Can someone with expertise, please help me out?
Hello to all. I am brand new here and I have a conundrum. I am fairly certain that 2 persons with 2 distinct id's are actually the same individual… my Great-Great Grandfather. However, I am not a professional and DO NOT want to make any changes without someone with much more experience could chime in.
The person is Cumberland Adkins and the 2 id's are KFRL-R76 (who it shows was married to Laura or Loretta) and K2WF-X5Q (who it shows was married to Rachel [as well as 2 others}). I believe Cumberland (my grandfather was a bit of a [player] and was married to Laura (or Loretta) before he was with the other 3 women. The Children's births (3 with Laura) and 11 (with Rachel) line up well.
Can someone with some expertise here help me out? What makes this worse is that Cumberland's dad appears to also be named Cumberland. AARRRRGGGG!
Best Answers
-
Comparing them side by side, the story that best fits is of two men with similar names but different lives at similar times. Each one is internally consistent, and merging them would demand a pretty strong explanation of why there were two settled lives, 40 miles apart.
They're not even closely related to one another, it's just coincidence. Happens far more than one would imagine.
3 -
Hi @Jay77226, welcome! I agree with @pauli133 these two individuals are not the same person.
The trick in figuring these things out, when you're unsure, is to compare the sources for both individuals to find overlaps where they unequivocally cannot be the same person.
There are a couple in this instance. Firstly in the 1870 census, both individuals are living with their respective parents, which proves there were indeed two men by the same name living contemporaneously in the same state. This is further confirmed by the 1900 census when again they appear in their respective households.
The second is death date. Whilst Cumberland Adkins Jr (KFRL-R76) doesn't have a specific attributed death date (I looked but couldn't find one). He does appear in the 1900 census living with his wife Laura. By 1910, she is listed as a widow in the census of that year. which means your fellow died sometime between 1900-1910. The other Cumberland Adkins (K2WF-X5Q) died in 1921. There is a FindAGrave with a picture of the headstone which has the date, so that's pretty solid.
I'm curious what evidence are you basing the relationships with 3 other women on? Is it purely speculative based on the other ID, or do you have evidence… of other children, for example?
It appears Cumberland was still married to Laura at the time of his death, so outside the possibility of being unfaithful during that marriage, no other relationships came after Laura. It is worth noting though, that his eldest son with Laura, Frederick, was born three years before they were married, and appears as "Frederick Keffer" living with his paternal grandparents in 1880. So I suppose other relationships before the marriage to Laura are possible, but without more information regarding these potential other women, I personally wouldn't speculate beyond that.
You'll see I've added some additional sources to various family members in reaching my conclusions, so you can follow the working out for yourself.
7 -
Hi @Jay77226 apologies for not responding yesterday, I'm juggling a few deadlines at the moment, so time just got away from me.
I did start looking into things for you though, you'll notice I've attached some more sources from record sets that haven't yet been indexed.
I can understand feeling in over your head, there's a lot to work through.
That's a great headstone picture! I wouldn't read too much into the difference in birthdate on headstone vs other records. It's important to note it, but a fluctuation of three years is pretty common, particularly when different people are reporting it at different times. In these instances I tend to err toward the self reported age, for example in census records. The age on the headstone is secondhand, ie informed by someone to the best of their knowledge, but there is a greater margin for error being a secondary source.
Bear with me, I'll circle back in the coming days.
4 -
Hi @Jay77226, thanks for your patience. Before I get into what I've found, there's a few things I think are worth bearing in mind.
Firstly, it appears vital records were not consistently reported in Virginia/West Virginia during the 19th and early 20th century. Meaning not all vital records (births, deaths, marriages) have been recorded. As a result, tracing individuals directly can be a bit difficult and more lateral research is going to need to be relied upon to determine relationships. This can mean tracing siblings/aunts/uncles or other individuals of the same name/approximate age, to prove or rule out connections. (I went down quite a rabbit hole on the many Parker Adkins of West Virginia!).
Secondly, regarding names. There seems to have been a certain degree of illiteracy in the region during this time, so spelling can vary. Additionally there also appears to have been a notable amount of marriage between cousins of varying degrees, so a woman's married name is sometimes the same as her maiden name, which can get a bit confusing. Further confusing the issue is the tradition of reusing given names was strong, so there are a notable number of individuals who look very similar on paper as far as their names, DOBs and counties of residence. Which leads me to:
Thirdly, as far profiles (PIDs) on FamilySearch within the universal tree go. It's a jungle out there. A lot of conflating of individuals, which in some case has also lead to conflating of their spouses (even with differing names) and their children. There are also duplicate profiles that have come from spelling variations or birth years discrepancies etc. There are also assertions and data that have been added and repeated without any evident sources to verify the information. I've unpicked these instances when I've come across them, but I'm certain there are more. I don't say this to deter you at all, but just to caution extra care as you undertake your own research. If you can't verify it with an original record, I would suggest taking information with a grain of salt.
All that said, on to my findings beginning with Parker Adkins (GQWS-3RN). It might be easier to follow chronologically.
Parker was married to Mary Ann Willis (LW51-QK5) (his second marriage). This is well documented. Their marriage record exists, though it contains little information about the couple. However, as he was a soldier in the 1812 war, after his death Mary Ann applied for a widow’s pension and that is a trove of information. You can read the full file on fold3 here, there are over 100 pages, as there was a case of fraud brought against the individuals who applied for the pension on her behalf.
From affidavits in this document we know that Parker was around 80 years old when he married Mary Ann who was about 21(by documented dates these ages where closer to 88 and 24) and that there were children from that marriage (the number is squiggly, but it looks like 3 to me). We also know that Sarah Ann and Elizabeth Adkins were definitely two of those children as they both give affidavits, as do their husbands. We also know that Mary Ann was sometimes known as "Polly" and was also known by her maiden name of Willis by some after her husband died. I could not find a mention of Cumberland by name in the document.
There is also a copy of Parker’s will included, with the transcription a bit clearer than the copy I mentioned before. It appears all his surviving children from his first marriage are listed, with one unnamed child predeceasing him, as he also names a granddaughter, Rebecca, who is to inherit in her parent's stead. Hypothesising, I believe the deceased parent of the grandchild, Rebecca, may possibly have been named Parker, as Parker Adkins is referred to as "Sr" in some records… Though his daughter Barbary appears to have married a man named Parker F Adkins Jr, so there suffix maybe in-law related.
Not named are Mark (who may be an erroneous relationship. He didn't predecease Parker), Sarah Ann, and notably Cumberland. Nor is Louden, but I believe that he is also an erroneously attributed child as there is no record of a direct relationship. An Elizabeth is mentioned, though it is unclear whether this was a daughter from his first marriage or second, and it does strike me as odd that he would mention one infant child and not the other two.
Of course none of this answers the question of Cumberland's parentage.
Unfortunately Cumberland’s death doesn't appear to have been officially recorded, so confirmation of parents that way is a dead end.
Looking at births:
An Elizabeth Adkins is recorded 20 December 1853. Daughter of Parker Adkins and Mary Adkins in Raleigh.
A Comer Adkins is recorded 6 July 1856. Son of Parker Adkins sr and Polly Adkins, in Raleigh.
Interestingly, there is also an entry for a Daniel Adkins, 6 August 1856, Raleigh, son of Parker Adkins Sr and Polly Adkins, which appears as a transcript on FS. But it's not indexed on wvculture.org (state database), so its possibly a transcription error of the entry for Comer.
There doesn't appear to be a record for Sarah.Profiles have been created from the records of Comer and Daniel with parents Parker sr (GW3Y-JKL) and Polly which may well be duplicates.
It's possible, even likely, that Comer Adkins is your Cumberland/Cum Adkins. The month of birth matches with his headstone, the day is within 3 days, and the year matches with the Cumberland who is living with Mary Ann "Polly" Willis Adkins at the time of the 1870 census.
That census record does hold some discrepancies, that should be noted however. Elizabeth is recorded as being ten years old (born about 1860), younger than 14 year old Cumberland and too young to be Parker's daughter. Whilst Sarah is 15 (born circa 1854/5), the age that Elizabeth should have been. It is likely that Sarah was the eldest. She is recorded marrying their neighbour, Sylvester Plumley later that year in Ohio, where she gives her age as 18. It reads to me as a possible elopement. The question of Elizabeth is a little baffling though, it's possible this was not the daughter Elizabeth, but a step-grandaugher and Elizabeth the daughter was elsewhere. Or possibly the census taker took the details down incorrectly.
The question I had earlier regarding the child James, is answered in the 1880 census where he appears again with Mary Ann living in the household of Sylvester Plumley and is noted as a nephew. So he is likely Mary Ann's step-grandson. Though I'm not sure through which of Parker's children from his first marriage.
The missing puzzle piece is the 1860 census record, which I have scoured for to no avail. It could provide a valuable third point of evidence if found.
However, based on the information at hand, I think you can be fairly confident that Parker Adkins and Mary Ann Willis are your Cumberland Adkins parents. It's not as definitive as perhaps you and I would like, but unfortunately that is sometimes the way of these things. Do let me know if you would like me to clarify anything.
6
Answers
-
WOW!!! These are both super helpful. Apparently, we have been given conflicting information about Cumberland (my Great, great grandfather). I know my great grandfather is Caudle Adkins (Cumberland's son) so I assume then K2WF-X5Q is my line. But we understood that Cumberland's father was also Cumberland, while also having a Parker back in there somewhere. Would either of you be able to help me verify who Cumberland's father actually is? Or show me how? I assume it is NOT Cumberland and maybe is Parker?
And thanks again. Although the confusion is frustrating, it is also very exciting to get actual information.
1 -
From what I can tell: the available records are consistent with Caudle Sr being the son of Cumberland Adkins (son of Parker Adkins), via Rachel Lucas, rather than Cumberland Adkins Jr (son of Cumberland Adkins). That doesn't mean that family history is wrong, though it's quite possible that someone doing research at an earlier time stumbled upon the other Cumberland first.
The lines are confusing, and both seem to trace to William Adkins LTVM-BZC, with many names being repeated. This is compounded by founder effects leading to a lot of people in the area sharing similar names.
If you want to work it all out yourself, I recommend making use of the different tree views and inspecting the sources attached to each record. Be sensible and skeptical, because a lot can get changed over the years in failing memories and mis-copied handwriting.4 -
Once again, thank you. I will try to begin my own engagement as you have suggested. You've been a big help.
0 -
@Jay77226 Happy to help. Given the information you've shared it does make more sense that Cumberland Adkins (K2WF-X5Q) is your line. I haven't a lot of time today, but I've taken a quick look and I do think something fishy could be going on with the alleged parentage of this Cumberland.
It is currently alleged, as you noted, that Parker Adkins is his father. However, Parker would have been 93 when Cumberland was born. Further, the will of Parker Adkins exists, and in it he lists what appears to be all his children. Cumberland is not among them, nor is his brother Louden. I think some conflation has occurred, potentially due to the 1870 census in which he also appears to have a brother, James, who was born after Parker died.
It looks to be a complicated case with a lot of contributors with strong opinions, both on this platform and others. It will need some careful, slow, and considered unpicking, I think.
I understand that might be a bit daunting if you're just starting out. I've run out of time today, but I'd be more than happy to take a closer look in the coming days, if you'd like.
Otherwise, if you're feeling up to the challenge, dive in and sing out in the community again if you get stuck, there are always people here ready to lend a hand.
3 -
RaniM - Thanks for your response. To your point, I plumbed a bit of depth yesterday and noted one or two things you pointed out here. But honestly, I feel like I'm in way over my head. Any help you might offer in a deeper dive in your free time, I certainly would appreciate. I even found out yesterday that "my" Cumberland's tomb stone (of which I made a picture a couple of years ago) apparently has his birthday wrong. All the dates on this site has him born in 1856 or 57 but the marker has it as 1859. Which is odd since his supposed dad, Parker died in 57. Man, I am just so confused! Too many Cumberlands and too much weird stuff going on. By the way, I took the picture of this tombstone way out in the middle of the woods in Lincoln County, West Virginia in an unicorporated town known as "Wewanta."
1 -
@RaniM HOLY COW. I would never have imagined you'd spend so much time on this for me. I cannot thank you enough. I don't even know where to start. The fact that someone as adept at this as you would take time to help me is appreciated but then I am very aware that I would have been completely lost and would never have been able to make sense out of any of this without this sort of help.
To some of you earlier points, the illiteracy and reoccurring use of names (grand parents, aunts and uncles) is clearly one I have been familiar with as concerns in the deep and sometimes dark valleys and "hollers" of eastern KY and western WV. Just the fact that you have been able to help me make any sense of this at all is a huge benefit to me.
As you might imagine, I have been most interested in the Adkins line since that is my passed down surname. However, I am finding much more simplicity of engagement as I begin to chase down other lines in my tree. Some of which have apparently had significant genealogical work done by others.
Man, one think I have learned as I have entered this effort is as much as I want this endeavor to be "neat and clean" there not any promise given that it ever will be. I just keep thinking how easy later genealogists efforts will be when searching up our current tech-organized world at finding info about us. We live in a time where we all have such a significant "footprint" that I assume those later efforts will find our days much more workable than what we are trying to do the attempt to piece together our families from the 17 & 1800's.
No words can express my gratitude for your time spent on this. You have been a blessing. Thank you, again.
0