).

So now we need her will & Col John's will, and what the West boys got.

> I would also "vote for" . . .

I have the same cognitive dissonance about Indian John as Maj John. No matter how I approach it, I can't see a "half-breed" Indian chief who refuses to speak English in 1677 turning into a respectable planter and military officer by his death in 1716. Sure, it could happen but it seems highly speculative.Particularly after the anti-miscegenation law of 1691, I think he would more likely have begun to sink the social ladder if he was still alive. Public opinion was turning against folks like him.

I see that we need to think for a minute about what direction we're going with all this. It takes as long as it takes, but still . . .

I would vote for something along the following lines:

Toby West, no defined parents. The profile notes (the About) say
- not the same as Totopotomoy
- probably a close relative of Col John West, based on the 1653 patent
- perhaps an illegitimate son of 3rd Baron West
- perhaps an illegitimate son of 3rd Baron West and Rachel Powhatan
- perhaps father of Maj John West, of Stafford County

Maj John West, of Stafford County, no defined parents. The profile notes say
- not the son of John West and Susannah Cocke
- don't confuse him with John West, of Northumberland County
- probably a relative of the other Wests at Pamunkey River, based on his will
- perhaps son of Toby West, based on 500 acres at Pamunkey in his will

Indian John West, son of Cockacoeske and an English Colonel. The profile notes say
- perhaps son of Col John West
- perhaps son of Toby West
- perhaps son of Totopotomoy
- did not inherit or play a role in affairs after his mother's death, so probably died relatively young
- unknown wife
- no known issue but perhaps connected to NC Wests

Unknown Col. West, no defined parents, partner of Cockacoeske after Totopotomoy. The profile notes say:
- Could be fiction
- Could be Col. John West, because no other West is a Colonel at this period
- Could be a son of some other officer, not necessarily a West, not necessarily a Colonel

The notes for a profile are the place to put all the different ideas people have advanced. I don't see a reason to be too draconian about them, but we do need to be reasonably well-balanced with the pros and cons.

> Right. BUT the Toby West patent came to her from her father,

Disagree. It COULD have come to her from her father. That's one theory.

But the fragmentary records don't allow certainty. Her father could have sold it to Col John or Maj John. Her father could have given it to Col John as part of her inheritance during her lifetime. She might have inherited it, then her husband sold it or gave it to Maj John. It could have been mortgaged through an indenture and never redeemed, perhaps intentionally so. It could have been part of a property exchange between the Wests and the Croshaws with land in York Co traded for land in King William Co.

Coming from a ranching family, I have a hard time understanding the idea that someone would get close property and far away property, then sell them all as a package because of where you got them.

No. Always consolidate your holdings. You'd keep the close, advantageous pieces, and sell the stuff further away. You might even package that further away stuff with parcels you acquired at another time. Then you might piece off smaller, peripheral local parcels for different reasons.

Doubling back, although perhaps pointlessly so.

Remember this list of selected patents pertaining to the Sanders family?

http://www.vikingsandvirginians.com/2015/04/06/selected-17th-centur...

I pointed out at the time that it includes two Croshaw patents:

> 20 Jun 1646 – Joseph Croshawe, Charles River Co.,[1] 700 acres “Beg. at the Mill Sw., near lands of Richard Major & John Davis,” for the importation of 14 persons . . . Thomas Sanders. Source: Cavaliers and Pioneers, Vol. 1, pp. 166-167. (PB2:88)

> 8 June 1659 – Major Joseph Croshaw, grantee; Land grant, New Kent County. Description: 500 acres on the north east side of Mattapony River, and on the north side of Thomas Sanders’s land. Source: Land Office Patents No. 4, 1655-1664, p. 226, Reel 4 (Library of Virginia).; Cavaliers & Pioneers, Vol. 1, p. 361. (PB4:155)

The 1646 patent is part of the Croshaw holdings in New Kent Co (that is, probably near the Mattaponi River). It includes a headright for Thomas Sanders, who appears in later patents holding land on the Croshaw and West boundaries. A footnote explains he was "Thomas Sanders, d. 1653, merchant of Vintners Company of London." Probably a central figure for a future search.

The 1659 is a reissue of the 1653 patent to Toby West, after his assignment to Croshaw. Earlier in this thread, we saw a source that said this patent was on the SE side of the river, and the comment that was probably a mistake. Here the patent is said to be on the NE side, as was Toby West's.

There is also a later Croshaw patent:

> 12 Oct 1662 – Wm. Sanders transported to New Kent County by Capt. George Lyddall, 3306 acres on both sides of Black Creek,[1] to Wanieoke Creek (or Warrieoke Cr.) 1750 acres of which granted to Joseph Croshaw 8 Nov 1653. Source: Cavaliers & Pioneers, Vol. 1, p. 403. (PB4:324).

A footnote explains that Black Creek is a south branch of the Pamunkey River (which is south of the Mattaponi River and joins with it at West Point to become the York River).

http://www.vikingsandvirginians.com/2015/04/07/selected-17th-centur...

Here's Toby West

Thank you. Looks very thorough.

Much of this conflicts with the information given in 'Shawnee Heritage IV' of 2014 by
Don Greene, which are those M-Z Families (West) and Vol III A-L Families (Harrison)

That's the way it is with ydna information. Changes up the status quo.

Have found that "Shawnee Heritage" is not necessarily reliable when it comes to Native-Anglo relationships, and requires very careful cross-checking. (I am not prepared to comment on the Native-only relationships.)

I've been looking into Vol lV, we actually don't have profiles for some in the Pamunkey family. I think Greene tripped up in the same way other researchers did: the Toby West patent.

https://books.google.com/books?id=WtAeCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA394&vq...

And maybe also making assumptions about use of the "West" name by the Pamunkey, applying it retroactively.

But according to anthropologist Helen Rountree, Capt. John West is the first known use of an English name by a Pamunkey wero, in the treaty of the Middle Plantation. Once you realize that he used the name, it doesn't mean his mother, father, stepfather, children, wife or wives, used the West name, the pieces fall more into place.

It doesn't help the confusion that we have no further record of Toby West after he assigns his patent to Joseph Croshaw.

BTW it might be useful to figure out when Totopotomoi started being equated with Toby West, and by whom. I don't find the equivalence in the 1600s records, anthropologist writings, or the historical marker. (which looked charming stuck to Riana yesterday ! I do that ..)

I really thank everyone for their hard work on this. It's historically significant.