VII Factual rebuttal and argument of our differences of opinion

The blog comments I differ with are;

1.   About Isaac Jones' Tinsley Survey being much further north than where people have assumed in the past  The map of the Tinsley survey clearly shows these 1,000 acres sit astride Little Jonathan Creek in Calloway County KY.   

2. Past researchers have commonly believed that Thomas' marriage to Nancy Brown was somewhat short-lived, lasting only  5 years before his eventual marriage to Sarah Matlocks in Surry County on September 21, 1816.

Years ago you convinced me that on this issue my 1988 book was wrong.

3. Although she isn't attributed to Thomas in Mr. Jones' book, I believe this female child to be Nancy Jones who was born in North Carolina circa 1814  Years ago you convinced me that on this issue my 1988 book was wrong.

4.  there are issues with the individuals generally believed to be the children of Thomas Jones

I think, with exception of JLJ and WDJ we are in general agreement on the list above.

5. There was a  James L. Jones married to a Sarah Ann Whitlock living two homes down from Thomas Jones. Once you move beyond this though, records indicate that all the other marriages, the will, and the death date are mistakenly attributed to this James L. Jones, and the person who married Anna Lovett and Charlotte McGrew was an entirely different person. And if it is this person's 1891 will that makes his connection to William D. Jones and thus both of their connections to being sons of Thomas, this is definitely incorrect. I will stick with my 1988 book conclusions and the updates posted herein.

6. James getting remarried to Anna Lovett on June 5, 1851. THIS IS A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY because Sarah Ann was still alive and the couple still married in 1854! The mistake is yours¹

7. both James L. Jones and Sarah Ann had both actually died prior to 1858, thus it would be impossible for this James L. Jones to have left a will in 1891. The mistake is yours¹

8. What makes this document even more interesting is that the four children "sue by their next friend and statutory guardian James A. Jones." The mistake is yours ¹

9. Unfortunately John U. Jones and Isaac T. Jones seem to both drop from the historic record after 1852, and anything more definitive has yet to surface. Only ITJ does . . . and the facts of JUJ's life as reviewed herein changes what we can believe.

10.  I believe that evidence exists to squarely prove that neither of these men were sons of Thomas and quite possibly not even directly related to anyone in the Isaac Jones clan    Wrong, it’s very clear that both are Thomas’s sons.

11. basing lineage on geographic clustering can begin to fall into the realm of subjective  A tax roll entry is as subjective as any other single piece of historical information especially if  handwriting and its interpretation is involved. But sequential tax roll data is self clarifying of hand writing differences, etc and after multiple years a person’s listing becomes more and more straightforward until it is almost like a finger print. Decadal and generational data bases are factual and serve as a very powerful research base that supports deductive reasoning. In combination with plated land deeds their value increases again. In the Joneses case, add in the census data and the only more valuable sources of genealogical information are family bibles and wills . . . like that of James L Jones.

12. This would also be the same for patterns in naming children.  I have always thought naming was highly subjective.

13. when you examine William's connection to James L. Jones, that the pieces really start to not fit Actually, this is where the pieces start to fit tightly.

14.  And if it is this person's 1891 will that makes his connection to William D. Jones and thus both of their connections to being sons of Thomas, this is definitely incorrect. I will stand with the facts.

I will look for your response. If you disagree with my arguments/rebuttal on these 14 issues please show me where I am wrong using information that updates/corrects my errors.   

While I am not qualified to critique your extensive postings pertaining to Isaac Jones’s North Carolina background nor the multiple collateral relatives that you have discussed I do want to thank you for the effort and believe it serves to allow the real Isaac Jones to step forward.  

1. Comments; Your interpretations of the Isaac Jones’ estate deeds referenced below from you blog are confounding

#1   1854 Calloway County, KY Court Record~James L. Jones & others Vs. Mary Whitlock & others

# 2 1858 Calloway County, KY Court Record~John Jeffrey & others Vs. A. Vance & others

The way you seemed to base everything on interpretation of handwriting and the exact wording of these records suggests that you suffer from a severe case of myopia. 

It appears your argument that SAW was alive in 1854 was based exclusively on the 1854 deed.  Obviously, if Sarah had personally signed the document then that would have proven she was alive. But she didn't  And neither did any of the other signatories. It is obvious that all eight signatures were made by the same hand. It’s likely that J P Culver, commissioner or his clerk/scribe “sealed” and transferred by hand all the names from a draft (perhaps made while SAW was alive) to the final document. Are you really proposing that these names are authentic signatures of the petitioners and that each person actually affixed their signature to the document? If you are, please review the document again. These signatures were obviously all written by the same hand. And if you doubt that, then consider the profundity of the fact that George Washington Jones’ signature reflects the excellent penmanship of the other names despite the fact he was approximately 5 years of age in 1854.

This deed does not establish that any of these people, particularly Sarah A Whitlock Jones was alive in November, 1854. On the positive side it is important to note that the deed does establish that James L Jones was a plaintiff in the case. This should make one think that he might also be a plaintiff in the 1858 deed.

Thus it is not clear why you dismissed JLJ has having died by the 1858 suite when he in fact lived until 1893. Again, it appears to be based on your interpretation of hand writing . . . but this time, just a single initial, James “?” Jones. Since no one by the name of James A Jones was connected to this family nor known to live in the area it appears you were creating and introducing us to a fictitious person. That is highly subjective!

  

The 1858 document states that Lucy Jones, Mary Jones, Rufus Jones and Joshua Jones sue by their next friend and statutory guardian “James "?" Jones”. The handwritten middle initial of this person could easily be interpreted as an “L” and we know James L Jones was not only the father of these children but he was also living nearby.

Furthermore, all evidence indicates these children were members of his household even though the fact JLJ was missed in the census of 1860 deprives us of knowing they were there at that point in history. But the fact his children’s orphaned offspring (his grandchildren) lived in his household in the 1870 census and that he was not only their legal guardian but gifted at least one other grandchild land reaffirms JLJ's role as patriarch of his nuclear family.