That is correct that is what you said However I based the 16 in 1790 on
what age a 40 year old would typically have ~15 years old kids. Even if he
was only 35. he could still have 15 years old kids. You hypothesis that
they could have been ibfabts only holds water if he were only 25 and your
later entries despute this possibility.
I think he was about 40 in 1790 and about 60 or older in 1812, which is
why he did not accompany Robert to Burke County, GA, which presupposes he
was not sick or dead by 1812. Moving some 200 miles from Wayne County, NC
to Burke County, GA was not an easy undertaking, then or now - over a month
trip back then and only over good roads and the weather was good. Sure I
moved over twice that distance last year but I moved into a brand new house,
had two 26' vans, wife. two daughters, and a son-in-law to help me. Plus
I20 and I75 are a lot better highways than what the moved on in 1812 It
still yook two trips to make the move.
I learned a long time ago to take census information with a "grain of
salt." The only thing that confirms them is a tombstone, obit or church
burial entry and these were often only an approximate age, i. e. 62nd year,
30th year, etc.
John R. Clarke
410 Highland Ave.
Batesburg-Leesville, SC 29006-1311
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. A. Miller" <gen(a)pamiller.net>
To: "daniel list" <DANIEL-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [DANIEL] William Daniel of Wayne
You just now posted that William was born about 1750 and that his boys
were about 16 in 1790. Just for clarification, that's not based on what
I had offered, it's significantly different from the age guess I sent
based on the records. I had come up with somewhat different dates as
shown below in my previous mail. The William range can only be
documented as 1755-1765, and the boys in the 1790 census are simply
under 16, not necessarily about 16, they could also be babies.
Pam in CA
John R. Clarke wrote:
> Based upon what you say, Willism was born ABT 1750 - age 40 when his
> boys were abt 16 in 1790.
John had written:
>> > 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]
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
DANIEL-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message
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