Based upon what you say, Willism was born ABT 1750 - age 40 when his boys
were abt 16 in 1790. I did not take it off list, I just replied to your
message and after you said you did not want to take it off list, I copied my
reply to the list. Might I suggest CC-ing any message to the list if you
are worried about going off list. That way, any reply is sent to both
locations, as I am doing to this reply. I am forwarding your originzl
message to payne for his comments.
John R. Clarke
410 Highland Ave.
Batesburg-Leesville, SC 29006-1311
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. A. Miller" <gen(a)pamiller.net>
To: "John R. Clarke" <Jrclarke(a)sc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: William Daniel of Wayne
> You still did not tell me how old you
> thought William of Wayne was, did you?
I gave you all the info I have that helps date the William. I don't make
narrow or ca year guesstimates, just the ranges that can be documented,
causes too many problems later. A stripped version of that email is
repeated below with the analysis that can be done in brackets. This Wayne
William below cannot be the same as the William who bought in 1748 further
northwest nor the same as the William and Rebecca who d.1791, he's too
young and yes still clearly alive later, whether he's related can't be
determined by my data, but it doesn't seem all that supported.
-The William Daniel who bought land in 1787 has to be of age, but that's
all that can be determined. [i.e. b. by 1766]
-If that William Donn--s in the 1790 census is for real, he has 2 boys
under 16 and 3 girls. [5 chn by 1790, without ages can't guess more than
that William probably b. probably no later than 1760]
-The Robert Daniel of the 1800 census is clearly yours, Robert Daniel
20010-21100-03. [Robert 26-45, probably in the middle range and your later
records make him so]. The William is 20010-1001-00 [William is 26-45, but
narrows to 35-45 with 1810 census, i.e. b.1755-65], so he'd be the younger
William of my original hypothesis.
-The 1810 census shows William 23001-11011 [William 45-55 based on 1800
census, i.e. b.1755-65]
Sorry, I just can't follow what's going on with this discussion anymore;
it keeps jumping from offlist between you and me to offlist with others to
onlist; our offlist emails are getting mixed into a public discussion
without the full background story and data or being clear who is writing
whom, even which William is being discussed. When it starts private I
count on working through details and getting mistakes out of the way
before putting a clear version out on the list. I don't know where to get
in or out on this one, just wish it had all been public from the beginning
for the archives. I'll try to get back in if it gets consistently one way
or another and if I see anything to help. All the data I'm using is on
that web page I made about your guys.
Later, my busted TV technician is arriving, finally....
Pam in CA
John R. Clarke wrote:
> so what you are telling me is William of Wayne was not a son of Simon.
> This is believable because that estate was 1791 and we know Willam of
> Wayne lived after 1791, or do we? I thought you had a few deeds with him
> and Robert after 1791. You still did not tell me how old you thought
> William of Wayne was, did you?
> The DANIELS and LANES seem to carry on in Wayne until the CW or so
> because a Miss Mae Parker lists them in her narratives about that area,
> primarily associated with various educational institutions. I would
> love to see a narrative about the family of Judge Frank Daniel of Wayne.
> John R. Clarke
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database:
269.15.9/1090 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 8:48 AM