I will keep this as short as possible, but it is a most complicated story! For 1840 is found a George STOCKHAM in Camden: George Stockham: Males under 5 => 3 Males 20-30 => 1 Males 30-40 => 1 Females 10-15 => 1 Females 20-30 => 2 This is very probably George who married (at some point) Margaret B. O'NEAL(E)/O'NEIL(L). Problems: In 1860, a Grandfather is listed with them who is the same age as George and just a very marginal amount older than Margaret! In other words, he cannot (unless there is one huge error) be either of their parents. I believe, however, after long thought, that there *is no error.* In 1850, listed with them is an Elizabeth BUCKLEY, 45, with son William, age 8, living with George & Margaret. Now this pair are listed *within the group of immediate family,* being surrounded by members of the immediate family. After those, other individuals are listed. Now I know this, too, could be an error - but I doubt it. So where am I headed with this? The 1840 census does *not* account for the female aged 10-15. The presence of this female indicates to me the possibility of a first wife for George. He would have been old enough to have fathered her, but Margaret would not have been old enough to do so! Now Margaret is listed, recall, as having the middle initial B. And one of the sons, too, has the same middle initial. Allow me to suggest BUCKLEY! If so, then Elizabeth was likely an older sister of Margaret's. It does not matter if this side issue is not quite correct. I think the main issue of a first wife for George (who would have been 20 to 25 in 1850, and quite possibly out of the household through marriage) stands. So I would ask... Are there any known O'NEIL(L)/O'NEAL(E)s or BUCKLEYs in Camden, around 1840's to 1850's? Can you tell me if you see anything on such surnames? Thanks! Vince Summers