KYCLAY-L Archives

Archiver > KYCLAY > 2003-05 > 1052545713


From: "Raholt58" <>
Subject: Re: [KYCLAY] josie stewart and wagers
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 01:48:33 -0400
References: <200305062323_MC3-1-3780-1249@compuserve.com> <001001c31451$998bfa60$78e9fea9@pcad> <003e01c31516$31e59860$971c4ed8@Raholt58> <003b01c316b5$1b4e16e0$78e9fea9@pcad>


Betty,

I agree with you that the marriage of John Wagers and Jane Hollin is
consistent with house # 118 in the 1880 census. I think you are on the mark
there. No argument on that point with me.

What I am considering is the history of the Stewart children (most of them
anyway) and the fact that most of them died quite young. It is not too far
fetched to wonder if Josephine had died young like many of the others did
and Jackson "John" Wagers had remarried, to a Jane, but not to Jane Hollin.
By the same token what you think about Josephine being listed as Jane could
well be the case and that is why I said, I wished we had a 1890 or 1900
listing for that family to see how Jackson Wager's wife was listed. If it
was again listed as Jane and not Josie or Josephine, since names do alter
with each census, then that could mean maybe we were missing a marriage
some place.

As for the Jackson and John thing, I have seen that variation on that name
before. Jackson suddenly becomes John. I don't know if that was like Mary
becoming Polly or what but apparently it was quite common for Jacksons to be
listed as Johns.

Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty Eddy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: [KYCLAY] josie stewart and wagers


> Richard,
>
> Restating:
>
> On the 1880 (transcribed) Clay Census -
> HH# 118-118 Wagers, John 36
> Jane 21
> Mary 2
> Kittie 1***
> Jane Hollin m. 11-16-1876 Clay
>
>
> HH# 316-316 Wages, John 32
> Jane 38
> Patsy 7
> Julius 3
> Susan 1
>
> 2nd Jane Hollin m. 11-16-1876 Clay 1st Josephine
> Stewart ca. 1870
>
> Obviously both entries can not be correct on the marriage info. So the
> question of which John Wagers married Jane Hollin on 11-16-1876. Pulling
> the marriage certificate might answer the question, but I am not able to
do
> that at this time. Fast forward 20 years to 1900.
>
> 1900 Clay Co. Census:
> HH# 52-52 Wages, John 47 married 23 years
> Amanda J. 42 married 23
> years
> Kittie L. 21***
> Nancy 16
> Lula 13
> Lucy 10
> Sarah A. 6
> John, Jr. 3
>
> This info is consistent with John and Jane Wagers in HH# 118-118 on the
1880
> Census, except for John's age. Having been married for 23 years in 1900,
> means they married around 1876. Amanda J. is apparently Amanda JANE, the
> name she used on the 1880 Census. This is the couple married 11-16-1876.
>
> There is a marriage of record for Jackson Wagers and Josephine Stewart on
26
> Oct 1869.
>
> On the 1850 Census, Josephine Stewart is 10; 1860, she is 19. On the
1870
> with JOHN Wagers, he is 20 and she is 30. In the way of census record
> aging, John being 32 and Josephine being 38 in 1880 is not too far out.
>
> I cannot explain why he is Jackson Wagers on the marriage license and
John
> on the census. I cannot explain why Josephine is Jane on the 1880 Census,
> but I strongly feel that it is the same person. Look at the supporting
> circumstantial evidence. John and Jane are living next door to Caroline
> Stewart Smith - Josephine's sister. Jane and John have Julius, whom we
know
> is the child of John and Josephine Stewart Wagers, per the Clay Co. Birth
> Registrations. Plus they have named a child Patsy, another sister of
> Josephine.
>
> Carolyn Stewart and Enoch Smith, as well as Josephine and John Wagers have
> disappeared from Clay Co. by 1900. Their father Thomas died in 1888.
> Perhaps they moved together to an adjacent county - perhaps Knox.
>
> Betty
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Raholt58
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 11:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [KYCLAY] josie stewart and wagers
>
>
> Betty,
>
> I checked the actual census record on Ancestry.com and found that the
> transcriber did not make an error in the name. The name is plainly
> printed
> as Jane. I wanted to see if they had gotten Jane out of a badly written
> version of Josie, but that was not the case. One thing though, this
> family
> is living right next door to Caroline Stewart and Enoch Smith.
>
> It is odd that the annoted census gives that marriage for both John
> Wagers,
> and the timing of that marriage is terribly close to the birth of
Ulyses,
> but I tend to agree that is not right for the husband of Josie Stewart,
> however I can't go as far as to say that this is still Josie for sure.
> Had
> the name been more poorly written I would have had more of a doubt. As
it
> is, it is still possible that he did remarry later, before 1880 and this
> is
> not Josie. It is too bad a later say 1900 census can't be found to see
> what
> his wife's name shows up to be.
>
> Richard Holt
>


This thread: