Julia, May God be with you, especially at this time. Regards, John -----Original Message----- From: JULIAFWOOD@aol.com [mailto:JULIAFWOOD@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:42 PM To: HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Refused without documentation In a message dated 09/04/2001 10:14:44 PM Central Daylight Time, lpcraven@triad.rr.com writes: > The only problem with completely converting the entire project > to that type of set-up is time. I know all the committee members are > dealing with real life situations right now that prevent us from putting it > together. Hopefully these situations will soon be dealt with and put behind > Lisa is handling this situation just fine, and doesn't need my input, here, but I for one keep thinking things will get better at my house, and they only get worse. My Mom is in the hospital again, and must be spoon-fed, and my husband had five by-pass heart surgery on Friday and must have sitters round the clock, but the good news is that my little granddaughter who almost died several times since she was born at only 2 1/2 pounds, on July 9th, is doing well, and may get to come home soon. I am writing this at midnight, because I probably won't have time to read my email again for a while. But just want you to know that things like putting notices on the website, may sound simple, but real life situations make it impossible to even think about doing it at this time. Julia ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== This is a closed list. This means that unless you are subscribed to the list, you can't post messages.

I, for one, have always wished my "other" surname lists had an awesome online project like the Hancock one. I think it was terrific how the experts on this group were willing to not only put in major personal time on the project but even more so, share data that someone more mercenary would have preferred to compile into a profitable book. Genealogy is a process, and like most academic endeavors, will need updates and corrections as more information is discovered. I'd say it's better to have the draft in place ,online, to work from and realize that since perfection hasn't been attained anywhere on this earth, there will be some errors. A special thanks to Lisa and Julia and the others who worked so hard to include all the Hancocks in the project. Julia, so sorry about all you are currently going through. God bless. Mitzi Clark Bateman

In a message dated 09/04/2001 10:14:44 PM Central Daylight Time, lpcraven@triad.rr.com writes: > The only problem with completely converting the entire project > to that type of set-up is time. I know all the committee members are > dealing with real life situations right now that prevent us from putting it > together. Hopefully these situations will soon be dealt with and put behind > Lisa is handling this situation just fine, and doesn't need my input, here, but I for one keep thinking things will get better at my house, and they only get worse. My Mom is in the hospital again, and must be spoon-fed, and my husband had five by-pass heart surgery on Friday and must have sitters round the clock, but the good news is that my little granddaughter who almost died several times since she was born at only 2 1/2 pounds, on July 9th, is doing well, and may get to come home soon. I am writing this at midnight, because I probably won't have time to read my email again for a while. But just want you to know that things like putting notices on the website, may sound simple, but real life situations make it impossible to even think about doing it at this time. Julia

Yes, we considered that, but that is a two-edged sword. Much of the time info was documented with different sources, as many sources have conflicting info published. By doing that, we would be opening up ourselves to decide which source to go with, etc. Also, many of the researchers on our line have lots of sources, but just don't have it all put together in their computer files. We felt by demanding backup sources, we would be keeping very good research out of the project, and we didn't want to do that. There are mistakes in all our research somewhere, but if we knew all the answers, this would not be worth doing. I'm not sure if you are considering how much info we had to work on. In file #1 alone, there are over 6,000 names. This came about by merging at least 10 files that were huge. It took weeks just to get the duplicate people out of the files, as when merging files in FTM, it errs on the side of caution and leaves many duplicate people. Granted, not all the files were this big, but there are thousands of individuals making up these files. I lost track of the number of files we had sent in, but it was a huge response by this list. We even had some lines sent to us that were printed on paper, and we put those files together into computer files. We encouraged everyone to send their info, no matter the format or type. It was a great response and I think everyone worked very hard in getting all the info to us. I still think a central site, linking to all researcher's information individually, without merging or altering the files in any way is the best way to do this. Everyone has an equal say, and no one is put into the position of verifying the information, unless you are actually working on that line. The only problem with completely converting the entire project to that type of set-up is time. I know all the committee members are dealing with real life situations right now that prevent us from putting it together. Hopefully these situations will soon be dealt with and put behind us all, and maybe at that time, we can get back to work on this project. Lisa Check out my website at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/7502/index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ardath Buckaway" <bqueen@compusmart.ab.ca> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: [HANCOCK-L] Refused without documentation > Lisa & John, > > Have you thought of refusing the work of people unless they can send you the scanned or photo copied documents, supporting their lines. The DAR and SAR are successful because of stiff requirements. If a person can't support their theory, then forget it. It would be quite simple and simply unacceptable! > > Ardath > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > If you have a HANCOCK Genealogy Homepage, and would > like to have it listed on our Links page, send the URL to the > list, or to: JuliaFWood@aol.com >

Hi all you fellow genealogists. Just wanted to let you know that because our internet provider keeps changing, we are forced to change our address to something that we won't have to change again, hopefully. Our NEW address is volleymom@yahoo.com. To you who aren't sure who I am, I am on the Hancock list for Hector, The Redd list for Whitaker and William, The Hardison list for JasperI, The Shroyer list for John and Eliza, and the Overton list for William married to Amanda in 1874. Thanks, Becky

I would like to clarify one point in Bob's message. We did not volunteer, we were asked and voted on by the list to put this data together. We have been bombarded with very nasty emails when there are differences of opinions on lines. We never agreed to research each line to find out which opinion was correct. These emails prompted some of the lines to be taken off the Project site. I think each of the members of the committee who put so much time into this Project, have had their own personal challenges to deal with that we did not anticipate. That type of thing just happens. It's not an excuse, it's just a fact of life. We sorted thousands of Hancock's in these files to combine each line into one file. I don't think the Project was too big a job for any of us that have worked on it, but it does dampen the spirit of the Project when we find message after message in our mailboxes blasting us over the info on the website or someone accusing us of playing God because they think we favored one person's work over another's. We tried very hard to get this done correctly, but as everyone knows, we all have an opinion, and usually those opinions are different. This is the reason we began linking to researchers own personal websites for different versions of the same lines. This way, everyone had a voice, and has their chance to offer their opinion to everyone. It seems this is the best solution we found to a very difficult situation. If you need to flame me over this message, please keep it off the list, and go directly to me. It can't be any worse than emails I've already received over this project. Lisa Check out my website at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/7502/index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: <BOBHOP@aol.com> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts > Ardath- > > Well-- that should do it! > > I think the real reason is that the Hancock Project is too big for the > volunteers who offered to do it. > > The other reason, is that there is one "researcher" who seems slightly > demented. She kept telling me to change what I had found to what she said she > had (from her mother) but would never show what she had. I kept telling her > to submit the data and let the powers-to-be decide. This irked Julia and John > and there was a spitting contest. The "researcher" was banned and "my" Chart > 3 ostracized. > > You will probably shake tree now. BobHop > > Visit our home page http://mx4.xoom.com/bhop1 > > Major family names- Abel, Adams, Anders, Bellisfield, Brock, Byers, Davis, > Dement, Field, Guffey, Hancock, Hockaday, Hopkins, Irvine, McClanahan, > Scarbrough, Shipley, Strother, Stonestreet, Wade, Wampler, Westlake > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > Feel free to post the data you find on HANCOCK > in your research. Census, bible, wills, marriages, > deaths, cemetery, deeds, tax lists, and other > useful data. You might help a cousin who needs it. >

Lisa & John, Have you thought of refusing the work of people unless they can send you the scanned or photo copied documents, supporting their lines. The DAR and SAR are successful because of stiff requirements. If a person can't support their theory, then forget it. It would be quite simple and simply unacceptable! Ardath

Lisa, I understand what you are saying, but since I am a relatively "new comer" I look at that stuff, and wonder why it is there. Why not just state that Charts #3,4,5,and 6 are no longer available. Just leave the researcher's or researchers' names up there with their address. I spent time trying to figure out why I couldn't get them open. I haven't been part of the disagreements, but felt it was unfair, to have them on there without an explanation. If several people have the same chart with a different opinion, why not put up a short note directing people to Version A, of Chart #?, or Version B of Chart #? This would save all of you the frustration of the nonsense that seems to have gone before. Let those who want to choose whichever version they want. Goodness knows there are enough errors already, so let people make their own mistakes, but forwarn them that it is "Their" choice. I know there are people who will never accept the fact that "they could be Wrong", and they will lead their descendants down the wrong path. You can't stop that from happening, it is their choice. It would appear to me, that all of you had hoped to get the correct information, and thought everyone would agree it was the last word. It will never be the last word, even with the Charts that will open. All it takes is someone to go looking for a person that may have eloped, disappeared, and turned up years later in another state or area, with a family that no one knew existed. There must be some way for all these hard headed Hancocks and their relatives to come up with a reasonable solution. Of course, maybe that is the reason we all have survived! Hard Heads! I would like to view the other Charts, even though I do know how to view Chart #3. Ardath ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lisa" <lpcraven@triad.rr.com> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts > I would like to clarify one point in Bob's message. We did not volunteer, > we were asked and voted on by the list to put this data together. We have > been bombarded with very nasty emails when there are differences of opinions > on lines. We never agreed to research each line to find out which opinion > was correct. These emails prompted some of the lines to be taken off the > Project site. > > I think each of the members of the committee who put so much time into this > Project, have had their own personal challenges to deal with that we did not > anticipate. That type of thing just happens. It's not an excuse, it's just > a fact of life. > > We sorted thousands of Hancock's in these files to combine each line into > one file. I don't think the Project was too big a job for any of us that > have worked on it, but it does dampen the spirit of the Project when we find > message after message in our mailboxes blasting us over the info on the > website or someone accusing us of playing God because they think we favored > one person's work over another's. We tried very hard to get this done > correctly, but as everyone knows, we all have an opinion, and usually those > opinions are different. > > This is the reason we began linking to researchers own personal websites for > different versions of the same lines. This way, everyone had a voice, and > has their chance to offer their opinion to everyone. It seems this is the > best solution we found to a very difficult situation. > > If you need to flame me over this message, please keep it off the list, and > go directly to me. It can't be any worse than emails I've already received > over this project. > > Lisa > > > Check out my website at > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/7502/index.html > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <BOBHOP@aol.com> > To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 5:08 PM > Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts > > > > Ardath- > > > > Well-- that should do it! > > > > I think the real reason is that the Hancock Project is too big for the > > volunteers who offered to do it. > > > > The other reason, is that there is one "researcher" who seems slightly > > demented. She kept telling me to change what I had found to what she said > she > > had (from her mother) but would never show what she had. I kept telling > her > > to submit the data and let the powers-to-be decide. This irked Julia and > John > > and there was a spitting contest. The "researcher" was banned and "my" > Chart > > 3 ostracized. > > > > You will probably shake tree now. BobHop > > > > Visit our home page http://mx4.xoom.com/bhop1 > > > > Major family names- Abel, Adams, Anders, Bellisfield, Brock, Byers, Davis, > > Dement, Field, Guffey, Hancock, Hockaday, Hopkins, Irvine, McClanahan, > > Scarbrough, Shipley, Strother, Stonestreet, Wade, Wampler, Westlake > > > > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > > Feel free to post the data you find on HANCOCK > > in your research. Census, bible, wills, marriages, > > deaths, cemetery, deeds, tax lists, and other > > useful data. You might help a cousin who needs it. > > > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > Check out our HANCOCK Project World Wide at: > http://members.aol.com/heatherjvw/Hancock/ >

There is a Major Hancock listed in the tax records for Patrick County Virginia from 1794 through 1814. Other Hancock's include: Benjamin, Absalom, William, John from 1791-1802. In 1802, there was also a John Jr. Thomas Hancock showed up in 1812. Charles Hancock shows up in 1829, Fleming and Lewis D. Hancock in 1830, Elijah Hancock in 1836. I am looking for a Sarah Hancock who married Richard Whitlock in Patrick County in 1804. They lived in Halifax until moving to Patrick in 1810 for that year only, back to Halifax and then to Patrick in 1813. Richard died in Patrick County in 1823. Sarah Hancock Whitlock moved to Kanawha County Va/WV with several of her children in 1847. She died in Kanawha County in 1862 where her death records states she was born in Halifax County 1775. After much research, I find Richard Whitlock living in Goochland with his parents until 1795 when they moved to Halifax County. Question: Could this Sarah be the one who married James Page in Goochland in 1800? I did find that Richard Whitlock's mother was Sarah Wilburn and she had a sister who married Robert Page. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, Greg Whitlock gwhitloc@swva.net -----Original Message----- From: Ardath Buckaway <bqueen@compusmart.ab.ca> To: HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, September 03, 2001 11:47 PM Subject: [HANCOCK-L] Re: Major III > >Helene and all of Hancock Cousins, > >I don't know if I am about to start a Hancock Family squabble or not, but I >had all the Major Hancocks so mixed up and spent a lot of wasted time trying >to figure it all out. It ends up that I believe that the Major who was >"supposed" to have been born in 1803, is a figment of imagination. There >never was one born then. I have gone to great lengths to find the truth on >this one. Here are some of my notes. Some have been sent by numerous >researchers, and I have put them together to make some sense. > > Mary Page was first wife. The second wife was Elizabeth Page, a cousin of >Mary. >After Mary died Elizabeth (d/o Robert) married Major in 1830. > > Major 1772 married and moved to SC in 1807. He lived in Spartanburgh >untill 1840 when re moved to Hall Co GA. He left a will in Hall Co and died >there but named his children. Many researchers have the "Majors" confused. > >**The Spartanburg Co., SC census records that Mary and Major had >children---at least one son and three daughters.** > > (This is not true, there was no son, just a blot or a fly-speck on the >film. I >checked three different 1810 Census films at three locations.) Note:- This >was done by another researcher who was helping me. > >Elizabeth was eighteen years younger than her husband. They lived in >Woodruff, Spartanburg Co., SC and had one child. >(This statement is not correct either.) >The child in that home was Nancy, the daughter of Pamela, unmarried. She >later married a Truelove. > >Major's second wife, Elizabeth (age 60), was listed in the 1850 Spartanburg >Co., SC Census with Mansell and Matilda LAWSON (both age 20) living with >her<< > > Elizabeth had no children. Nancy Matilda Hancock was a granddaughter of >Major and the daughter of his (unmarried ?) daughter Pamela (Hancock) >Truelove. She lived with Major and was mentioned in his will. She married >"Emanuel" Lawson in GA and moved to SC. > > Major's birthdate is taken from the "Douglas Register" and his marriage >date from a book by Kathleen William "Goochland Co. Marriages". > Major and wife moved from Goochland Co. to Spartanburg Co. SC 1807. This is >proved by a deed he signed to Anderson Page (brother-in-law) filed in >Goochland Co. The deed bears a note "Major Hancock of Carolina" > >I have checked with many who are also researching the Page line, and the >Hancock line. The following was some of the notes: > >**This deed is very important and proves which of the various Major Hancocks >is involved . Mary's father owned a very small estate. but one item was an >odd-size parcel of land. (81 and 1/2 acres). When he died Mary inherited >one-fourth of his land and, in 1807, Major and Mary (Page) Hancock, sold >their part of the land to her brother William Page. The land was described >as being on Lickinghole Creek (one fourth part of 81 1/2 acres) "which James >Page dec'd was possessed of". This transaction is easily identified. > >** They were enumerated in Spartanburg in 1810- having: two females 0-10, >one >female 10-16, one female 26-45. (This Census copy was very difficult to read >and was thought to have shown a male child. Subsequent copies of the 1810 >Census did not show any male children) and none was enumerated in future >lists. > >** He purchased 115 acres of land in Spartanburg described as being "on >Cherokee Creek waters of Broad River". > >** In 1820 Spartanburg there is: one male over 45; two females 0-10, one >female 15-20 and one female 30-40. > >**In 1830 Spartanburg there is one male 50-60, one female 15-20 and one >female 30-40. > >** The family moved to Hall Co GA before 1840. This period is when Donald >Page >author of "History and Genealogy of Robert and Rachel Page Family" suggests >wife Mary had died and Major had married her cousin Elizabeth Page, daughter >of Robert Page. > >** In Hall Co. GA i840 Census there is: > one male 70-80, one female 5-10, one female 60-70. died in Hall Co. GA in >1850. See "History & Genealogy of of Robert and Rachel Page Family by Donald >Page. > >** Major's will was filed in Hall Co. on 31 Nov., 1845 and proved 1 Sept., >1851. The will mentions his wife Elizabeth, daughter Nancy Hancock to have >1/2 of his lot, daughter Mahala Gamblin, daughter Elizabeth Wechel, daughter >Matilda Umpheries, daughter Parmela Truelove and granddaughter Nancy Matilda >Hancock the daughter of Parmela Truelove. > >Besides the above, some have thought that Major Hancock who married >Elizabeth Fuson moved around the county. He did not. He married, and 1 >month later moved to OH, where he remained. > >All these Major Hancocks, were born so close to gether, and were named after >their father or another son of a brother which makes it difficult. > >Many of you may not agree with me, but if you do not, please present >something more plausible than what I have. > >Ardath > > > >==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== >Thank you for your support of The HANCOCK Family Discussion List. Please post your HANCOCK folks periodically so we will all know who you are looking for. > > >

Lisa, Well said. John -----Original Message----- From: Lisa [mailto:lpcraven@triad.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:59 PM To: HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts I would like to clarify one point in Bob's message. We did not volunteer, we were asked and voted on by the list to put this data together. We have been bombarded with very nasty emails when there are differences of opinions on lines. We never agreed to research each line to find out which opinion was correct. These emails prompted some of the lines to be taken off the Project site. I think each of the members of the committee who put so much time into this Project, have had their own personal challenges to deal with that we did not anticipate. That type of thing just happens. It's not an excuse, it's just a fact of life. We sorted thousands of Hancock's in these files to combine each line into one file. I don't think the Project was too big a job for any of us that have worked on it, but it does dampen the spirit of the Project when we find message after message in our mailboxes blasting us over the info on the website or someone accusing us of playing God because they think we favored one person's work over another's. We tried very hard to get this done correctly, but as everyone knows, we all have an opinion, and usually those opinions are different. This is the reason we began linking to researchers own personal websites for different versions of the same lines. This way, everyone had a voice, and has their chance to offer their opinion to everyone. It seems this is the best solution we found to a very difficult situation. If you need to flame me over this message, please keep it off the list, and go directly to me. It can't be any worse than emails I've already received over this project. Lisa Check out my website at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/7502/index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: <BOBHOP@aol.com> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts > Ardath- > > Well-- that should do it! > > I think the real reason is that the Hancock Project is too big for the > volunteers who offered to do it. > > The other reason, is that there is one "researcher" who seems slightly > demented. She kept telling me to change what I had found to what she said she > had (from her mother) but would never show what she had. I kept telling her > to submit the data and let the powers-to-be decide. This irked Julia and John > and there was a spitting contest. The "researcher" was banned and "my" Chart > 3 ostracized. > > You will probably shake tree now. BobHop > > Visit our home page http://mx4.xoom.com/bhop1 > > Major family names- Abel, Adams, Anders, Bellisfield, Brock, Byers, Davis, > Dement, Field, Guffey, Hancock, Hockaday, Hopkins, Irvine, McClanahan, > Scarbrough, Shipley, Strother, Stonestreet, Wade, Wampler, Westlake > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > Feel free to post the data you find on HANCOCK > in your research. Census, bible, wills, marriages, > deaths, cemetery, deeds, tax lists, and other > useful data. You might help a cousin who needs it. > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== Check out our HANCOCK Project World Wide at: http://members.aol.com/heatherjvw/Hancock/

Ardath- Well-- that should do it! I think the real reason is that the Hancock Project is too big for the volunteers who offered to do it. The other reason, is that there is one "researcher" who seems slightly demented. She kept telling me to change what I had found to what she said she had (from her mother) but would never show what she had. I kept telling her to submit the data and let the powers-to-be decide. This irked Julia and John and there was a spitting contest. The "researcher" was banned and "my" Chart 3 ostracized. You will probably shake tree now. BobHop Visit our home page http://mx4.xoom.com/bhop1 Major family names- Abel, Adams, Anders, Bellisfield, Brock, Byers, Davis, Dement, Field, Guffey, Hancock, Hockaday, Hopkins, Irvine, McClanahan, Scarbrough, Shipley, Strother, Stonestreet, Wade, Wampler, Westlake

Ardath, Chart #3 is still available for review at http://www.flash.net/~jwhancoc/bobhop.htm, but not for an unlimited time. I may be changing ISP's in the near term. Bob's GEDCOM is still up on my web space, although it is no longer linked to the Hancock Project due, at least in part to Bob's message. I am one such volunteer and have had much more limited time than I thought would be available. However, I viewed myself as a facilitator to getting information posted - not to be a "power to be" on family lines that I am unfamiliar with. I barely get back to great grandfather in my own line, much less sort out issues of controversy between other researchers who have submitted data and later assert the information is incorrect but can not communicate effectively with yet other researchers on the same line. You can view all efforts I posted (from others data)at: http://www.flash.net/~jwhancoc/project.htm Some of this may be redundant to information posted with the Hancock Project. Regards and Happy Hunting, John -----Original Message----- From: BOBHOP@aol.com [mailto:BOBHOP@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 6:08 PM To: HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Hancock Charts Ardath- Well-- that should do it! I think the real reason is that the Hancock Project is too big for the volunteers who offered to do it. The other reason, is that there is one "researcher" who seems slightly demented. She kept telling me to change what I had found to what she said she had (from her mother) but would never show what she had. I kept telling her to submit the data and let the powers-to-be decide. This irked Julia and John and there was a spitting contest. The "researcher" was banned and "my" Chart 3 ostracized. You will probably shake tree now. BobHop Visit our home page http://mx4.xoom.com/bhop1 Major family names- Abel, Adams, Anders, Bellisfield, Brock, Byers, Davis, Dement, Field, Guffey, Hancock, Hockaday, Hopkins, Irvine, McClanahan, Scarbrough, Shipley, Strother, Stonestreet, Wade, Wampler, Westlake ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== Feel free to post the data you find on HANCOCK in your research. Census, bible, wills, marriages, deaths, cemetery, deeds, tax lists, and other useful data. You might help a cousin who needs it.

Could someone explain to me why we can not see the Hancock Charts #3, #4, #5, & #6? It sits there so tantalizing and so frustrating. I don't want to write to all of the researchers, but I would like to know what it there to compare what I have found. If we can't read it, why have it up there? It has been sitting that way for a very long time. Maybe an explanation on that page would help but whether we all agree or not, it should be available to all. Ardath

URL: http://www.sigmabooks.fsnet.co.uk TITLE: Suffolk genealogy books and CDs from Sigma DESCRIPTION: A selection of books, CDs, maps for Suffolk genealogy and local history. Includes several with name indexes.

Descendants of Herrod HANCOCK - 4 Sep 2001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FIRST GENERATION 1. Herrod HANCOCK1 was born on August 11, 1807 in South Carolina.2 He Resided in Union Co., Arkansas. He was married to Nancy ROWELL. Nancy ROWELL1 was born in South Carolina. She Resided in Union Co., Arkansas. Herrod HANCOCK and Nancy ROWELL had the following children: 2 i. Nancy HANCOCK was born in 1846 in Alabama. 3 ii. Sarah HANCOCK was born on December 12, 1850 in Magnolia, Columbia Co., Arkansas.2 +4 iii. Mattie Ann HANCOCK. SECOND GENERATION 4. Mattie Ann HANCOCK1. She was married to Isaac Jason BUTLER (son of Hesekiah BUTLER and Margaret RUFE). Isaac Jason BUTLER1 was born on April 22, 1808. He died on August 28, 1887 in Moss Twp Columbia Co., Arkansas. He served in the military in CSA.1,3 Mattie Ann HANCOCK and Isaac Jason BUTLER had the following children: +5 i. Nancy Elizabeth BUTLER. +6 ii. Margaret Emily BUTLER. 7 iii. J.A. BUTLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. 8 iv. L.A. BUTLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. +9 v. Mary Jane BUTLER. THIRD GENERATION 5. Nancy Elizabeth BUTLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. She was married to SUELL of Columbia Co., Arkansas. 6. Margaret Emily BUTLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. She was married to FIELDS. 9. Mary Jane BUTLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. She was married to M. M. DINGLER. M. M. DINGLER1 was born of Columbia Co., Arkansas. SOURCES 1. Volume 1. compiled and published by Southwest Arkansas Genealogical Society 1986. 2. 1911 Arkansas Confederate Census. ----- Original Message ----- From: "WILLIAM FIELDS" <w.c.joyfields@worldnet.att.net> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: [HANCOCK-L] Herod & Nancy Rowell Hancock I am seeking any information on Herod (?) Hancock ,b.11 Aug. 1807 and his wife Nancy Rowell Hancock b. 2 Feb. 1814, both born in South Carolina no town or county of birth known. They left S.C. migrating to Columbia County Arkansas possibly in the 1840's. Along the way they had two children Nancy b. 1846 in Alabama and Sarah (Sallie) my gggrandmother b. 12 Dec. 1850 also in Alabama. They settled around Magnolia, Ar. in Columbia County. I have no information on either the Hancock or the Rowell family (parents, siblings or any ancestors). ANY INFORMATION WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== Questions about this list? Feel free to contact the listowner for help at: <JuliaFWood@aol.com>

Helene and all of Hancock Cousins, I don't know if I am about to start a Hancock Family squabble or not, but I had all the Major Hancocks so mixed up and spent a lot of wasted time trying to figure it all out. It ends up that I believe that the Major who was "supposed" to have been born in 1803, is a figment of imagination. There never was one born then. I have gone to great lengths to find the truth on this one. Here are some of my notes. Some have been sent by numerous researchers, and I have put them together to make some sense. Mary Page was first wife. The second wife was Elizabeth Page, a cousin of Mary. After Mary died Elizabeth (d/o Robert) married Major in 1830. Major 1772 married and moved to SC in 1807. He lived in Spartanburgh untill 1840 when re moved to Hall Co GA. He left a will in Hall Co and died there but named his children. Many researchers have the "Majors" confused. **The Spartanburg Co., SC census records that Mary and Major had children---at least one son and three daughters.** (This is not true, there was no son, just a blot or a fly-speck on the film. I checked three different 1810 Census films at three locations.) Note:- This was done by another researcher who was helping me. Elizabeth was eighteen years younger than her husband. They lived in Woodruff, Spartanburg Co., SC and had one child. (This statement is not correct either.) The child in that home was Nancy, the daughter of Pamela, unmarried. She later married a Truelove. Major's second wife, Elizabeth (age 60), was listed in the 1850 Spartanburg Co., SC Census with Mansell and Matilda LAWSON (both age 20) living with her<< Elizabeth had no children. Nancy Matilda Hancock was a granddaughter of Major and the daughter of his (unmarried ?) daughter Pamela (Hancock) Truelove. She lived with Major and was mentioned in his will. She married "Emanuel" Lawson in GA and moved to SC. Major's birthdate is taken from the "Douglas Register" and his marriage date from a book by Kathleen William "Goochland Co. Marriages". Major and wife moved from Goochland Co. to Spartanburg Co. SC 1807. This is proved by a deed he signed to Anderson Page (brother-in-law) filed in Goochland Co. The deed bears a note "Major Hancock of Carolina" I have checked with many who are also researching the Page line, and the Hancock line. The following was some of the notes: **This deed is very important and proves which of the various Major Hancocks is involved . Mary's father owned a very small estate. but one item was an odd-size parcel of land. (81 and 1/2 acres). When he died Mary inherited one-fourth of his land and, in 1807, Major and Mary (Page) Hancock, sold their part of the land to her brother William Page. The land was described as being on Lickinghole Creek (one fourth part of 81 1/2 acres) "which James Page dec'd was possessed of". This transaction is easily identified. ** They were enumerated in Spartanburg in 1810- having: two females 0-10, one female 10-16, one female 26-45. (This Census copy was very difficult to read and was thought to have shown a male child. Subsequent copies of the 1810 Census did not show any male children) and none was enumerated in future lists. ** He purchased 115 acres of land in Spartanburg described as being "on Cherokee Creek waters of Broad River". ** In 1820 Spartanburg there is: one male over 45; two females 0-10, one female 15-20 and one female 30-40. **In 1830 Spartanburg there is one male 50-60, one female 15-20 and one female 30-40. ** The family moved to Hall Co GA before 1840. This period is when Donald Page author of "History and Genealogy of Robert and Rachel Page Family" suggests wife Mary had died and Major had married her cousin Elizabeth Page, daughter of Robert Page. ** In Hall Co. GA i840 Census there is: one male 70-80, one female 5-10, one female 60-70. died in Hall Co. GA in 1850. See "History & Genealogy of of Robert and Rachel Page Family by Donald Page. ** Major's will was filed in Hall Co. on 31 Nov., 1845 and proved 1 Sept., 1851. The will mentions his wife Elizabeth, daughter Nancy Hancock to have 1/2 of his lot, daughter Mahala Gamblin, daughter Elizabeth Wechel, daughter Matilda Umpheries, daughter Parmela Truelove and granddaughter Nancy Matilda Hancock the daughter of Parmela Truelove. Besides the above, some have thought that Major Hancock who married Elizabeth Fuson moved around the county. He did not. He married, and 1 month later moved to OH, where he remained. All these Major Hancocks, were born so close to gether, and were named after their father or another son of a brother which makes it difficult. Many of you may not agree with me, but if you do not, please present something more plausible than what I have. Ardath

Cecile, Kelli, Alan, Brenda, Tamara: All of you are so helpful and I thank you . I'll see how it helps me in my search. I've printed out all your answers and then, later ask for your look-ups as I figure it all out. Alicia in FL.

Alicia and all others interested in Salem, Washington Co Indiana. It's just up the road from me and I go up there quite often .If I can be of any help I will gladly try looking for info in there genealogy library of which I am a member.It is a great library. I wish Harrison Co which is where I live had one so good although my Hancocks lived in Washington Co and were from outer space before then. Tamara at homelite@epowerc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "alicia d frank" <alicia.df1@juno.com> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Re: HANCOCK-Rafferty > Dan > Where is Harrison Co. My hancock m in Bartholomew Co, No Indiana and m 2 > next door, in Decatur Co. Her bro lived down in So IN in Mr Vernon, > Posey Co. IN. We wonder how/why she went up from KY to N. Indiana. > Sorry that I can't help with your line. My HC married a BUTCHER. and > lived in Kokomo, Howard Co. IN where our maternal grandmother's line is > from. She m a man f rom Paoli, Orange co, and they settled here in > Jacksonville,FL 1933.. > Alicia in FL > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > This is a closed list. This means that unless > you are subscribed to the list, you can't post > messages. > >

Harrison Co Ind. is directly across from the southwestern side of Louisville Ky. Alan Jeffrey----- Original Message ----- From: alicia d frank <alicia.df1@juno.com> To: <HANCOCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [HANCOCK-L] Re: HANCOCK-Rafferty > Dan > Where is Harrison Co. My hancock m in Bartholomew Co, No Indiana and m 2 > next door, in Decatur Co. Her bro lived down in So IN in Mr Vernon, > Posey Co. IN. We wonder how/why she went up from KY to N. Indiana. > Sorry that I can't help with your line. My HC married a BUTCHER. and > lived in Kokomo, Howard Co. IN where our maternal grandmother's line is > from. She m a man f rom Paoli, Orange co, and they settled here in > Jacksonville,FL 1933.. > Alicia in FL > > > ==== HANCOCK Mailing List ==== > This is a closed list. This means that unless > you are subscribed to the list, you can't post > messages. > >

Tamara Yes, yes, yes. Get the same error msg. I wonder what's going on? Linda