William Gowan/Gowin was not indentured but may have arrived in Bedford County to find work

In order for William Gowin to have been an indentured servant, he would have had to be free by 29 Aug 1754 when he was 21 years old. Two reasons: (1) The bounty of a child or an indentured servant or a slave accrued to their parent, master, or guardian. (2) Only a free male over 21 could make an assignment.

That argues strongly against an indenture. He was taxable to no one in 1748, 1748, and 1750. So the earliest he could have been indentured to Callaway would be 1751. He would not be free a mere three years later. 

The only way he could be indentured is if he was indentured to someone else and that someone then sold the contract to Callaway. That is so rare that it's practically non-existent. It's like suggesting that he was a lawyer from Boston who was married to Callaway's niece. It's just about as likely.

However, reaching 21 has nothing to do with indentures. But reaching 21 meant the end of apprenticeships and guardianships. Which were way, way more common.

Furthermore, indentured servants in 1750 were very rare to begin with. Virginia had discovered slavery, and slaves were doing what the indentured servants of an earlier generation used to do. Why would Callaway pay for an indenture when he could get a lifetime slave so easily? (Colonies that did not have slaves still had indentured servants, of course, but they had nearly disappeared from Virginia by that time.)

Furthermore, there is no evidence that Callaway kept any of the others that he paid tithes for as long as 7 years.

I would think it is most likely that Callaway's taxables were poor children under 21, orphans under 21, apprentices under 21, or overseers or other employees who were over 21.

Let’s examine one person who William Callaway also paid tithes for in 1749: Sherwood Gaddy.  In 1752 "Sherrod Gaddy" is listed as "overseer" on Thomas Mosely's list. "list" and "quarter" are codewords. That means that Mosely is non-resident, Gaddy is his resident overseer of the slaves taxed. One explanation is that once Gaddy turned 21 he hired himself out to Mosely as an overseer. That would place Gaddy’s birth about 1728 or 1729. This also fits with him being with Callaway 3 years prior to our William and thus 3 years older and likely around 18 years old when Gaddy was with Callaway.

Callaway is taxed for other white males each year. Gaddy in 1748, Brown in 1749 and 1750, then Gowen, Graves, and Simmmons in 1750. Possibly they are working in his store or warehouse. Or they may be field hands. Or they may each be at a different tract engaged in cutting down trees. We may never know. These men do not have families in the area. There are no other people with their surnames in the area. That suggests they are orphans or poor children or young men from somewhere else who are apprenticed to Callaway until they reach 21. 

Samuel Brown is not found in 1752 but is on the Bedford militia list in Sep 1758. William Gowen, Sherwood Gaddy, and William Simmons are on the same militia list. 

We can probably infer that William Gowin is not indentured, but was around 19 years old when William Callaway paid his tithes in 1752, and may have also been with him in 1751 for all we know (missing tithable list). This may help us with clues though.

Some, if not all, of these men appear to have been young when taxed to Callaway. Sherwood Gaddy seems to have been born in the late 1720s -- he died in 1803. William Gowin lived past 1800 and may have died around 1804. It was a rare man who lived past 70 in those days. Also, all of William Gowin's known children were born late 1750s or later. That suggests he did not marry until the mid-1750s or later.

Because there is no record of him in prior tithable lists, and because apprenticeships did not usually begin at age 18, it is not likely that he was an apprentice.  He was at least 19 years old when he was with Callaway.  There are also no other Gowin/Gowan/Gowen's in the area that could be potential relatives.  That means that he was either from a different geography than Lunenburg/Bedford County or that he was orphaned (a term used when no father is alive, regardless of whether mother is) prior to the date of the earliest availabe tithable list.  William Gowan/Gowin could also have been over 21 years old and working for Callaway. 

Conclusion: The men taxed to Callaway do not appear to have relatives in the area. Several indicators suggest that they were relatively young -- perhaps teenagers or early 20s. They may be teenagers apprenticed to Callaway, although unlikely. They may be poor children apprenticed to Callaway. They may be young men indentured to Callaway, although this is probably unlikely.  They may be "overseers" for Callaway although he didn't list them as such or working his tracts of land.

Pollard Goin/Gowin and Mary "Polly" Conner Marriage documents

These documents should further prove that Pollard Goin/Gowin is the son of Joseph Gowin and Judith Pollard.  It should also further prove that Mary "Polly" Conner IS NOT the daughter of Caleb Conner, but the daughter of John Conner.  Caleb Conner is believed to be the brother of Polly and son of John.  There is a John Conner living in Madison County, KY captured on the 1820 Census.  Although there is a John Conner living in Boone County, KY in 1810, it is not known whether they are the same.  There were many John Conner's from Virginia and it is believed that a few of them migrated to Kentucky. 

William & Annester of Bedford County are not the couple of Goochland County - Evidence

EVIDENCE IN FAVOR:
The wife whose name is recorded as Anna Stacia, Honesty, and Anutoice in Goochland might be the same  person as the wife whose name is recorded in Bedford as Annester and Annister.

EVIDENCE AGAINST:
These names might be similar, but they are not the same.

EVIDENCE AGAINST:
Citations suggest to different persons:

A William Gowen is recorded in Goochland:

1741- sued for trespass
1742 –sued
1746–tithables
1748–tithables
1749–tithables
1752–sued and brought suit
1755–buys land
1756–tithables & childborn
1757–sells land & tithables
1758–tithables
1761–tithables
1762–tithables
1763–sued for debt
1764–tithables
1765–tithables
1767–tithables
1768–tithables
1769–tithables
1770–tithables

A William Gowen is recorded in Bedford:

1752–tithables
1754–due wolf bounty
1758–member of militia
1759–witness to deed
1761–sued
1762–surveyed land(granted1780)
1767–buys land
1769–sells land
1770–witness to will
1771–road order
1775–sells tobacco and corn

William Gowen of Goochland had a son named William Money Gowen born 1748 or earlier - he was taxed beginning in 1764, perhaps as early as 1762.

William Gowen of Bedford had a son named William who was born about 1755 and is not as old as the one in Goochland and was never recorded with a middle name.

The births of two children to William of Goochland, Anna Stasia (Sep 1756) and James (Nov 1758) are recorded in the parish register.  He also had a son named John according to the vestry book and another son named Samuel who was born about 1753 (first taxable to William Gowen in 1769 in Goochland).
There is no evidence of any of these four children in Bedford County.

William Gowen of Bedford had sons Daniel (between 1755 and 1758 according to pension application) and Joseph (1758 according to pension application) born the same period ­‐-­‐but they are not recorded in the parish register.  There is room in the timeline for one son born in 1757 and another born either 1755 or 1759, but why would they all be omitted from the Goochland register when the children of the Goochland couple were listed for births and christenings of 1756 and 1758?
 
Joseph Goine's pension application states his age as 63 in November 1821, putting his birth in 1758.  That is impossible if he had the same parents as the James Gouven born in Nov 1758. 
 
William Gowen of Goochland had to be no younger than 21 when he was sued for trespass as an adult in 1740, meaning he was born prior to 1719 and it is likely that a man of this period lived pass 1803 as did the Bedford William Gowen.
 
Annester Going was alive in 1819 when she testified on behalf of her son Joseph.  If she were the mother of William Money Going and same person who was an adult in 1752, that would make her around 90 years old in 1819 -- highly unlikely.  Her first record in Bedford is in 1759, which would put her age in 1819 at around 81 -- more likely.

CONCLUSION:  The couple in Goochland County Virginia IS NOT the same couple as the one recorded in Bedford County Virginia. 

William & Annester are not from Goochland County!

The timelines and the factual information between the couples in Goochland and Bedford Counties have been thoroughly evaluated and it is our opinion, and the professionals that we’ve worked with, that these two couples ARE NOT the same couple.


For the purpose of this document, I will use the term “Goochland Couple” to reflect that of William Gowan & Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice (Sullivan) and the “Bedford Couple” to reflect William Gowin/Going and Annester (Unknown).

The work collected within the Gowen Research Foundation and the statements made by Dr. DeMarce have caused many to consider the Goochland couple the same couple as the Bedford couple. This belief is based solely on an opinion due to similar forenames of both of the wives of the William. Ana Stacia/Honesty/Aunotice are more similar to one another than they are to Anister/Anester/Annester phonetically and I have conferred with many historical and professional researchers of this period who concur.

We have solid evidence that our ancestor, William Gowin/Gowen/Going, resided in Bedford County in 1752, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1762 while at the same time the Goochland couple and/or a “William Going/etc.” was recorded. It is very unlikely that the Bedford couple or the William of Bedford was in Goochland County during this period. A separate post will demonstrate that these two couples were not the same.

Based on the evidence provided, we have asked that the Gowen Research Foundation modify the manuscript records to reflect that there was a William Gowan and Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice Sullivan in Goochland County but little else is known other than the information confined to Goochland County during from 1740 forward which includes the information as recorded by Paul Heinegg, and the Goochland County tax lists, land deeds, court documents, etc. This change will also mean that the children born to the Goochland couple (Anna Stasia and James) along with all other references in Goochland are only included with the Goochland couple. One of the manuscripts requiring modification is located at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/Gowenms136.htm.

Further, we have asked that the Bedford County couple, who are the ancestors of those copied, are separated from the Goochland County couple and parsed into a separate manuscript that begins on 10 Jun 1752 in Lunenburg/Bedford County in the district of John Phelps and continues within Bedford County until they are in Madison County KY in 1799. If a new manuscript/record is required for the Bedford County couple, the descendants of this family will be happy to rewrite it to provide the factual information using the timeline and events recorded in Bedford County from the period 1752 to 1799 and include the counties their descendants traveled to.

Some have inferred that the Bedford couple, or at least William, may be related to the surrounding Gowen families in Lunenburg County. Through the use of Y-DNA, the descendants of the Bedford County couple have proven that William Gowin/Going is part of a subclade that is believed to be indigenous to the British Isles and specifically to Scotland. This likely means that his ancestors were on the British Isles prior to his or their arrival to the colonies. It also demonstrates that he and his descendants did not belong to the mulatto GOWEN family believed to have descended from Mihil (a freed slave) and that also resided in Lunenburg and surrounding areas in the same period. The male descendants of Mihil belong to a different Y-DNA haplogroup. Parents of the Bedford County couple have not been identified. However, we have enough information to believe that William was likely born between 1725-1734 and Annester was likely younger based on the timeframe in which we infer she died.

I appreciate all of the work provided by those involved who have helped us sort through the factual information within historical archives to successfully reach this conclusion. Additional work is ongoing to determine more about the Bedford County couple and their prolific family.