Several Public Trees at Ancestry.com have listed Catherine and Louisa as daughters of John & Zilpha Eddins. No other information is available. No birth dates. No death dates. Nuttin', honey. Folks probably copied a previously posted family tree without checking the sources.
A disgression:
Please don't think I'm saying my research is always better.
It's not. But when I do find new facts, I correct the information in my tree. This makes me very happy. :)))))
For example:
Though my research is generally good and based on primary sources when possible, at the moment I too have a Catherine, born 1789 and listed as a daughter of John & Zilpha. Checking the footnote, I find this source listed: "1850 US Census for Pike County, AL, Ancestry.com, Viewed December 2004." Not too many details, huh? And when you search for "Eddins/Edins/Edings" in Pike County, AL, the only person born around 1790 is Elizabeth Eddins. No Catherine in sight.
Uhhhh....
See below.
It's not. But when I do find new facts, I correct the information in my tree. This makes me very happy. :)))))
For example:
Though my research is generally good and based on primary sources when possible, at the moment I too have a Catherine, born 1789 and listed as a daughter of John & Zilpha. Checking the footnote, I find this source listed: "1850 US Census for Pike County, AL, Ancestry.com, Viewed December 2004." Not too many details, huh? And when you search for "Eddins/Edins/Edings" in Pike County, AL, the only person born around 1790 is Elizabeth Eddins. No Catherine in sight.
Uhhhh....
See below.
When you look at the 1860 US Census for Pike County, AL—Yay bo! Lots of Eddinses and Edinses. Since we're looking for children of John & Zilpha, let's focus on the most likely candidates:
- Elizabeth Eddins, born 1795 in NC
- Louisa Eddins, born 1784 in SC
- Catherine Eddins, born 1790 in AL
We can eliminate Elizabeth Eddins right away as a child of John & Zilpha. Née Wilson, she was enumerated in the 1850 and 1860 US Censuses for AL in Pike County with young Richard Eddins. According to a will in Pike County, she married Richard John Eddins and had Richard as a son. The source is a newspaper article at this URL:
http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/12953816/person/1739611301/media/6b24b9ab-44f6-4e54-87a0-265b5f59c77c?pg=32768&pgpl=pid
So much for Elizabeth.
Next comes Louisa Eddins, born 1784 in South Carolina—
Sorry. Again, not a child of John & Zilpha.
So much for Elizabeth.
Next comes Louisa Eddins, born 1784 in South Carolina—
Sorry. Again, not a child of John & Zilpha.
Louisa Eddins was the daughter-in-law of John & Zilpha, wife of the first John S. Eddins (son of John & Zilpha), and the mother of the second John S. Eddins. Louisa, née Swearingen/Swearingain, born about 1784, married John S. pére in Edgefield District, SC, on January 15, 1805. Corroboration of her position comes from the will of her son, John S., who wrote it before leaving for the Civil War. Here's a link to that will:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-23252-41691-68?cc=1978117&wc=14406399
The issue of Catherine Eddins is a little more complex. The most likely candidate is the Catherine who is in the household of Ephraim Eddins in Pike County, AL, in 1860. In the 1860 US Census for AL, Ephraim Eddins is living in the Western Division, Pike County, Hallsville P.O. In the household are Ephraim, 51, Mary A., 43, Mittie Small, 20, Manuel J., 18, James N., 13, Ellen, 13, Catharine, 70, and Ann C. M. Eddins, 5. Catharine was born about 1790 in AL. Ephraim through James were born in SC; Ellen, Catharine, and Ann C. M. were born in AL.
I submit to you that this Catharine is not a child of John & Zilpha. There are too many discrepancies. First of all, to be a daughter of J & Z, Catharine would have been born in SC, not AL, because all of John & Zilpha's children were born in SC. Alabama did not even become a state until 1819, so Catharine could not have been born there—period!
So...maybe the census taker made a mistake.
But there are more discrepancies:
Census takers usually (not always, but usually) listed heads of household first, then spouses, then children and step-children by age in descending order. After that could be parents and in-laws, then siblings, then other relations or boarders. Compare Catharine's position to that of Louisa Eddins in the household of Samuel Small, above in the census. If Catharine were a sibling or aunt, in-law or parent, logically she'd be listed AFTER Ann C. M. Eddins, unless Ann is a grandchild—which she is not, as proved by this death notice:
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=FSAlabamaDeath&h=290732&indiv=try&o_cvc=Image:OtherRecord
Want more?
Lastly, if you compare the "7's" of the census taker's handwriting to the "1's," it's clear that this female is TEN and not 70. Look at the entire entry for the family. Logically, this female is a CHILD named Catherine who is 10, and not an adult.
Which knocks this Catherine Eddins out of the race to be a child of John & Zilpha.
Some trees list another Catherine Eddins, born 1809, as a daughter of John & Zilpha. There WAS a Catherine Eddins. She was a daughter not of J & Z, but of William Eddins and Hannah Wilson. Born 1809 in Charleston, SC, married Noah Parker in 1825 in Conehuh County, AL, and died in 1862, buried Fairmont Cemetery, Butler County, AL. Source:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/a/r/Tannis-W-Parker/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0235.html
Many family trees have errors (including my own; see above), but 99% of the trees at Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com list Catherine as a daughter of William Eddins and Hannah Wilson, so I'm inclined to believe it's true. At any rate, she was born too late to be a daughter of John & Zilpha.
To wrap up, neither Louisa, Catherine, or Elizabeth are daughters of John & Zilpha. So now I have to go back and correct my family tree.
Goody!!!!!!! :))))
I submit to you that this Catharine is not a child of John & Zilpha. There are too many discrepancies. First of all, to be a daughter of J & Z, Catharine would have been born in SC, not AL, because all of John & Zilpha's children were born in SC. Alabama did not even become a state until 1819, so Catharine could not have been born there—period!
So...maybe the census taker made a mistake.
But there are more discrepancies:
Census takers usually (not always, but usually) listed heads of household first, then spouses, then children and step-children by age in descending order. After that could be parents and in-laws, then siblings, then other relations or boarders. Compare Catharine's position to that of Louisa Eddins in the household of Samuel Small, above in the census. If Catharine were a sibling or aunt, in-law or parent, logically she'd be listed AFTER Ann C. M. Eddins, unless Ann is a grandchild—which she is not, as proved by this death notice:
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=FSAlabamaDeath&h=290732&indiv=try&o_cvc=Image:OtherRecord
Want more?
Lastly, if you compare the "7's" of the census taker's handwriting to the "1's," it's clear that this female is TEN and not 70. Look at the entire entry for the family. Logically, this female is a CHILD named Catherine who is 10, and not an adult.
Which knocks this Catherine Eddins out of the race to be a child of John & Zilpha.
Some trees list another Catherine Eddins, born 1809, as a daughter of John & Zilpha. There WAS a Catherine Eddins. She was a daughter not of J & Z, but of William Eddins and Hannah Wilson. Born 1809 in Charleston, SC, married Noah Parker in 1825 in Conehuh County, AL, and died in 1862, buried Fairmont Cemetery, Butler County, AL. Source:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/a/r/Tannis-W-Parker/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0235.html
Many family trees have errors (including my own; see above), but 99% of the trees at Ancestry.com and Genealogy.com list Catherine as a daughter of William Eddins and Hannah Wilson, so I'm inclined to believe it's true. At any rate, she was born too late to be a daughter of John & Zilpha.
To wrap up, neither Louisa, Catherine, or Elizabeth are daughters of John & Zilpha. So now I have to go back and correct my family tree.
Goody!!!!!!! :))))
No comments:
Post a Comment