I think I've figured all this mess out. Billie, ignore that email I just sent you. The 1860 census for Watson Mathews shows N. E. Mathews in his household. I've had this in my census spreadsheet for a couple of years and could not figure it out until now. This N. E. Mathews must be Nancy Elizabeth Caughman Mathews, his wife obviously (more on the Elizabeth bit in a minute). The 1860 census plainly shows that the 1 year child, M. E. Mathews is male. I think this is a mistake and that it should be female. Watson's daughter Elizabeth who shows up in the 1870 census is shown as 12 years old in 1870 so she should be in his 1860 household. The 1870 census is the only place we see the name Lucy. Note that there is a 8 year difference in their ages. In 1860 there is a 2 year difference in the ages of Watson and N.E. In 1880 there is a 3 year difference between Watson and Nancy. In 1900 there is a 3 year difference in age between Watson and Nancy. In 1910 Watson's wife is shown as Elizabeth (I just found this tonite) and there is a 4 year difference in their ages. In 1900 Nancy is listed as the mother of 9 children with all being alive. In 1910 Elizabeth says she is the mother of 9 children with 8 being alive. The most interesting bit of evidence is that in 1910 it says that Watson and Elizabeth have both only been married once and that they have been married 53 years. In 1900 Nancy and Watson are shown to be married 42 years. That would place the marriage of Watson and Nancy/Elizabeth at somewhere between 1856 and 1858. All of this taken together leads me to the conclusion that Watson was never married to a "Lucy" (at the very least we could suppose that Lucy was a nickname). However, if we look back at 1860 we see another young lady who I presume to be Nancy's sister: L. E. Caughman. We usually presume, without anything else to go on, that between 1850 and 1870 that a man and woman listed consecutively in the same household in the census to be man and wife. I've seen a couple of other instances where this isn't the case, aside from brother and sister, so I'm fully prepared to say that since the 1870 census does not implicitly tell us that Lucy is Watson's wife that it is possible that, for whatever reason, Lucy might in fact be his sister-in-law, L. E. Caughman (yes I'm taking a leap that the "L" stands for Lucy---or possibly Louisa as shown in the 1850 household of Jacob Caughman---, but it seems like a good idea at the moment!). At this point I am removing Lucy from my database as a wife of Watsons and putting all of his children under Nancy Elizabeth Caughman until other evidence presents itself. Greg Matthews ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee and Billie Jones" <tjones@camden.net> To: "Greg Matthews" <dialzero@bellsouth.net>; <scsaluda@rootsweb.com> Cc: "Dr. Constance T. McNeill" <connie@wctel.net>; <drewsmithtpa@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [SCSALUDA] More Matthews Death Cert connected to OldEdgefieldDistarea. > Thank you all for your input of information regarding the death > certificate of Charlie William Matthews that I posted. One comment from > all of the census records posted by Drew... > > Is it possible that the wife is Lucy Nancy or Nancy Lucy, as there is an > N. E. in 1860, Lucy in 1870 and Nancy in 1880 and on Charles' Death Cert. > There is not much time for a former marriage unless she died very soon > after a marriage, possibly with the child Mary E. listed in the 1860 > census with all the Caughman family living with Watson and N. E. Dates > of birth are off, but that is not new. > > Is there any other evidence of the name Lucy as the first wife, other than > the 1870 census? The 1860 census confuses things for me. > > Billie > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Matthews" <dialzero@bellsouth.net> > To: <scsaluda@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:09 AM > Subject: Re: [SCSALUDA] More Matthews Death Cert connected to > OldEdgefieldDistarea. > > >> Nice catch! I sent Billie an email with who I thought B. Watson Mathews >> was >> and it turns out I was correct. He is Bud Cade Watson Mathews, son of >> Bud >> Cade Mathews (a well known Edgefield citizen of the 1800s) and his first >> wife Matilda Perry. >> >> Greg Matthews. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Drew Smith" <drewsmithtpa@gmail.com> >> To: <scsaluda@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [SCSALUDA] More Matthews Death Cert connected to Old >> EdgefieldDistarea. >> >> >>> Charlie and his family can be found in the 1880 census in District 54, >>> Huiet >>> Township, Edgefield County, but his household has been indexed by >>> Ancestry >>> as "Mathir". While the surname does look like "Mathir" at first glance >>> on >>> the census image, it is probably "Mathew". The household looks like >>> this: >>> >>> Watson, 45 >>> Nancy, 42 >>> Martha, 17 >>> Lambert, 13 >>> Moses, 11 >>> Pope, 8 >>> Charly, 6 >>> Alonzo, 3 >>> Bettie, 1 month (born in May) >>> >>> Here's the 1870 Mathews household, Saluda Division, Edgefield County: >>> >>> Watson, 35 >>> Lucy, 27 >>> Elizabeth, 12 >>> Caroline, 10 >>> Martha, 7 >>> Lambert, 4 >>> Moses, 2 >>> >>> Nearby are the households of 40-year-old Harry Mathews, and of >>> 32-year-old >>> William Mathews. >>> >>> In 1860, Saluda Regiment, Edgefield District, we have the following >>> household: >>> >>> B.C.W. Mathews, 25 >>> Jacob Caughman, 65 >>> L.E. Caughman, 24 >>> N.E. Mathews, 23 >>> J.S. Caughman, 19 >>> M.E. Mathews, 1 >>> Plus a farm laborer named Smith. >>> >>> Finally, here is the Matthews household in 1850 (The District, Edgefield >>> District): >>> >>> B.C. Matthews, 51 >>> Doratha, 26 >>> Tillman, 20 >>> Watson, 15 >>> William, 14 >>> Ezekiel, 11 >>> Elizabeth P., 2 >>> >>> The adjacent household is 80-year-old Martha Matthews, who was born in >>> North >>> Carolina. >>> > >

Great, because I had come to the same conclusion. The 1870 Census still puzzles me, since neither the name Nancy or Elizabeth occur as a name of an adult. Maybe she was off caring for her aged father or something, and Nancy was helping to care for her children while she was gone. I don't know, but the length of marriage evidence you got from the 1900 and 1910 census records certainly support a long term marriage to one Nancy Elizabeth Caughman. Nancy Elizabeth just sounds more likely that Elizabeth Nancy is the only reason I put the Nancy first. I also agree about the DAUGHTER M. E. being female, and listed in error in 1860. There is another Watson Matthews in Barnwell Co, 1870, Series: M593 Roll: 1484 Page: 445, and a full page of Matthews, living in Williston. but he's not married to Lucy either. I also looked for Caughman in 1870, but found no Jacob, or any other age ca 75, since he was 65 in 1860. He could have been living in another HH, but I did not go thru them. None in Saluda, most in Lexington Co. So, altho I agree with your conclusions, I am still curious about why Lucy is listed in 1870. Thanks for getting back in touch. I will let you know anything that I find out. Bud Cade Watson Matthews died between 1910 - 1920 and a Moses Matthews is listed in cem. records as follows: Matthews, Moses C. [Charles, Sr.] Aug 3 1871 - Oct 6 1918. So I will try to find those DC as well. I found the Moses in census records as follows: CENSUS: 1900 Saluda Co, SC, #1 (Germanville), p. 5A, hh#80/82 Moses Matthews, head, 28 M W 8/1871, md 7 yrs, Farmer, Owns Farm, can r/w SC SC SC Sallie Matthews, wife, 27 F W 12/1872 md 7 yrs, 4 children/4 living, can r/w, SC SC SC Lethes L. Matthews, dau, 6 F W 4/1874 SC SC SC Metra M. Matthews, dau, 4 F W 8/1895, SC SC SC Eddie G. Matthews, son, 2 M W 11/1897, SC SC SC Otis A. Matthews, son, 1 M W 5/1899, SC SC SC He is in the 1870 census with the parents, age 2, so that may mean this is the wrong Moses. Billie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Matthews" <dialzero@bellsouth.net> To: "Lee and Billie Jones" <tjones@camden.net>; <scsaluda@rootsweb.com>; "SCEDGEFIELD" <SCEDGEFI@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 1:06 AM Subject: Re: [SCSALUDA] More Matthews Death Cert connected to OldEdgefieldDistarea. >I think I've figured all this mess out. Billie, ignore that email I just >sent you. > > The 1860 census for Watson Mathews shows N. E. Mathews in his household. > I've had this in my census spreadsheet for a couple of years and could not > figure it out until now. This N. E. Mathews must be Nancy Elizabeth > Caughman Mathews, his wife obviously (more on the Elizabeth bit in a > minute). The 1860 census plainly shows that the 1 year child, M. E. > Mathews is male. I think this is a mistake and that it should be female. > Watson's daughter Elizabeth who shows up in the 1870 census is shown as 12 > years old in 1870 so she should be in his 1860 household. > > The 1870 census is the only place we see the name Lucy. Note that there > is a 8 year difference in their ages. In 1860 there is a 2 year > difference in the ages of Watson and N.E. In 1880 there is a 3 year > difference between Watson and Nancy. In 1900 there is a 3 year difference > in age between Watson and Nancy. In 1910 Watson's wife is shown as > Elizabeth (I just found this tonite) and there is a 4 year difference in > their ages. > > In 1900 Nancy is listed as the mother of 9 children with all being alive. > In 1910 Elizabeth says she is the mother of 9 children with 8 being alive. > > The most interesting bit of evidence is that in 1910 it says that Watson > and Elizabeth have both only been married once and that they have been > married 53 years. In 1900 Nancy and Watson are shown to be married 42 > years. That would place the marriage of Watson and Nancy/Elizabeth at > somewhere between 1856 and 1858. > > All of this taken together leads me to the conclusion that Watson was > never married to a "Lucy" (at the very least we could suppose that Lucy > was a nickname). However, if we look back at 1860 we see another young > lady who I presume to be Nancy's sister: L. E. Caughman. We usually > presume, without anything else to go on, that between 1850 and 1870 that a > man and woman listed consecutively in the same household in the census to > be man and wife. I've seen a couple of other instances where this isn't > the case, aside from brother and sister, so I'm fully prepared to say that > since the 1870 census does not implicitly tell us that Lucy is Watson's > wife that it is possible that, for whatever reason, Lucy might in fact be > his sister-in-law, L. E. Caughman (yes I'm taking a leap that the "L" > stands for Lucy---or possibly Louisa as shown in the 1850 household of > Jacob Caughman---, but it seems like a good idea at the moment!). > > At this point I am removing Lucy from my database as a wife of Watsons and > putting all of his children under Nancy Elizabeth Caughman until other > evidence presents itself. > > Greg Matthews >