From: <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IvesterG/post?protectID=113111222110146183062046190199121125">[email protected]</A> Date: Sun Aug 22, 1999 0:38am Subject: Hugh Ivester discussion.... Hi -- this is Emma - will try to add to the discussion and answer Fran's comments... this might bet interesting... so am doing an Emma wrote and Fran wrote type of deal since it is hard to separate the fonts sometimes... let me know if this works... HA...also -- will put my comments in italics - hope it helps...**Emma -- In 1800 Barbara is listed in the Rutherford Co., North Carolina census with the following:2 males under 10 (Could this be Hugh and the "James" mentioned farther on?) 1 male 10-16 (son Jacob)1 male 16-26 (son George) 1 female 16-26 (daug. Elizabeth or Polly)1 female 26-45 (Barbara)**Fran -- Could the 2 males under 10 possibly be Hugh and the "James" mentioned farther on.** Emma - Hugh yes -- James, probably not. James appears in the 1810 census as age 26 - 45 which would make him too old to be under age 10 in the 1800 census. **Emma - Dorothy and I believe that the 2 males under 10 are Hugh and John and that the "child my wife goes with now" turned out to be twins.**Fran(Who is John? The only John I heard of was the son of George and Anna born 1823 in Georgia. Could this be the "James" mentioned below) (This (the twins idea) is new to me. Would only one twin be named a "junior" or named after the father. I guess it's possible, but curious - and why don't we hear or see more about a John Ivester who would have been born c. 1792?). **Emma -- IN the 1790 census of Rutherford Co., Hugh is shown with 2 males under 10, and 3 females. That takes care of everyone listed in his will - wife Barbara, sons George and Jacob, and daughters Elizabeth and Polley. Then add the comment "the child my wife goes with now...."Hugh dies...In the 1800 census Barbara is listed with2 males under 10 - Hugh who moves to SC but who is this other male under 10 - can't be James from the 1810 census as the age is wrong1 male 10-16 -Jacob, who stays in NC1 male 16-26 - George who moves to Ga.1 female 16-26 - Polley - if we are right and Elizabeth has married1 female 26-45 - Barbaranow -- skip the 1810 census for right now... will talk about it later...and in the 1820 census we find... Jacob IvesterBarbara Ivester - possibly listed twice with the same informationJohn Ivester - possibly listed twice with the same informationGeorge IvesterHugh Ivester - possibly listed twice - once by himself and once with Barbara.If you look at these names and match them up then what you possibly have are four sons for Hugh and Barbara that match the 1800 census listing.GeorgeJacobHughJohnGeorge is married to Anna and has 3 sons and 1 daug.Jacob is married to Margaret and has 1 son and 2 daugtersJohn is married to Elizabeth and has 2 sons under 10Hugh is single - he marries in Nov. of 1820We have the marriage bonds for Jacob, John, and Hugh. **Fran (Janice has in her book an 1810 Rutherford census that list only: George Ivister, head of household, 1 male 0-10 (Isaac) and 1 male 26-45 (George). It does not list Anna or Barbara. George/Anna's first child, Barbary, was not born until 1812. Could the male 0-10 be Hugh and not Isaac?) Just a thought.**EmmaTheory here is that George has married - had one son - and his wife died. By 1810 he has not yet remarried to Anna. The 0-10 age would fit with Isaac's age from later census records and would be too young for Hugh since Hugh marries in 1820.**Fran - Also in Janice's book, page 12, there is an 1810 Rutherford census showing James Ivester as head of household, 1 male 16-26 (probably James), 1 female 0-10, 1 female 16-26, and 1 female 45 and up. This may be a "shirt-tail" relative. We need to find out who he was.**Emma - Yep -- and this one I do not know. So we definitely need to figure this one out. **Emma - Now lets look at the 1810 census - Rutherford Co., NC - Dorothy sent this census record.. George Ivester1 male under 10 -George's son Isaac 1 male 26-45 - George, son of Hugh & BarbaraJames Ivester1 male 26-451 female under 101 female 16-261 female 45 and upBarbara Icler1 male under 102 males 16-261 female 26-451 female 45 and up**FranJames Ivester ( unknown) I seem to recall there being something about some Ivester "kin" who were killed by Indians but their sons were spared and taken in by relatives. Could James be one of those boys? 1 male 16-26 (This could be Hugh Jr. born 1792)1 female under 10 (One of Hugh and Barbary's daughters???)1 female 16-26 (One of Hugh and Barbary's daughters???)1 female 45 and up (Barbary Ivester???)Barbara Icler (Could this be our connection to Barbary's maiden ? - possibly Barbary's mother?) 1 male under 10 Siblings of Barbary Ivester???????2 males 16-26 " " " "1 female 16-26 " " "1 female 45 and up " " "Since the above is before George married Anna Rucker, possibly he is head of household - containing his son Isaac, his mother Barbary, Barbary/Hugh's other children, and possibly Barbary's mother and younger siblings. It's a thought. We need to work on this "Icler" connection.**Emma -- I still have no idea who James is. I also tried to fit him in somewhere and did not make it. I even wondered about it being a "wrong" entry for Jacob, son of Hugh and Barbara. But the marriage bond that we have for Jacob is dated 1812, unless he also married twice and his first wife died. But look at the entry for Barbara Icler. 1 male under 10 -- this one I can't explain yet unless it is a double listing for Isaac and he was sort of living with his grandmother Barbara since his mother was evidently dead2 males 16-26 -- that means that these 2 males would have been born between 1784 and 1794 - which would fit with 2 sons being born after Hugh's will was written and would match with the 2 under 10 in the 1800 census. And, would lead well into the information found in the 1820 census as well. So could these be Hugh and John.1 female 16-26 - again - possibly Polley1 female 45 and up -- this would fit for Barbara.**Emma - Janice read the film as only listing a George and a James. And then an index that I found on line lists the following:George Ivester, Adam Iscler, and a Barbara Icler. Although I have not read it - guess I need to rent it -- apparently it is difficult to read. Have any of you seen this film and do any of you have different information from it....**Fran - I have not seen this - also would like to see the index you found online - do you remember the address? This is really getting interesting - every piece of data brings up 10 more questions. I think the key to clearing up the 1810 census submitted by Dorothy is in identifying Barbara Icler and Adam.**Emma - This Rutherford Index is on the Rutherford County pages on the GenWeb. **Fran - Here is another piece of info probably none of you want to add into the equation, but there is, in fact, yet another Ivester from this area. His name was Samuel R. Ivester, m. Lola Campbell. Although on my grandfather's side, I am descended from Hugh Ivester - on my grandmother's side, I am descended from Samuel R whose daughter, Sarah, married Elihu Waldroup - all from the same area. This actually makes me a triple Ivester - and triple confused. So... there are more Ivesters than meet the eye. Where is Sherlock Holmes when we need him.**Emma - Not sure even Sherlock could help us but would sure like to see him give it a try. How about putting your Samuel Ivester in a message....---------------------------