Re: Susannah Matthews m. Henry Lumsden in Louisa County Virginia
-
In reply to:
Re: Susannah Matthews m. Henry Lumsden in Louisa County Virginia
Stephen Matthews 4/20/07
I'm not sure if I understand your post, Stephen.You said that Michael is correct and that the mystery has been cleared up, but then you go to great length to say the exact opposite.
The simple fact of the matter is that NO ONE has ever been able to prove that Mary, wife of Isaac, was a Mathews or that she was a descendant of Samuel Mathews.If you take away the James C. Matthews manuscript you have a nothing to even suggest that she was a Mathews.All you have is a woman named Mary.Period.Outside of that manuscript there is only one other place where her name is given: the will of Isaac Mathews who died in Halifax County, NC.
For whatever reason you have latched onto that manuscript and tried to "prove" every theory with the manuscript as the basis.
Let's take a look at a few things that the manuscript got wrong:
1) Samuel Mathews Sr. was not a son of Tobias Mathews, bishop of York in England.Ref: http://www.geocities.com/awoodlief/mathews.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/awoodlief/mathews.html.This severs the entire ancestry to Adam or however far back into the dawn of history Dr. Mathews' "family" went.
2) Samuel Mathews Sr. was not governor of any sort.Read Minnie G. Cooks's article on the subject.You can find that in William and Mary Quarterly 2nd series Vol. 14 No. 2 April 1934 pp. 105-113.It's easy to see why so many people get the two Samuel's mixed up and she does an excellent job in proving the issue for certain.
3) The numerous errors in geography.If you are going to write something at least make sure you proof read it.
4) Moses Mathews.I'm even going to touch that one here.I've already been in touch with far too many of his descendants who don't believe that he was a child of Isaac and Mary's to make it worthwhile to dredge through that any more than I have to.
These four points are just the ones that I can always think of off the top of my head.I'm sure there are more.When we know these things to be wrong how much more of the manuscript can anyone really be expected to take seriously?Or, better yet, WHY should we take any of it seriously?Why use it as a pedestal to prop up support for something that just isn't there?
Along with cherry picking some of the bullet points from my original web site you bring up a lot of different subjects that really don't have anything to do with each other.Rather than trying to pigeon hole every Mathews surname you come across in Virginia into some extended family tree that just doesn't exist maybe you need to consider that (borrowing from The Matrix) a spoon is just a spoon?Just because you have a Mathews living in Isle of Wight County you don't have to assume that he is related to Mathews living in the next county over who just happen to have the same name(s).For this period of time some names were used over and over again in different families.Names such as Thomas, James, John, etc.Just because you have two men named Thomas Mathews living 50 miles apart doesn't mean that they have to be the same person or even related to each other.Probability is going to suggest you are going to see a lot of unrelated people who have the exact same name who aren't going to be related.
Your post does everything possible to try to pigeon hole people to fit the manuscript.To wit:
1) You state that "We know that Isaac and Mary were not “from” Brunswick or Southside".Actually we do know that Isaac is from the Brunswick County area.What we don't know is where Mary is from.
2) "According to the Surry Co. land records, on the South side of the James River, the first activities, of our Mathews in question, were in 1686".This is an incredible leap to take.What evidence is there to support that those who took part in the estate sale of Thomas Jordan were the same folks who lived in what would become Brunswick County?
3) "The Boots book mentions that Isaac’s forbear..."Boots based his work solely on the error-riddled James C. Matthews manuscript.I don't think anything more needs to be said on that.
4) "Thomas Mathews is mentioned in a 1641 land record...".Another example of cherry-picking that has nothing to do with the discussion in general unless you can find evidence to bring him into the subject.
5) "There are some lands descriptions that put Isaac (his land—at least by the time the land was sold) and some of his siblings and children in what are now Mecklenburg Co. and Halifax Co. then and now."There is nothing to place the family-at-large as ever having lived there.All that exists is a record of Isaac's brother James receiving an 850 acre grant for land south of the Roanoke River that he would sell off over the course of a few years.There is nothing to suggest that any of the family ever lived there.Isaac's name shows up once as witnessing a transaction for land along the Roanoke.That is the only time and is easily written off as either being some other Isaac Mathews or the fact that the deed could have been witnessed at the courthouse and Isaac was handy as a witness of the sale.
6) "I think the statements referencing Halifax Co. in these instances should have been qualified with a statement such as, “what is now”, or “when it was sold” or the like."That's called rationalizing, or "making excuses".
7) "There is no Hazelnut Branch or the like in N. Carolina..".There once was.Just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it didn't exist 200-300 years ago.Hazelnut is referenced in several (not many, I'll grant) deeds and wills along with other streams and creeks that still carry the same names as they did 200 years or more ago.Find Conoway Creek on a map of Halifax County, NC.You won't be able to find it on any modern map, but I can prove where it was.
8) "There may have been an old family site remaining in Charles City, VA..."More rationalizing with no proof anywhere.
9) "However, I believe Isaac Sr. ended his life in either Virginia or N. Carolina".Given the fact that his will was recorded in Halifax County, NC it is a foregone conclusion where he died.
10) "There is enough weight to support the assumption that the John and Thomas in Surry Co. were John Jr. (uncle) and Thomas, Isaac’s father."I want to pull my hair out.Isaac's father was named James, not Thomas.If he was ever called James Thomas as some people want to suggest then why is it that he is never called "James Thomas" anywhere?
Brunswick County deed 20 Jan 1741.James (I) Matthis [signed James Matthis Sr] of EDGECOMBE COUNTY NC to my son Isaac Matthis of St Andrews Parish Brunswick Co. 200 acres of land on S side of Nottoway, Rocky Run, Wild Cat Creek.
There are a plethora of Brunswick County deeds tying James Sr. his wife Jane, and at least 4 of his sons (James Jr., Isaac, Charles and Matthew) to the area between Wild Cat Creek and Rocky Run (which you can still find on maps).It is a foregone conclusion that they lived there or in the general vicinity since 1708 (earliest confirmed deed by James and Jane in Surry County).
Following the migration of James Sr. to the Little Fishing Creek area of what would become Halifax County in about 1741 several of the sons of James would follow within a few years.After this migration the only Mathews who are mentioned in the Brunswick County area are Charles (who did live in NC for a time), John (either Charles' eldest son or a son of James Sr. who to date has not been revealed in the records) and Matthew.
Rather than trying to make everything fit the James C. Mathews manuscript the web community at large would be better off if we tried to make the data fit the evidence.An undocumented manuscript filled with errors is not evidence.My own personal opinion on data collections like that are to use them as a guide to decide their validity based upon the original source records.
More Replies:
-
Re: Susannah Matthews m. Henry Lumsden in Louisa County Virginia
Stephen Matthews 4/23/07