I would say that Lewis may have been living with Nathan in 1800. We
do not have him in the 1800 census so we can not be sure. I doubt
that Lewis was married in 1800. Nathan had a habit of having brothers
live with him. Claiborn and Sterling lived with him until they were
grown and married. In 1820 besides his own children it appears that
Claiborn, Sterling, 1 sister and 2 (?) half sisters were living with
Nathan.
Maybe we should quit burdening poor Nathan with everyone else's kids -
HA!
(JOKE!)
Seriously, though, I still have a hard time buying that Claiborn was not
Nathan's son & don't see where Sterling living with Nathan came from.
In 1810 Sterling is shown as owning 200 ac in KY which I'm presuming he
lived on & probably had to farm - I just can't see where he'd turn over
a teenaged son to Nathan. Also, it looks to me like Sterling Jr's
included on Sr.'s census for 1810. Nathan was easily old enough to have
a son that old & I think the son is indeed his.
I also still have trouble seeing how Claiborn's daughter who grew up in
the same county with Nathan would forget who her grandfather was. She
moved to Texas with several relatives & I think would have had too many
relations around to have made such a blatant mistake when putting a
family history in print, especially since she was already an adult when
she moved from Kentucky to Texas. We know she had to have known her
grandfather - she spent 20 some odd years near him. Plus there's a male
shown on the census who fits Claiborn which tracks from year to year
perfectly. In most cases, I'm like you & don't trust the written family
histories much at all but in this case I feel it's something we can't
just ignore, especially when the census backs it up. Let's find
something definative to prove/disprove this.
There are many instances where children aren't mentioned in wills for
various reasons (remember Henry & Sterling?) - have you tracked the
deeds completely in Christian / Trigg Co. to see if maybe Nathan gave
Claiborn some land at some earlier date that might have made him feel
that Claiborn had already recieved his inheritance? If not, that's
where we should look to see if either Nathan gave Claiborn something or
if Claiborn is mentioned as son/brother, etc. in other deeds. One way
or another, Claiborn certainly seemed to have some money when he got to
Texas. Where'd that come from? Also, we need the deeds where everyone
sold out & went to MO. Do you have those (if so PLEASE forward!)???
Now, on to the Needham question! I've looked at the census on Needham &
there's no change from what's on the CATO page. The only original that
I haven't found here in my files is the 1860 AR one (I think I might
have just written it down in one of my notebooks & not photocopied the
original). I also looked more closely at the Starling in 1850 AR & his
age is indeed 53, putting him born ca 1797 - there was some confusion
when I typed it on the page. I'm supposed to go to the Clayton Library
in Houston Wed. (Teri, can you go?) & I'll get a photocopy then & let
you know if there's a mistake.
I also found something interesting when looking at the 1840 Van Buren
Census - I have the film for that one here at home. There's a William
Cato (it LOOKS like but this census is hard to read) with:
2 m 15-20, 1 m 30-40, 2 m under 5, 1 f 30-40
Are we missing a William somewhere???
(Also a John Cate:1 m 15-20, 1 m 20-30, 1 m 30-40, 2 f under 5, 3 f
5-10, 1 f 20-30)
Henry, I don't know what to tell you on Needham! If you put him b 1790,
the 1830 & 1840 census match but none of the rest do. If you put him b
ca 1781, the 1840 & 1850 match. Let's take a wait-see attitude on that
until I get back from Houston. Maybe I'll find something that will give
us something better to go off of. I'd be tempted to say they're 2
different Needham's but the Needham in the 1850 census's children's
birth places match exactly to the records we have & we know by both of
those sources that Needham moved to AR ca 1834-6 if memory serves.
Just as an aside note here, I'm not sure that James in Stewart Co. is
the same James as in MO.
Best,
Bonnie