Coralie - That saying about "first babies" always makes me chuckle! I guess those "first babies" happened because folks were anxious to create some new branches on their family tree. Steve PS - Daundra, thanks for the info on baby CLAYPOOL. I have some CLAYPOOL connections in my extended tree. My wife keeps asking me if I'm related to everyone in Berrien County! Not yet, but I'm working on it!!! On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:35:14 EST CoralieJA@aol.com wrote: > Daundra wrote: > > >**Also a family member of ours has made an intresting > and important > >observation regarding the Claypool infant buried at > Johnson. The bible that > >my father-in-law had stated "Baby Claypool, born to > early, 1831" Dad > >Webster took us to the grave site and pointed it out. > >Here is the delema...George and Fanny Claypool were > married in May 1831. > >They had the mentioned baby in 1831, supposedly summer, > according to dad > >Webster. Summer was not noted in the Bible. Their son > Daniel was born in > >1831, according to his age stated in the census records, > that would have made > >him a premature infant also (7mo). I have 1832 from the > Bible. DONT YOU > >JUST LOVE IT. Just another one of thoes little family > mysteries. > > Well, a good friend of mine espouses the adage: "First > babies can come at > any time. All others take nine months." :-) > > Coralie Allen > > > ==== MIBERRIE Mailing List ==== > Need help? Contact List Owner, Brenda at brenbee@aol.com >