Hello list i am trying to find information on James Hooker born abt 1816 ,surrey, Parents and siblings If possible, i believe James Hooker may have married Eliza PINK 24 may 1846,shoreditch,London many thanks Pam

Pam, Have you looked on the 1841 and 1851 censuses - if he did not marry until 1846 he could have still been at home in 1841 - some guys did live with their families until marriage then, but some lived with and worked on other people's land. You should be able to find his family in Surrey in 1841 on the census. Were there many Hooker families there then? If he is not listed with a Hooker family on the census in Surrey in 1841 look for him with other families in Surrey or in the London area. Do you have access to the censuses? Genweb UK (free site on-line) has some counties for 1841 and 1851 on-line, and Ancestry has added to their UK censuses lately. I could try to look at my library on the "complete"/library version (including the UK) Ancestry if you do not have access to that. I am in the US; are you in the UK? Celeste --- pam <pam2001@hotkey.net.au> wrote: > Hello list > i am trying to find information on James Hooker > born abt 1816 ,surrey, Parents and siblings If > possible, i believe James Hooker may have married > Eliza PINK 24 may 1846,shoreditch,London > many thanks > Pam > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Check Mississippi Marriage records for the marriage of Nancy and Jack Hooker. I think he is living there in either 1900 or 1910 in Pontotoc County. Joyce In a message dated 1/5/2007 2:37:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, cmmallette@sbcglobal.net writes: I'm looking for a full set of children for the John Hooker who was born 1792, one of the 6 brothers (I think). I have John's wife as being Mary Reed/Reid, and that they were married about 1815 or 1816 and I don't know where. I only have the following as being John and Mary's children: 1.) William Nolan Hooker, b. ca 1816 in TN. 2.) David R. Hooker, b. Lincoln County, TN; d. Bedford County, TN. 3.) Nancy Jane Hooker, b. between 1821 to 1824. 4.) Hester/Esther Ann Hooker. # 3 is "mine," but I know surprisingly little about her. She married her first cousin, A. J. (Jack) Hooker -- no date or place known to me. Thanks for assistance a/o suggestions. Chuck

The John in Potomoc Co.,MS is the John b VA c 1797 NOT the John b Tn 1792. The John (b 1792) is one of the 6 brothers - the youngest, and the only one who always states b in TN. He had his first son with Mary Reed/Reid in 1817 in Lincoln Co.,TN - David R Hooker who later dies in Bedford Co.,TN I think. He married Mary c 1815. John (b 1792 in TN) then moves to Monroe Co., MS by 1820 (on census there then) and has several children before moving to McNairy CO.,TN by 1830 (on census there) and having the rest of his 8-10 children. If you contact me at <adellaholly@yahoo.com> I will give you the rest, plus put you in conatct with many of John's descendants presently living!! Some in TX and AZ - I am their 5th cousin once-removed - my mom is 5th cousin to all of John's descendants ages 50s-70s now living. John (b 1792 in TN) died Hopkins Co.,TX (Sulpher Springs) in 1879 (need to check that date but know the place is correct). Several of his children and Mary also buried Sulpher Springs, TX. Nancy Jane - we have lots of info on her and her children and have/know many of her descendants and those of AJ's father, Samuel Hooker (b c 1783 in NC). Samuel Hooker and family lived in McNairy Co.,Tn from 1840s at least - were on the 1850 and 1860 census there. This John Hooker was only in MS in the 1820s - did not marry there or live there long!!!! His children were living mostly in TN after 1830. AJ and Nancy went to AR at one point. What do you have on the Wm b 1816 in TN?? We do not have that one as a son of John - have other Wm Ns in this line but not that one. Samuel Hooker (b c 1783 in NC) had a son Wm N Hooker (b c 1812 in TN) who was living in AL in 1850. This Wm N was a brother to AJ - not to Nancy Jane. But there was another Wm who married one of AJ's sisters who we are searching for???? But he was b in AL in the 1820s or 30s. Please contact me at my e-address above, Celeste > > In a message dated 1/5/2007 2:37:17 P.M. Central > Standard Time, > cmmallette@sbcglobal.net writes: > > I'm looking for a full set of children for the John > Hooker who was born > 1792, one of the 6 brothers (I think). I have > John's wife as being Mary > Reed/Reid, and that they were married about 1815 or > 1816 and I don't know where. > > I only have the following as being John and Mary's > children: > 1.) William Nolan Hooker, b. ca 1816 in TN. > 2.) David R. Hooker, b. Lincoln County, TN; d. > Bedford County, TN. > 3.) Nancy Jane Hooker, b. between 1821 to 1824. > 4.) Hester/Esther Ann Hooker. > > # 3 is "mine," but I know surprisingly little about > her. She married her > first cousin, A. J. (Jack) Hooker -- no date or > place known to me. > > Thanks for assistance a/o suggestions. > > Chuck > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

I'm looking for a full set of children for the John Hooker who was born 1792, one of the 6 brothers (I think). I have John's wife as being Mary Reed/Reid, and that they were married about 1815 or 1816 and I don't know where. I only have the following as being John and Mary's children: 1.) William Nolan Hooker, b. ca 1816 in TN. 2.) David R. Hooker, b. Lincoln County, TN; d. Bedford County, TN. 3.) Nancy Jane Hooker, b. between 1821 to 1824. 4.) Hester/Esther Ann Hooker. # 3 is "mine," but I know surprisingly little about her. She married her first cousin, A. J. (Jack) Hooker -- no date or place known to me. Thanks for assistance a/o suggestions. Chuck

Happy New Year to all of you! May we find our missing links in the New Year! Let's all try to be a little kinder and more tolerant of others in the New Year! Love, Charlotte

http://www.geocities.com/charlotte7274/it_doesnt_take_snow.html

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and to all on the list!! Celeste --- Sharon Marsalis <sharonmarsalis@hotmail.com> wrote: > Great little find, Celeste. Due to several > circumstances I have been away > from the hunt for awhile but will try to get back > into after the new year. I > did not hear more from the Episcopal archives after > I sent you their phone > number. Again have a blessed Christmas as we > remember the Reason for the > Season. Sharon > > -----Original Message----- > From: hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Adella Holly > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:46 PM > To: hooker@rootsweb.com > Subject: [HOOKER] Mecar/Michael Hooker in Franklin > Co.,AL 1850 (wife of > Seth) > > > Just received insight from posting on the Kent > family > forum that Michael Hooker (1850 in Franklin Co.,AL) > was probably Mecar/Michal Kentmarried to Seth Hooker > in the 1820s in Lawrence Co., AL. She seems to have > been widowed by 1850; Seth has never been found > after > the 1840 census in Franklin CO.,AL. The original > census has not been viewed by me lately so I cannot > state for sure if the gender might have been unclear > - > or maybe the census taker went back later and wrote > "male" based on the name - or if a neighbor gave > the > names, as often happended, and the census taker > thought "Michal" was a male?? > > Another Hooker researcher found a notation on Seth > marrying "Mecar" Kent - so I posted on the Kent > forum > and found that Mecar was Michael/Michal; a female > name > from the Bible (David's wife). Mecar/Michal Kent was > b > VA at the same time as the Michael in 1850 in > Franklin > CO.,AL wa,s and so that is probably that "Michael" - > another mystery solved, hopefully - why the Michael > in > Franklin Co.,AL was b in VA not TN or AL like the > others in that line in that generation - in that > county - were!! > > The Kents were from VA nad Michal/Mecar's mother was > Michal, as well - many of Mecar/Michal's Kent family > were living right next to the Micheal listed in 1850 > in Franklin CO.,AL. > > The names of the children also follow the names > given > to Hooker children of the line of the "6 Hooker > brothers." Does anyone have info on those Hooker > children - b in AL between 1820s and 40s?? > > Celeste > > > > > > > test'; "> > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to > HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Great little find, Celeste. Due to several circumstances I have been away from the hunt for awhile but will try to get back into after the new year. I did not hear more from the Episcopal archives after I sent you their phone number. Again have a blessed Christmas as we remember the Reason for the Season. Sharon -----Original Message----- From: hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adella Holly Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 1:46 PM To: hooker@rootsweb.com Subject: [HOOKER] Mecar/Michael Hooker in Franklin Co.,AL 1850 (wife of Seth) Just received insight from posting on the Kent family forum that Michael Hooker (1850 in Franklin Co.,AL) was probably Mecar/Michal Kentmarried to Seth Hooker in the 1820s in Lawrence Co., AL. She seems to have been widowed by 1850; Seth has never been found after the 1840 census in Franklin CO.,AL. The original census has not been viewed by me lately so I cannot state for sure if the gender might have been unclear - or maybe the census taker went back later and wrote "male" based on the name - or if a neighbor gave the names, as often happended, and the census taker thought "Michal" was a male?? Another Hooker researcher found a notation on Seth marrying "Mecar" Kent - so I posted on the Kent forum and found that Mecar was Michael/Michal; a female name from the Bible (David's wife). Mecar/Michal Kent was b VA at the same time as the Michael in 1850 in Franklin CO.,AL wa,s and so that is probably that "Michael" - another mystery solved, hopefully - why the Michael in Franklin Co.,AL was b in VA not TN or AL like the others in that line in that generation - in that county - were!! The Kents were from VA nad Michal/Mecar's mother was Michal, as well - many of Mecar/Michal's Kent family were living right next to the Micheal listed in 1850 in Franklin CO.,AL. The names of the children also follow the names given to Hooker children of the line of the "6 Hooker brothers." Does anyone have info on those Hooker children - b in AL between 1820s and 40s?? Celeste test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just received insight from posting on the Kent family forum that Michael Hooker (1850 in Franklin Co.,AL) was probably Mecar/Michal Kentmarried to Seth Hooker in the 1820s in Lawrence Co., AL. She seems to have been widowed by 1850; Seth has never been found after the 1840 census in Franklin CO.,AL. The original census has not been viewed by me lately so I cannot state for sure if the gender might have been unclear - or maybe the census taker went back later and wrote "male" based on the name - or if a neighbor gave the names, as often happended, and the census taker thought "Michal" was a male?? Another Hooker researcher found a notation on Seth marrying "Mecar" Kent - so I posted on the Kent forum and found that Mecar was Michael/Michal; a female name from the Bible (David's wife). Mecar/Michal Kent was b VA at the same time as the Michael in 1850 in Franklin CO.,AL wa,s and so that is probably that "Michael" - another mystery solved, hopefully - why the Michael in Franklin Co.,AL was b in VA not TN or AL like the others in that line in that generation - in that county - were!! The Kents were from VA nad Michal/Mecar's mother was Michal, as well - many of Mecar/Michal's Kent family were living right next to the Micheal listed in 1850 in Franklin CO.,AL. The names of the children also follow the names given to Hooker children of the line of the "6 Hooker brothers." Does anyone have info on those Hooker children - b in AL between 1820s and 40s?? Celeste test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1887 is the *correct* date stated in the source I quoted. As for the LDS film, I'd suggest YOU order the film through your nearest LDS History center and view it yourself! Joy ----- Original Message ----- From: Adella Holly To: hooker@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [HOOKER] Middle TN census 1770,80 and 90/Atten Joy Did you mean 1787 census for Memphis (you put 1887??) I was just calling it what the LDS site called it: a census of Middle Tn in the yrs 1770, 1780 and 1790. It is listed under papaers/micro-film held by the LDS in SLC on-line and is also listed under Davidson Co., TN on the LDS papers held.

I wondered about the date of that city census as we were looking for/asking for info from the 1700s (not 1800s), and, of course, there was a whole state-wide Federal census in 1880 for TN (all yrs but 1800, 1810 and 1890, in fact)- it is just the early federal censuses that are missing, and it is the early censuses that we need. Our guys were out of TN by 1818 (3 of the 6, George, Samuel and Robert were out of TN by 1807 - though Sam might have come back to TN from 1808-1812). Darrell Hooker has told me that he would look up anything I asked for in the LDS library as he is there almost every day, but as he is a professional researcher he does his pd. customers first - he wants this info, too, as he is in my line of the 6 Hooker brothers (and a 6th cousin of mine) thatwe have been discussing on the lsit over the past several months. Since I am living on limited funds I cannot afford the $5.00 plus for each film when he can look for free - these censuses could be on several different micro-films at over $5 a piece. I did not ask anyone else to look this up for me, just Darrell, which he will do as soon as he has time; he recently told me he had not gotten to it yet. I did not ask for others to look it up; I only mentioned in passing that those 3 censuses on micro-film existed (probably at the TN Archives, as well as in SLC at the LDS library where Darrell works), and we might find something out when he has time to look!! It was just an aside that maybe those microfilms might provide some info for our line of the 6 brothers (most b in NC from 1770s-80s). Celeste --- Joy King <joyk@sc.rr.com> wrote: > 1887 is the *correct* date stated in the source I > quoted. > > As for the LDS film, I'd suggest YOU order the film > through your nearest LDS History center and view it > yourself! > > Joy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adella Holly > To: hooker@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:21 PM > Subject: Re: [HOOKER] Middle TN census 1770,80 and > 90/Atten Joy > > Did you mean 1787 census for Memphis (you put > 1887??) > > I was just calling it what the LDS site called it: > a census of Middle Tn in the yrs 1770, 1780 and > 1790. > > It is listed under papaers/micro-film held by the > LDS in SLC on-line and is also listed under Davidson > Co., TN on the LDS papers held. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

> Did you mean 1787 census for Memphis (you put 1887??) - we are looking at earlier records. I know there are no 1790 or 1800 censuses for TN - I think the 1800 was lost and of course most all the 1810 for the whole US was burned in the War of 1812 I was just calling it what the LDS site called it: a census of Middle Tn in the yrs 1770, 1780 and 1790. It was not a "territorial census" in the sense of being the "whole" of the TN "territory" in those yrs but was a census of Middle TN when it was a part of the TN territory prior to TN becoming a state. It is listed under papaers/micro-film held by the LDS in SLC on-line and is also listed under Davidson Co., TN on the LDS papers held. Celeste "No state or territorial censuses were taken by > Tennessee, however there was an 1897 census for > Memphis." > > Eakle & Cerny, The Source, 118. > "No state censuses." > > Schweitzer, Tennessee Genealogical Research, 66-67. > "Territorial papers > During the years when the TN country was a U.S. > Territory (1790-6), a considerable volume of federal > records was kept. Many of these are collected in: > U.S. Department of State, TERRITORIAL PAPERS OF THE > U.S., Volume 4: TERRITORY SOUTH OF THE OH RIVER, > U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. > These territorial papers contain numerous lists of > territorial residents in the form of petitions and > other official papers, particularly ones involved in > the processes of a territory becoming a state. If > you believe your ancestor to have been in TN 1790-6, > you may find mention of him in this book." > > Joy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adella Holly > To: hooker@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:30 PM > Subject: Re: [HOOKER] George Hooker-1787/Atten > Celeste > > > they were "territorial" censuses of Middle TN > taken in 1770-1790 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

All I said was that what I asked Darrel for was a 1790 territorial census on microfilm stored in SLC at the LDS library - not in a book. There would be no reason to reconstruct a "territorial" census - the census was taken in Middle TN in 1770, 1780 and 1790 and was not a federal census. You brought up it being in a "book" and being a "reconstructed" census. I just said I know there were reconstructed censuses for 1810 and 1890, but there would have been little info in 1770-90 in Middle TN to "reconstruct" a census from as that part of TN was just opening up and did not even have counties to collect taxes - most reconstructed censuses are made from tax records. Also, the last time I asked Darrell a week or two ago he had not yet looked into that; he did look into the tax records of Williamson Co.,TN (which started c 1801) and found a Wm and Thomas Hooker (one or the other) there from 1801-1818 so maybe their parents were there c 1790 and maybe not. I would like to know if a territorial/pre-state or pre-federal census was taken in East TN in those same yrs - none was lsited onthe LDS site but it might be in the state archives. Several people told me (off-list)in the past day or so that you wrote a fairly nasty note to me on the list, and others have told me you wrote simillar things to them about them (directly to them). I was not saying that no one knew anything, but that what I asked for was not in a "book" but on microfilm and that I had asked Darrell about it recently and he indicated he had not yer had time to look for it. I thanked you over and over again for your help with Esom's census listings so I do thank you for your look - ups. Celeste --- Jmw1431@aol.com wrote: > > Celeste, Your attitude that no one else knows > anything is really getting to > me. Since what I wrote you was what Darrell found > and you seem to know > differently, then handle it your self. I'm tired of > trying to help and instead of > thanks for the info, I get why it must be wrong. > This is not the first > time. > > Joyce > > In a message dated 12/13/2006 3:31:10 P.M. Central > Standard Time, > adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: > > According to the LDS site there is no "recontructed > census" or "book" on these yrs - it is microfilm - > they were "territorial" censuses of Middle TN taken > in > 1770-1790 - usually the reconstructed censuses are > for > 1810 and 1890. I have the 1810 reconstructed TN > census > - and I know there are no Hookers in those counties > then, but there is the one Hooker in Willaimson > Co.,TN > in 1810 that I feel is ours (I think it is Wm > listed > in Williamson Co.,TN in 1810 - Thoams and Wm are > listed - one or the other between 1801 and 1813 in > Williamson Co.,TN which was made out of Davidson > Co.,TN c 1799. > > Darrell has told me several times he feels that the > Thoams and Wm who moved from TN to AL c 1818 (to > live > bside George and Samuel in Farnklin Co.,AL by 1820 > on > the census) were brothers of the other ones - there > is > just too much eveidence that they are and they had > to > be somewhere prior to 1801!!! Darrell has told me > that > it makes sense that George Sam and Robert moved > directly north from Middle TN c 1806/07 into KY > where > they are lsited on tax records from 1807-1816 (with > Sam not listed in KY between 1898-1812). > > Maybe he mis-read 1790 as 1890. I know there are > reconstructed censuses for the lost censuses of > 1810 > and 1890 - wonder why he did not write me about > "pulling a book" as I was the one who asked him to > look at "microfilm" on 1770-1790 for the > territorial > census takend then before TN was a state!!!!!!!!! > > Celeste > --- Jmw1431@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Darrell pulled the book and there are no Hooker's > in > > it. > > > > Here is what he wrote me: > > > > I just pulled the book and there are no Hookers > > listed in the three counties > > treated in the book: Davidson, Sumner and > Tennessee. > > The author used a > > number of sources to compile this "census,' > > including deeds, court records and > > State papers; and many others. It is a > > reconstructed census, so to speak. > > > > Joyce > > > > > > In a message dated 12/9/2006 10:46:46 A.M. > Central > > Standard Time, > > adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: > > > > I am trying to get Darrell to look at the > 1770-90 > > Middle TN census that was taken there to see if > our > > guys might have been over that way by 1790. They > > had > > to be in TN by the late 1790s, probably, and it > > seems > > since Samuel married a Nolan and he and George > and > > Robert moved directly N to KY that they were in > > Middle > > TN. All the Nolans in TN were living in/around > > Williamson CO.,TN in the early 1800s and > Williamson > > Co., Tn was carved out of Davidson Co.,TN c > 1799. > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

The Handy Book for Genealogists Eighth Edition, 232. "No state or territorial censuses were taken by Tennessee, however there was an 1897 census for Memphis." Eakle & Cerny, The Source, 118. "No state censuses." Schweitzer, Tennessee Genealogical Research, 66-67. "Territorial papers During the years when the TN country was a U.S. Territory (1790-6), a considerable volume of federal records was kept. Many of these are collected in: U.S. Department of State, TERRITORIAL PAPERS OF THE U.S., Volume 4: TERRITORY SOUTH OF THE OH RIVER, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. These territorial papers contain numerous lists of territorial residents in the form of petitions and other official papers, particularly ones involved in the processes of a territory becoming a state. If you believe your ancestor to have been in TN 1790-6, you may find mention of him in this book." Joy ----- Original Message ----- From: Adella Holly To: hooker@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [HOOKER] George Hooker-1787/Atten Celeste they were "territorial" censuses of Middle TN taken in 1770-1790

Celeste, Your attitude that no one else knows anything is really getting to me. Since what I wrote you was what Darrell found and you seem to know differently, then handle it your self. I'm tired of trying to help and instead of thanks for the info, I get why it must be wrong. This is not the first time. Joyce In a message dated 12/13/2006 3:31:10 P.M. Central Standard Time, adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: According to the LDS site there is no "recontructed census" or "book" on these yrs - it is microfilm - they were "territorial" censuses of Middle TN taken in 1770-1790 - usually the reconstructed censuses are for 1810 and 1890. I have the 1810 reconstructed TN census - and I know there are no Hookers in those counties then, but there is the one Hooker in Willaimson Co.,TN in 1810 that I feel is ours (I think it is Wm listed in Williamson Co.,TN in 1810 - Thoams and Wm are listed - one or the other between 1801 and 1813 in Williamson Co.,TN which was made out of Davidson Co.,TN c 1799. Darrell has told me several times he feels that the Thoams and Wm who moved from TN to AL c 1818 (to live bside George and Samuel in Farnklin Co.,AL by 1820 on the census) were brothers of the other ones - there is just too much eveidence that they are and they had to be somewhere prior to 1801!!! Darrell has told me that it makes sense that George Sam and Robert moved directly north from Middle TN c 1806/07 into KY where they are lsited on tax records from 1807-1816 (with Sam not listed in KY between 1898-1812). Maybe he mis-read 1790 as 1890. I know there are reconstructed censuses for the lost censuses of 1810 and 1890 - wonder why he did not write me about "pulling a book" as I was the one who asked him to look at "microfilm" on 1770-1790 for the territorial census takend then before TN was a state!!!!!!!!! Celeste --- Jmw1431@aol.com wrote: > > Darrell pulled the book and there are no Hooker's in > it. > > Here is what he wrote me: > > I just pulled the book and there are no Hookers > listed in the three counties > treated in the book: Davidson, Sumner and Tennessee. > The author used a > number of sources to compile this "census,' > including deeds, court records and > State papers; and many others. It is a > reconstructed census, so to speak. > > Joyce > > > In a message dated 12/9/2006 10:46:46 A.M. Central > Standard Time, > adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: > > I am trying to get Darrell to look at the 1770-90 > Middle TN census that was taken there to see if our > guys might have been over that way by 1790. They > had > to be in TN by the late 1790s, probably, and it > seems > since Samuel married a Nolan and he and George and > Robert moved directly N to KY that they were in > Middle > TN. All the Nolans in TN were living in/around > Williamson CO.,TN in the early 1800s and Williamson > Co., Tn was carved out of Davidson Co.,TN c 1799.

According to the LDS site there is no "recontructed census" or "book" on these yrs - it is microfilm - they were "territorial" censuses of Middle TN taken in 1770-1790 - usually the reconstructed censuses are for 1810 and 1890. I have the 1810 reconstructed TN census - and I know there are no Hookers in those counties then, but there is the one Hooker in Willaimson Co.,TN in 1810 that I feel is ours (I think it is Wm listed in Williamson Co.,TN in 1810 - Thoams and Wm are listed - one or the other between 1801 and 1813 in Williamson Co.,TN which was made out of Davidson Co.,TN c 1799. Darrell has told me several times he feels that the Thoams and Wm who moved from TN to AL c 1818 (to live bside George and Samuel in Farnklin Co.,AL by 1820 on the census) were brothers of the other ones - there is just too much eveidence that they are and they had to be somewhere prior to 1801!!! Darrell has told me that it makes sense that George Sam and Robert moved directly north from Middle TN c 1806/07 into KY where they are lsited on tax records from 1807-1816 (with Sam not listed in KY between 1898-1812). Maybe he mis-read 1790 as 1890. I know there are reconstructed censuses for the lost censuses of 1810 and 1890 - wonder why he did not write me about "pulling a book" as I was the one who asked him to look at "microfilm" on 1770-1790 for the territorial census takend then before TN was a state!!!!!!!!! Celeste --- Jmw1431@aol.com wrote: > > Darrell pulled the book and there are no Hooker's in > it. > > Here is what he wrote me: > > I just pulled the book and there are no Hookers > listed in the three counties > treated in the book: Davidson, Sumner and Tennessee. > The author used a > number of sources to compile this "census,' > including deeds, court records and > State papers; and many others. It is a > reconstructed census, so to speak. > > Joyce > > > In a message dated 12/9/2006 10:46:46 A.M. Central > Standard Time, > adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: > > I am trying to get Darrell to look at the 1770-90 > Middle TN census that was taken there to see if our > guys might have been over that way by 1790. They > had > to be in TN by the late 1790s, probably, and it > seems > since Samuel married a Nolan and he and George and > Robert moved directly N to KY that they were in > Middle > TN. All the Nolans in TN were living in/around > Williamson CO.,TN in the early 1800s and Williamson > Co., Tn was carved out of Davidson Co.,TN c 1799. > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email > to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and > the body of the message > test'; "> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com

That’s why Hooker took his followers and went off into the wilderness that became Hartford CT. He didn’t like the behavior of the Massachusetts Puritan leaders that you cite. -----Original Message----- From: hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adella Holly Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:35 AM To: hooker@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [HOOKER] Thomas Hooker from England/Atten Maureen I do not know about Thomas Hooker personally, but most Puritan leaders were anything but democratic - they stated that their colony was church ruled and governors like Winthrope and others were the ones who started the witch hunts and kiliing of anyone "different." They beat Rober Williams (founder of the first Bapt church in Providence Rhode Island) and Ann Hutchinson (both of whom who tried to teach about the "love of God" in Puritan areas) naked through the streets and tarred and feathered them and ran them out of MA!! If you read the rules of the Puritan church about membership, and the early rules of the governement of that area you will see there is very little democratic about it!!! Read my previous post - their ealy leaders in Holland were nto like that and warned the ones who left for New Eng not to become rigid in their rules and beliefs!! Celezte --- Maureen Girard <maureen@redshift.com> wrote: > There's a wonderful book, written in 1995 and > published by Heart of the > Lakes Publishing in Interlaken NY, titled "Thomas > Hooker, 1586-1647: Father > of American Democracy," by Deryck Collingwood. The > subtitle, which is quite > apt, is "A pilgrim's guide to the England he knew, > the great people, and the > stirring events leading to his becoming a > pre-eminent figure in the founding > of Puritan New England." > > Collingwood was not a descendant of Thomas Hooker; > he was an Englishman and > a Methodist minister who came across Hooker's > writings in the course of his > theological studies. Collingwood became such an > admirer that he did, > indeed, go on a pilgrimage to learn about Hooker's > roots in England and > Holland, and then about his life and work in New > England. Collingwood's > conclusion is that Hooker's ideas provided many of > the philosophical > underpinnings for our democracy. He was astonished > to find that Hooker has > been so little noted in the history of ideas in the > United States, and his > book is an attempt to redress this. > > The book is part travelogue and part history--very > well researched and > documented. If you are interested in Thomas Hooker > and can find it, you'll > enjoy reading this book. > > Maureen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Joy King > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:21 AM > To: hooker@rootsweb.com > Subject: [HOOKER] Thomas Hooker from England > > I received this through my RootsWeb PML > subscription. Thought it would be of > interest to some. > > You can follow the mailing list thread here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK/2006-12 > > Joy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Liane Fenimore > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:59 AM > Source: ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK] Buckingham and > other connections > > There is a great deal about Hooker on the internet > and I (and I don't know > much about Hooker) see errors, contradictions, > mispellings (Archbishop Laud > is called Land) in almost all of it. The article > below is from the Great > Migration Series from the New England Historic > Genealogical Society which is > the best research done on these early immigrants > from England. As you can > see, all statements fully footnoted. He has a Bucks > connection as he > married in Amersham. They give his origin at > Rotterdam so their thinking is > that he came from there to America. > > Some accounts say the Griffin sailed from the Downs > - but where is that? The > South Downs? Wikipedia has a nice article > explaining the Downs. Internet > accounts say Hooker came back to England to get on > the ship and sail for > America. I really wonder if he didn't board the > ship in Holland and maybe > the ship made a quick & pre-arranged stop somewhere > on the south > coast of England and picked up other passengers. > Maybe it also sailed > directly from Holland. Many ships did. If so, then > your ancestor went to > Holland, too. > THOMAS HOOKER > > ORIGIN: Rotterdam > MIGRATION: 1633 in the Griffin [ WJ 1:129] > FIRST RESIDENCE: Cambridge > REMOVES: Hartford 1636 > OCCUPATION: Minister. > CHURCH MEMBERSHIP: On 11 October 1633 Winthrop > reported a "fast at > Newtown, where Mr. Hooker was chosen pastor, and Mr. > Stone teacher, in such > a manner as before at Boston" [ WJ 1:137]. When > Hooker moved to Hartford the > > church went with him, and he remained pastor there > until his death. > FREEMAN: 14 May 1634 [ MBCR 1:369]. > EDUCATION: Matriculated at Cambridge from > Queen's College 1604, > migrated to Emmanuel, B.A., 1607-8; M.A., 1611 [ > Venn 2:403; Morison > 382-83]. His inventory included "books in his study" > valued at £300. > OFFICES: Arbiter, 7 May 1640 [ RPCC 11]. > ESTATE: Granted one acre for a cowyard at > Cambridge, 4 November 1633 [ > CaTR 6]. Granted five acres of land and another > three acres of land, 5 > January 1633/4 [ CaTR 7]. Granted "five acres of > meadow ground in the mead > next Watertown weir" and "thirty acres of salt marsh > on the south side > Charles River," 2 April 1635 [ CaTR 12]. In the > divison of meadow land on 20 > August 1635 granted a proportional share of zero [ > CaTR 13]. Granted three > acres, 8 February 1635/6 [ CaTR 17]. In the 8 > February 1635/6 list of > "houses" in the town, "Mr. Tho[mas] Hooker" held > four [ CaTR 18]. > In the Cambridge land inventory on 1 May 1635 > Thomas Hooker held four > parcels of land: "in the town one house with garden > and backside about one > rood"; "in Cowyard Row one cow house and yard about > one acre"; "in Wigwam > Neck about five acres"; and "in the Long Marsh about > three acres" [ CaBOP > 3-4]. On 2 May 1636 "Thomas Hooker of the New Towne" > sold to Nicholas > Danforth "about one acre of land being the lot of > Edward Hopkins" [ CaBOP > 38]. > There is no entry in the Hartford land > inventory of 1640 for Thomas > Hooker, but his name is mentioned frequently as an > abutter in other entries > [ HaBOP passim]. > In his will, dated 7 July 1647 and proved > apparently in 1649, "Thomas > Hooker of Hartford" bequeathed to "my son John > Hooker my housing and lands > in Hartford, aforesaid, both that which is on the > west, and also that which > is on the east side of the River, to be enjoyed by > him and his heirs > forever, after the death of my wife, Susanna Hooker, > provided he be then at > the age of one and twenty years, it being my will > that my said dear wife > shall enjoy and possess my said housing and lands > during her natural life"; > to "my son John my library of printed books and > manuscripts" provided he > "deliver to my son Samuell" books to the value of > £50, or the cash > equivalent, and "if my son John do not go on to the > perfecting of his > studies, or shall not give up himself to the service > of the Lord in the work > of the ministry, my will is that my son Samuel enjoy > and possess the whole > library and mansucripts, to his proper use forever; > only, it is my will that > whatever manuscripts shall be judged meet to be > printed ... and however I do > not forbid my son John from seeking and taking a > wife in England, yet I do > forbid him from marrying and tarrying there"; to "my > son Samuell, in case > the whole library come not to him, as is before > expressed, the sum of > seventy pounds"; to "my daughter Sarah Hooker" £100 > at marriage or at age > twenty-one, "the disposal and further education of > her and the rest, I leave > to my wife"; to "the two children of my daughter > Joannah Shephard deceased, > and the child of my daughter Mary Newton, to each of > them ten pounds"; "my > beloved wife Susanna Hooker" to be executrix and to > receive the residue of > the estate; "my beloved friends Mr. Edward Hopkins > and Mr. William Goodwyn" > to be overseers [ Hartford PD Case #2841; CCCR > 1:498-501; Manwaring > === message truncated === test'; "> ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to HOOKER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Darrell pulled the book and there are no Hooker's in it. Here is what he wrote me: I just pulled the book and there are no Hookers listed in the three counties treated in the book: Davidson, Sumner and Tennessee. The author used a number of sources to compile this "census,' including deeds, court records and State papers; and many others. It is a reconstructed census, so to speak. Joyce In a message dated 12/9/2006 10:46:46 A.M. Central Standard Time, adellaholly@yahoo.com writes: I am trying to get Darrell to look at the 1770-90 Middle TN census that was taken there to see if our guys might have been over that way by 1790. They had to be in TN by the late 1790s, probably, and it seems since Samuel married a Nolan and he and George and Robert moved directly N to KY that they were in Middle TN. All the Nolans in TN were living in/around Williamson CO.,TN in the early 1800s and Williamson Co., Tn was carved out of Davidson Co.,TN c 1799.

I do not know about Thomas Hooker personally, but most Puritan leaders were anything but democratic - they stated that their colony was church ruled and governors like Winthrope and others were the ones who started the witch hunts and kiliing of anyone "different." They beat Rober Williams (founder of the first Bapt church in Providence Rhode Island) and Ann Hutchinson (both of whom who tried to teach about the "love of God" in Puritan areas) naked through the streets and tarred and feathered them and ran them out of MA!! If you read the rules of the Puritan church about membership, and the early rules of the governement of that area you will see there is very little democratic about it!!! Read my previous post - their ealy leaders in Holland were nto like that and warned the ones who left for New Eng not to become rigid in their rules and beliefs!! Celezte --- Maureen Girard <maureen@redshift.com> wrote: > There's a wonderful book, written in 1995 and > published by Heart of the > Lakes Publishing in Interlaken NY, titled "Thomas > Hooker, 1586-1647: Father > of American Democracy," by Deryck Collingwood. The > subtitle, which is quite > apt, is "A pilgrim's guide to the England he knew, > the great people, and the > stirring events leading to his becoming a > pre-eminent figure in the founding > of Puritan New England." > > Collingwood was not a descendant of Thomas Hooker; > he was an Englishman and > a Methodist minister who came across Hooker's > writings in the course of his > theological studies. Collingwood became such an > admirer that he did, > indeed, go on a pilgrimage to learn about Hooker's > roots in England and > Holland, and then about his life and work in New > England. Collingwood's > conclusion is that Hooker's ideas provided many of > the philosophical > underpinnings for our democracy. He was astonished > to find that Hooker has > been so little noted in the history of ideas in the > United States, and his > book is an attempt to redress this. > > The book is part travelogue and part history--very > well researched and > documented. If you are interested in Thomas Hooker > and can find it, you'll > enjoy reading this book. > > Maureen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:hooker-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of Joy King > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:21 AM > To: hooker@rootsweb.com > Subject: [HOOKER] Thomas Hooker from England > > I received this through my RootsWeb PML > subscription. Thought it would be of > interest to some. > > You can follow the mailing list thread here: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK/2006-12 > > Joy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Liane Fenimore > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:59 AM > Source: ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [ENG-BKM-TINGEWICK] Buckingham and > other connections > > There is a great deal about Hooker on the internet > and I (and I don't know > much about Hooker) see errors, contradictions, > mispellings (Archbishop Laud > is called Land) in almost all of it. The article > below is from the Great > Migration Series from the New England Historic > Genealogical Society which is > the best research done on these early immigrants > from England. As you can > see, all statements fully footnoted. He has a Bucks > connection as he > married in Amersham. They give his origin at > Rotterdam so their thinking is > that he came from there to America. > > Some accounts say the Griffin sailed from the Downs > - but where is that? The > South Downs? Wikipedia has a nice article > explaining the Downs. Internet > accounts say Hooker came back to England to get on > the ship and sail for > America. I really wonder if he didn't board the > ship in Holland and maybe > the ship made a quick & pre-arranged stop somewhere > on the south > coast of England and picked up other passengers. > Maybe it also sailed > directly from Holland. Many ships did. If so, then > your ancestor went to > Holland, too. > THOMAS HOOKER > > ORIGIN: Rotterdam > MIGRATION: 1633 in the Griffin [ WJ 1:129] > FIRST RESIDENCE: Cambridge > REMOVES: Hartford 1636 > OCCUPATION: Minister. > CHURCH MEMBERSHIP: On 11 October 1633 Winthrop > reported a "fast at > Newtown, where Mr. Hooker was chosen pastor, and Mr. > Stone teacher, in such > a manner as before at Boston" [ WJ 1:137]. When > Hooker moved to Hartford the > > church went with him, and he remained pastor there > until his death. > FREEMAN: 14 May 1634 [ MBCR 1:369]. > EDUCATION: Matriculated at Cambridge from > Queen's College 1604, > migrated to Emmanuel, B.A., 1607-8; M.A., 1611 [ > Venn 2:403; Morison > 382-83]. His inventory included "books in his study" > valued at £300. > OFFICES: Arbiter, 7 May 1640 [ RPCC 11]. > ESTATE: Granted one acre for a cowyard at > Cambridge, 4 November 1633 [ > CaTR 6]. Granted five acres of land and another > three acres of land, 5 > January 1633/4 [ CaTR 7]. Granted "five acres of > meadow ground in the mead > next Watertown weir" and "thirty acres of salt marsh > on the south side > Charles River," 2 April 1635 [ CaTR 12]. In the > divison of meadow land on 20 > August 1635 granted a proportional share of zero [ > CaTR 13]. Granted three > acres, 8 February 1635/6 [ CaTR 17]. In the 8 > February 1635/6 list of > "houses" in the town, "Mr. Tho[mas] Hooker" held > four [ CaTR 18]. > In the Cambridge land inventory on 1 May 1635 > Thomas Hooker held four > parcels of land: "in the town one house with garden > and backside about one > rood"; "in Cowyard Row one cow house and yard about > one acre"; "in Wigwam > Neck about five acres"; and "in the Long Marsh about > three acres" [ CaBOP > 3-4]. On 2 May 1636 "Thomas Hooker of the New Towne" > sold to Nicholas > Danforth "about one acre of land being the lot of > Edward Hopkins" [ CaBOP > 38]. > There is no entry in the Hartford land > inventory of 1640 for Thomas > Hooker, but his name is mentioned frequently as an > abutter in other entries > [ HaBOP passim]. > In his will, dated 7 July 1647 and proved > apparently in 1649, "Thomas > Hooker of Hartford" bequeathed to "my son John > Hooker my housing and lands > in Hartford, aforesaid, both that which is on the > west, and also that which > is on the east side of the River, to be enjoyed by > him and his heirs > forever, after the death of my wife, Susanna Hooker, > provided he be then at > the age of one and twenty years, it being my will > that my said dear wife > shall enjoy and possess my said housing and lands > during her natural life"; > to "my son John my library of printed books and > manuscripts" provided he > "deliver to my son Samuell" books to the value of > £50, or the cash > equivalent, and "if my son John do not go on to the > perfecting of his > studies, or shall not give up himself to the service > of the Lord in the work > of the ministry, my will is that my son Samuel enjoy > and possess the whole > library and mansucripts, to his proper use forever; > only, it is my will that > whatever manuscripts shall be judged meet to be > printed ... and however I do > not forbid my son John from seeking and taking a > wife in England, yet I do > forbid him from marrying and tarrying there"; to "my > son Samuell, in case > the whole library come not to him, as is before > expressed, the sum of > seventy pounds"; to "my daughter Sarah Hooker" £100 > at marriage or at age > twenty-one, "the disposal and further education of > her and the rest, I leave > to my wife"; to "the two children of my daughter > Joannah Shephard deceased, > and the child of my daughter Mary Newton, to each of > them ten pounds"; "my > beloved wife Susanna Hooker" to be executrix and to > receive the residue of > the estate; "my beloved friends Mr. Edward Hopkins > and Mr. William Goodwyn" > to be overseers [ Hartford PD Case #2841; CCCR > 1:498-501; Manwaring > === message truncated === test'; "> ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com