PS Rhonda, I carry Q3. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: TNHAWKIN Digest, Vol 2, Issue 308 Today's Topics: 1. Re: Cobb research (Mary/Polly Murrell - a side note) ([email protected]) 2. Re: Jacob Lawson (JKC837) 3. ever been able to explain in a rational provable way (Rhonda Houston) 4. Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves (Russ Bralley) 5. Re: Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves (Donal O'Kelly) 6. Re: ever been able to explain in a rational provable way (Jeff Scism) 7. Re: Cobb research (Mary/Polly Murrell - a side note) (sam lawson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:11:16 -0000 From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Cobb research (Mary/Polly Murrell - a side note) To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: GregBoyd50 Surnames: FRAZIER COBB MURRELL HARRIS COFFEE KINARD Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.tennessee.count ies.hawkins/3181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.2.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: David, Thanks for your help. Do you know where the knowledge of there even being a "Vina" Cobb comes from? Joel Cobb's Will (dated Feb. 18, 1861) tells us that Polly Frazier (likely, the 2nd wife of Waitman Frazier) is his granddaughter. Since we know that Waitman's second wife is "Polly Murrell", then it fits that one of Joel's daughters married William Murrell. But how do we know there was a "Vina" or that she married William Murrell. Any ideas of where that idea comes from? Many thanks, Greg Boyd (husband of a descendant of all these folks). . . Vicki Kinard < Nancy Coffee < Bertha Harris < Nancy J. Wilder < Lucinda Frazier < Waitman and Polly (Murrell) Frazier 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. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:32:35 -0400 From: "JKC837" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Jacob Lawson To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" DAVID - YOUR THEORY NEEDS MORE RESEARCH. JAMES ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Jacob Lawson This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: drdjones Surnames: Lawson Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.tennessee.count ies.hawkins/2784.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx<http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.n ortham.usa.states.tennessee.counties.hawkins/2784.1.1.2.1/mb.ashx> Message Board Post: This is my own belief after reading the historical evidence. The Indian maiden stories were mostly untrue--a romantic fantasy--with occasional exceptions like the Sizemores. The DNA data suggests that there are very few Indian descendents among white settlers of the tri-state area. Most of the Indian maiden stories originated during the very late 1800s and early 1900s when the Guion-Miller Roll was being assembled. Our ancestors saw $$ signs. During the life of Jacob Lawson the Indians in Tennessee were very unfriendly to white settlers. They killed them when they could and vice versa. You only have to look at the newspapers of the time to come to that conclusion. Remember that Davey Crockett's grandfather was killed by the Cherokee/Creek Indians near Rogersville in Hawkins County, Tennessee in 1777. http://www.rootsweb.com/~tnnews/index.html<http://www.rootsweb.com/~tnne ws/index.html> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:23:59 -0500 From: "Rhonda Houston" <[email protected]> Subject: [TNHAWKIN] ever been able to explain in a rational provable way To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" What exactually is considered 'rational and provable'???? Why wouldn't it have to have been through marriages that the original/first early Native Americans had Christian name (although the French made it a practice to take Native Indian wives)...I don't remember reading anywhere in the required reading as I went through school and graduated three times, that when the white man visited that he thought his religion was better than any other ethnic group was, with whom it came in contact with. The white men have through history have been noted as being quite arrogant and ethnocentric, which is often the theme when one who visits doesn't understand the culture they are visiting..thus, this leaving of a Christian sounding name and belief system isn't hard to believe. My mother was part Native American within her Kentucky background; I can't prove this background, but I saw pictures of my great, greatgrandmother, so I knew this was true without proving it to someone else. Marriage was a by product and only taken on by those white men who want to survive within the area. In all probability, ever since the white man has visited places that weren't 'native' to him, he has left behind him, something of himself (which through history has been recorded as unkindness) as well as taken much more of the others' cultural resources of the group that he had visited...leaving less of himself than he took. Just because in our twentieth century minds we can't conceive something that has been noted down through history, doesn't mean it never or couldn't have happened...stranger things have taken place. Rhonda Warmack Houston ([email protected]) ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 14:40:15 -0400 From: "Russ Bralley" <[email protected]> Subject: [TNHAWKIN] Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi everybody: Native American ancestry can be a touchy subject because academic genealogy relies on information from genuine source records, such as parish records, muster lists, minister's returns, etc. for the "scientific" part. Oral tradition and family stories supply the "traditional" part - the my grandfather told me, hand-me-down story component. When both are combined, a rich, evocative family history becomes a treasured account of the origins of our ancestors. The further back in time we try to go, the harder it gets, because frontier records become more and more scarce. Almost all of us have traditional stories about some parts of our ancestry, particularly regarding the period during the Colonial frontier days. If you rely solely on the scientific sources, you will have an academic family history with gratifying citations. If you rely solely on the traditional sources, you will have a colorful, personal family history with scant proof. As genealogists, we have to admit that both are beautiful and hopefully everyone will have gratification combining both. Sometimes the facts are actually wrong, even in the source records, and future generations will correct some things as new data becomes more and more available. Some things will simply never be proven, but must be retained for the romance and coloring they bring to the history. How an individual looks to you in a photograph is subjective - like looking at an ink blot and seeing a camel, but one thing is for sure, all Colonial marriages had to be performed by a licensed magistrate or minister of the gospel to be valid. Otherwise, residents of Kentucky, Virginia and old North Carolina would be fined and jailed. Now I know a lot of quirky things happened on the frontier, so it is probable that there were unions between Native Americans and the settlers. What is lost if we don't budge on what is rational and provable? What is gained if we do? I suggest we just let individuals bring all the richness, pageantry, mystery and humor to their own family histories and those of us that like footnotes, citations or references, type away. I love both. But in my history, if I have a family tale, I call it that and if I have a fact, I cite it in a footnote. In the end, everybody wins. In my own family (Bralley), my great-grandfather always said we were from County Cork, Ireland. We always believed that and wore green on St. Patrick's Day and dreamed of the old country. When I went there to do research, I was astonished to discover that the Bralley's were actually from Somerset, England, but had moved to Cork during Elizabeth I's reign (1588) and were part of the Plantation of Munster scheme to take land AWAY from the native Irish and give it to loyal, Protestant English. They lived there until they came to Wythe County, VA in 1769. They were indeed FROM Cork, but NOT Irish. Get the picture? ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:00:34 -0700 From: "Donal O'Kelly" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Definitely got the picture. Thanks for the citations. donkelly of the Hawkins County Wilson and Rutledge bunches in early 1800's and same goes for the Owen family of Smith County.....Tennesseeans all. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Bralley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:40 AM Subject: [TNHAWKIN] Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves > Hi everybody: > > Native American ancestry can be a touchy subject because academic > genealogy > relies on information from genuine source records, such as parish records, > muster lists, minister's returns, etc. for the "scientific" part. Oral > tradition and family stories supply the "traditional" part - the my > grandfather told me, hand-me-down story component. When both are > combined, > a rich, evocative family history becomes a treasured account of the > origins > of our ancestors. The further back in time we try to go, the harder it > gets, because frontier records become more and more scarce. Almost all of > us have traditional stories about some parts of our ancestry, particularly > regarding the period during the Colonial frontier days. If you rely > solely > on the scientific sources, you will have an academic family history with > gratifying citations. If you rely solely on the traditional sources, you > will have a colorful, personal family history with scant proof. As > genealogists, we have to admit that both are beautiful and hopefully > everyone will have gratification combining both. Sometimes the facts are > actually wrong, even in the source records, and future generations will > correct some things as new data becomes more and more available. Some > things will simply never be proven, but must be retained for the romance > and > coloring they bring to the history. How an individual looks to you in a > photograph is subjective - like looking at an ink blot and seeing a camel, > but one thing is for sure, all Colonial marriages had to be performed by a > licensed magistrate or minister of the gospel to be valid. Otherwise, > residents of Kentucky, Virginia and old North Carolina would be fined and > jailed. Now I know a lot of quirky things happened on the frontier, so it > is > probable that there were unions between Native Americans and the settlers. > What is lost if we don't budge on what is rational and provable? What is > gained if we do? I suggest we just let individuals bring all the > richness, > pageantry, mystery and humor to their own family histories and those of us > that like footnotes, citations or references, type away. I love both. > But > in my history, if I have a family tale, I call it that and if I have a > fact, > I cite it in a footnote. In the end, everybody wins. In my own family > (Bralley), my great-grandfather always said we were from County Cork, > Ireland. We always believed that and wore green on St. Patrick's Day and > dreamed of the old country. When I went there to do research, I was > astonished to discover that the Bralley's were actually from Somerset, > England, but had moved to Cork during Elizabeth I's reign (1588) and were > part of the Plantation of Munster scheme to take land AWAY from the native > Irish and give it to loyal, Protestant English. They lived there until > they > came to Wythe County, VA in 1769. They were indeed FROM Cork, but NOT > Irish. Get the picture? > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.17/1103 - Release Date: > 11/1/2007 6:01 AM > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:03:44 -0700 From: Jeff Scism <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] ever been able to explain in a rational provable way To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed You also have to remember that when the British consolidated their possession of the new world in North America they required all to take on surnames and most then assumed surnames of people they knew and associated with. It happened again in the 1800s to the slaves who were freed. So the fact remains that many Native Americans and people of color were named long after birth, by official policy. and those names had no relationship with what they were born with. The earliest example recorded would be Amonte Matuaka, who was renamed Lady Rebbecca Rolfe, commonly known to Americans as Pocahontas. Jeff Rhonda Houston wrote: > What exactually is considered 'rational and provable'???? > > Why wouldn't it have to have been through marriages that the original/first > early Native Americans had Christian name (although the French made it a > practice to take Native Indian wives)...I don't remember reading anywhere in > the required reading as I went through school and graduated three times, > that when the white man visited that he thought his religion was better than > any other ethnic group was, with whom it came in contact with. The white men > have through history have been noted as being quite arrogant and > ethnocentric, which is often the theme when one who visits doesn't > understand the culture they are visiting..thus, this leaving of a Christian > sounding name and belief system isn't hard to believe. > > My mother was part Native American within her Kentucky background; I can't > prove this background, but I saw pictures of my great, greatgrandmother, so > I knew this was true without proving it to someone else. Marriage was a by > product and only taken on by those white men who want to survive within the > area. > > In all probability, ever since the white man has visited places that weren't > 'native' to him, he has left behind him, something of himself (which through > history has been recorded as unkindness) as well as taken much more of the > others' cultural resources of the group that he had visited...leaving less > of himself than he took. Just because in our twentieth century minds we > can't conceive something that has been noted down through history, doesn't > mean it never or couldn't have happened...stranger things have taken place. > > Rhonda Warmack Houston > ([email protected]) > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > -- Jeffery G. Scism, IBSSG ~~ Blacksheep Ancestors in your Family? 'Blacksheep Genealogy' is a registered California Sole Proprietorship. The International Black Sheep Society of Genealogists is a Social Organization Identified by its members using IBSSG after their signatures. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:49:46 -0500 From: "sam lawson" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Cobb research (Mary/Polly Murrell - a side note) To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, Greg- Well, I didn't think it was the same one (Elizabeth) shown in the Waitman Frazier familyin 1850. William and Eliza were married in Hawkins Co. in August, 1859. Iredell C. WILLIS was security. I have been told that Eliza was the dau of Waitman but I don't know what their proof is. I know that this Eliza was married to William LAWSON all the time since 1859 because the 11 June, 1906 obituary for William LAWSON says that his wife only survived him by 2 months and 8 days... ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [TNHAWKIN] Cobb research (Mary/Polly Murrell - a side note) > This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. > > Author: GregBoyd50 > Surnames: Murrell Frazier Stapleton Lawson > Classification: queries > > Message Board URL: > > http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.tennessee.count ies. hawkins/3181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx > > Message Board Post: > > Hey Sam, > > Is this Eliza Frazier that married William Lawson the same "Elizabeth" who was in Waitman Frazier's household in 1850 at age 12? > > Either way, is she the same Elizabeth that married Larkin Stapleton on March 10, 1854 in Hawkins County, Tennessee? > > (and keeping in mind that in the 1860 Census, Larkin Stapleton is married to Sarah E (who is only 18, making it a little unlikely that Sarah E. = Elizabeth, since she would have had to have married him at age 12). > > Many thanks, > Greg Boyd > Norman, OK > > 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 > ------------------------------ To contact the TNHAWKIN list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the TNHAWKIN mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. End of TNHAWKIN Digest, Vol 2, Issue 308 ****************************************