ROARK-L Archives

Archiver > ROARK > 1997-08 > 0871642135


From: "Ginger" <>
Subject: Fw: Those darn Gallatin Co Roark marriages!
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 06:48:55 -0400


Hi again,
Again, I am forwarding this with permission.
Am interested in getting comments from those
of you searching the same line.

Ginger


----------
> From: gordon c ralls jr <>
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Those darn Gallatin Co Roark marriages!
> Date: Thursday, August 14, 1997 10:25 PM
>
> Ginger,
>
> HANG ON FOR A LONG ONE.
>
> Thanks for your review of the attached (done so in case Jim didn't get a
> copy, and for 'handy' reference). Sorry my response is not as prompt as
> yours was, but I had some 'digging' to do to TRY to support my
> contention that Rhoda was one of Michael's sisters. I was also
> interrupted by some Ralls data that came in, plus a little work on my
> wife's Crockett line.
>
> To recap what we have (I think) so far:
>
> A. We seem to agree on who numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are.
>
> B. In support of my contention about 5, 6, 9, and 13, here is the 1850
> Muhlenberg Co census, page 186 for William Roark b 1810 KY (oldest son,
> and 3rd child of Martin). This William's marriage to Violet Hancock on
> 17 Jul 1833 in Muhlenberg Co is recorded (among other places, I'm sure)
> in a book by Mrs. Evelyn Cox of Madisonville, KY, which I found at one
> of the LDS FHC's I have visited.
>
> William Roark 40 b KY my est of age at
> Violet 34 age at birth marriage
> John M 16 1834 24 m Jane Merritt 1858*
> James 14 1826 21 m Chris Lamb 1857 (#6)
> Thomas 12 1838 23 m Lut. Gossett 1861**
> Lewis 12 1838 22 m M A Ambrose 1860 (#9)
> William 8 1842 24 m Cath. Karnes 1866 (#13)
> Henry C 6 1844 21 m Mrs. Keath 1865 (#5)
> Nancy E 1 1849
> Caroline Everly21 [certainly a name associated with the Roarks]
>
> * same reference as his father.
> ** Saline Co Marriage Books [LDS film H02618, film H02619 and a Book by
> Bernard W Moore 1847-1880] Besides his, the William/Risinger; Michael
> E/Pickering; Mary/Hankinson; Nancy/Sisk; Nancy E/Guard; Rhoda A/Durham;
> Rachel/Cannon; Sarah C/Bellah; Hester/Simpson are the ONLY Roarks in
> Saline Co 1847-1880.
> This puts ALL the brothers in IL. I really needs an 1860 and 70 census
> check to see if it 'holds'. Curiously, this William's children are the
> only ones for which I don't have at least some marriage recorded.
>
> C. It remains to conjecture (and perhaps a look at the census) whether
> #7 and #11 are Michael's grandchildren. [PURELY SPECULATION] If we take
> David, b 1822, say m 1842, have a child m 1862, then either 7 or 11
> could be his. If we take James, b 1831, say m 1851, have a child m 1871,
> then 11 could be his.
>
> D. You recollect that Levi, # 8 is from a different 'clan' and not b KY.
> This would APPEAR to be correct, basis 1880 census where a Levi Roark ae
> 48 and b TN has children whose ages are consistant with an 1854
> marriage. I think this is also the father of a William C Roark, buried
> in Ashbury Cem that Jim asked about a while back.
>
> E. Re # 10, neither of us know of an unaccounted for female young enough
> to have m in 1836.
>
> F. That leaves us with Rhoda, #12, an my 'contention.' You are QUITE
> RIGHT that she is not mentioned in the Martin depositon. While I had
> Rhoda as a 'daughter' before I ever saw the deposition (sources later),
> when I did see it, I ASSUMED that she was dead and without issue by
> 1868, the same as her 'sister' Elizabeth, who was the 'centerpiece' of
> the lawsuit. Actually, it didn't 'surprise' me, because the other female
> (Susan) Catherine was dead too, except she had an heir. In going thru
> both the legal paper and the deposition with a 'fine tooth comb' for
> 'inconsistencies' that would 'justify' my idea, the following came up:
> Lt. James H Martin, s/Elizabeth and Hugh is in the 'legal' part, but NOT
> his father's depo. [I find, comparing the 'written' document, with the
> 'printed one' {KY Family Records, Vol 20, p 79} that the TYPED copy is
> in error. William McDonald (who was killed in Civil War) and s/ Susan
> Roark and Andrew McD is not listed at all (because he was dead by 1868).
> William H, s/ William R is not mentioned in the deposition. James H
> Roark, son of William R, b 1840 (and in the 1850 census) is not
> mentioned at all.
>
> I know this is picking at 'nits'. But it does open the POSSIBILITY.
>
> I go a little further. I originally got a 'daughter' named Rhoda from
> three DAR applications. 213625, in 1925, for Martha J Roark Malone, a
> dau of Wm Siegel has: Michael, John, William, Rhoda, and Martin.
> Elizabeth was written in later by someone else. 237614, in 1927, for
> Sarah C Roark Bellah, dau of Capt. Wm has: John, Michael, William,
> Elizabeth, Rhoda, and Martin. 483388, in 1968, for Lorraine Buchanan
> Schwartz, ggd of Hannah Roark Slaten has: John, Michael, William,
> Elizabeth, Rhoda, and Martin.
> THE REAL CURIOSITY IS THAT NO ONE MENTIONED (SUSAN) CATHERINE who IS
> mentioned in the depo!
>
> Finally, pant, pant....Michael named one daughter after his wife, Nancy.
> He named another after his sister, Elizabeth. He gave Nancy the middle
> name of another sister, Catherine. I also believe he named another
> daughter after his sister Rhoda.
>
> I could go 'further' in boring you with who I think the people are in
> the 1810 and 1818 census, but will not.
>
> Remind me some other time, to give my 'presentation' on who Martin's
> wive(s) were, and how I got to that conclusion.
>
> Thanks for your patience. Not sure we PROVED anything, but hopefully
> with the proper 'fermenation' and 'gestation' we will come to something
> to hang our hats on.
>
> Maybe Jim, who is 'viewing from afar' can make some 'sense' out of all
> this.
>
>
> With affection, your 'cuz',
>
>
> Gordon

This thread: