ARIZARD-L Archives

Archiver > ARIZARD > 2001-12 > 1009748560


From: "Joyce Cooper Walker" <>
Subject: Re: [ARIZARD-L] Mary Langston Jeffrey re: J.J. Sams
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 15:42:46 -0600
References: <5.0.0.25.2.20011230144718.025991a0@pop3.norton.antivirus>


Hi Jean...Kathryn....Dale Hanks book has the date of Jan 14, 1804 as the
birth date of Mary Langston. He also gives the 1804 date as Jesse Jeffery's
birth date, says they were married Jan 14, 1824...several repetitions of Jan
14, 1804...could be a case of picking up the wrong date...what do you
think??

He also gives the number of children as 14. Daniel and Philip dying in
early childhood, Jehoiada dying in infancy, and James, 1844, dying Aug 1857,
Two sons killed in the war , Beniah and Jesse. Since the book is not
indexed it is kinda hard to follow.....


Joyce

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean Mayfield Cuevas" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARIZARD-L] Mary Langston Jeffrey re: J.J. Sams


> Hi Kathryn,
>
> Your surmisings are pretty much along the lines that I believe are
> correct. I don't really think that Mary lied about her age consistently
> for her entire life. I would like to know where the birth year of 1804
> came from. Since I don't have a copy of Dale Hanks' first book, I can't
> quote it as his. Does anyone have a copy of the Jeffery Genealogy by Dale
> Hanks? Could you check to see if the birth year of 1804 is in that?
>
> I am guessing that Mary must have had a number of miscarriages, or losses
> of children, early on. JJ Sams speaks of Mary and Sallie as if he was on
> pretty good terms with them, so I take his word at it.
>
> I was doing some digging (I think it was Yancys, but may have been another
> family) very early this morning, and ran across another 12 year old
married
> to a 35 year old. They were much older by the time that census was taken,
> but when you went back to their birth years, that's how it worked out.
> Maybe Mary Langston was closer to 11 than 10? Still bad, but since so
many
> women died in childbirth and the hardships of that era, and since I have
> heard (more than once) that many women only could expect to live to their

> 40's, perhaps they didn't look at early marriages in the same light that
we
> do. (Not condoning it, mind you, just making an observation).
>
> Jean
>
>
> At 12:03 PM 12/30/01 -0600, you wrote:
> >However, every census year from 1850 is consistent with 1814 being the
> >year of birth. I would like to say she may have been a woman who didn't
> >like being "old" and fibbed about her age to the census taker, without
> >any
> >thought to what it would make her age at marriage, as I'm sure she never
> >gave a thought to anyone looking at that over a hundred years later. But
> >if this is the problem, then she was pretty good at keeping her age the
> >same every 10 years! ( I can't remember yesterday, much less 10 years
> >ago!) And one HAS to ASSUME, she would know her age better than our
> >friend J J Sams. Unless a bible shows up I guess all we have to go on is
> >the consistency of the census ages.
> >
> >Now, I wonder about the 22 children for Mary. I only show 12 in my
> >fgs.
> >A female bn 1825-1830; Oliver; Letty; Benniah; Jesse; James; Elizabeth;
> >Martin; Mary; John; Ambrose and Emanuel
> >
> >Kathryn
>
>
>
> ==== ARIZARD Mailing List ====
> Questions about Rootsweb? Go to: http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~help/index.htm
>
>

This thread: