An Analysis of the Deeds
Relating to the Culpepper Tract on
Fishing Creek in Edgecombe County, NC

By Lew Griffin
11 Apr 2001

One could have hoped that the deeds for Joseph and Benjamin Culpepper’s  land on Fishing Creek would have shed some light on the identities of the various Benjamin Culpeppers in early Edgecombe. 

However, the 1741 deed is a disappointment, as it does not adequately or correctly describe the land involved.  One cannot tell from the deed whether this is a sale of the east or the west half of the property.  While at first glance this might seem to make little difference, in reality it makes a great deal of difference.

Interpretation 1: Joseph sells West half and keeps East half

For instance, suppose that in the 1741 deed, Joseph is selling the WEST half of his property to his brother Benjamin.  He retains the EAST half for himself.  Both brothers die, and their eldest sons, both named Benjamin, inherit the respective properties by right of primogeniture.

Then, in the 1752, a second exchange of land takes place, this time between the two first cousins.  This deed is unambiguously the WEST half of the property.  In this deed, Benjamin, Jr. sells to his first cousin, Benjamin, Sr. “Ferryman” the west half of the original property.   In this interpretation, who was the grantor of the west half?  It could only have been Benjamin, son of Benjamin.  So he was the son of Benjamin, and Ben “Ferryman” was the son of Joseph.  He was selling back to Joseph’s son Ben, the same west half of the land Joseph had sold to his father some 11 years previous.

Interpretation 2: Joseph sells East half and keeps West half

But what if the ambiguous 1741 deed was actually a sale of the EAST half of the property?  Suppose Joseph retained the WEST half for himself.  Again, both brothers die, and their eldest sons, both named Benjamin, inherit the respective properties by right of primogeniture.

Then, in the 1752 deed, a second exchange of land takes place, this time between the two first cousins.  This is deed is unambiguously the WEST half of the property.  In this deed, Benjamin, Jr. sells to his first cousin, Benjamin, Sr. “Ferryman” the west half of the original property.   In this interpretation, who was the grantor of the west half?  It was Joseph, and Ben, son of Joseph.  So Joseph’s son Benjamin, was selling to Benjamin’s son, Benjamin “Ferryman,” the remaining west half of the property, his father having already sold the east half some eleven years earlier.

Significance of the Different Interpretations

Either way, Benjamin “Ferryman” ends up with both halves of the original property.  But in the first case, he was obviously the son of Joseph.  And in the second case, he was obviously the son of Benjamin, brother of Joseph.

Which interpretation is correct is anyone’s guess.  So for the moment, at least, one must look elsewhere to distinguish the two young Benjamins.  There do not seem to be any strong or convincing arguments one way or another.  If Joseph’s son Benjamin could be shown to have inherited other land from him, by right of primogeniture, then this would easily distinguish him from Benjamin “Ferryman,” since the latter’s land is well-known from his 1772 estate.  Joseph’s land on Swift Creek, which has not been accounted for, is one such possibility.

In the meantime, this writer has placed Benjamin “Ferryman” as the son of Benjamin, and Benjamin “Jr.” as the son of Joseph.  This is case two, above.  While it is a weak argument, the naming conventions used by the two younger Benjamins, seem to fit best this way.   For instance, Benjamin “Ferryman” did not have a son named Joseph, while the other young Benjamin apparently did have a son named Joseph.  Also, the name “Joel” seems to occur exclusively among the descendants of Joseph, and not at all among the descendants of Benjamin “Ferryman.”

For those who wish to study these deeds in detail, deed transcriptions have been placed in our North Carolina Archives. The following is a brief description of those deeds along with specific links to them:

Records relating to Joseph Culpepper’s land on Fishing Creek (the original John Edward’s Tract)

1. 1738 Deed. Joseph Culpepper purchases 320 acres on Fishing Creek in 1738.

2. 1741 Deed. In 1741, Joseph sold half of his 320 acres on Fishing Creek to his brother Benjamin Culpepper.  Unfortunately, the description of the land in this deed is vague and apparently not correct, and does not match earlier or later descriptions of this land, except for the description of the north/south  dividing line down the center of the two halves of the tract.

3. 1752 Deed. In 1745, Joseph Culpepper died, and his eldest son, Benjamin apparently inherited the Joseph’s remaining half of his 320 acre tract, by right of primogeniture.   In 1746, Benjamin Culpepper died, and his son Benjamin inherited Benjamin’s half of the original tract.  The deed of 1752 is thought to represent a transfer of land between these two first cousins.  Since one was only slightly older than the other, the designations “Jr.” and “Sr.” were not deemed adequate, and the elder of the two was also referred to as “Ferryman.”

4. 1784 Petition. In 1784, Elizabeth Culpepper, Benjamin's widow, petitions for dower's rights and is granted one third of the 320 acres.

5. 1793 Survey. A survey of the land for the heirs of Erasmus Culpepper.