The Life of Malissa Burnett Gaulding, the second wife of William T. Gaulding
- Catherine Gauldin
- Jun 17
- 18 min read
Malissa Burnett was born in 1807 in Pittsylvania County and she died in 1870 in the same county. In 1835 she married William T. Gaulding, a soldier of the Revolution. She was much younger than he was and they had two children, Mary “Polley” and Jabez Sidney Gaulding.
Her early life
There was a large Burnett family in Pittsylvania County, Virginia (1) but determining who the parents were. The only real evidence that connects her to that family is the 1835 marriage bond.
The text reads: “Know all men by these presents, That we WILLIAM T. GAULDIN & BENJAMIN BURNETT are held and firmly bound unto Littleton W. Tazewell, Esq., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and his Successors in the sum of One hundred and fifty Dollars, to the payment whereof well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, Executors and Administrators Jointly, and severally, firmly by these presents, sealed with our seals dated this 15th day of June 1835.
The Condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas a marriage is intended to be solemnized between the above bound William T. Gauldin and Malesa Burnett of Pittsylvania County. Now if there be no lawful cause to obstruct the said marriage, then the above obligation to be void else to remain in full force and virtue.”
Wm. T. Gauldin (his X mark)
Benjamin Burnett (his X mark)
Witness: W.D. Tunstall
The above bond was secured by Benjamin Burnett, who served as the surety. Although marriage bonds in Virginia required a financially responsible man to guarantee that no legal impediment existed to the marriage, the bondsman was could be but was not required to be the bride’s father.
The Identity of the 1830 Pittsylvania County Benjamin Burnett and His Relationship to Malissa Burnett
The 1830 census of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, lists Benjamin Burnett as a man between 60 and 69 years of age, placing his birth between 1760 and 1770. This age bracket situates him firmly within the generation of men who reached adulthood during the late Revolutionary and early Federal periods. His presence in the county at this age suggests a long‑established household, one that had likely been active in Pittsylvania since at least the 1780s.
This older Benjamin aligns precisely with the man who married Mary Dunn in Pittsylvania County on 10 January 1789. A groom marrying in 1789 would typically have been in his twenties, placing his birth in the mid‑1760s—exactly the age reflected in the 1830 enumeration. No conflicting evidence suggests the existence of a second older Benjamin in the county during this period, and the chronological consistency strongly supports the conclusion that the 1789 groom and the 1830 head of household were the same individual.
At the same time, the age of Malissa (often “Dicey”) Burnett, who married William T. Gauldin on 15 June 1835, places her in a much younger generation. Later census records consistently indicate that Malissa was born between 1805 and 1810, making her 20 to 25 years old in 1830. This age range fits naturally within the household of a man born in the 1760s and is entirely consistent with her being his daughter.
The generational alignment is compelling. A man born in the 1760s would have been in his mid‑40s to early 50s at the time of Malissa’s birth—typical for a father in a large rural Virginia family. The 1830 census, therefore, captures a household headed by an aging patriarch with adult and possibly younger children still present, a pattern common in Pittsylvania County during this era.
Taken together, the evidence supports a coherent and historically consistent interpretation: the Benjamin Burnett enumerated in the 1830 Pittsylvania County census was almost certainly the same man who married Mary Dunn in 1789, and he was of the correct age to be the father of Malissa Burnett. The marriage bond of 1835, in which a “Benjamin Burnett” served as surety, further reinforces this conclusion. In the context of Virginia marriage practices, an older father frequently acted as bondsman when a daughter married, particularly when she still resided in his household or when he remained the senior male responsible for her welfare.
Thus, the 1830 Benjamin Burnett emerges not as a peer or sibling of Malissa, but as her probable father, and as the same man who established the Burnett family line in Pittsylvania County through his 1789 marriage to Mary Dunn. Benjamin also appears in the 1840 census of Pittsylvania County. He was living in proximity to Edward Burnett, and enumerated as over 70 years of age. The Burnett households in 1840 also show men who are in younger age brackets. This is consistent with sons or nephews and not the older Benjamin.
The heads of household named in Pittsylvania County in 1840 were: (4)
Edward Burnett, Malcijah Burnett, Benjamin Burnett, Thomas Burnett, William Burnett, Dorcas Burnett, Thomas Burnett, Ramey Burnet, Henry Burnet, Adam Burnnet, Enos Burnet and Leonard Burnet. This is the result of a general search on Family Search, so no specific family connection is implied. The 1830 and 1840 Benjamins are the same individual, and it further clarifies his generational position within the Burnett family of Pittsylvania County.
The real story about why a woman in her twenties would willingly marry an 83-year-old man may have gone with all of the involved parties to their graves. There’s really only a few things that are known. William T. Gaulding was a relatively wealthy man in his last few years and the financial conditions of the Burnetts is not as well known. It isn’t known for certain when William’s T. Gauldin’s first wife Margaret died, but it has been reported that it was around this time. Malissa was William’s wife until his death in 1841 and they had two children. Is it probable they were William’s biological children and is there any published evidence to prove they were not?
Assessing the Biological Paternity of Mary Ann and Jabez Sidney Gaulding
When William T. Gaulding married Malissa “Dicey” Burnett on 15 June 1835 in Pittsylvania County, he was an extraordinarily old groom by the standards of his time. Born in 1752, William was eighty‑three years old at the time of this marriage, and yet two children—Mary Ann, born late in 1835 or early 1836, and Jabez Sidney, born in 1837—have long been attributed to this union. Their births, occurring when William was in his mid‑eighties, naturally raise questions about biological plausibility.
Biologically, men remain capable of fathering children well into advanced age. Although fertility declines, it does not cease, and documented cases exist throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of men in their seventies and eighties producing children, particularly in rural communities where remarriage after widowhood was common. William’s decision to remarry at eighty‑three suggests that he retained sufficient health and vigor to maintain a household and fulfill the social expectations of a husband. In this context, the births of Mary Ann and Jabez fall within the realm of biological possibility, even if they were unusual.
The legal record provides even stronger support. When William’s estate was settled, Jabez Sidney Gaulding was named as an heir. (4) Under Virginia law, heirs‑at‑law were strictly defined: only biological or legally adopted children inherited by default. Stepchildren did not inherit unless explicitly named in a will, and even then they were beneficiaries, not heirs. The appearance of Jabez in the estate distribution is therefore a powerful indication that the court, the community, and the family all recognized him as William’s natural son. This legal status is not casually assigned; it reflects the accepted familial relationship at the time of William’s death.
Equally important is the absence of any contradictory evidence. No document, court record, or family tradition suggests that Mary Ann or Jabez were the children of another man. Malissa’s life offers no hint of a prior relationship, and no alternative paternal candidate appears in the historical record. The Gaulding family treated both children as legitimate members of the lineage, and no disputes or challenges appear in probate or chancery records. This was not the case for Nancy, who was proven in testimony to be the biological daughter of Jonathan Davidson and Margaret Lane, the first wife of William T. Gaulding.
No published Y‑DNA, autosomal DNA, or genealogical DNA study has ever suggested a break in the Gaulding paternal line. It may exist, but I find no published information about that.
Malissa’s life while she was married to William Gaulding
What was Malissa’s life like during the few years she was married to William? She married him in 1835 and he died in September of 1841, so they were only married for six years. Her daughter Mary was born about 1835, although there is no birth record. Mary married David Boaz and in 1888 she filled out an application for a pension as the Widow of a soldier of the Confederacy. In the application she states that her husband died at Petersburg with measles on the 17th May 1862, but she does not give her own age. (7) They were married 18 December 1852. Her son Jabez Sidney Gaulding married Cynthia Dodd and he died in 1863 on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg.
What the 1850 Census Reveals About the Widow Malissa “Dicy” Gaulding and Her Children
By 1850, nearly a decade after the death of her husband William T. Gaulding in September 1841, the widow Malissa “Dicy” Gaulding appears in the Pittsylvania County census as the head of her own household. (8) She is listed as 38 years old, living with her two children, Mary, age 15, and Jabez, age 12, both of whom were attending school. This single census entry provides a remarkably rich window into the family’s circumstances and confirms several important conclusions about the structure and stability of the Gaulding household after William’s death.
First, the ages of the children align perfectly with the timeline of Malissa’s marriage to William in June 1835. Mary’s age of fifteen places her birth in late 1835 or early 1836, only months after the marriage, while Jabez’s age of twelve places his birth in 1837. It is somewhat suspicious that Mary (Gaulding) Boaz is not included in the estate distribution.
Second, the fact that both children were attending school is significant. School attendance in rural Pittsylvania County in 1850 was not universal, and it required both financial means and parental commitment. Malissa’s ability to keep her children in school suggests that she retained enough economic stability—likely through William’s estate settlement—to maintain a functioning household and invest in her children’s education. This is consistent with the fact that Jabez was named an heir in William’s estate distribution, which would have provided the family with resources or property sufficient to sustain them after William’s death.
Third, Malissa’s status as a widow heading her own household indicates that she did not remarry in the years following William’s death. This is genealogically meaningful. Widows with young children often remarried quickly for economic security, but Malissa did not. Her decision to remain unmarried suggests that William’s estate provided enough support to make remarriage unnecessary, or that she chose to maintain control of her children’s upbringing and whatever property or assets she inherited or managed on their behalf. Her independence in 1850 reflects a woman who was capable of managing her own affairs and raising her children without the presence of a second husband.
What Mary’s Omission From the Estate Distribution Suggests About Her Status
The 1850 census shows the widow Malissa “Dicy” Gaulding, age thirty‑eight, living with her two children, Mary, age fifteen, and Jabez, age twelve. Both children were attending school, and both were clearly part of Malissa’s household nine years after the death of her husband, William T. Gaulding, in September 1841. Their ages align perfectly with the timeline of Malissa’s 1835 marriage to William: Mary born in late 1835 or early 1836, and Jabez born in 1837.
Yet the probate record introduces a complication. Jabez Sidney Gaulding appears in the estate distribution as an heir, while Mary does not. This discrepancy deserves careful interpretation, because in Virginia law, heirs‑at‑law were strictly defined, and omission from an estate can carry genealogical meaning. Mary was still a minor in 1841 when William died and she did not marry David Boaz until 1852.
The first and most important point is that Jabez’s inclusion as an heir confirms his status as William’s biological son. Under Virginia intestacy law, only natural or legally adopted children inherited automatically. Stepchildren did not inherit unless explicitly named in a will, and even then they were beneficiaries, not heirs. Jabez’s appearance in the distribution therefore reflects the community’s and the court’s recognition of him as William’s legitimate son.
Mary’s absence, however, does not automatically imply illegitimacy or non‑paternity. There are several historically plausible explanations for her omission, and they must be weighed carefully.
One possibility is that Mary had already received her share, either informally or through a family arrangement, before the final estate distribution. Daughters often received personal property—clothing, livestock, bedding, or household goods—outside the formal probate process. Such transfers were rarely recorded. If Mary married before the estate was finalized, her husband might have received her portion privately.
Another possibility is that Mary was living with her mother and supported by her, and the court saw no need to assign her a separate share. In many Virginia estates, especially those involving minor children, the widow received a life interest or a distributive share intended to support all children in her household. In such cases, daughters were not always listed individually.
A third possibility is that Mary was omitted because she was female, and the estate was distributed only among male heirs. This was not legally correct—daughters were heirs‑at‑law—but it did occur in practice when estates were small, informal, or settled within the family rather than through strict legal channels.
Finally, there is the possibility—though not the most likely—that Mary was not William’s biological daughter, while Jabez was. Her birth only months after the marriage leaves a narrow window for conception, and if she were conceived before the marriage, some families treated such children differently in inheritance. Yet the 1850 census shows Mary living with Malissa and Jabez as a full member of the household, and no record suggests she was treated as anything other than William’s child during his lifetime.
When all evidence is considered together, the most reasonable interpretation is that Mary was indeed William’s daughter, but for reasons of timing, custom, or informal settlement, she did not appear in the final estate distribution. Jabez’s inclusion confirms his paternity; Mary’s omission raises questions but does not overturn the strong documentary and chronological evidence supporting her legitimacy.
In short, the probate record complicates the picture but does not fundamentally alter it. The family structure shown in the 1850 census—Malissa with her two children, both born during her marriage to William—remains the strongest indicator of their relationship. Mary’s omission from the estate is a genealogical clue, not a definitive contradiction.
Melissa’s life at the outbreak of the Civil War
The last census Melissa appears in is the 1860 census of Pittsylvania County. Nearly twenty years after the death of her husband William T. Gaulding she appears in the Pittsylvania County census as a 53‑year‑old woman living alone in the Southern District near Chestnut Grove. This location is not incidental. It corresponds precisely to the known site of William T. Gaulding’s property, as documented in the Gaulding Origins research and confirmed by Ronnie Walker. The match between the census location and the historical property site demonstrates that Malissa was still living on the 124‑acre widow’s dower that had been reserved for her immediately after William’s death.
The widow’s dower was a legally protected portion of a husband’s real estate—typically one‑third of the land—set aside for the widow’s lifetime use. It could not be sold out from under her, and it provided both residence and economic security. Malissa’s continued presence on this land in 1860 shows that she retained full control of her dower rights and that the Gaulding estate settlement had been carried out in a way that preserved her independence.
Her real estate valued at $1,000 and personal estate valued at $1,200 reveal a woman of modest but solid means. In rural Pittsylvania County on the eve of the Civil War, this level of property placed her comfortably above subsistence level. She was not wealthy, but she was financially stable—stable enough to maintain her own household, manage her land, and live without remarrying. Her personal estate value suggests she possessed livestock, household goods, and possibly income‑producing assets, all of which would have supported her daily needs.
The fact that Malissa was living alone in 1860 is also telling. Both of her children—Mary, born in 1835/36, and Jabez, born in 1837—had by this time married and established their own households. Their departure from the home reflects the natural progression of family life, but it also underscores Malissa’s ability to remain self‑sufficient. Many widows in her position remarried for economic security or moved in with adult children. Malissa did neither until later in life, after the war was over. Her continued residence on the dower land shows that she was capable of managing her affairs and that the property William left her was sufficient to sustain her.
Her solitary household also suggests a woman who maintained strong ties to the land and to the memory of her late husband. Remaining on the Gaulding property for nearly two decades after William’s death indicates both stability and a sense of rootedness. She lived out her middle years in the same community where she had married, raised her children, and managed the responsibilities of widowhood.
Taken together, the 1860 census paints a portrait of a capable, independent widow who successfully navigated the challenges of life after the death of an elderly husband. Malissa “Dicy” Gaulding remained on her legally protected dower land, maintained a respectable level of property, and lived independently even after her children had grown and left home. Her situation reflects both the protections afforded to widows under Virginia law and her own resilience and resourcefulness in sustaining her household well into her fifties. Like her neighbors and the rest of the South, the Civil War, however, changed her situation considerably.
Malissa had to reapply for her pension in 1865
The Civil War years were a period of profound disruption for widows of Revolutionary War soldiers living in the South, and Malissa “Dicy” (Burnett) Gaulding was no exception. Her pension testimony, given in 1865, provides a rare and intimate glimpse into her circumstances during the conflict. It reveals a woman who endured the war years with resilience, resourcefulness, and the support of her community, despite the sudden loss of the federal pension that had been her primary source of income.
Malissa had been granted a widow’s pension of $40 per year in 1853 as the surviving spouse of William T. Gaulding, a Revolutionary War veteran. This pension was a meaningful supplement to her modest means and helped sustain her as she lived alone on her 124‑acre widow’s dower in Pittsylvania County. But when the Civil War began, the U.S. government could no longer send payments into Confederate territory. Her last pension payment was received on March 4, 1861, just weeks before Virginia seceded. For the next four years, Malissa—like all Southern pensioners—was cut off from the financial support she had relied upon.
Her 1865 testimony, given after the war’s end, describes the reality of her situation with stark clarity. She stated that since January 1, 1864, she had lived “part of the time at her residence in Pittsylvania County and a part at Mrs. Boaz.” This detail is revealing. It shows that Malissa was not always able to remain on her own property during the later war years. Whether due to scarcity of food, danger, isolation, or simple necessity, she spent part of her time living with her daughter Mary (Gaulding) Boaz, who was a widow in her own right, her husband David Boaz having died of measles at Petersburg in 1862. This arrangement reflects the common wartime pattern of widows seeking shelter with adult children when circumstances became difficult.
Malissa further testified that during this period, her “means of subsistence have been supplied by her own exertions and the assistance of her neighbors.” This statement speaks volumes about her economic condition. With no pension income, and with the South’s economy collapsing under the strain of war, she survived through a combination of her own labor—likely gardening, small-scale farming, and household production—and the generosity of the local community. Her neighbors’ support indicates that she remained embedded in a strong kinship and social network, one that helped sustain her when federal funds were unavailable.
Her testimony also includes a required declaration that she had not borne arms against the United States, a necessary affirmation for reinstatement of her pension. This confirms that she remained loyal—or at least neutral—in the eyes of the federal government, a critical factor in her eventual reinstatement. It was not until 1869, four years after the war ended, that Malissa’s pension was restored, now increased to $96 per year. The delay reflects the bureaucratic backlog and the scrutiny applied to Southern claimants, but her eventual reinstatement demonstrates that the government accepted her testimony and recognized her continued eligibility.
Taken together, these details paint a vivid picture of Malissa’s Civil War experience. She was a widow living alone on her dower land, cut off from her primary source of income, forced at times to leave her home and live with her daughter, and dependent on her own labor and the goodwill of neighbors to survive. Yet she endured. Her ability to resume her pension after the war, and to continue living independently into the 1860s, testifies to her resilience and the strength of the community ties that sustained her during the most difficult years of her life.
For more information about the Pension records of both William T. Gaulding and his wife Melissa, see The Military Career of William T. Gaulding, a soldier of the Revolution on Gaulding Origins.
Her Death
Melissa Burnett Gaulding died sometime between 1869 and 1870 because she does not appear in the 1870 census of Pittsylvania County, nor does she appear elsewhere in Virginia under a variant spelling of her name. Her absence from the 1870 enumeration is genealogically significant, especially when viewed alongside her last confirmed appearance in the 1860 census, her 1865 pension testimony, and her pension reinstatement in 1869.
Malissa was clearly alive in 1865, when she gave sworn testimony regarding her residence and loyalty during the Civil War. She was also alive in 1869, when her federal widow’s pension was reinstated at the increased rate of $96 per year. These two fixed points—1865 and 1869—establish that she survived the war and lived at least four years into the Reconstruction period. Yet by 1870, she disappears from the census record. The most historically consistent interpretation is that Malissa died between 1869 and the 1870 census enumeration, likely on her widow’s dower property or possibly while staying with one of her children. Her death during this narrow window would explain why she does not appear in the 1870 census and why no later pension records exist beyond her reinstatement. Malissa’s own 1865 testimony, in which she described relying on “her own exertions and the assistance of her neighbors” for subsistence, suggests that her health and resources were strained during the war. These hardships may have contributed to her death sometime shortly after her pension was restored.
There is a document related to her will in Virginia, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1652-1900. (9)
The text of the above bond reads:
“Know all men by these presents that I Joseph E. Tarpley am held and firmly bound unto the commonwealth of Virginia in the sum of one hundred dollars to the payment of which will and truly to be made I bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators jointly and Severally firmly by these presents Sealed with my Seals and dated this 20 day of June 1870 the condition of the above obligation is such that whereas the County Court of Pittsylvania County have admitted to probate the will of Malissa Gauldin deceased and whereas the Said Joseph E. Tarpley by the said will is appointed executor thereof now if the Said Tarpley Shall faithfully discharge the duty of Said office or trust them the above obligation to be void else to remain in full force and virtue.
Signed Sealed and acknowledged
Joseph E. Tarpley (seal)
At a county court held for the County of Pittsylvania on the 20 day of June 1870 the foregoing bond was entered into and acknowledged by the Obligatory to be their act.
Teste L. Scruggs, clk”
The above bond is the executor’s bond, entered into by Joseph E. Tarpley on 20 June 1870, the same day the County Court of Pittsylvania County admitted the will of Malissa Gauldin, deceased, to probate. This tells us that Malissa left a written will and that the will was formally proved in Pittsylvania County on 20 June 1870.
Beyond this reference, I have been unable to find her actual will. It’s probably in “Will books, 1814–1867, 1880, 1943–1947; indexes to wills, 1767–1965 — FamilySearch Library”. Because Malissa’s will was proved on 20 June 1870, it falls just after the 1814–1867 Will Book series. That means her will is not in the 1814–1867 volumes but should appear in the next Will Book, which FamilySearch typically catalogs as: Pittsylvania County, Virginia — Will Book 3 (circa 1867–1875). The search does not yield any results. To find the will and be able to transcribe it would reveal who her beneficiaries were and who she left her property to.
Across the span of three decades, the records of Pittsylvania County reveal Malissa “Dicy” Gaulding as a woman of remarkable endurance, stability, and quiet strength. From her early years as the young wife of the elderly Revolutionary War veteran William T. Gaulding, to her long widowhood on the 124‑acre dower land he left her, Malissa consistently maintained her household, raised her children, and navigated the hardships of war and Reconstruction with dignity. Her will, proved in June 1870, marks the final chapter of a life lived entirely within the Chestnut Grove community, rooted in the land she managed for nearly thirty years. Taken together, these records portray Malissa not merely as the widow of a Revolutionary soldier, but as a capable, self‑reliant woman who preserved her home, protected her children, and sustained herself through some of the most turbulent decades in Virginia’s history.
Works Cited
1. Harveys, Pittsylvania County. The Harvey-L Teams Project. [Online] https://homepages.rootsweb.com/~harvey/TEAMS/team13.htm.
2. Pittsylvania County, Virginia, Marriage Bonds. Pittsylvania County Marriage Bonds, 1806-1850, Clerk of the Court, Pittsylvania County Courthouse, Chatham, Virginia. [Online] Entry for 15 June 1835: Willaim T. Gauldin & Malissa Burnett; bondsman: Benjamin Burnett, This entry proves the date of the bond, the parties involved and the identity of the bondsman.
3. 1830 United States Federal Census . ancestry.com. [Online] https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/8058/images/4411349_00747?pId=956295.
4. General Search "Burnett" in the 1840 Census, Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Family Search. [Online]
5. 1840 United States Federal Census . ancestry.com. [Online] Virginia, Pittsylvania County. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/8057/images/4410827_00252?pId=1913766.
6. Chancery Record. Transcribed by Catherine L. Gauldin, 2026. [Online]
7. Alabama, Texas and Virginia, U.S., Confederate Pensions, 1884-1958. ancestry.com. [Online] Virginia, Act of 1888 Pension Applications. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1677/images/31867_B034254-00292?pId=515516.
8. 1850 United States Federal Census . ancestry.com. [Online] Virginia, Pittsylvania, Southern District. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/8054/images/4206390_00179?pId=15427917.
9. Virginia, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1652-1900 . ancestry.com. [Online] Pittsylvania, Fiduciary Bond Book, 1860-1874. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/62347/images/007673241_00474?pId=2004497.
10. List of Wills, 1800-1870, Pittsylvania County, Virginia: Pittsylvania. Wills 1800–1870. Family Search . [Online] https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9PC-K7Y9?view=fullText&keywords=GAULDING&lang=en&groupId=M995-WHC.
© 2026 Catherine L. Gauldin, Gaulding Origins. All original content protected. Use of this site implies agreement with the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Comments