Re: Dale Walker's cooley Newsletter

From: Crystal Dutzel <cbdutzel_at_sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT)

Michael,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. This sure is a confusing line! I think
you explained it very well and it sounds like a good theory. Maybe one day we'll
find the proof we need.




________________________________
From: Michael Cooley <michael_at_newsummer.com>
To: John Cooley Mailing List <undisclosed.recipients_at_johncooley.net>
Sent: Sat, June 2, 2012 6:06:58 PM
Subject: Re: Dale Walker's cooley Newsletter

Crystal, yes, that is the question du jour. :)

First, there are some of us who debate whether James (-1821) was married
to a Goode. There was a Timothy Goode who was related to John Cooley's old
friend Richard Goode. It's just as likely that Tink's name was honoring a
friendship rather than a relationship, which was very common practice.

The younger James, per his probate, undoubtedly had a son named James M.
As far as I know, there is no primary record of the marriage between James
and Jane White, and nothing to show that she married a James M, as opposed
to a plain old James. (I'm at the point where I'm beginning to detest
middle initials. People move them around with the greatest of ease rather
than use them as evidence that the initial belongs to a distinct person.)

It's clear from Walker's letters,
http://ancestraldata.com/ahnentafel/256/PatWalker-letters.html, that he
often changed his mind and moved things around--which is a good thing. He
flowed with the data, which is as it should be. But it results in
inconsistencies from one interpretation to the next. That's okay, too. We
just need to recognized it.

This is, I believe, what we know:

James M Cooley was a brother of Tink, and son of James Cooley (-1821)
The same James was likely born in 1808.
Jane White was born in 1802.
James, son of Joseph, was born c1796
It's estimated that James and Jane married in 1817
At James's death c1829, the couple had four children.

My conclusion: it seems unlikely that a man born in 1808 would have
accomplished all that before 21 years old.

So what of James M? This is my theory (theory only!): that he may have
been the James Cooley born c1808 living near Mathias Cooley (son of James,
1772-1821) and had the Stokes county yDNA. The problem: he was born in PA!
Also, if he was James M, he obviously dropped the M. It shows in none of
the records for him.

So, I agree with your placement of James as the son of Joseph, but the M,
per probate records of the elder James, definitely belongs to the other
James.

Now to confuse things further: there was another James--the son of Perrin.
These are my rather incoherent notes for him:
http://ancestraldata.com/Notes/index.cgi?1167835939+/ahnentafel/256/lineages/johncooley-desc.html


-Michael




> After reading through the newsletters, I'm thoroughly confused and I hope
> you
> two%2

--
distlist'>http://newsummer.com/distlist">distlist 0.9
See http://ancestraldata.com/listarchive/johncooleylist/ for list information.
Received on Sat Jun 02 2012 - 18:09:56 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Jun 02 2012 - 18:09:56 MDT