Greenberry Mitchell

Sometimes, when dancing with the ancestors, you come across more than one person with the same name. Such is the case with Greenberry Mitchell. You see, there is not just one Greenberry Mitchell. No, having just one would be far too easy. There are two men named Greenberry Mitchell.

Actually . . . there are three. Okay, one of them is imaginary. Okay, not really imaginary, but, rather the third Greenberry Mitchell is a hybrid. Okay, not a hybrid, actually, but rather the third Greenberry Mitchell is a genealogical mistake. He never existed and yet . . . he has trees on Ancestry. Go figure.

Greenberry Mitchell3 is actually a blending of Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. He is the result of people confusing the other two and ultimately combining him into one person.

Now, first and foremost, this third Greenberry Mitchell probably came into existence a long, long time ago before Ancestry and the indexing of records. He was probably created by some researcher scrolling through microfilm and not realizing that, back in 1832, two babies were born into separate Mitchell families and named . . . you guessed it: Greenberry. It also doesn't help that both of these families lived in Warren County, Tennessee and that both men named Greenberry remained in that county the entirety of their lives.

So, back in the olden days of genealogical research, this was an easy mistake to make. 

Now, I cannot claim to know why the multiple people out there confusing Greenberry1 with Greenberry2, and those creating Greenberry3, never realized there were two men named Greenberry Mitchell. All I know is that it happened, and this post will disassemble Greenberry3 and reveal the truth, as far as I've been able to determine about Greenberry1 and Greenberry2.

I'm not passing judgement. I'm only passing along what I discovered. So, here goes . . .

First - 98% of the trees on Ancestry list Greenberry Mitchell as the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate. 98%! This is a HUGE number. Plus, too many people rely on Ancestry as a solid source of information when, in fact, much of the information is suspect at best. My advice: use Ancestry as a stepping stone in your research, but use the facts you prove and disprove yourself as the actual road of your research.

Robert Mitchell married Jane Tate. This is important. The name Jane is important. The name Jane, and the error of a census taker, is very important in the creation of Greenberry3 and the 98% of trees on Ancestry that I mentioned in the above paragraph.

William Mitchell married Darcus/Dorcas (maiden name unknown, but possibly Coffee).

In the fall of 1831, both Jane and Darcus (this is how her name is spelled according to a census record) became pregnant. In the spring of 1832 both women gave birth to a baby boy and . . . named him Greenberry. Oy!

Flash forward 18 years and . . .

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on August 22, we have the following . . .

• William Mitchell
• Darcus Mitchell
• Mary Mitchell
• Julia Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 19)
• Celia Mitchell (age 14)
• Matilda Mitchell
• Darcas Mitchell

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on November 28, we have the following . . .

• Robert Mitchell
• Jane Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 18)
• Squire J. Mitchell
• Andrew J. Mitchell
• Ruth Mitchell
• John Mitchell
• Susan Mitchell
• Robert Mitchell

Note: Mitchell is transcribed as Mitchael on these records.

For this blog post, Greenberry1 is the son of Robert and Jane (Tate) Mitchell. Greenberry2 is the son of William and Darcus Mitchell.

Greenberry1 married Cynthia Brewer. Greenberry2 married Sarah Dodson. 

But, before I get on with marriages, census records and death records, lets go back to the census records and something I do when I'm researching the ancestor: pay attention to the siblings. In this case, pay attention to Celia Mitchell because she was the key to separating Greenberry1 from Greenberry2. Always remember, and never forget, sometimes the key to a direct ancestor is his or her siblings, especially the female siblings.

By 1860, both Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 have married and had children. As I mentioned, Greenberry1 married Cynthia Brewer. 

In 1860, they're living in McMinnville, Warren County, Tennessee and have three children: George, Robert, and Lowry.

In 1870, they're still in McMinnville, with the following children: L. A., Canabert (i.e., Conner Robert), Laura and David. L. A. is George who was 7 in 1860, but 17 in 1870, and I'm guessing his name is George A., and don't have a clue why it was transcribed as L. A.

In 1880, Greenberry and Cynthia are still in McMinnville, and their son David is still living with them. 

And 1880, is the last I have found of them, most likely because a Greenberry Mitchell died in 1899 and that, would be Greenberry1. More on this in a bit.

So, now we switch over to Greenberry2, who by 1860 was married to Sarah Dodson. They married on September 18, 1857. They were living in McMinnville and had two children: Selitha and Murphy. Murphy plays an important part in the tracking of Greenberry and Sarah in later census records.

In 1870, Greenberry is listed as Green on the Census Record. The census record is mis-indexed under Washington County, TN with the post office of McMinnville (which is in Warren County, TN). On closer inspection of the actual record, the county is listed as Warren. This is just another instance where an indexer made a mistake and created havor for future researchers. On the census record with him are his wife Sarah and their children Tabitha, Murphy, James, Mary, and Ambrose (aka Christie). Also on the census record with him are his sisters Matilda and Dorcas. 

In 1880 they are back in Warren County, and living in McMinnville with the following children: Tabitha (aka Selitha), Murphy, Jas. T., Christie (known as Ambrose in 1870), Minnie, and Dillard. Also living with them at the time is Jane Dodson who is recorded on the census record as the mother of . . .  Greenberry Mitchell. Say what?

Yes, she is listed as the mother of Greenberry Mitchell. And this, dear readers, is where 98% of the researchers out there confuse Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 and create the hybrid Greenberry3. 

It is my belief that everybody who looked at this census record took the fact that Jane Dodson, listed as the mother of Greenberry Mitchell (when, in fact, she was his mother-in-law), was in fact Jane Tate. Robert had died in 1871, so most researchers, without digging any further, made the mistaken assumption that Jane Tate-Mitchell remarried a man named Dodson. Why they didn't connect the dots between Jane Dodson and Sarah Dodson, I don't have a clue!

The problem with the assumption that Jane Tate-Mitchell remarried a Dodson is this: Jane Tate-Mitchell died in 1874. So, unless she's a zombie who then married a Dodson, there's a bit of an impossibility here.

Further research by me, showed, in 1850, that Jane Dodson was living with her husband Eli, and their children Latitia, Sarah, Laura, and Meria. So, the Jane on the 1880 Census record is Sarah's mother and Greenberry's mother-in-law. Then, there is Sarah Mitchell's death certificate which lists her parents as Eli Dodson and Jane Ware. Mystery solved.

Ah-Hah!! 

So, this is an easy mistake to make. It's also an easy mistake to correct if a researcher takes a little bit of time to do, well, do some research and verify the results. 

Taking things at face value, when doing research, is never a good thing.

But, now let's move forward to 1900. Greenberry and Sarah are living with their daughter Ollie, who was recorded as Minnie on the 1880 Census record.

But also, in 1900, in Warren County, we have James Mitchell living with his wife Hattie (he married Hattie Cantrell on September 16, 1880) and their children: Roy E., Waymon, Lueby E., and Lela O. Also in the house with him is his aunt Celia Mitchell!

Now, if you remember, way back in 1850, one of the children of William and Dorcas, along with Greenberry2, was Celia Mitchell. She was the key to beginning to unravel the mystery of Greenberry1, 2, and 3. Then, there is the death certificate for James Mitchell which lists his parents as Greenberry Mitchell and Sarah Dodson.

Now, in 1910, we have Sarah Mitchell living with her son Murphy and her daughter Ollie. In 1920, Murphy is the head of household, but living with him are his sister Ollie, his mother Sarah, and his father Robert. Say what? I thought Greenberry was his father. Well, in fact . . . Greenberry Robert Mitchell was his father! OY!

BUT . . . according to the tombstone located at Riverside Cemetery in McMinnville, Tennessee, G. B. Mitchell was born May 14, 1832 and died April 20, 1902. Sarah was born April 19, 1833 and died October 23, 1927 - this is confirmed by her death certificate. So, if Greenberry (aka G. B. Mitchell) died in 1902 . . . who in the heck is Robert, age 82, listed as the father of Murphy Mitchell? Did Sarah remarry after her husband's death in 1902? Did she marry a cousin? I don't have a clue. All I know is that Greenberry was dead by 1902, so whatever Robert Mitchell is living in the household with Murphy in 1920 . . . it's not his biological father. 

So, the take away from all of this is: do not take Ancestry trees at face value. Prove and disprove absolutely everything for yourself.

The other takeaway is that Greenberry1 is the son of Robert and Jane (Tate) Mitchell and Greenberry2 is the son of William and Darcus Mitchell. This has been proved through census, marriage, and death records.

I can't change the misinformation out there on Ancestry, nor the multitude of people that have merged Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 into Greenberry3. All I can do is put this information out there and hope that future researchers will find this post and apply the correct parental and sibling information to Greenberry1 and Greenberry2.

My final take away is, when dancing with the ancestors, do the hard work for yourself. Sometimes, you're going to run across two people born in the same year, with the same name, and living in the same town/county all their lives. When this happens, a bit of work on your part, can stop confusion and false information from being spread. For the record, it took me less than an hour to deconstruct Greenberry3 into Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. Yes, I have the advantage of census records being indexed and knowing to research the siblings. But, so do many of the researchers out there who continue to perpetuate Greenberry3! Your diligence can help future researchers.

S

Lazy Genealogists

Okay, when dancing with the ancestors, you're going to run across what I call, not too unkindly, lazy genealogists! To put it simply: lazy genealogists want to believe everything they find on the Internet is real! Bonjour!!

Seriously, people, do not rely on the research of others. Prove it for yourself!!!

Case in point: The two men named Greenberry Mitchell.

Now, it's bad enough that families passed their names back and forth, hither and thither, here, there and everywhere without a thought for future generations doing family research. In this instance, there is Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. For this post: Greenberry1 was born May 23, 1832 and died April 6, 1899. He is buried in Trousdale (Jacksboro) Cemetery in Warren County, Tennessee. Greenberry2 was born April 13, 1832 and died October 23, 1927. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery in Warren County, Tennessee.

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on August 22, we have the following . . .

• William Mitchell
• Darcus Mitchell
• Mary Mitchell
• Julia Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 19)
• Celia Mitchell (age 14)
• Matilda Mitchell
• Darcas Mitchell

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on November 28, we have the following . . .

• Robert Mitchell
• Jane Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 18)
• Squire J. Mitchell
• Andrew J. Mitchell
• Ruth Mitchell
• John Mitchell
• Susan Mitchell
• Robert Mitchell

Note: Mitchell is transcribed as Mitchael on these records.

So, there exists two possibilities:

1. It's the same Greenberry recorded on two different census records for 1850. It happens people, more than I care to express right now.
2. There are two different men named Greenberry Mitchell

The reality: there are two different men named Greenberry Mitchell

One Greenberry (we'll call him Greenberry1) married Cynthia Brewer. The other Greenberry (we'll call him Greenberry2) married Sarah Dodson.

This is all fine and dandy expect . . . 99% of the trees on Ancestry link Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 as the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate (more on the reasons for this in a bit).

So, back to 1850 Warren County, Tennessee, and William Mitchell and family. They are living next door to my 3 x Great Grandfather Allen Mitchell, his second wife Sarah and their children. 

Flash forward to 1900 Warren County, Tennessee and Celia Mitchell (single, age 65, meaning born in 1835) is listed on the Census Record with James Mitchell, his wife Hattie and their children and listed as his aunt! James' death record lists his parents as Greenberry Mitchell and Sarah Dodson. So, if his father is Greenberry, and his aunt is Celia, then going back to 1850, their parents would be William and Dorcas/Darcus Mitchell.

And yet . . . most people don't give poor William and Dorcas any credit as Greenberry1 or 2's parents! Shame on those lazy genealogists.

But, why is this, you're probably wondering? Okay, even if you're not, I'm going to tell you that it's all because of what happened in 1880 when the Census Taker arrived at Greenberry2's house and started taking down the information. He recorded the following . . .

• G. Mitchell (Head)
• Sarah Mitchell (Wife)
• Tabitha Mitchell (daughter)
• Murphy Mitchell (son)
• Jas T. Mitchell (son)
• Christie Mitchell (daughter)
• Minnie Mitchell (daughter)
• Dillard Mitchell (son)
• Jane Dodson (mother)

So, any researcher that had ever come across Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate as the parents of Greenberry, in seeing this record, and the notation mother would automatically assume it was 100% correct: Jane Dodson is the mother of Greenberry Mitchell. 

The problem: Jane Tate-Mitchell died in 1874. So, unless she's a zombie who then married a Dodson, there's a bit of an impossibility here.

Further research by me, showed, in 1850, that Jane Dodson was living with her husband Eli, and their children Latitia, Sarah, Laura, and Meria. So, the Jane on the 1880 Census record is Sarah's mother and Greenberry's mother-in-law. 

Ah-Hah!! 

So, this is an easy mistake to make. It's also an easy mistake to correct if a researcher takes a little bit of time to do, well, do some research and verify the results. 

Taking things at face value, when doing research, is never a good thing.

Relying 100% on the work of prior researchers, and assuming they are 100% correct, is NEVER a good thing. 

So, my take away from this is, that Greenberry1 who married Cynthia Brewer is the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate. Greenberry2 who married Sarah Dodson is the son of William Mitchell and Darcus/Dorcas (Maiden Name Unknown, but possibly Coffee), sister of Celia, and father of James T. Mitchell (which is known for a fact based on his death record).

So, when dancing with the ancestors never assume what you are finding is 100% correct unless you have verified it for yourself. Sometimes, the face value is inaccurate. Sometimes, the mother is actually the mother-in-law and the census taker was, well, a bit lazy. 

S

Assuming is the Curse of Doing Family Research - Part 1

When dancing with the ancestors, one of the biggest things that happen are that people assume things. Word of advice: assume nothing!

Example: you're doing research, find the will of an ancestor and it doesn't mention their child, your 5 x great grandmother! So, you assume your 5 x great grandmother wasn't the child of said ancestor whose last will and testament you found.

WRONG!!!

I have found last wills and testaments that list all the known children of an ancestor.

I have found last wills and testaments that list only the male children of an ancestor.

I have found last wills and testaments that only list the wife of an ancestor.

In the first instance, it's a woo-hoo moment because the last will of 5 x Great Grandpa lists all of his children. Yay for me!

In the second instance, it's a holy crap moment because I'm researching 4 x Great Grandma, daughter of 5 x Great Grandpa, and he only mentioned his six sons and not his five daughters.

In the third instance, well, you can figure that one out.

The main conclusion NOT to draw on Scenario two and three: my 4 x Great Grandma is obviously not the child of said 5 x Great Grandpa because he didn't mention her in his will!!

DO NOT DRAW THIS CONCLUSION. DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING!

In many cases, when children back in the day married, the father would give them land and/or money and then not mention them in the will because they already gave them land and/or money at the time of marriage. 

Or, as in Scenario Three - 5 x Great Grandpa left everything to the wife and made some reference "to be evenly distributed among my children at the time of her passing". Yes, I've run across this as well. It's a family researcher's nightmare: the will doesn't name the children. It doesn't mean the children did not exist, or that I'm on the wrong trail, only that 5 x Great Grandpa didn't bother to name the children in the will. It happens!!

So, when dancing with the ancestors and you come across a last will and testament that doesn't mention the ancestor you're researching, don't assume you're on the wrong trail, you have the parents of said ancestor wrong or anything along those lines. Instead, take a step back and consider that maybe the ancestor you're researching already received a bequest from the parent. Try to hunt down land records or other records that can prove the parentage, rather than simply - as I've seen many people do - that because the ancestor is not mentioned in the will they don't exist or you have an error in your research.

Census Tip

When dancing with the ancestors, sometimes you can't find your ancestors on a particular census record. It's frustrating and . . . there are many reasons this might happen: 

• your ancestors weren't home when the census taker came a knockin'
• the census taker transcribed the surname horribly wrong
• the transcriber transcribed the surname horribly wrong
• the census page has not been indexed yet (yes, this still happens)
• the census taker used your ancestors initials rather than full names
• and other reasons

An example from my own research: 3 x Great Grandpa James Matthew Johnson

First - with common surnames, trying to narrow it down is sometimes impossible. In this instance, I had Census Records for the following years: 1850, 1860, 1880, and 1900. I was obviously missing 1870. I did the normal Ancestry search from within James Matthew Johnson and his wife Charlotte (Ballard) Johnson.

Nothing!

Did I mention nothing?

Okay, there were some 2,000 records scattered throughout Kentucky.

I then narrowed the search to Nelson County, Kentucky!

NOTHING!

I was frustrated and then, as happens from time to time with me, I thought . . . why not try searching each of the known children.

Child by child I searched specifically for the 1870 Nelson County Census and . . . voila. I found it! Woo-hoo!

First - James Matthew was listed as J. M. Johnson. Note the usage of initials versus his full name. Second - the person who indexed the record transcribed Lottie as Sallie. It was an easy mistake, but also a mistake that made finding this record quite difficult.

So, when dancing with the ancestors and missing a census record or two . . .

• Search for the children
• Change the search to initials versus full name
• Keep trying!!

Genealogy & Facebook

In dancing with the ancestors, there are many avenues of research - Google, FamilySearch, Ancestory, Rootsweb, and a bunch of others. Another fabulous avenue of research is - Facebook. More and more, different genealogy sites - Rootsweb, TNGENWEB, etc. - are creating Facebook pages which you can join and, hopefully, find out information about your ancestors. In addition, there are many family pages, as in - Sevier Family, Campbell Family, etc. Then, there are the county web pages, and the photo pages, and so on, and so on, and so on.

If you're not using Facebook as part of your genealogy regimen . . . get on it, people!!

For my Sweat cousins, we have a family page devoted to just the descendants of our grandparents William Oscar and Mary Willie (Boone) Sweat. On this page, we share all the old family photos, reunion announcements, and just day to day stuff that keeps us connected to each other. In addition, I share all the family history stuff I find as I dance with the ancestors. It's a convenient place and, I don't have to email the cousins individually, just post a link to files/websites and . . . voila, it's done, information shared, and I'm on to more researching.

In addition, on my personal web page, I make note of birthdays and weddings of my ancestors. For example, today - May 21 - was the day my 2 x Great Grandfather was born, back in 1839. My post on my page was: 

On this day in my paternal family history, my Great Great Grandfather James Douglas Tate was born in 1839 in Warren County, TN. He was the son of John Tate and Leodicia Hogg. He married Mary Jane McGregor and they had two children. 

But, not only was 2 x Great Gramps born on this day, but my Great Gran was born also, so this post appeared on my page as well:

On this day in my maternal family history, my Great Grandmother Mary Willie Watson was born in 1872. She was the daughter of Richard Hilary Watson and Anna Marie Johnson. She married Victor Ivo Boone and they had 15 children.

In this way, on my Facebook page, there is a record of the events in my ancestors lives and, in this way, I honor the past, the people that came before me, that make the life I lead today possible.

So, when dancing with the ancestors, make sure to utilize Facebook a) to your advantage and b) to share the past of your ancestors.

S

DNA & Paper Trails

Sometimes when dancing with the ancestors, the paper trail is almost non-existent. Such is the case with my 2 x Great Grandmother Rebecca Adcock-Smith.

Here's what I knew in the beginning: 2 x Great Grandfather John B. Smith married a woman named Rebecca. 

That was the extent of my knowledge. Over time, I connected with some distant Smith cousins who said they thought Rebecca's surname was Adcock, but . . . they weren't 100% positive. It wasn't until  I discovered Ardena Clementine Smith-Aldridge's death certificate that . . .

. . . I had verification that Adcock was her mother's surname. Ardena, or Aunt Clem as my dad called her, was his grandfather (my great) John Leonard Smith's sister.

If not for Ardena knowing her mother's maiden name . . . I might still be a bit clueless.

I knew from doing research that the main Adcock family that settled in Warren County, TN and subsequently DeKalb County, TN came from South Carolina and . . .

. . . were the children of Leonard and Jane (Cantrell) Adcock. I knew that the majority of Leonard's children named at least one of their children Leonard. I pretty much knew that Rebecca was a grand-daughter of Leonard, but . . . didn't have a clue which of his many sons might or might not be here father.

Then, came an Ancestry DNA match to a woman who was a descendant of William Adcock, son of Leonard Adcock! Woo-hoo!!!

Then, today, with Ancestry's DNA Circles . . . I had a match to two different descendants of William and Francis (Ballinger/Ballenger) Adcock.

Again, a Woo-hoo!!

Now, disclaimer time: just because Ancestry DNA links you to someone, it doesn't mean you're 100% related. 

For me, the mere fact there is a DNA connection gives me hope . . . which is a good thing when using DNA to confirm relationships within the tree. At some point, I'll contact the DNA matches and request they upload their DNA profile to gedmatch.com and . . . we can compare DNA using a chromosome browser which will verify the match.

But . . . sometimes, when stumbling along when dancing with the ancestors, the hope of a DNA match, to prove what you've found so far, or to support what you've found so far . . . is a step in the right direction. There are, however, always other steps to take. Don't be a lazy genealogist and not keep looking for the paper trail or more verifiable DNA data when you get a DNA match.

The Proof is in the Pudding

There's an old saying, don't know where it originated or what it means, that goes . . . the proof is in the pudding. When dancing with the ancestors, the proof is often not in the family stories or the printed genealogy books you'll find, but rather . . . in the pudding of your search to prove and/or disprove the information you've found.

Case in point: Jahaziel Tate who married Jane Lockhart. They had three children: Andrew Jackson, John Stubblefield, and James Lafayette. 

Jahaziel later married Sarah Tate - more on this in a bit. After Sarah died, he married Lavinia, and after her death, he married Nancy Shemwatter.

In the book The Heritage of Warren County, Tennessee, in the section about the Tate family, there's the following information about Jahaziel: Jahaziel married 1st Jane Lockhart and had Andrew,John, and James before leaving his Tennessee family and marrying his first cousin, Sarah Tate, in DeKalb County, Alabama (p.337).

See, I told you there was more on this in a bit about Sarah Tate. Her father was Aaron Tate, brother to James Tate who was Jahaziel's father.

Next, there was the book Tate Families of Southern States written by Metzel and Updike and published in 1984. In that book was listed the following:

Jahaziel married four times: (1) to a bride of whom we know little, except she died early leaving three sons, Andrew J., John S., and James Tate who were living with the Samuel Dykes' family in the 1850 Census of Grundy County, TN. Possibly the Dykes family were the grandparents of them since rural people always find room for their own kin. He was married to (2) Sarah A. Tate, on October 18, 1839 by Justice of the Peace, W. F. Mooney (M. P. 1837 - 7, 8 and 9). She was bon 1821, age 29 on the 1850 Census of Warren County, TN and died on January 28, 1852 in Pulaski County, AR. Her family was opposed to the marriage. They, however, eloped and settled near Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR. He married (3) Lavinia "Vina" who was born in 1810 in MS. He married (4) Nancy who was born April 5, 1824 in Hinds County, TX; she died on December 7, 1893 in Poetry, TX.

Now, if you read the italicized section in the fourth paragraph above, you know that Jahaziel and Sarah were first cousins, which would explain why her family was opposed to the marriage. Metzel and Updike failed to mention this little fact. Perhaps they didn't know Jahaziel and Sarah were first cousins, or perhaps they didn't want to mention this in their book. Either possibility is a good way.

The proof is in the pudding: Jahaziel and Sarah were first cousins which is obviously why her family didn't want them marrying.

Now, there are a few other errors in Metzel and Updikes telling of the life of Jahazeil Tate. First and foremost, I want to point out that they most likely did not have access to the information I have when they wrote their book. The Internet was in infancy stage in 1984. They were doing genealogy old school style. For all they knew, because Jahaziel remarried, was that Jane died.

This is incorrect. Jahaziel and Jane divorced and he abandoned his family in Tennessee. 

"A bride of whom we know little about" is true, in the fact that they knew little about her, however the Tate researcher who provided the information on the Tate family for the book The Heritage of Warren County, Tennessee was a Tate and had access to more information than Metzel and Updike, which is why he knew that Jahaziel married Jane Lockhart . . . and left his family in Tennessee.

Samuel Dykes is not Samuel, but Sander Dykes who . . . married Jane Lockhart-Tate, which is why Andrew, John, and James were living with Sanders and Jane Dykes, and their three children Calhoun, Sanders Jr., and Mary A.in 1850 in Grundy County, Tennessee.

Samuel from Sanders is an easy error, and one many people, myself included, have made when looking at the actual Census Records. I viewed the 1850 Census Record and can see how they made that error. It happens. 

Metzel and Updike also did not know Jane's last name, or first name, but I did based on the information found in the book about Warren County, Tennessee.

Now, in trying to figure out this little mess, another Tate researcher and I began exchanging emails. The first thing we both did was go to the 1850 Grundy County Census Record, at which point we both came to the same conclusion: the reason Andrew, John, and James were living with Sanders Dykes was because their mother had married him. Sanders was not their grandfather, but their step-father. The second step was trying to find death records for Calhoun Dykes, Sanders Dykes, and Mary A. Dykes. We found Calhoun Dykes death certificate which listed his father as Sanders Dykes and his mother as Lockhart!

At this point, we had found the proof in the proverbial pudding. 

So, when you have a family story, or a genealogical book with a family history, and things don't make sense . . . do some digging on your own. Remember, whoever wrote the story or genealogy in the first place, probably didn't have access to the information readily available to modern day researchers. They could only use what they had back when they wrote the story . . . or put the family genealogy in written format.

Metzle and Updike utilized the information available to them in the 1980s when they put together their book. They didn't have access to the family stories that stated Jahaziel "married 1st Jane Lockhart and had Andrew, John and James before leaving his Tennessee family and marrying his first cousin, Sarah Tate in DeKalb County, AL. All Metzel and Updike knew at the time they were putting their book together was that Jahaziel had been previously married and remarried a second time. They assumed - always a dangerous thing to do, but happens more often than not - that because Jahaziel remarried, his first wife had died. Divorce wasn't so common in the early 1800s as it is today.

So, this post isn't in any way a criticism of their work, but rather a cautionary tale for modern day family historians to prove the family story or family tree you find when doing your research. It's easy enough to accept what is out there as 100% documented, but . . . the sad fact is, the information is not always 100% documented. To be true to your family tree, you need to prove and/or disprove it for yourself.

So, when dancing with the ancestors, know that the proof is in the pudding, and it's up to you to find the truth!!