Lou, I finally recieved the copies you send me, and I do humbly eat "Crow" concerning the statement 16 or married, but , the way I interput it here is Annebarbray had to be married, not that she was under the age of 16, I interrupted that William had to be of age 16 to inheit his part, and of coarse, Sophia Pope Runnel was already married and had a male to oversee her. share.... It has just been in the 20th century , that women could own anything in her name....or have credit accounts.... BY the way, I am sending this to the SCSPARTA-L AS there will be many interested in this post... By the way, Lou to refresh your memory, it was a woman who wrote me concerning ANNE MUSE who she thought was married to her Wm somebody, when she found my Family Tree on Worldwide Roots....which started our debate..... Read between your statements.... > To Evelyn Crocker and James Reid. > > James, many thanks for sending me the issue of "Upper South Carolina Gen > & Hist" with the articles you wrote. I've been in a discussion (i.e., > argument) with your cousin, Evelyn Crocker, regarding James Muse SR's > will. She insists that my transcription of James SR's will is wrong, > because it differs from yours. I did not state that your copy of James Muse's Will was incorrect, I did state that I didn't believe it was in the "Will" because, James Reid had plave the entire "Will" in his article, but, after re-reading his article , he did state he left some minor things out which he felt was not important for genelogy purposes, Which must have been the state concerniong Annebarbary, Sophia Muse Runnel and Wm Muse Seal's required condition to receive their part of the ESTATE. {Like you, I feel this was very important statement, because it shows ANNEBARBARY is not married but, possibe was 16, but Wm. Seals Muse was under 16. Sophia being married wasn't included in the condition...} > Evelyn, my copy of James Muse SR's will is from the NC Archives. It so > happens that I'm the person who furnished a copy of the will to Dr. > Reid back in 2000, at his request. . So he has the very same copy that > I have. That is nice, I thank you for my copy, but, I did not need you to annotie it for me as I have been reseaching old legal records for some time, and I make my own conclusions. And, I have been depending on James Reid for many years ow also, and he is quite willing to double check his work when others ask him to do so... > James, I'm looking at your transcription of James Muse's will on page 13 > of "Upper South Carolina Genealogy & History". After the words > "...death or decease of my wife" there's a period. The phrase "deliver > to them at the age of sixteen or marriage", should follow the word > "wife", but those words were inadvertently left out. I'd be willing to > bet that you weren't even aware that this phrase is missing from your > transcription. > > It's important because it tells us that Anna Barbara Muse, Sophia Pope > (Muse) Runnels & her son William Seale Muse would not get to split the > remainder of James Sr's estate until they were age 16 or married. ( A > bit confusing, since Sophia was already married) Evelyn Wrote... See my conclusion on this in my opening statement..... > Evelyn, John Morrison's Conveyance on page 15 simply tells us that > Daniel Muse was still under 14 years old in 1762, as was the unknown > "Amy". James does not state that the "deceased Amy" is actually > Sophia. He says that "one would expect" that to be the case. He's > expressing a possibility, not stating a fact. Lou, You are turning the wording of the conveyance around to suit your self, my dear> :). It stateS DANIEL WAS STILL UNDER THE AGE OF FOURTEEN, NOT AMY, who I still content was ANNE due to the SLAVE BVelindas being mentioned, and I contend that the other AMY was either mother or grandmother. Where do you get that there were THREE AMY's??? I count only two, the one who was deceased and the one who witnessed was the same in the CONVEYANCE.... > Of course we now have the evidence that by 1762, James Muse's widow had > married John Morrison, & in 1792, as "Sophia MORRISON of Fairfield Co > SC", she made two separate slave deeds to her daughter Lydia Seale. > That document alone is irrefutable evidence that Sophia MORRISON is > the same person as SOPHIA MUSE, James Sr's widow. Court & land > records of Fairfield Co prove that John Morrison was rliving there > between 1790-92. Morrison died in Fairfield Co by 1799, & his stepson, > Thomas Muse, administered his estate. We don't know when Sophia died, > but in 1795, Lydia' (Muse) Seale's s son came into Fairfield Court to > verify the two slave deeds, which suggests that Sophia may have died by > that date. This is the first I have heard of these records, I am now asking James Reid to to an article in the Upper Piedmont Genealogy Magizine on them.. > James also says in his comments that "it is possible, and likely, that > the orphan "Amy" Muse in this deed is "Anne" Muse" , because the slave > Bellinda, who Morrison conveyed in 1762 to Thomas Muse, was > probably the same slave that James SR bequeathed to his daughter Anne. > Pleaser note that James uses the word "Possible" and "likely" -- again, > he is not stating a fact. Even so, that doesn't answer the nagging > question of who the "Amy deceased" was. We know it wasn't James' > widow. So which one of James Sr's daughters was dead ??? Evelyn wrote: See, my answer above concerning this matter of the 'AMY"s, either of Sophia's daughters were dead. If so, why would there be a CONVEYANCE of ownership of the property on a daughter's death???? > I think James would agree with me that it's impossible to positively > identify any of the three "AMYs" in this confusing document. It's > evident that the clerk who wrote it (or recopied it 25 years later ) > misspelled or misinterpreted one or more of the names --. including > writing "John Muse" instead of "James". (I still lean toward the > possibility that this is a copy of the original document. ) Evelyne Wrote: It is possible, but, not likely, I have explained and explained the AMY name and the Tolloson / Muse deposition also called John Tolloson's legal wife "AMY", AND the "John" given name could have been accidental because, it was a JOHN MORRISON giving the statement or because 25 years later she was married to JOHN TOLLOSON. zNow, this is all logical and common sense.. > James and I have enjoyed a cordial correspondence for several years > about the Amy/Anna problem. I don't think either of us is yet entirely > confident of the identity of John Tolleson's wife. James devoted a lot > of time and effort trying to locate "Amy's Complaint", but it hasn't > surfaced. That document might answer many questions that have troubled > Tolleson and Muse researchers ever since Thomas Muse's deposition was > found, stating his sister ANNA MUSE married John Tolleson. Evelyn wrote; Yes, many of us have enjoyed cordial correspondence with James Reid through the MUSE family QUERY BROAD on old genealogy.com and on the SCSparta-l mailing list and about two years ago we, Tolloson / Muse descendants all agreed as did James Reid that "the AMY" in the Tolloson files was Anne aka ANNA MUSE not my grandmother AMY de HART as some were claiming for she had married Abraham Campbell.., I fully believe it was a Tolloson / Smith or perphaps an AMY DE HART descendant who took the missing file on Amy Muse Tolloson... > Evelyn, I'm not "confusing Sophia Pope Muse Runnels with her mother in > the Liddy Muse Ceal's gift of a negro slave", nor do I "have the > wrong date" as you claim. Evelyne wrote: Lou, I made no claim, I was just making suggestions or jest to you at that time... It is not I who was or is arguing , but, you or you would have seen that statement as I meant it, a suggestion or jest because that doesn't make sense to me... Sophia Pope(Muse) Runnels and her husband > Dudley Runnels, never > lived in SC. They lived in Caswell Co NC until the mid-1780s, when > they > sold their land & and moved to Wilkes Co GA, joining Sophia's son and > several other Runnels families. Sophia Pope (Muse) Runnels was still > living as late as 1819 in GA. I have the documents to prove all those > statements. Evelyne Wrote, Wait just a mintue, I seem to remember asking you why James Muse Jr. didn't admisitrar the estate as it was written in James Muse's "WILL" AND YOU STATED HE NEVER MOVED TO S. C. THEN WHY COULD SOPHIA Pope Muse RunnellsRECEIVE her share if she never moved to S. C. I think you need to check your colonial maps and see when Carolina became North and South. Really , what difference does it make rather she lived in S. C. or not??? > I've sent you xeroxes of James Muse SR's will, the John Morrison > Conveyance, the two deeds of Sophia Morrison, Thomas Muse's 1819 > declaration, and the pages from "A Southern Legacy" that cover James SR > & his family. I hope the latter will add to your knowledge of the Muse > family. > > And James, I hope you can explain to cousin Evelyn why she shouldn't > keep insisting that James SR's wife and daughter Anne had "Amy" as > their middle names, when there's no evidence to support such a notion. Evelyn Crocker wrote; I shall continue to content that SOPHIA POPE MUSE had a middle name of AMY as did her daughter, ANNE until you show me proof they did not because, the more I disuss this issue and look at the whole family picture that was why JOHN MORRISON dicatated it in his conveynce of the MUSE ESTATE... The name, AMY, showed up in the TOLLOSON / MUSE DIVORCE FILES and THOMAS MUSE acknowledged an ANNA , or perhaps it should have correctly been spelled ANNE. In our earlier discussion concerning who Amy Toloson was on the MUSE FAMILY query board on genealogy .com and SCSparta-L I was the one who suggested the "M" might be two "NN"s spelling "ANNY" but in the orginial copies I received this week from Lou, I can see very well the it was a "m" NOT DOUBLE "n" so the name was clearly "AMY". Because, SOPHIA POPE MUSE sr.'s MOTHER'S given name was AMY VEALE POPE. So, one daughter was given the mother's name SOPIA POPE and another was given ANNE AMY and where LIDDIE and ANNABARBARY came from I can not say but it was from old family names , YOU CAN BET ON IT... > Warm regards, Lou