<<< RE: Also, your so right about chasing the collaterals... if one doesn't chase 'em, they will never see the whole picture in order to really understand their ancestors. Tories or Patriots... Black Sheep and Angels... Native Americans and English, French, etc. <<< Anne, Dat's right..... <grin> I want to know a little more about your STOCKTONS, if you have a good handle on them. I need a Samuel STOCKTON born ABT 1780 (or before) with possibly a LOCKE tied to that family in some way and the name, Mary or Elizabeth LNU as the wife. Possible locations are the Holston River area of VA/TN in the 1829 time frame. There would probably have been some NORRIS, although some say MORRIS, and RAMSEY activity around this STOCKTON family. However, I think NORRIS is correct. I have looked at Thomas STOCKTON of Augusta County, VA as a possible parent but the name, Thomas, does not float down in my family. I do not know exactly where Elizabeth STOCKTON (1808-1888) married Russell RENEAU (1807-1865) but they were married on 7 Jul 1829 and that you can take to the bank. His father, the Hon. Louis L. RENEAU, Esq., was a TN State Representative representing the French Broad River area of Jefferson County, TN in that same time frame, as well as being an attorney. You are exactly right about the causes for so few divorces -- their early death due to complications from child birth being one of the major ones. However, I don't think many in my bunch died from slopping the hogs because that is rather easy work and a lot easier than toting all of the garbage out to the garbage can, these days. <grin> I would say the next most common reasons for their early death and the remarriage of their husbands were -- malaria, yellow fever, cholera, typhoid, etc. but these diseases also got the boys, too. John R. Clarke Thomasville, GA ----- Original Message ----- From: <JetPilotUSAF100@cs.com> To: <DANIEL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:23 PM Subject: [DANIEL-L] Keeping Marriages in the family. > In a message dated 12/22/2003 7:01:09 AM Central Standard Time, > jclarke@rose.net writes: > > The more or less typical approved marriage of Colonial times was at a > > second cousin level with first cousins not outside the realm of possibility. > > John, Thanks, I needed that whole message. But, gotta tell ya, even the > Quakers approved of a second cousin level marriage... and, about the divorce rate > being almost nonexistent... heck, mostly the poor wives just plain ole died, > if not from childbirth, then from doing all the labor in both home and > field... down to slopping the hogs... no need for a divorce. <g> I believe the > "cousin marriages" probably had better chance of survival... compatibility through > their genes. > > And, as usual, you lost me on some of these names... You seem to have the > capacity to remember them, while I don't. TOMLINSON, DAME, SIRMAN, HARDEMAN, > MOORES, FIVASH, STALVEY, etc. Now, the TOMLINSON name, I know is connected > somewhere... and right now I'm thinking back to some of the lesser known STOCKTONs > from my maternal side. > > Also, your so right about chasing the collaterals... if one doesn't chase > 'em, they will never see the whole picture in order to really understand their > ancestors. Tories or Patriots... Black Sheep and Angels... Native Americans and > English, French, etc. > Anne > > > > ==== DANIEL Mailing List ==== > Don't forget to change the Subject line of your message when you change the subject of a reply message. > >