Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Hi All, This is from another list but it sounds great to me.
Travel Maps USA, by Cosmi available at Walmart for $9.95 shows
all county roads, cemeteries etc. you can search & zoom in on the
cemeteries & it will show the layout. "It is in a CD case on a rack,is
has no instruction but has a help file."
I haven't seen it yet but I am going out tomorrow & get it.
Roberta
Bettye
Could you tell me what Mary's middle name was. I have a Mary L Cates that
her family moved to Mo. I don't know if she went also. According to the 1870
or 1880 Mo. census she was born about 1854 in Tn. I do not know where she
got her husband, Tn or Mo.
I hit the famous brick wall....... Drawing at straws......
Thanks.
Sorry to post to list but I just deleted Charles Dorian's e-mail
address.
Charles asked me abt the Mary Cates in the posting I sent on the
TUNNELL family.
I just found this: Mary Cates m. Miles Gray 1 Sept 1865 Monroe Co
TN
Regards, Bettye
-----Original Message-----
From: Bettye Heinrich <bettye(a)jps.net>
To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com <CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 7:51 PM
Subject: ELY CATE
>Following is some data that I copied from Southern Genealogies # 1 -
>Genealogical Publishing CO.
>
>This appeared under the TUNNELL Family pg 332 & 333
>
>Sarah Tunnell, dght of John Tunnell and Esther Essman was b 29 Oct
>1810 Hopkinson, KY She died in McMinn CO Tn at age 84. She
>married Ely Cate on 14 May 1835 and had 10 children. Ely was born
25
>Apr 1813 and died 26 Feb 1891 in TN. There children were as
>follows:
>Melissa Jane Cate b 28 Feb 1836 d. 1908 m. John Kinbrough (their
>children & spouses named)
>
>John Perry Cate b 14 Feb 1838 d 20 Oct 1856 unmarried
>
>James Robert Cate b 17 Feb 1840 d 29 Dec 1849
>
>Easter Catherine Cate b 29 Oct 1842 d TN m. Henry Amos
>
>Lydia N. Cate b. 31 Jan 1845 d 12 Feb 1871 m.
>William H. Smith Nov 1864 (some data on their
> children)
>
>Mary Cate a twin of Lydia N. b 31 Jan 1845 unl Gray and had 14
>children
>
>Charles H. Cate b 25 May 1847 Married 3 times.
>
>William A. Cate b 22 dec 1849 of Spring City TN. m1 Sarah C.
>Grisham 22 July 1876 6 children
> m2 Martha Phillips had 6 children ( 2 lived and died same
>day)
>
>Sarah Martha Cate b 1 Oct 1852 m. John Stoe 2 children
>
>Eli Adkins Cate b 22 May 1856 d 1878.
>
>Regards, Bettye
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi, I tried to respond to Charles Dorian's msg today but was given a
msg that I could not send mail from my server to his, ditto to the
CATE-L list.
This is a test, Bettye
Hi All,
I will still be here to check out your lines with my database, however,
I have not been able to do much research, i.e. reading microfilm, like I
was doing before starting the list. I had hoped to read census records
for Cate/Cates,Kate/Kates in most states to add new data to my database.
It does help when others post tidbits to the List also.
Thanks Jerry.
Roberta
<<Hi Lorraine,
I am no where near searching back into the 1700's, but I thought I would
let you know that in the 1930's my Thelma BELL married Arthur CATES.
Just alittle tidbit.
Sandee>>
I think it is interesting that your BELL married a CATES. Here is my lineage
with BELLs marrying CATES:
Edna Lucille BELL (my g grandmother) --Texas & New Mexico
William Kyle BELL (her father)--Texas
George Waldemar BELL (his father)--Kentucky
Henry C. BELL (his father) who married Susan Jane CATES --Kentucky
Susan Jane CATES--Kentucky
Joshua CATES (Susan's father) -- Kentucky
Joseph CATES (Joshua's father) who married Margaret BELL --S. Carolina
Do others on this list find the same BELL/CATES connections?
---Lorraine Dowdle
Hi All,
My two cents.... I think this discussion is probably going on in many
places on the web. Every so often this thing about copyrights and fair use
crops up. I can remember a few years ago when many county websites ceased
their lookup requests due do this same thing about fair use. However, most
seem to be back and stronger than ever. I think it basically a matter of
using common sense. If you don't want things used by others... then don't
post them.
Basically names and dates alone are not copyrightable. While
intellectual property is equated with books, histories, reports and websites,
it does not mean you can not use them in your research or quote from them per
se`. There is no set percentage of what you can use either. Again a lot of
it is just plain common sense and wether it is being used for commercial or
non profit purposes. Like Jerry said, public domain material, also known as
material paid for by us tax payers <<Grin>>, is not copyrightable. These
would include census records, recorded deeds, recorded wills, WPA
publications and etc. from the original source. If you cite from any of the
commercial sources avaible then I would definitely cite the source.
Publications that are over 70 years old are no longer covered by copyright
either unless they have been re-published. The Goodspeed Histories come to
mind on this one.
The question of placing living individuals on a website or mail list
is not a matter of copyright or fair use... it is a personal decision that
everyone has to make for themselves. I personally have no problems with it
but I know many do.
There are many sites on the web that deal with the complexities of
copyrights and fair use. One that comes to mind at this moment would be the
one by Russell Smith at:
http://www.fairuse.com/
I believe this site has links to other sites in re to these same issues.
Enjoy but don't let it get you down. <<<Grin>>>
Researching the line of Charles Cate Sr. of Wilkes Co., NC and
Jefferon Co., TN and the line of Gibson Manard Jr. & Delilah Cate in
particular of the same,
Al in IL
PS - You all may want to check out the boards at Family History.com... there
are Cate(s) postings there on their message boards. Try this site and look
for the message boards:
http://www.familyhistory.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ola Cates [mailto:ocates@usit.net]
> Seems to me 2 and 3 are contradictory - #3 means rootsweb is taking
> ownership in my opinion. I like you will only read from now on.
> At 02:30 PM 7/5/99 -0400, elderbrooks wrote:
>> Hi, I am not at all happy about Rootsweb, not only with items 3
>> & 4 but also 5.
Items 2 and 3 are not contradictory (see below for text). 2 means that you
keep ownership. 3 means that notwithstanding your ownership, when you post
to the list rootsweb distributes the work you have posted through the
mailing list and makes it publicly available through the archive. In effect
they have a "license" to do this but that's the only one thing they can do
with the material. That is not ownership, but a right to use it for
specific purposes, which is different. It appears that they cannot
otherwise reuse your material, while you still can. If you wished to put
your material in a book and sell it, you still could. If they wished to put
your material in a book and sell it, they could not. In other words, you
own the copyright and rootsweb has a license to do this one thing.
Anything you write, you have a copyright on. If you post to the list,
Rootsweb is distributing your copyrighted material. To me Rootsweb is
merely clarifying that you retain your copyright rights to do as you please
with, but that you have given them the right to archive and make available
what you have posted. I can't see what a poster loses here that he would
not have been expecting.
As for 5 - I can't imagine a post that would generate a lawsuit, so I'm not
sure 5 really needs to be said. On the other hand, I have no problem with
Rootsweb saying that if a lawsuit arises from your post, it's your problem,
not theirs. Seems reasonable.
As for those that have said that they will never post again because of the
Rootsweb acceptable use policy, I hope that they have just misunderstood the
meaning of item 3. Otherwise, they're overreacting. All they're really
saying is when you post your copyrighted material they're going to send it
to the people on the list you meant to send it to, and let people see an
archive.
The people who are saying that they will never post again because of this
are also saying that they will continue to be list members. The whole point
of the list is to "share" information - not to just sit back and see what
you can get from the list while giving nothing in return. Let's not stop
sharing - having everyone active makes it better for everyone!
Brian Bivona
[mailto:bbivona@wans.net]
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~bbivona/main.html
(2) YOU OWN YOUR POSTS. When you post messages to lists, message
boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your
property under copyright law.
(3) ROOTSWEB MAY ARCHIVE AND REDISTRIBUTE. So we can provide
current and future users with access to your posts, by posting
here you do give RootsWeb a permanent license to archive and
redistribute those posts. This policy may be superseded in
specific circumstances by other commitments made by RootsWeb.
(4) POST ONLY MATERIAL YOU *DO* OWN. When you post to RootsWeb,
you must either be the copyright holder (that basically means you
wrote it), have written permission from the copyright holder, or
the material must clearly be in the public domain.
(5) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POSTS. If you post anything
that results in RootsWeb being sued, you are responsible for any
costs you incur. We may also hold you responsible for any costs
we incur defending ourselves.
Thanks, Brian!! That's what I got out of it. Don't know what all the fuss
is about!!
Doris
----------
> From: Brian Bivona <bbivona(a)wans.net>
> To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: [CATE-L] RE: Rootsweb acceptable use
> Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 4:31 PM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ola Cates [mailto:ocates@usit.net]
>
> > Seems to me 2 and 3 are contradictory - #3 means rootsweb is taking
> > ownership in my opinion. I like you will only read from now on.
>
> > At 02:30 PM 7/5/99 -0400, elderbrooks wrote:
>
> >> Hi, I am not at all happy about Rootsweb, not only with items 3
> >> & 4 but also 5.
>
> Items 2 and 3 are not contradictory (see below for text). 2 means that
you
> keep ownership. 3 means that notwithstanding your ownership, when you
post
> to the list rootsweb distributes the work you have posted through the
> mailing list and makes it publicly available through the archive. In
effect
> they have a "license" to do this but that's the only one thing they can
do
> with the material. That is not ownership, but a right to use it for
> specific purposes, which is different. It appears that they cannot
> otherwise reuse your material, while you still can. If you wished to put
> your material in a book and sell it, you still could. If they wished to
put
> your material in a book and sell it, they could not. In other words, you
> own the copyright and rootsweb has a license to do this one thing.
>
> Anything you write, you have a copyright on. If you post to the list,
> Rootsweb is distributing your copyrighted material. To me Rootsweb is
> merely clarifying that you retain your copyright rights to do as you
please
> with, but that you have given them the right to archive and make
available
> what you have posted. I can't see what a poster loses here that he would
> not have been expecting.
>
> As for 5 - I can't imagine a post that would generate a lawsuit, so I'm
not
> sure 5 really needs to be said. On the other hand, I have no problem
with
> Rootsweb saying that if a lawsuit arises from your post, it's your
problem,
> not theirs. Seems reasonable.
>
> As for those that have said that they will never post again because of
the
> Rootsweb acceptable use policy, I hope that they have just misunderstood
the
> meaning of item 3. Otherwise, they're overreacting. All they're really
> saying is when you post your copyrighted material they're going to send
it
> to the people on the list you meant to send it to, and let people see an
> archive.
>
> The people who are saying that they will never post again because of this
> are also saying that they will continue to be list members. The whole
point
> of the list is to "share" information - not to just sit back and see what
> you can get from the list while giving nothing in return. Let's not stop
> sharing - having everyone active makes it better for everyone!
>
> Brian Bivona
> [mailto:bbivona@wans.net]
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~bbivona/main.html
>
>
> (2) YOU OWN YOUR POSTS. When you post messages to lists, message
> boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your
> property under copyright law.
>
> (3) ROOTSWEB MAY ARCHIVE AND REDISTRIBUTE. So we can provide
> current and future users with access to your posts, by posting
> here you do give RootsWeb a permanent license to archive and
> redistribute those posts. This policy may be superseded in
> specific circumstances by other commitments made by RootsWeb.
>
> (4) POST ONLY MATERIAL YOU *DO* OWN. When you post to RootsWeb,
> you must either be the copyright holder (that basically means you
> wrote it), have written permission from the copyright holder, or
> the material must clearly be in the public domain.
>
> (5) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POSTS. If you post anything
> that results in RootsWeb being sued, you are responsible for any
> costs you incur. We may also hold you responsible for any costs
> we incur defending ourselves.
Ann and Roberta,
Perhaps I'm just naive and really missing something here but it seems to me
if you post a message, it still belongs to you....they appear to be saying
they just want to be able to make it accessable to others who may be
interested in the future...it other words your message can be accessed
through the archives.
If this isn't correct.....please enlighten me!!
Doris
----------
> From: elderbrooks <elderbrooks(a)msn.com>
> To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CATE-L] Re: Rootsweb
> Date: Monday, July 05, 1999 2:30 PM
>
> Hi, I am not at all happy about Rootsweb, not only with items 3 & 4 but
also
> 5. I do not think anyone intentionally post "bad information". I never
> thought any of the posts we have had through the years, the discussions
etc
> would put anyone in a position to be liable for the protection of
> "Rootsweb". It appears that the information will be for the benefit of
> Rootsweb? We support them by donations! Our information is now the
> property of Rootsweb "but we have the right to use our own material". I
am
> so sorry I was naive enough to think we were "having fun" and working
> together.
>
> In turn I feel Rootsweb should protect themselves, I've never contracted
> with them or the listowners. Sharing information has been good. Does
> Rootsweb had the "RIGHT" to take this information? I was never informed
> that our work was for them.
>
> Not to upset anyone, this is on three other sites I use, one in
particular
> is very upset and will go it "alone" when this happens. We have had some
> good material and we have had errors. We have tried to correct our
errors.
> We have had and do have information that is still unproven.
>
> Many of us have worked very hard for a long, long time. We used "snail
> mail" we have and do read microfilm, not just the census. We have shared
> the Bible information. Today it is much easier, we can have an
electronic
> family almost instantly. I will not ever post to these lists again.
>
> I will read them...thanks Roberta and everyone. I still want to remain
on
> the list for now.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ann Elder-Brooks Poe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberta Pierson <rbpierso(a)ns.net>
> To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com <CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:53 PM
> Subject: [CATE-L] Re: Rootsweb
>
>
> >Hi All, This info was just in the Rootsweb Review I think it needs to
> >be noted by all Rootsweb users. Particularly Items 3 & 4, it appears
> >that we will be giving Rootsweb a "permanent" license to "redistribute"
> >our data that we have posted to the List via our List Archives.
> >
> >Roberta, List Owner
> >
> > ROOTSWEB'S COMMON-SENSE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
> >
> > by Dr. Brian Leverich <leverich(a)rootsweb.com>
> >
> >RootsWeb exists to allow you to interact with other people who
> >share your interests. We also often preserve those interactions,
> >so you can readily see and learn from discussions that have
> >occurred in the past.
> >
> >To be able to provide you with the best possible environment, we
> >ask you to agree to the following before using our facilities:
> >
> > (1) HAVE FUN. Well, we can't *require* you to have fun, but we
> >really think you should.
> >
> > (2) YOU OWN YOUR POSTS. When you post messages to lists, message
> >boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your
> >property under copyright law.
> >
> > (3) ROOTSWEB MAY ARCHIVE AND REDISTRIBUTE. So we can provide
> >current and future users with access to your posts, by posting
> >here you do give RootsWeb a permanent license to archive and
> >redistribute those posts. This policy may be superseded in
> >specific circumstances by other commitments made by RootsWeb.
> >
> > (4) POST ONLY MATERIAL YOU *DO* OWN. When you post to RootsWeb,
> >you must either be the copyright holder (that basically means you
> >wrote it), have written permission from the copyright holder, or
> >the material must clearly be in the public domain.
> >
> > (5) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POSTS. If you post anything
> >that results in RootsWeb being sued, you are responsible for any
> >costs you incur. We may also hold you responsible for any costs
> >we incur defending ourselves.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Seems to me 2 and 3 are contradictory - #3 means rootsweb is taking
ownership in my opinion.
I like you will only read from now on.
Ola
At 02:30 PM 7/5/99 -0400, elderbrooks wrote:
>Hi, I am not at all happy about Rootsweb, not only with items 3 & 4 but also
>5. I do not think anyone intentionally post "bad information". I never
>thought any of the posts we have had through the years, the discussions etc
>would put anyone in a position to be liable for the protection of
>"Rootsweb". It appears that the information will be for the benefit of
>Rootsweb? We support them by donations! Our information is now the
>property of Rootsweb "but we have the right to use our own material". I am
>so sorry I was naive enough to think we were "having fun" and working
>together.
>
>In turn I feel Rootsweb should protect themselves, I've never contracted
>with them or the listowners. Sharing information has been good. Does
>Rootsweb had the "RIGHT" to take this information? I was never informed
>that our work was for them.
>
>Not to upset anyone, this is on three other sites I use, one in particular
>is very upset and will go it "alone" when this happens. We have had some
>good material and we have had errors. We have tried to correct our errors.
>We have had and do have information that is still unproven.
>
>Many of us have worked very hard for a long, long time. We used "snail
>mail" we have and do read microfilm, not just the census. We have shared
>the Bible information. Today it is much easier, we can have an electronic
>family almost instantly. I will not ever post to these lists again.
>
>I will read them...thanks Roberta and everyone. I still want to remain on
>the list for now.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ann Elder-Brooks Poe
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roberta Pierson <rbpierso(a)ns.net>
>To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com <CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
>Date: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:53 PM
>Subject: [CATE-L] Re: Rootsweb
>
>
>>Hi All, This info was just in the Rootsweb Review I think it needs to
>>be noted by all Rootsweb users. Particularly Items 3 & 4, it appears
>>that we will be giving Rootsweb a "permanent" license to "redistribute"
>>our data that we have posted to the List via our List Archives.
>>
>>Roberta, List Owner
>>
>> ROOTSWEB'S COMMON-SENSE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
>>
>> by Dr. Brian Leverich <leverich(a)rootsweb.com>
>>
>>RootsWeb exists to allow you to interact with other people who
>>share your interests. We also often preserve those interactions,
>>so you can readily see and learn from discussions that have
>>occurred in the past.
>>
>>To be able to provide you with the best possible environment, we
>>ask you to agree to the following before using our facilities:
>>
>> (1) HAVE FUN. Well, we can't *require* you to have fun, but we
>>really think you should.
>>
>> (2) YOU OWN YOUR POSTS. When you post messages to lists, message
>>boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your
>>property under copyright law.
>>
>> (3) ROOTSWEB MAY ARCHIVE AND REDISTRIBUTE. So we can provide
>>current and future users with access to your posts, by posting
>>here you do give RootsWeb a permanent license to archive and
>>redistribute those posts. This policy may be superseded in
>>specific circumstances by other commitments made by RootsWeb.
>>
>> (4) POST ONLY MATERIAL YOU *DO* OWN. When you post to RootsWeb,
>>you must either be the copyright holder (that basically means you
>>wrote it), have written permission from the copyright holder, or
>>the material must clearly be in the public domain.
>>
>> (5) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POSTS. If you post anything
>>that results in RootsWeb being sued, you are responsible for any
>>costs you incur. We may also hold you responsible for any costs
>>we incur defending ourselves.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi, I am not at all happy about Rootsweb, not only with items 3 & 4 but also
5. I do not think anyone intentionally post "bad information". I never
thought any of the posts we have had through the years, the discussions etc
would put anyone in a position to be liable for the protection of
"Rootsweb". It appears that the information will be for the benefit of
Rootsweb? We support them by donations! Our information is now the
property of Rootsweb "but we have the right to use our own material". I am
so sorry I was naive enough to think we were "having fun" and working
together.
In turn I feel Rootsweb should protect themselves, I've never contracted
with them or the listowners. Sharing information has been good. Does
Rootsweb had the "RIGHT" to take this information? I was never informed
that our work was for them.
Not to upset anyone, this is on three other sites I use, one in particular
is very upset and will go it "alone" when this happens. We have had some
good material and we have had errors. We have tried to correct our errors.
We have had and do have information that is still unproven.
Many of us have worked very hard for a long, long time. We used "snail
mail" we have and do read microfilm, not just the census. We have shared
the Bible information. Today it is much easier, we can have an electronic
family almost instantly. I will not ever post to these lists again.
I will read them...thanks Roberta and everyone. I still want to remain on
the list for now.
Sincerely,
Ann Elder-Brooks Poe
-----Original Message-----
From: Roberta Pierson <rbpierso(a)ns.net>
To: CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com <CATE-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Friday, June 18, 1999 6:53 PM
Subject: [CATE-L] Re: Rootsweb
>Hi All, This info was just in the Rootsweb Review I think it needs to
>be noted by all Rootsweb users. Particularly Items 3 & 4, it appears
>that we will be giving Rootsweb a "permanent" license to "redistribute"
>our data that we have posted to the List via our List Archives.
>
>Roberta, List Owner
>
> ROOTSWEB'S COMMON-SENSE ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
>
> by Dr. Brian Leverich <leverich(a)rootsweb.com>
>
>RootsWeb exists to allow you to interact with other people who
>share your interests. We also often preserve those interactions,
>so you can readily see and learn from discussions that have
>occurred in the past.
>
>To be able to provide you with the best possible environment, we
>ask you to agree to the following before using our facilities:
>
> (1) HAVE FUN. Well, we can't *require* you to have fun, but we
>really think you should.
>
> (2) YOU OWN YOUR POSTS. When you post messages to lists, message
>boards, and other facilities at RootsWeb, those posts remain your
>property under copyright law.
>
> (3) ROOTSWEB MAY ARCHIVE AND REDISTRIBUTE. So we can provide
>current and future users with access to your posts, by posting
>here you do give RootsWeb a permanent license to archive and
>redistribute those posts. This policy may be superseded in
>specific circumstances by other commitments made by RootsWeb.
>
> (4) POST ONLY MATERIAL YOU *DO* OWN. When you post to RootsWeb,
>you must either be the copyright holder (that basically means you
>wrote it), have written permission from the copyright holder, or
>the material must clearly be in the public domain.
>
> (5) YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR POSTS. If you post anything
>that results in RootsWeb being sued, you are responsible for any
>costs you incur. We may also hold you responsible for any costs
>we incur defending ourselves.
>
>
>
Hi Folks,
I looked up this information for someone else, but thought others may
be interested too.
There is a Cates reunion every year on the 2nd Sunday of September
at Cane Creek Baptist Church near Chapel Hill, NC.
Directions:
1. From the Burlington area, take SR 54 south toward Chapel Hill
2. Turn left onto Orange Grove Rd (church street address is 6901)
3. You will go several miles before you see the church on the left.
4. Continue past the church for another 1/4 mile or so and you will
see a fire station on the right. The reunion is at the community
building next to the fire station.
If you get a good NC map, you should be able to plot the above on the
map.
Morning service at the church begins at 11 am, so you might want
to attend the service and then go to the reunion afterwards. The reunion
starts about 12:30 or 1 pm. Also, you will want to spend some time
walking through the old cemetery behind the church and visiting all of
the Cates and related families who are buried there.
There are also several very old Cates homesites in the area that you
can visit. Ask around at the reunion and you will find someone who
will show you how to get there.
Enjoy!
-Ken
Hello Cates Listmates;
I'm looking for more information on the family of Joseph CATES b. abt 1745
perhaps in South Carolina and his wife Margaret BELL. I only know of one
child named Joshua CATES b. 1767 in Craven's District, South Carolina and m.
Eustacia Ann HARRISON abt 1787 in Kentucky. Thank you.
---Lorraine Dowdle
Does anyone know anything about my Reson Bennett (b. abt. 1808 in KY; d.
about 1852) and appears on the 1850 Jackson Co., TN census with the John
Cates family?
Reson may have had two wives: one was called Sally (per 1850 Jackson Co., TN
census) and one was called Jane (per 1860 Jackson Co., TN census). I believe
my Nancy Jane's mother was Sally.
My Nancy Jane (b. Jun 1834; m. Bluford Cates [b. Oct 1827 in TN; d. Jan 1900
in Carter Co., MO]; Nancy d. Dec 1896 in Carter Co., MO.
Any help would be appreciated! :)
Mrszorro(a)aol.com
Kathleen,
This Robert is the son of Norwood Cates. This is Bettye Heinrich's line.
However, I don't have him in KY in 1870, how is he enumerated then.
Roberta
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------3C5183822CCBDB4847425591
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------3C5183822CCBDB4847425591
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <377EA571.6178877C(a)mich.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 20:06:09 -0400
From: Douglas Matthews <dougkm(a)mich.com>
Reply-To: dougkm(a)mich.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kathleen Rose <katerose(a)deseretonline.com>
Subject: Re: [CATE-L] Robert B.(?) Cates
References: <3.0.5.32.19990703175528.007e6e00(a)mail.deseretonline.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am looking for Timothy B. Cates, born in Tennessee Dec. 7, 1844, to Norman Cates b
1823, Tenn and Jane Williams, b 1823, Tenn. Timothy had several wives, his first
wife was a Mrs. Ruthledge, married 1871. His next wife (my great grandmother) was
Emma Vaughan, married 1882 and lived around Armorel, Ark. circa 1883 (when my
grandmother was born). Next he married Minnie Thomas in 1895, next he married
Amanda Caates, 1896. His last wife was Mary Fry, and I do not know when they were
married.
If any one is able to help me, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you,
Ernestine Richmond Matthews
dougkm(a)mich.com
Kathleen Rose wrote:
> Hi out there,
>
> Thanks so much for all the help on the Samuel Cate family from GA, TN, AL.
> I have been able to piece together most of the family now and I could never
> have done it without all the help from you good folk. It is so exciting to
> read the e-mail and then run to the Family History Library to check on the
> information. I am spending a lot of time there these days.
>
> New puzzle: Robert B. (at least that is what I think it is in the 1870
> Bullit Co. Kentucky) Cates. Born @ 1857-58 Tenn.
> I have been following a Robert B. that first comes up in Navarro Co. Texas
> 1878.
> This is what I have if this person belongs to anyone I would love to hear
> from you.
> 1. Marriage to Catherine Elizabeth (Bettie) Stanton. 27 Jan 1878 in Navarro
> Co. TX
> 2. Census'
> 1880 Navarro Co.
> Cates Robert B.
> Bettie Wife
> Hogle, Joseph age 6 yrs
> Harvey age 4 yrs Nephews to Robert B. Cates
> 1900 Limestone Co.
> Cates R. B.
> Bettie wife
> Lee age 18
> Frank age 14
> Lorin age 12
> Walter age 10
> Roy age 5
> Joe age 1
> 1910 Donley Co.
> Robert B.
> Catherine E.
> Charle L. age ?
> James Roy age 15
> Joseph P. 11
> Willie M. 9 This is a female and the only female child
> 1920 Denton Co.
> Robert B. under marriage it has a D(ivorce)
> Joe age 20
>
> in next house is
> Jim R. age 25
> MaryBelle wife
> Flora A. 3/12
>
> If anyone recognizes this family and knows about Robert's background I
> think, hope, whatever that he might be the brother of my ggrandfather
>
> Thanks for the time
>
> Kathleen
--------------3C5183822CCBDB4847425591--