This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: lilfishjean1 Surnames: Rog(g)ers, Daniels, Conaway, Fisher Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.rogers/10379.1.2.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thank-you, Janet for your post on my behalf... A couple of things: 1) I did cite information from the 1860 Montague and 1880 Palo Pinto Census in my post, so, I was well aware of the info contained in them; therefore, am also aware that Lawson (called "Lawrence" on the Palo Pinto census) was a different person than Peter; however, Peter's middle name WAS "Lawson" as was his grandson's, my father, Roy Lawson Fisher. (I also have the 1900 Erath census which mentions my paternal grandmother, "Carrie L[eona] Daniels".) 3) I am curious as to why you think that the Martha E. Rogers you cited appearing on the Polk Cty. census is "my" Martha E. since her birthdate of 1860 is fully 2 years AFTER than of "my" Martha Rogers (1858). I have found no less than 7 "Martha Rog(d)gers" on various TX counties' census -- some of whom have a much closer birthyear than that of the one on the Polk Cty. census. 4) I am also curious as to why you believe the James Daniel(s) you cited (Dawes Rolls?) as being 3/8 Cherokee is the same James Daniels you cited as having died in Palo Pinto of pneumonia in 1880 and why you believe that either of them is the same James Daniel(s) who is the father of my Peter Lawson Daniel(s) since most Daniel(s) researchers maintain that James was killed by Indians in TX. 5) I would very much like to know the source of your information that Mary Conaway was Eliza (aka "Arminta") Daniel(s)' mother since the maiden name of Eliza ("Arminta") was "Hagler/Haglar". I have a fundamental problem with the 1880 Palo Pinto vs. the 1900 Erath census and that is IF the "John" and the "James" Daniels listed in Peter's household on the 1880 census are Peter's sons AND the "Catherine" Daniels listed as Peter's wife is really "my" Martha Daniels (nee Rogers), then why does the 1900 Erath census list her as only having five children? Including "John" and "James", that would make seven, not five AND, if Peter and Martha had actually been married for 25 years as the 1900 Erath census suggests, it would have been "Martha" and not anyone named "Catherine" who would have been the mother of James & John since that would make Peter and Martha's marriage year about 1875 (which does jive with a separate "Erath County Marriages" source I have). These are the kinds of problems I have been having with this family for YEARS now... jean in CA Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.

Answers are below in your post. ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 9:27 PM Subject: Re: [ROGERS] Sarah Rogers; Allen Meadows (1842-1906) This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: lilfishjean1 Surnames: Rog(g)ers, Daniels, Conaway, Fisher Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.rogers/10379.1.2.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Thank-you, Janet for your post on my behalf... A couple of things: 1) I did cite information from the 1860 Montague and 1880 Palo Pinto Census in my post, so, I was well aware of the info contained in them; therefore, am also aware that Lawson (called "Lawrence" on the Palo Pinto census) was a different person than Peter; however, Peter's middle name WAS "Lawson" as was his grandson's, my father, Roy Lawson Fisher. (I also have the 1900 Erath census which mentions my paternal grandmother, "Carrie L[eona] Daniels".) Yes, I knew you were aware of what was in the censuses that you mentioned in your post, I was only putting them in to let you know that I had also seen them. I wasn't sure if you knew that the census showed the two brother, one being Lawson, it said, but I figure it was wrong and it should have been Lawrence, since if your Peter had the middle name of Lawson, they certainly wouldn't name his brother that too. I don't think anyway. 3) I am curious as to why you think that the Martha E. Rogers you cited appearing on the Polk Cty. census is "my" Martha E. since her birthdate of 1860 is fully 2 years AFTER than of "my" Martha Rogers (1858). I have found no less than 7 "Martha Rog(d)gers" on various TX counties' census -- some of whom have a much closer birthyear than that of the one on the Polk Cty. census. I just think it is her, and the censuses are often off by two years, some aren't. Depends on the accent the people have and who the person is that is taking the census. Sometimes I think the census people made up a lot, not really, just didn't listen very well, or something. Mostly I think that it is "your" Martha because of where the parents were born, because it is where she said they were born. 4) I am also curious as to why you believe the James Daniel(s) you cited (Dawes Rolls?) as being 3/8 Cherokee is the same James Daniels you cited as having died in Palo Pinto of pneumonia in 1880 and why you believe that either of them is the same James Daniel(s) who is the father of my Peter Lawson Daniel(s) since most Daniel(s) researchers maintain that James was killed by Indians in TX. Oh, I don't know if they are the same James Daniels or not, I just thought you would like to know that, if you hadn't seen it. I don't know if the James who died of pneumonia in 1880 is the same as yours or not, just a tidbit of info to think about for the Indian connection. 5) I would very much like to know the source of your information that Mary Conaway was Eliza (aka "Arminta") Daniel(s)' mother since the maiden name of Eliza ("Arminta") was "Hagler/Haglar". When in the 1880 Palo Pinto, TX census, Mary Conaway is listed as 70 yrs old and as Peter's grandmother born in Ga., and Eliza said her mother was born in Ga., that is why I figured that, not that is correct, just my opinion. I have a fundamental problem with the 1880 Palo Pinto vs. the 1900 Erath census and that is IF the "John" and the "James" Daniels listed in Peter's household on the 1880 census are Peter's sons AND the "Catherine" Daniels listed as Peter's wife is really "my" Martha Daniels (nee Rogers), then why does the 1900 Erath census list her as only having five children? Including "John" and "James", that would make seven, not five AND, if Peter and Martha had actually been married for 25 years as the 1900 Erath census suggests, it would have been "Martha" and not anyone named "Catherine" who would have been the mother of James & John since that would make Peter and Martha's marriage year about 1875 (which does jive with a separate "Erath County Marriages" source I have). I am thinking that maybe the Daniels in Palo Pinto, Tx aren't the right Daniels. From what you know, it doesn't seem like they are, don't you agree? These are the kinds of problems I have been having with this family for YEARS now... I was only trying to help you with your problems, but maybe I have only made it worse, If I find anything, more concrete, I will send it to you. I love genealogy and try to help other people, if I can. I am also a Rodgers, but in WV, VA, not out in the west, on my branches anyway. Janet jean in CA Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. ------------------------------- 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