> Paul, > > That's kind of an ah-hah moment. Anderson [maybe] brought the baby to > LoganCo? But why does that necessarily mean Maude was James' kid? Her > mother may well have been one of Anderson's sisters but maybe this sister > died in childbirth and Maud's father couldn't raise her for one reason or > other. Is that possible? > > Right now I know that sister Margaret was still alive in 1880. I'm > considering her as a possibility. But I'm having trouble finding sister > Elizabeth after the 1850 census - don't know if she's dead or alive in > 1872. > > I could be wrong but I'm almost guessing Maude was not an infant if > Anderson brought her to Logan. Somehow I don't see this guy changing > diapers mile after mile. And that's another thought. Anderson was born > c1810. Now I have to wonder why this 65-70 yr old man got stuck with the > job.....hmmmm! > > So now I'm really wondering....was she really James' dau? Or perhaps that > was assumed because she was listed as a dau in the 1880 census? Hmmm, > hmmm, hmmm! > > Things to consider.........! > > But no, there are no other children for Zach. The sale of those 1/7 > parcels by the kids after Zach died tells us how many living kids he had. > And we've got them all accounted for. > > Nel > Lucille was raised by her grandfather, James Orlando HATCHER. She knew Maud very well for many years and Maude knew who her father was, but I don't think Lucille knew Maude's mother, if Maude even knew her mother. She may have died in childbirth. She was pretty old to be having children. Who knows, the mother might even have been married. Anything can turn up when one stirs the pot. Paul > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

HATCHER website: http://hatcherfamilyassn.com HALL DNA project: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nhatcher/hall/HDNAtest.htm "One of the tragedies of life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a brutal gang of facts" - La Rochefoucauld OK - I think there are too many possibilities here to ever come up with a solid answer.....so I think I'll toss this one in the closet with the other skeletons :-) Thanks, Paul!! Nel