New Burwell Carpenter questions
First off, very belated thank yous to Pam and Gary Murray for their replies to my last post.I wanted to delay replying until I had time to chew on the info, but apparently didn't remember to come back until I was hungry again! :)
So I have a Burwell Carpenter of Pendleton District (Anderson Co), SC.Died 1830. Wife named Elizabeth in will.
Children: Willis, Burwell Jr. (retarded), Asberry (d bef 1830), Thomas L., Alfred M., John, Mary (aka Polly m. Laban Massey), Elizabeth (m. Stone), Delany (m. Crawford), and Sarah (m. Greer).All named in will.
If I understand Gary's post correctly (thanks again!), Burwell's parents were Thomas Carpenter (of Nash Co) and Mary Lee (dau of James Ludwell Lee).
How do we (um, where we = those of you who know more about about this line than I do :) know that my Burwell of Anderson Co is the same Burwell who was the son of Thomas and Mary? I saw the post showing a Burwell named as a child in Mary's estate settlement, but how do we know it's the same one?There seem to be a few floating around.
(Note - I'm *not* disputing the connection!Not at all! I just like to know all the sources/rationale before "adopting" new ancestors to ponder and cherish. :)
There is a Burwell Carptenter in the 1790 census for Wake Co NC. I was thinking this might be my guy as my Masseys were also in Wake Co.In fact, it looks like a Burwell Massey might be enumerated next to BurwellCarpenter.I see that Wake Co is right there by Nash Co, too.
This Burwell in 1790 shows one male under 16, one over, and five females. So he's missing five sons there.In the 1800 census for Burwell's entry there are four males under 10, one male 16-26, and presumably Burwell at age 26-45.There are three females 10-16, one female 16-26.
Assuming the census taker then the transciber got everything correct.Which doesn't seem likely, unless Elizabeth was a second wife.Completely possible, of course.
Daughter Polly was married with kids at this point, surely at least in her early 20s herself. Therefore, again assuming that the census was correct, I would put Burwell's age closer to the 45 mark, making him born c1765.Does that fit in with Thomas and Mary?
As for the females in the 1790 census who have not "grown" enough to fit the 1800, I'd venture that perhaps one or both of the censuses (or transcription) is wrong, or these were other daughters who died young.
So! Any thoughts? reassurances? glaring errors and oversights?
(Replies here instead of email appreciated so everyone can benefit.Thank you!) -Shari