Descendants of William Case of South Carolina

Case

Generation #2

Isaac (1William) Case of South Carolina

Isaac Case was born in about 1710 in the Carolina Colony. Tracing Isaac and his family is frustrated by the continuous shifting of civil administrative borders. Records of Isaac and his descendants are found in multiple jurisdictions within a relatively short time span. At first glance, one would think that they moved frequently. However, the family did not move at all; the boundaries did.

At the time of Isaac's birth, there was no North or South Carolina. And, the land he would eventually patent/purchase was administered by the North Carolina Colony up until the creation of York and Spartanburg Counties in South Carolina. From 1715 to 1785 the lands along the Broad and Pacolet River in the Backcountry were administered by Craven Prec. NC, New Hanover Co NC, Bladen Co NC, Anson Co NC, Mecklenburg Co NC, Tryon Co NC, Ninety-Six Dist./Camden Dist. SC, and Spartanburg/York/Union Co SC.

In about 1742, Isaac married an unknown spouse. Unfortunately, nothing is known of their lives together. From the 1754 survey, we learn that Isaac settled north of the Broad River on lands which would become York Co SC. Son Thomas settled just across the river on lands which would become Union Co SC. Isaac died before 9/1792 in what was then York (now Cherokee) Co SC.

Isaac, his father William, and the Case family were Tories. In fact, Isaac's purported son William migrated in 1777 from South Carolina to British Florida (now southern Mississippi). The lands which would become the Florida Territory (1822) and portions of southern Mississippi and southern Alabama were a royal colony of Spain then Britain then Spain before being ceded to the United States. At the time of the American Revolution, Florida was a British colony and a haven for Tories fleeing the new American South. 

    "During the protracted investment of Pensacola, a partial revolt of the English colonists in the Natchez District had well-nigh brought upon them the vengeance of their conquerors, the Spaniards of Louisiana.
    These men having learned by rumor that a powerful British armament was off the coast of Florida for the recovery of His Majesty's posts and possessions on the Lower Mississippi, and believing the cause of England already triumphant in Florida, determined to envince their zeal for his Britannic majesty's service by overpowering the Spanish garrison in Fort Panmure, and restoring the British flag over that portion of the province. . .they repaired, on the 22nd of April [1781], to an eminence above the town of Natchez, and in full view of Fort Panmure, where they raised the British flag, and commenced their operations for the capture of the Spanish post. . .
    A few days brought intelligence that the fleet which arrived was a Spanish re-enforcement for Galvez, and that Pensacola had fallen into his hands by the fate of war.
    This brought consternation to the insurgents, who deemed it expedient to provide for their own safety before they were within reach of Spanish vengeance. Among the insurgents were General Lyman and many of his colony, as well as others from Ogden's colony, on the Homochitto, who immediately sought safety by flight from the country. . .they determined to elude the vengeance of the Spanish governor by seeking the protection of the nearest British post in Georgia, upon the Savannah River. Without loss of time, they took up their pilgrimage. . .After a long and distressing journey of one hundred and thirty days, they reached the settlements on the Savannah, exhausted with fatigue, exposure, and privations.

    History of the Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi, v. 1, pp. 461-463 <https://play.google.com/books/> 17 March 2018.

Granville Co SC Land Grant vic. Purrysburg on Days Creek of the New River.:
Date: 1735/02/18
Description: MOORE, MATTHEW, PLAT FOR 150 ACRES IN PURRYSBURGH TOWNSHIP.
Names Indexed: MOORE, MATTHEW; LAPRINE, MATTHEW; CASE, ISAAC; ST. JOHN, JAMES; ROW, HUGH
Locations: PURRYSBURGH; GRANVILLE COUNTY; DAYS CREEK; NEW RIVER
On Apr. 25, 1754 a survey of 202 acres on the north side of the Broad River was made for John Oats, being the place where William Case now lives. Thomas Case and William Case were chain bearers for the surveyor.

    Children

    1. William Case

On Apr. 25, 1754 a survey of 202 acres on the north side of the Broad River was made for John Oats, being the place where William Case now lives. Thomas Case and William Case were chain bearers for the surveyor.
Moore Co NC (1747-1847) v. 2, p. 217:
30 Jan., 1773. William Case 170 acres in Tryon on both sides of Spencers Creek, joining Spencers corner, John Lusk, the top of the hill and both sides of Middle fork of Spencers Creek.
Wilkinson Co MS Original Land Grants:
Deed Applicant     Orig. Grantor ac.  Location      Source   Date
=======================================================================
William Ellis
for wife Margaret  William Case  300  Second Creek  British  9 Oct 1777
Natchez Court Records (1767-1805), Book G, p. 13:
10/3/1781. John Kennedy vs William Case, now a fugitive rebel, owes him $50, being for a mosquito bar. . . .
Natchez Court Records (1767-1805), Book A, p. 349:
3/20/1787. John Lusk to William Case, 300 arpents on Second Cr., b. as set forth in plot thereof, which land I purchased at Public Sale of the est. of William Case, confiscated to the use of His Majesty, and which I now sell  for $400, paid. Both sign. Off. Wit. De Grand-Pre.
Natchez Court Records (1767-1805), Book F, p. 503:
3/15/1789. Petition of Ann Savage to Spanish Gov't // p. 461. Spanish Gov't to Anne Savage 1000 acres on Second Cr. 10 mi. from Fort, adj. John Lusk and Sarah White. N.O. 15 Mch, 1789, by Miro, // p. 463. I certify that Mrs. Savage has purchased of William Case 100 acres which lies on the south side of Second Creek. . . .

    2. Thomas Case, Sr. b. c. 1743 Bladen Co NC

    3. John Case

Sold 3 Sep 1792 Pacolet River, Spartanburg, South Carolina

Generation #3

Caveat

This site is provided for reference only. Except where specifically cited, information contained is conjecture and should not be considered as fact.
Home Index About Me