Chapter 16 –Spencer County Indiana Arterberrys

In 1840 there were census records showing a cluster of six Arterbury households in Luce Township, Spencer County Indiana, which appear to have totally escaped the attention of Atterbury family researchers.  This chapter will endeavor to give some modicum of identity to these families, and the neighborhood within which they so briefly lived.  These Arterbury households are summarized in the sequential order in which they appeared in the census as follows:

Page 36:

Name:     Sariah Arterbury

[Sariah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Free White Persons – Females – 50 thru 59:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Name:     Sol Asterberry

[Sol Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39 (prob 40 thru 49):           1 [Sol Asterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Page 38:

E D Arberberry

[E D Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [E D Arberberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

Name:     Eigah Arteebury

[Elijah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             2

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eigah Arteebury]

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 40 thru 49:      1

Page 42:

Name:     Stephen Asheberry

[Stephen Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2 [Stephen Asheberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Page 44:

Name:     Adam Arterberry

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1 [Adam Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Initial Impressions

It should be noted that all six of these households appeared on five consecutive pages (slave inventory pages excepted), suggesting that they were living in relatively close geographic proximity to one another, and in two instances two households were recorded on the same page; Sariah and Sol on page 36 separated by five households, and Eigah and E. D. Arterbury on page 38 separated by ten households.  An analysis of the composition of each of these households suggests that the household headed by Sariah Arterbury (aged either 50 thru 59 or 30 thru 39) possibly was a widowed matriarch, and that the other five households headed by males aged 20 thru 39 possibly were headed by sons of Sariah and her unknown deceased husband.  Stephen and Adam appear to have been the youngest (aged 20 thru 29), whereas Sol [Solomon?], E. D. [Elijah Davidson?], and Eigah were the oldest (aged 30 thru 39).  Of the two youngest male householders, Stephen appears to have been the youngest, and Adam the next youngest based on the relative ages of their presumed children.  Stephen’s household also contained a 2nd male aged 20 thru 29, possibly a kinsman of either himself or his wife.  Of the three older Arterburys, E.D. and Sol would appear to have been the eldest, as they each appear to have had a child aged 15 thru 19.  Sol appears to have been widowed, as his household does not appear to include a spouse (unless perhaps the female aged 15 thru 19 was his wife).  Sariah’s household also contained two males aged 20 thru 29, and one female aged 30 thru 39.  These young adults may have been Sariah’s children, who had not yet begun living on their own, or may have included a young married couple.  It cannot be stated with certainty that the eldest female was actually the head of the household, as the female, aged 30 thru 39 could also have been the head of this household.

Before attempting to identify the ancestry of this seemingly related Arterbury family grouping, it may be helpful to provide a brief geographic history of the early settlement of Luce Township.  First, it is important to recognize that Spencer County is situated on the north bank of the Ohio River, immediately opposite Daviess County KY as illustrated in Figure 16-1.  Daviess County was organized in 1815 by partitioning from the northern part of Ohio County.  Richard Arterbury II was the only Arterbury recorded living in Ohio County in 1810 (prior to the organization of Daviess County).  Richard was married to Martha Moore on 19Apr1807 in Ohio County, so presumably Richard may have been resident in Ohio County as early as 1806.  Richard continued to be recorded as a resident of Ohio County KY in 1820 and 1830, so presumably, he was in that part of the county remaining after the formation of Daviess County in 1815.  In 1810 Abraham Myres and his sons: Elijah, Levi, and Michael were recorded in Ohio County on pages 6, 7, 12 and 18, whereas Richard was recorded on page 17.  These Myres were kinsmen of Richard Arterbury by virtue of Abraham’s marriage to Patty Arterbury, widow of Richard’s brother, Nathan Arterbury, in Hardin County on 2Aug1805.  Abraham Myres’ family had formerly lived on Brushy Fork in Chester County SC as near neighbors of Richard and his brothers.  In 1820 these Myres appear to have been recorded living in Daviess County KY, in that part of Ohio County that had been partitioned to create Daviess County. 

Several members of this Myres family were recorded in Daviess County in 1820 on page 11 nearby to four Arterbury households.  It is difficult to identify these Myres and Arterbury households with certainty, because the left-hand margin of the page is missing, thus partially obscuring many of the given names.  It is the author’s belief that these Arterbury households are identified as follows:

Name:     ??Ward Arterberry

[Edward Arterberry]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 45 and over:                      1

Free White Persons – Females – 45 and over : 1

This almost certainly was the household of Edward Arterbury.  His wife, Keziah, is believed to have died a few years earlier, as Edward is believed to have married Mary Handley Little (widow of George Little) in nearby Muhlenberg County in 1816-8.  Mary almost certainly was the adult female in this household.  All of Edward and Keziah’s children appear to have left home, and were living on their own.

Name:     ??El [prob. Hasel, as shown in 1830 census] Arterberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

Note:  Hasel Atterbury has been deduced by the author to have been a son of Edward Atterbury and Keziah, based on his appearance in this census record living nearby to Edward, combined with the fact that the two young males reported in Edward’s household in 1810 were no longer living at home in 1820. 

Might there be a hint to the ancestry of Edward’s wife, Keziah, found in the given name of Hasel?  It is worth noting that the given name of Hasel rarely occurred in America in the 18th and 19th century.  Moreover, there was only one instance of Hasel as a given name in Chester County between 1790 and 1830, and that was in Hasel Hardwick and his son, Hasel Hardwick Jr.  Hasel Hardwick Sr. first appeared in South Carolina records in 1765 when he received a grant of 500 acres on the Sandy River drainage.  He continued to acquire and sell lands in Chester County along the Sandy River drainage for the next 30 years.  Genealogists report that Hasel Hardwick was named in honor of his mother’s maiden name, who is reputed to have been Mary Hazel.  “Maternal surname perpetuation” was a common practice among colonialists in America as a way of carrying on the tradition of the mother’s surname, which would otherwise fall into obscurity.

Although neither Hasel Hardwick nor any of his known kinsmen appear to have had any significant direct involvement with any of the Atterbury’s or their known allies, there is a record of one instance when Hassel Hardwick went as a co-surety on the administration bond for the estate of Nathan Atterbury in 1796, along with Moses Atterbury, Patty Atterbury and Thomas B. Franklin.  So, it is clear that Hasel Hardwick was a near neighbor of the Atterburys in Chester County, but not necessarily a kinsman.  Given the extremely unique nature of the given name of Hasel in America, and limited to Hasel Hardwick in particular in Chester County, it seems possible that Edward and Keziah Atterbury may have named their son Hasel in tribute to Keziah’s father, Hasel Hardwick.  There seems to be few other reasonable explanations for the selection of such a unique and rare name for their son.

Name:     ??An Arterberry

[Nathan Arterberry]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

This Nathan Arterbury very likely was a younger son of Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  Some genealogical researchers claim this Nathan as a son of William Atterbury Jr. and Bridget.  A few other researchers claim Nathan to have been a son of Charles Arterbury and Sarah [Mitchell?].  This Nathan appeared in four consecutive census years as head of household, all within Daviess County: 1820 thru 1850.  In the 1850 census he was reported aged 55 years old, born in Illinois (clearly a transcription error for South Carolina), with a wife named Levisa, aged 49, born in Illinois [sic], and two sons: William H. aged 21, and Henry J. aged 14, both born in Kentucky.  An analysis of the apparent children born to Edward Arterbury suggests that he had a total of three sons.  The eldest son, probably named Elijah, had moved out of his father’s household after 1800, and is believed to have been living next door to his father in Elizabethtown, Hardin County in 1810.  The two remaining sons had also moved out of their father’s household by 1820, and are believed by this writer to have been Hasel Arterbury and Nathan Arterbury, who were living nearby to Edward Arterbury in Daviess County in 1820.  It should be noted that there was an additional, unknown adult male living in Nathan’s household in 1820.

Name:     Salley Arteberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Daviess, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

The identity of this Sally Arterbury, presumably the widow of a deceased Arterbury male, is not known with absolute certainty; but it does seem possible that she may have been the widow of Israel Arterbury.  The prospect of this connection between Salley Arterbury and Israel Arterbury is strengthened by the fact that the children reported in Israel’s household in Grayson County in 1810 exactly match with the presumed children reported in Salley Artebury’s household in 1820.  Refer to Figure 16-2 for a link-diagram, which illustrates this correlation between these two households.

Prior to its achieving statehood in 1816, Indiana was part of the Northwest Territory.  In 1800 the U. S. Congress entertained subdivision of the Northwest Territory, at which time it established the Indiana Territory.  In the 16-year interim between the creation of the Indiana Territory and the State of Indiana, white settlers began to move onto and settle the lands north of the Ohio River formerly considered the possession of the native Americans.  To facilitate some semblance of governmental control and orderly development, counties were erected, at a rate of almost one per year, across the southern part of the territory.  Warrick County was erected along the north side of the Ohio River in 1813, and then in 1818 Spencer County was partitioned from the eastern part of Warrick County.  Luce Township, situated in the southwest corner of Spencer County, was originally part of Warrick County, and later became subsumed within Spencer County.  The western border of Luce Township (highlighted in red) forms part of the boundary between Warrick and Spencer Counties as illustrated in Figure 16-3.

Atha Meeks was among one of the earliest white settlers in Luce Township.  Dr. Priddy Meeks, the Thomasonian herbalist and son of Atha Meeks, wrote a fairly detailed autobiography which captures the major events of his lifetime spanning from his birth in Greenville SC in 1795-7, through his early childhood in Grayson County KY and Spencer County IN, to his arrival at adulthood in western Illinois, his conversion to Mormonism, his migration with the 2nd Mormon Pioneer Expedition to Salt Lake in 1847, and on forward through his adult life in Utah until his death at Orderville UT in 1886.  In his memoirs Dr. Priddy Meeks describes his family’s trials and tribulations as early pioneer settlers in the wilderness of Luce Township, including the murder of his father by renegade Indians in the doorway of the family’s cabin at the mouth of Lake Drain, tributary of Little Pigeon Creek on 20Apr1812.[1] 

For almost anyone familiar with the Richard Arterbury line, they will have already recognized the surname of Meeks, and may even be familiar with some of the close kinship connections between the Atterberrys and the Meeks.  The earliest Arterbury-Meeks connection the author has discovered was in conjunction with the LWT of Richard Arterbury I, which was witnessed by John Wright, Priddy Meeks, Richard Atterberry [Jr.], and Robert W. Dorsey.  Richard I’s LWT was dated 4Oct1806, and was proven in Court on 13Jul1813 in Hardin County by the oath of Priddy Meeks.  Also, in connection with the estate settlement, a summons was issued by the Court on 10May1813 ordering that Thomas Arterbury, Rezin Blissett, Benjamin Meeks, and William Watkins do appear the following month to show cause, if any they can, why administration should not be taken from them.

The Priddy Meeks, who witnessed the LWT of Richard Arterbury I, is believed to have been an uncle of Dr. Priddy Meeks, and a younger brother of Atha Meeks, who was murdered by Indians at his cabin in Luce Township.  Benjamin Meeks, who was summoned by the Court, is believed to have been Richard I’s son-in-law and son of the Priddy Meeks, who witnessed Richard’s LWT.  The marriage record between Benjamin Meeks and Rebecca Arterbury, dated 3Feb1806 in Hardin County, is somewhat muddled.  It names the bride as Rebecca Meeks, but Richard Arterbury posted the surety bond.  If there was ever any doubt about Rebecca Meek’s having been a daughter of Richard Arterbury, we need only consider the names of the persons summoned by the Court regarding administration of Richard I’s estate.  Two of those parties: Rezin Blissett and William Watkins, were unmistakably sons-in-law of Richard Arterbury, as their respective marriage records leave no doubt about their having married Arterbury women.  By extrapolation, it is reasonable to conclude that Benjamin Meeks had also married an Arterbury woman, namely, Rebecca Arterbury, daughter of Richard Atterbury I, and that the husbands of Richard’s elder daughters, along with his eldest son, Thomas Arterbury, had initially filed for administration of their father’s [father -in-law’s] estate.

Benjamin Meeks’ household was recorded on page 8 in the 1810 census of Hardin County.  His household abutted that of Stephen Mahurin, whose daughter, Sarah Mahurin, married Dr. Priddy Meeks as his 2nd wife after the death of Mary Polly Bartlett.  Stephen Mahurin is believed to have married Sarah [aka Sally] Meeks, daughter of Priddy Meeks and sister of Benjamin Meeks.  So, Dr. Priddy Meeks would appear to have married his 1st cousin, Sarah Mahurin, daughter of Stephen Mahurin and Sarah Meeks.  This 1810 household is summarized as follows:

Name:     Ben Neske V

[Ben Meeks]

Home in 1810 (City, County, State):  Elizabethtown, Hardin, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          2

Free White Persons – Males – 16 thru 25:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1 [Rebecca Atteberry]

Sometime between 1810 and 1820 Benjamin Meeks moved his family across the Ohio River into Warrick County, where they were recorded with the following composition:

Name:     Benjn Meeks

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Warrick, Indiana

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          1

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       4

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 15:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1 [Rebecca Atteberry]

For this analysis it is worth noting that Richard Arterbury II, Atha Meeks Sr., John Meeks and Benjamin Meeks are reported to have filed plat maps in Luce Township in the 1810’s as illustrated on Figure 16-4.  The dates and Section locations of these filings were excerpted from SpencerCountyIndiana, Township History, LuceTownship.[2]  From this land information it would appear that Richard Arterbury II and his brother-in-law, Benjamin Meeks, each filed land patents in Luce Township on abutting Sections along the north bank of the Ohio River within one year of each other.  Also, it should be noted that Benjamin’s uncle, Atha Meeks Sr., had filed a plat in Section 29 in May1811, just one year before Atha was murdered by Indians.  Further note that Benjamin Meeks bequeathed several tracts of land in Luce Township in his LWT dated 9Dec1847, including the two tracts identified in Figure 16-4 belonging to Benjamin Thomas Meeks and James Stevenson, son and son-in-law, respectively.

So, from the foregoing information it is shown that two members of the family of Richard Arterbury I had interests in Spencer County dating from 1816-7.  Whether Richard Arterbury II ever improved his land in Section 33 is unknown, but it is certain that his sister and brother-in-law did settle on their Spencer County land, and that Rebecca Arterbury Meeks likely died on that land sometime around 1824.  After Rebecca’s death, Benjamin is on record as having twice married: Jane Young on 7Apr1825 in Warrick County, and Nancy Ray on 20Mar1841 in Spencer County.  Benjamin Meeks’ household was recorded in Spencer County IN in 1830 and 1840, summarized as follows:

Name:     Benjamin Meeks

Home in 1830 (City, County, State): Luce, Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 40 thru 49:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1 [Jane Young Meeks]

Free White Persons – Under 20:         6

Free White Persons – 20 thru 49:       2

Name:     Benjn Meeks

[Benj Meeks]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 50 thru 59:         1 [Benjamin Meeks]

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Jane Young Meeks]

In 1840 Benjamin’s household was listed on the same page, and within a couple of households of John Meeks, Atha Meeks and Green Meeks.  Further down the same page are listings for William Goatley, Sariah Arterbury, Sol Arterbury and William Meeks.

Richard Arterbury II on the other hand was recorded in two different locations in 1820 summarized as follows:

Name:     Richard Arterbury

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Waconteby, White, Illinois

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

Name:     Richard Artenbury

[Richard Arterbury]

Home in 1820 (City, County, State): Ohio, Kentucky

Enumeration Date:               August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10:          3

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 15:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10:       1

Free White Persons – Females – 26 thru 44:      1

As can be observed in these 1820 census records, these households for Richard Arterbury contain identical composition, thus it is only reasonable to assume that these were both the households of Richard Arterbury II, and that he was maintaining or alternating residence between two different jurisdictions in 1820.  From other records it is known that two of Richard’s brothers: Charles and James had migrated through White County IL in the mid-1820’s, and that two other sisters: Anna Blissett and Mary Watkins had relocated to Wayne County IL in the late-1810’s.  It is also believed that three of Richard’s younger brothers relocated to Wayne County IL around 1818.  Nathan Arterbury remained in Wayne County, where he lived a very long and fruitful life; but the other two brothers (possibly Stout and John) initially accompanied him to Wayne County, but returned to Kentucky after a relatively short stay in Illinois.  It seems likely that during this same time period Richard II was reaching out in search of new lands when he filed a plat in Luce Township, and was contemporaneously recorded in Waconteby Township, White County IL, and Ohio County KY.

In addition to Benjamin Meeks, there were several of his kinsmen who had also settled in Warrick/Spencer County by 1820: Atha Meeks [Jr.], Charles Meeks, John Meeks, Purdy [Dr. Priddy] Meeks, and William Meeks.  Most, if not all of these other Meeks were 1st cousins of Benjamin Meeks, their being sons of his uncle, Atha Meeks Sr.  Aside from Benjamin Meeks’ wife, Rebecca Arterbury, there was no evidence found of any other Arterbury/Atterbury living in either Warrick or Spencer County until 1840, when the cluster of six Arterbury households appeared.  In fact, other than the Daniel Arterbury household in nearby Harrison County IN in 1820, no other Arterburys are found in Indiana until 1840.  Daniel Arterbury of Harrison County, although relatively close, geographically, to Spencer County, could not possibly have been the source of the 1840 Arterbury enclave in Spencer County, as he matriculated to Sangamon County IL by 1830 and then to Menard County IL by 1840, where he remained until his death around 1879.  There are no census records of any Arterburys in Indiana in 1850.  In the 1860 census there are four or five Arterbury/Atterbury families listed in Indiana, with only one family known to originate from William Arterbury I, the immigrant.  The others were either newly arrived English immigrants, or originated from the eastern seaboard, possibly descended from Job Arterbury.

The one family in Indiana in 1860 that appears to have descended from William I [the Immigrant] was the household of William Henry Arterbury, summarized as follows:

Name:     William H Arterberry

Age:       33

Birth Year:             abt 1827

Gender:  Male

Birth Place:            Kentucky

Home in 1860:       Grass, Spencer, Indiana

Post Office:           Rockport

Household Members:         

Name      Age

William H Arterberry           33

Francis J Arterberry             32

Henry Arterberry                 6

Palmyra Arterberry              3

Stephen R Arterberry          5/12

It is the author’s belief that this Arterbury family, which was recorded living in Grass Township, abutting Luce Township to the east, was headed by William Henry Arterbury, son of Nathan Arterbury and Levica Arterbury.  This William Henry Arterbury is believed to be shown in his father’s household in 1850, summarized as follows:

Name:     Nathan Arterberry

Age:       55

Birth Year:             abt 1795

Birthplace:             Illinois

Home in 1850:       District 1, Daviess, Kentucky, USA

Household Members:         

Name      Age

Nathan Arterberry               55

Levisa Arterberry                 49

Wm H Arterberry                 21

Henry J Arterberry               14

As previously discussed, Nathan Arterberry is believed to have been a younger son of Edward Arterbury and Keziah [possibly Hardwick or Mitchell].  Nathan’s wife, Levisa [aka Levica] is reported by some Atterbury family genealogists as having been, herself, surnamed Arterbury/Atterbury.  In fact, some researchers claim Levica to have been a daughter of Edward and Keziah.  Having fairly reliably established her husband, Nathan, as a son of Edward and Keziah, it remains to identify the parentage of Levica.  The source for the marriage between Nathan Arterbury and Levica Arterbury is Kentucky, Compiled Marriages, 1802-1850, a database published online by Ancestry.com., which recorded the marriage of Nathan and Levica Arterbury on 30May1818 in Daviess County.  Ancestry.com attributes the source of the data contained in this database to research and compilations performed by Jordan R. Dodd and his staff at Liahona Research.  They further assert that Dodd’s research was sourced from publications and microfilm archived at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City.  This writer cannot attest to the accuracy of this marriage record, but is inclined to believe that it is of reliable provenance.  The true identity of Levica Arterbury is uncertain, but the author believes that she likely was a daughter of Israel and Salley Arterbury.  The basis for this connection for Levisa is predicated on the fact that Israel’s family was the only other Arterbury family believed to have been living in Daviess County at the time of Nathan and Levica’s marriage, besides that of Edward Arterbury and his descendants.

In summary, thus far we have been able to identify only three known Arterbury families, who were directly connected to Spencer County Indiana.  Two were descendants of Richard Arterbury I: Rebecca Arterbury Meeks and her brother, Richard Arterbury II, who had only a brief connection to Spencer County between about 1817 and 1825.  However, it is true that Rebecca Arterbury Meeks’ children continued to reside in Spencer County into early adulthood.  In fact, one of those children, Mary Meeks, is believed to have married James Myres, son of Abraham Myres and Sarah Wilkinson, and was residing in Spencer County at the time of Benjamin Meeks’ death in 1847.  From earlier writings, the reader may remember that Abraham Myres married Patty Atterbury, widow of Nathan Atterbury.  The third known Arterbury with a connection to Spencer County was William Henry Arterbury, presumed son of Nathan and Levica Arterbury, and presumed grandson of Edward Arterbury and Keziah [Mitchell? or Hardwick?].  Before leaving our discussion of the Meeks family, it should also be pointed out that two nephews of Benjamin Meeks (sons of his brother, Reverend William Meeks): John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, married two daughters of Rezin Blissett and Anna Arterbury: Sarah Jane Blissett and Margaret Ann Blissett, respectively.  These Meeks brothers both settled in Wayne County IL after their marriages to their Blissett wives.  It should also be noted that Richard Arterbury II’s younger brother, Rueben Arterbury, married Catherine [aka Kitty] Meeks, a sister of John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, and also settled in Wayne County IL.

So, prior to and following the recording of the six Arterbury households in Spencer County IN in 1840, there were no other census records found for any Arterburys living anywhere in Indiana between 1830 and 1850.  Given that Sariah Arterbury was reported to have been aged 50 to 59 (assuming that she was the older female in the household) in 1840 (born between 1780 and 1790), and given that she reported three other young adults aged 20 to 39, it seems a reasonable conclusion that Sariah was the widow of an unknown Mr. Arterbury.  Efforts to locate Sariah’s household in either 1830 or 1850 were only marginally successful.  Similarly, since Sol Arterbury and E. [Elijah?] D. [Davidson?] Arterbury each reported young persons in their household over the age of 10 years, it is reasonable to assume that they would appear as the heads of their own households in 1830.  A thorough search of the 1830 census records failed to locate any heads of households fitting their demographics.  Likewise, a thorough search of 1850 census records failed to identify any head of household, whose demographics even remotely matched any of the six Arterburys recorded in Spencer County in 1840.

“Sol” Solomon Arterberry Analysis

We will begin our investigation and analysis of the 1840 Spencer County Arterbury/Atterury households by first directing our attention to the Sol Arterbury family.  The reason for focusing on Sol Arterbury is that Solomon was a very unique given name within the Arterbury/Atterbury family in this region during the early part of the 19th century.  In fact, there was only one known Solomon Arterbury living in America at that time, that being a son of Richard Arterbury I and Rebecca [aka Bennett].  Given the singularity of that given name within the America Arterbury clan, it occurred to the author that there possibly was a kinship connection between Sol Arterbury of Spencer County and Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard I.

Very few records have heretofore been associated with Solomon Arterbury, summarized in chronological order as follows:

  1. Name:             Solomon Atterbury

Gender:          Male

Marriage Date:              15 Oct 1812

Marriage Place:             Hardin, Kentucky, USA

Spouse:          Anny Green

Film Number: 000390788

  • Name:             Solomon Atterberry

Home in 1820 (City, County, State)           Grayson, Kentucky

Enumeration Date        August 7, 1820

Free White Persons – Males – Under 10                   2 (two new sons)

Free White Persons – Males – 26 thru 44                  1 (Solomon)

Free White Persons – Females – Under 10                2 (two new daughers)

Free White Persons – Females – 16 thru 25               1 (Anny)

  • Name              Soloman Atterberry

Home in 1830 (City, County, State)           Ohio, Kentucky, Hartford

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5                     2 (two new sons)

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14                  2 (two sons continued from 1820)

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39                  1 (Solomon)

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5                  2 (two new daughters)

Free White Persons – Females – 15 thru 19               2 (two daughters continued from 1820)

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39               1 (Anny)

  • Name:             Soloman Atterberry

[Soloman Atteberry]

Gender:          Male

Race:              White

Death Age:    68

Birth Date:     abt 1791

Residence Place:          Grayson, Kentucky, USA

Death Date:   10 Feb 1859

Death Place:  Grayson, Kentucky, USA

Father:            Richard Atterberry

From the foregoing records we have Solomon Arterbury marrying Anny Green in Hardin County in Oct1812, followed by the addition of two sons and two daughters by 1820 in Grayson County, and two more sons and two more daughters by 1830 in Ohio County.  Lastly, we have the death record of Solomon Arterbury from Grayson County in which he was reportedly a son of Richard Arterbury, born about 1791 in South Carolina, and dying on 10Feb1859 at the age of 68 years.  Solomon was reportedly still married at the time of his death.  If Solomon Arterbury lived until 1859, it is reasonable to think that there should be census records for Solomon’s household in 1840 and 1850, yet no one has yet to identify Solomon with any census records other than in 1820 and 1830.  Logic suggests that he should have been recorded in 1840 and 1850, but where are those records?

What if the census record for the Sol Arterbury household in Spencer County in 1840 was actually of Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard and Rebecca Arterbury?  First, there is the issue of the age range reported for Sol Arterbury of 30 thru 39 years in 1840.  Based on Solomon’s death record he appears to have been born about 1791, which date of birth would have him aged 40 thru 49 years in 1840.  Is it possible that that Spencer County census record was in error?  Absolutely!  Assuming that the 1840 census record was in error and was actually the record of Solomon Arterbury, son of Richard and Rebecca, we next performed a link analysis of his reported household composition in 1840 as compared to his household in 1830 as illustrated in Figure 16-5.  As can be seen from this link diagram, the two sons and two daughters born before 1820 were no longer in his household, presumably living on their own or dead.  Also, one of the males and one of the females born between 1820 and 1830 were also absent from the household in 1840, presumably dead or living in a different household.  There was also the apparent addition of a new son to the household aged 5 thru 9.  And, lastly, Solomon Arterbury appears to have been widowed, as there was no adult female in the household in 1840.  If it is assumed that the new son added between 1830 and 1840 was born of Anny Green, then it might be assumed that Anny had died sometime between about 1831 and 1840.

Proceeding along this same line of reasoning, if Sol Arterbury of Spencer County was Solomon Arterbury, might we not reasonably expect to find some evidence of the existence of the two older sons and two older daughters absent from his household in 1840, but living somewhere in the near vicinity of Spencer County?  This seemed to be a reasonable expectation, so we then went in search of those missing children.  In 1830 the two missing sons were reported being aged 10 thru 14 years, i.e., born between 1816 and 1820.  We may not have to search too far afield for the two missing sons, as their ages are a near match for the households headed by Adam Arterbury and Stephen Arterbury in Spencer County in 1840.  Likewise, a search of Indiana marriage records disclosed the marriage of two Arterbury women summarized as follows:

  • Name:             Latecia Arterberry

Gender:          Female

Marriage Date:              24 Mar 1833

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          John Goodwin

FHL Film Number:        549442

  • Name:             Dalila Arterbery

Gender:          Female

Marriage Date:              27 Mar 1833

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          Atha Tucker

FHL Film Number:        549442

While we were searching the marriage records, we also found the following:

  • Name:             Stephen Arterberry

Gender:          Male

Marriage Date:              29 Jun 1836

Marriage Place:             Spencer, Indiana

Spouse:          Elizabeth Gray

FHL Film Number:        549442

Given the rarity of the Arterbury surname in Spencer County during this time period, it seems highly probable to the author that Dalila Arterbury and Lucretia [aka Leticia] Arterbury were the missing daughters of Solomon Arterbury, and that Stephen Arterbury was also one of the missing adult sons.  However, there was an age discrepancy associated with Adam Arterberry, which needs our attention.  In the 1830 census, Adam would have been aged 10 thru 14 years, yet in the 1840 census record he was reported having an apparent daughter in his household who would have been born between 1831 and 1835.  This would suggest that Adam’s oldest child would have been born when he was about 18 years or younger.  This is not impossible, but rather unusual for that time period.  Given this discrepancy, the author is inclined to question whether Adam Arterberry was in fact a son of Solomon Arterberry.  If Adam Arterberry was not Solomon’s son, then we might expect to find the other missing son elsewhere.

In order to find that other missing son, we may need to leap forward to the 1850 census.  In 1850 there is a census record for the household of a Solomon Arterberry in Grayson County KY summarized in Figure 16-6.  Even though this record has transcribed Solomon’s age as being 36 years, a review of the record suggests it should have been 56 years, which closely comports with the expected age of our Solomon Arterberry.  It is the author’s opinion that this was the household of Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard and Rebecca.  This conclusion is further strengthened by Solomon’s reported place of birth having been South Carolina.  Its location in Grayson County KY also comports with the reported place of Solomon’s death in 1859 in Grayson County.  Assuming that this was the record of our subject Solomon Arterberry, it would appear that all of his children have left his household, and that he has taken on a new wife named Celia.  We had already surmised that Solomon’s first wife, Anny Green had died sometime before 1840, probably in Spencer County IN.

So, having reliably tracked Solomon Arterberry from Spencer County IN back into Grayson County KY in 1850, we should reasonably ask whether this information brings us any closer to identifying the presumed missing son.  Well, the answer to that question seemingly is embodied in yet another, later census record for a Samuel Arterberry in Grayson County in 1860, summarized in Figure 16-7.  In this census record we have a household headed by Samuel Arterberry, born about 1818 in Kentucky, with an apparent wife named Arrena, and a daughter named Amy A.  Also in this household was an older woman named Selia, aged 55, also born in Kentucky.  Although Selia’s age does not exactly align with Solomon Arterberry’s presumed 2nd wife, Celia, in 1850, it is reasonable to conclude that Selia Arterberry was the widow of Solomon Arterberry, and the step-mother of Samuel Arterberry.  This is supported by the fact that Solomon was reported still married at the time of his death in Feb1859  Assuming this analysis to be correct, we would seem to have established the identity of the other missing son of Solomon and Anny Arterberry to have been Samuel Arterberry.

Before leaving Solomon Arterberry and his presumed off-spring, further evidence of his progeny may be found in later records associated with his presumed children.  For example, it should be noted that the household of John Goodwin and Lucrecia [aka Luticia] Arterbury in 1850 contained their eight presumed children, plus a young adult female named Elizabeth A. Arterberry, aged 27 and born in Kentucky as illustrated in Figure 16-8.  Was this Elizabeth A. Arterberry yet another daughter of Solomon Arterbury and a sister of Lucretia Arterberry?  This Elizabeth A. Arterberry would have been born about 1823, which age and place of birth would comport with the female aged 15 thru 19 in Sol Arterberry’s household in Spencer County IN in 1840.  Based on these matching demographics, the author is inclined to accept Elizabeth A. Arterberry as another daughter of Solomon and Anny Arterberry.

In yet another census record of the John Goodwin household in 1870 we find further evidence of Arterbury offspring as summarized in Figure 16-9.  In this 1870 household we find two of John and Lucretia’s daughters: Sarah P. and Nancy J. Goodwin, and possibly a couple of grandchildren named William B. and Isaphena A. Goodwin.  But most telling, we find a Letitia E. Arterberry, aged 17, Elizabeth F. [Frances?] Arterberry, aged 16, and Elizabeth J. Arterberry, aged 13.  All three Arterberry females were reported having been born in Illinois.  It is worth noting that the John Goodwin household in 1850 was recorded in Moultre Township, Illinois, whereas in the 1870 census the household was recorded in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana.

Given that these three young women in John Goodwin’s household in 1870 were surnamed “Arterberry”, it seems reasonable to conclude that they were born of a father surnamed Arterberry, and that they probably were kinspersons of Lucretia Arterberry.  Given their respective ages and place of birth, and their residency within the John Goodwin household in Spencer County IN in 1870, it seems highly probable that these young women were nieces of John and Lucretia Goodwin, and the children of yet another unknown son or sons of Solomon Arterberry. 

Thus far in our analysis of the family of Solomon Arterberry, we believe that we have reliably established the identity of two sons named Stephen and Samuel.  However, from the link diagram presented in Figure 16-5 we identified the possibility of at least one other son having reached adulthood, that being the young male aged 10 thru 14 years in Sol Arterberry’s household in Spencer County in 1840.  It is also possible that the youngest male, aged 5 thru 9 years in that same household in 1840 could also have been the father of one or more of the three young Arterberry females.  Assuming that our analysis is correct, and that Sol Arterberry was the same person as Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard and Rebecca, we might expect to find the existence of possibly two more sons of Solomon, who survived to adulthood, married, and sired at least three daughters.  Also, given that these presumed daughters of the(se) unknown son(s) of Solomon Arterberry were in the guardianship of their presumed uncle, John Goodwin, in 1870, it seems probable that their parents were deceased by 1870.

Unfortunately, a comprehensive search of the 1860 census records failed to locate the household of either the John Goodwin family or the family of our unknown son(s) of Solomon and Anny Arterbury.  Occasionally, it is helpful to search the Public Trees on Ancestry or WikiTree to find clues of family connections.  After performing such a search, the author was able to discover one possible link, that being via the child named Elizabeth F. Arterberry.  Several different sources suggest that this young woman actually went by her middle name of Frances, and that she married a gentleman named John Mahlon Brock around 1886.  There are numerous records associated with this couple, some of which do tend to support a possible connection to Elizabeth F. Arterberry.  These records are presented and analyzed as follows:

  • Marriage No. 1 – In the marriage record summarized in Figure 16-10 Frances E. Arterberry married a James Smith in Warrick County, Indiana on 3Mar1877.  Given the rarity of the Arterberry surname in the Spencer County area at this time, and the exact match for Frances’ given name, it seems highly probable that this was the first marriage of Elizabeth Francis Arterberry.  No further record could be located for this couple, so it is unknown whether they had any children from this union, but unlikely.

Marriage No. 2. – In the marriage record summarized in Figure 16-11 Frances Arterbury married a Mr. Brock in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana on 25Oct1886.  In other records this Mr. Brock is identified as John M. Brock, including his death record.

  1. Marriage Record of Frances Elizabeth’s son, Henry Harrison Brock – Figure 16-12 contains a summary of the marriage record of Elizabeth Frances’s son, Henry Harrison Brock.  The striking element of this record is that Henry Harrison identified his mother as Frances Goodwin.  Nowhere else in the records of Elizabeth Frances Arterberry was her surname reported as “Goodwin”, except in her death certificate.
  2. Elizabeth Frances Arterberry’s Death Certificate – Figure 16-13 contains an image of Elizabeth Frances Arterberry’s death certificate.  This record has been transcribed as being for a person named Sonnie Brock, however, the various facts contained in this record leave little doubt but that this was for Elizabeth Frances Arterberry [aka Fannie].  The most relevant facts contained in this record are the names reported for her parents.  Her father was reported to have been John Goodwin, and her mother was reported as Annie Arterberry.  The biographical information contained in this record was provided by France’s son-in-law, Taylor Hawkins, husband of Ida Florence Brock.  Furthermore, it is stated that these parents were each born in Illinois.

We can equivocate over the accuracy of the information provided by Taylor Hawkins, but the author must admit that, if accurate, this information would seem to provide some clarity as to the true parents of the three young women reported in John Goodwin’s household in 1870.  Namely, that they were the children of John Goodwin and Annie Arterberry.  We can further stipulate that Annie Arterberry very likely was the same person as Elizabeth A. Arterberry, who appeared in John Goodwin’s household in 1850.  And, lastly, we can state with a fairly high degree of certainty that Elizabeth Ann Arterberry and Lucretia Arterberry were sisters, and the daughters of Solomon Arterberry and Annie Green.

Just what the legal status of the union between John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry may have been cannot be stated with certainty, but given the use of the Arterberry surname for the three children in the 1870 census, and the fact that Frances Elizabeth appears to have only used the Arterberry surname in her marriage and census records, it seems probable that John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry were never legally bound in marriage. 

It occurs to the author that there may be an alternate explanation for this mixed family.  Mormonism was rapidly spreading throughout Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois and Indiana during this time period.  Although polygamous marriage may not have been a widespread phenomenon among Mormons at this point in time, it was occurring.  Given that Dr. Priddy Meeks hailed from Luce Township, Spencer County, and was converted to Mormonism in the 1840’s, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that John Goodwin may also have been a convert, and that his union with the two Arterberry sisters could have been of a polygamous nature.  Also, the Mormon migration to Utah occurred in the 1840’s, which occurrence might explain the disappearance of the John Goodwin household from the census records in 1860.  This is entirely speculation on the author’s part, but does offer a plausible explanation for the seeming absence of a marriage between John Goodwin and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry.

It is now time for us to delve a bit deeper into Solomon Arterberry, and his allied family connections.  It has been reliably established that Solomon was twice married, first to Annie Green, who is believed to have died between about 1831 and 1840 in Spencer County IN, and second to Celia [possibly Cecilia Decker], marriage time and place uncertain.  By 1850 Solomon Arterberry had returned to Kentucky, where he is found living in Grayson County with his new wife, Celia, adjacent to William H. [Harmon] Mahurin. 

Were there familial affiliations in Solomon Arterberry’s background which may have led to his initial migration to Spencer County IN and his later return to Grayson County in his waning years?  The answer to that question can probably be found in the identity of his first wife, Annie Green.  Although not thoroughly documented, numerous Meeks and Mahurin family researchers claim that Annie Green was the only child of a mysterious Thomas Green and Sarah Meeks.  Further, that Sarah Meeks was a daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr. and Elizabeth Denny, born about 1773 probably near Greenville, South Carolina.  Following the death of Thomas Green, probably in Hardin County Kentucky in about 1798, his widow married Stephen Mahurin, son of Silas Mahurin and Sarah [Susannah] (mnu).  Sarah Meeks and Stephen Mahurin settled in the northwestern corner of Grayson County near the community of Tousey, where they lived out their relatively long lives and sired numerous children as expressed in the following biography taken from Stephen Mahurin’s profile on Find-A-Grave:

“Stephen Mahurin was the son of Silas Mahurin and Sarah Susannah (nee Unknown) Mahurin. He was born May 21, 1774 somewhere in Virginia. He was the brother of three known sisters: Mary, Phebe and Patience. The family was in Hardin County, Kentucky by 1800 and in the newly created Grayson County, Kentucky by 1810. Stephen married Sarah (Meeks) Green on October 28, 1799 in Shelby County, Kentucky. She was the daughter of Priddy Meeks[3] and Elizabeth Denny, the widow of Thomas Green and the mother of Annie Green (presumed wife of Solomon Arterberry).

Stephen and Sarah were the parents of:

Elizabeth – b. 23 Nov 1800

Sarah – b. 12 Dec 1801

– m/1. Anthony Smith ca 1818

– m/2. Priddy Meeks[4] 24 Dec 1826

Phebe – b. 15 Jul 1804

– m. James A. B. Fraim

Silas – b. 31 Dec 1805

– m. Delaney “Laney” Edwards

Frederick Priddy – b. 19 Mar 1808

– m. Eliza Atterberry 18 Sep 1828

Candance – b. 25 Dec 1809

Susannah – b. ca 1811

Stephen – b. 28 Aug 1813

– m. Rachel Dewees 2 Apr 1840

William Harmon – b. 28 Jan 1815

– m. Ann Dewees

Abigail Mahurin – b. 29 Dec 1817

– m. Isaac Harrell Dewees, Sr.

Stephan Mahurin died at the age of 74 years, 8 months and 18 days on February 8, 1849 and Sarah died six months later at the age of 76 years, 2 months and 26 days on August 10, 1849. They were among the first burials in the Mahurin Cemetery near Tousey, Grayson County, Kentucky.:[5]

So, from the foregoing biographical sketch of Stephen Mahurin we have disclosed several very close family connections between Solomon Arterberry and the Meeks and Mahurin families, albeit tangentially through Solomon’s 1st wife, Annie Green.  To illustrate these connections more precisely, we will place them into more specific kinship and geographic terms.  First, Solomon’s wife, and the presumed mother of all his known and/or presumed children, was a daughter of Sarah Meeks, daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr., and wife of Stephen Mahurin through a 2nd marriage.  Sarah Meeks (Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law) also was the sister of Solomon Arterberry’s brother-in-law, by way of her younger brother, Benjamin Meeks, having married Solomon’s older sister, Rebecca Arterberry.  Benjamin Meeks and Rebecca Arterberry were settled in Luce Township, Spencer County, Indiana by 1820.  Benjamin Meeks had filed a patent for land in Spencer County in Section 29 in Dec1816, and Richard Arterberry II filed for land in Section 33 in Nov1817.  Solomon Arterberry’s presumed son, Stephen Arterberry, filed a patent for a 40 acre tract of land in Luce Township on 5Sep1838, located at Township 7S, Range 7W, Section 21, N1/2, W1/2, SW1/4.  The tract filing by Stephen Arterberry would have been located in the Section immediately northeast of the original tract filing by Benjamin Meeks, and two Sections directly north of the tract filing by Richard Arterberry II.

In the 1840 census records from Spencer County IN the Solomon Arterberry household was listed on the same page [Page 36] as the households of Benjamin Meeks, John Meeks, Athy Meeks, Green [aka Greenberry] Meeks, William Goatley, William Meeks, and immediately adjacent to Athy Tucker [Solomon’s presumed son-in-law].  The Stephen Arterberry household was listed four pages after the Sol Arterberry household [Page 42], immediately abutting the households of William Meeks [Rev. William Meeks, son of Priddy Meeks and Elizabeth Denney] and M. J. [James Mason Meeks, son of Rev. William Meeks and Nancy Goatley] Meeks.  In the 1840 census Spencer County was reported as a whole, with the exception of the Rockport Township.  The census records of Spencer County spanned a total of 36 pages (excluding the slave pages), encompassing a total of 1006 households.  The six Arterberry households were grouped in a fairly small geographic region spanning five consecutive pages (again, excluding the slave pages).  There were a total of 14 households headed by persons surnamed Meeks.  Of those 14 households, 11 were clustered within the same five pages containing persons named Arterberry, the other three are found on pages 14 and 64.  So, the Arterberrys in Spencer County were clustered in very close geographic proximity to the large majority of members of the Meeks family.  Rev. William Meeks and his son, James Mason Meeks were immediate neighbors of Stephen Arterberry.  Rev. William Meeks was a brother of Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin, and Benjamin Meeks, who married Rebecca Arterberry, sister of Solomon Arterberry.  Rev. Meeks was also a brother of Catherine Goatley Meeks, who married Solomon Arterberry’s younger brother, Rueben Arterberry, and the father of John Goatley Meeks and Priddy Shirley Meeks, who married daughters of Resin Blissett and Mary Arterberry [Solomon’s older sister].

Solomon Arterberry’s presumed daughter, Dalila Arterberry married Athy [aka Atha] Tucker.  Atha Tucker was an immediately adjacent neighbor of Solomon Arterberry’s household in 1840.  Atha Tucker is believed to have been a son of Peter Tucker and Susannah Meeks.  Susannah Meeks is believed to have been a daughter of Priddy Meeks Sr. and Margaret Snead, and sister of Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin, Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law.

According to Wayne Atteberry, Solomon Arterberry and his 2nd wife, Celia Decker, are both buried in the Solomon [Wilson] Cemetery near Yeaman, Grayson County KY.  The author has been unable to find any documentary proof of Wayne Atteberry’s claim.  In fact, aside from a record found on Find-A-Grave, no other reference to Solomon’s place of burial could be found, but his death was recorded in Grayson County.  Even the precise location of the Solomon Wilson Cemetery appears to be a closely held secret.  Aside from burial entries found on Find-A-Grave, no other references to this Cemetery could be located.  If Solomon Arterberry and his 2nd wife are buried in this cemetery, it is a bit strange that the namesake of that cemetery, Solomon Wilson, was not buried until 18Aug1887, and he was the earliest recorded interment after that of Solomon Arterberry, almost 30 years later.

Solomon Arterberry’s son, Samuel Arterberry and his wife, Arrena [Irene?] Payton are buried in the Mahurin Cemetery near Tousey, Grayson County, KY.  The earliest recorded interment in the Mahurin Cemetery is that of Sarah Elizabeth Mahurin, daughter of Stephen Mahurin Jr. and Rachel Dewees, who died on 17Jul1842 at the tender age of 15 months.  Stephen Mahurin Sr. was the next recorded burial, when he died on 8Feb1849.  Stephen’s wife, Sarah Meeks Green Mahurin [Solomon Arterberry’s mother-in-law] was the next recorded burial, when she died on 10Aug1849.  There are a total of 130 interments on record in the Mahurin Cemetery, most of which are for members of the Mahurin family.

The communities of Yeaman and Tousey are located roughly two miles apart in the extreme northwest corner of Grayson County, as illustrated in Figure 16-14.  Yeaman and Tousey are located roughly 4.5 miles south of Falls of Rough, the post office location where Samuel Arterberry’s household was recorded in 1860.

Given all of the close kinship and geographic location connections cited in the foregoing analysis of Solomon Arterberry, there is little doubt in the mind of the author that Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard Arterberry I and Rebecca was the same person as Sol Arterberry, whose household was recorded in Spencer County IN in 1840.  Further, it is the author’s opinion that Solomon Arterberry and Anny Green were the parents of Lucretia Arterberry, Dalila Arterberry, Samuel Arterberry, Stephen Arterberry and Elizabeth Ann Arterberry, and possibly of Adam Arterberry.  From the 1830 and 1840 census records of Solomon Arterberry’s households it would appear that he and Anny Green had perhaps three additional sons and one additional daughter, who may have survived to adulthood and whose identity has not been established from the foregoing research and analysis.  The fact that those presumed additional children were absent from Solomon’s household in 1850 suggests that they had either died, or were living outside of his household.  The fact that there were no apparent children living in Solomon’s household in 1850 suggests that there were no surviving children from his union with Celia [Decker?].

Adam Arterberry Analsis

We will next analyze the possible identity of Adam Arterberry, whose household was recorded in Spencer County in 1840 and is reiterated as follows:

Name:     Adam Arterberry

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         1 [Adam Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Adam Arterberry’s demographics would fit with one of the sons reported in the household of Solomon Arterberry in 1830, but missing from his household in 1840.  The author had initially dismissed Adam Arterberry as a son of Solomon Arterberry, because of the presumed sons named Stephen and Samuel.  Both Stephen and Samuel also fit the demographics of the two sons missing from Solomon Arterberry’s household in 1840.  Based on demographics, we would appear to have one too many sons for Solomon Arterberry.  Yet, one troubling factor is the inability to find Samuel Arterberry anywhere in the 1840 census records.  If Samuel Arterberry were truly one of the two missing sons in the 1840 census, we would logically expect to find him recorded somewhere in the 1840 census, possibly as the head of his own household, yet he was nowhere to be found. 

Let’s assume for a minute that Stephen and Adam Arterberry were the two sons reportedly aged 10 thru 19 years in 1830 and missing from Solomon’s household in 1840, then how might we rationalize the existence and whereabouts of Samuel Arterbury in 1840.  The answer to that puzzle may just lie in the household composition of Stephen Arterberry in 1840, reiterated as follows:

Name:     Stephen Asheberry

[Stephen Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2 [Stephen Asheberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Note that Stephen Arterberry’s household actually reported two males aged 20 thru 29 years.  Clearly, one of those males would have been Stephen Arterberry, as the head of the household.  Might the other male have been Stephen’s brother, Samuel Arterberry?  That seems to be a distinct possibility.  If the second male in Stephen Arterberry’s household was his younger brother, Samuel, then how might that fact square up with the males reported in Solomon’s household in 1830 and 1840?  It should be remembered that there were actually three males reported in Solomon’s household in 1830, which were missing from his household in 1840.  The author had initially assumed that one of the sons reported as under age 5 in 1830 may have died by 1840.  Now, it seems possible that the age of one of the sons under age five in Solomon’s household in 1830 may have been in error, and that one of those sons (Samuel), was actually over the age of 5, probably about 11 years old. 

Given the presence of the additional male aged 20 thru 29 in Stephen Arterberry’s household in 1840, the author is inclined to believe that that additional male was actually Stephen’s brother, Samuel Arterberry.  Assuming that to have been the case, then the author is also inclined to believe that Adam Arterberry may have been yet another son of Solomon Arterberry.  The proof of Adam Arterberry as a son of Solomon Arterberry is tenuous, but possible.  The reader will ultimately need to determine the identity of Adam Arterberry for themselves. 

One final observation may lend even further strength to the foregoing analysis of the Solomon Arterberry family.  It seems highly probable to the author that Stephen Arterberry was the namesake of his mother’s step-father, Stephen Mahurin.  Anny Green probably was only a few years old when her widowed mother married Stephen Mahurin.  Anny very likely was reared most of her young life in Stephen Mahurin’s household.  In fact, Stephen Mahurin may have been the only real father she would remember.  Consequently, it is reasonable to think that she would want to name her eldest son in honor of that father.

Eigah Arterberry

Having exhausted virtually every direct search methodology and resource available to the author, a secondary, or indirect research methodology was devised.  This indirect routine was predicated on the assumption that the existence of five households, each with young males at their head, would almost certainly have resulted in the birth of young children during their stay in Indiana.  Further, that the existence of such children should be detectable through a focused search of the 1850 census records.  Consequently, a complete search of the 1850 census records was performed for anyone bearing the surname of A*t*b*ry (where “*” functions as a wild card) using the birth date range of 1840 +/- 10 years, and birthplace of Indiana.  Strangely, this search returned only two hits: (1) Robert A. Arterbury, aged 6, born in Indiana, living in the household of Robert A. Saxon in Clay and Richland County IL; and (2) Amanda Atterbury, aged 13 and born about 1837 in Indiana, living in her father’s household (Nathaniel J Atterbury, presumed son of Charles and Sarah Atteberry) in Hunt County TX.  Amanda Atterbury’s family was living in Big Creek, Van Buren County, Missouri in 1840, so they could be excluded from having been one of the Spencer County families in 1840.  However, a review of Amanda’s siblings’ demographics indicate that she had a sister, Elizabeth, born in 1836 in Kentucky, and another sister, Barbara, born in 1841 in Missouri.  From this information it can be deduced that Amanda’s family lived only briefly (between 1836/7 and 1839) in Indiana, before moving on to Missouri.  Since all of the known Arterburys/Atterberrys living in Indiana around this time period were located in Spencer County, it is reasonable to assume that Nathaniel J. Atterbury also lived in Spencer County, and possibly was a kinsman of one or more of the Arterburys living in Spencer County in 1840.

Now, as regards the other person discovered using the indirect search methodology, namely, Robert A. Arterbury, his ultimate identification facilitated a highly probable connection to Eijah W. or Eigah Arterbury.  This probable connection to Eigah [aka Eijah] Arterbury was established through an analysis of the probable family unit surrounding Robert A. Arterbury.  First, is it important to look at the Robert A. Saxton household in Clay and Richland County IL in 1850, summarized as follows:

Name:     Robert A Arterberry

Age:       6

Birth Year:             abt 1844

Birthplace:             Indiana

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Family Number:    1104

Household Members:         

Name      Age

Robert A Saxton                   30

Nancy Saxton                       23

Mary E Saxton                      2

Isaac Arterberry                   14

Wm Arterberry                     12

Robert A Arterberry            6

From a review of the composition of this household it was concluded that the three male Arterburys very likely were brothers.  In reviewing the demographics for Isaac and William Arterbury, it was determined that they were born in Kentucky, whereas Robert A. was born in Indiana.  This suggests that their family had moved from Kentucky into Indiana sometime between 1838 and 1844.  Further searching discovered the following marriage record:

Name:     Nancy Jane Atteberry

Gender:  Female

Event Type:          Marriage Registration (Marriage)

Marriage Licence Date:       4 Oct 1844

Marriage Licence Place:      Indiana, United States

Spouse:  Robert A Saxton

This record provides a strong inference that Nancy Saxton was born an Atteberry, and very likely a sister of Isaac, William and Robert A.  The date of this marriage having been in Oct 1844 also provides a strong suggestion that Nancy’s younger brother, Robert A. Arterbury, may have been named in honor of her new husband, Robert A. Saxton.  The fact that her three younger brothers were living with Nancy and her husband, Robert A. Saxton, in 1850, suggests that their parents may both have been deceased sometime between 1844 and 1850, thus necessitating Nancy’s apparent assumed guardianship of her younger brothers.  Further searching for possible Arterbury/Atterbury kinfolk in Clay and Richland County IL resulted in discovery of the following records:

Name:     Charles C Arterberry

Age:       18

Birth Year:             abt 1832

Birthplace:             Kentucky

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Name      Age

John Jeffrey [Jeffords]        45

Margaret Jeffrey [Evans]    58

Name:     James W Arterberry

Age:       20

Birth Year:             abt 1830

Birthplace:             Kentucky

Home in 1850:       Clay and Richland, Richland, Illinois, USA

Gender:  Male

Family Number:    1103

Household Members:         

Name      Age

James W Arterberry            20

Elizabeth Arterberry            19

In the case of James W. Arterberry, his household was recorded immediately adjacent to the Robert A. Saxton household.  Given James W. Arterberry’s close geographic proximity, age and place of birth (Kentucky), it is logical to conclude that he very likely was another sibling of Nancy, Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterbury.  In the instance of Charles C. Arterbury, he was living in the household of John Jeffords and Margaret Evans Jeffords, an apparently unrelated family many households removed from James W. Arterberry and Robert A. Saxton.  But, given his age and place of birth (Kentucky) and presence in the same County, it seems possible that he was yet another sibling.  Having pieced together the remnants of what appears to have been six siblings from the same family, it is now time to search for their probable family household in 1840.  Given that William was born in about 1838 in Kentucky, and Robert A. was born in about 1844 in Indiana, it seems possible that their family could have been one of the five male Arterbury households recorded living in Spencer County in 1840.  On reviewing the reported composition of each of those five households in Spencer County in 1840, only the household of Eigah Arterbury appears to provide a match.  For purposes of this comparative analysis, the 1840 household of Eigah Arterberry is reiterated as follows:

Name:     Eigah Arteebury

[Elijah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2 [Isaac and William]

Free White Persons – Males – 5 thru 9:             2 [James W. and Charles C.]

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eigah Arteebury]

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1 [Nancy Jane]

Free White Persons – Females – 40 thru 49:      1 [unknown wife]

The bracketed names of the assumed children have been supplied by the author, based on the reconstructed family unit from Clay and Richland County IL.  Based on the virtually identical match between the assumed children reported in Eigah Arterbury’s 1840 household in Spencer County to the reconstructed family unit of assumed siblings in Clay and Richland County in 1850, it seems a virtual certainty that Nancy Jane, James W., Charles C., Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterbury were all the children of Eigah Arterbury and his unknown wife recorded in Spencer County in 1840.  Assuming this to have been the case, and given the place of birth of five of his presumed children in Kentucky, it is now time to search for Eigah Arterbury’s household in Kentucky in 1830.  As it happens, just such a household does appear in the 1830 census in Daviess County, immediately across the Ohio River from Spencer County summarized as follows:

Name:     Eijah W Atterbury

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1 [James W.]

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [Eijah W.]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1 [Nancy]

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1 [unknown wife]

The family of Eijah W. Atterbury is a very close match to the family of Eigah Arterbury in Spencer County IN in 1840.  One significant variance is the age ranges of the head of household and his presumed wife, which appear to have been reversed in the 1840 census (or vice versa).  That variance aside, the author is inclined to believe that these households were headed by the same person.  The virtual match of the children’s demographics, coupled with the unique spelling of the given name of Eijah vs. Eigah is almost conclusive.  The names of Eijah and Eigah probably would have been phonetically identical.  Just which spelling of this name was the intended original variant is uncertain, as there were a similar number each spelling existing in the 1850 census.  If this interpretation is correct regarding Eijah W. and Eigah having been the same persons, then the question arises regarding Eijah’s ancestry.  To answer that question we must return to the earlier census records of Daviess County in 1820.  In that year there were only two households in Daviess County headed by an Arterbury of sufficiently advanced age to have been Eijah’s parent: (1) Edward Arterbury, and (2) Salley Arterbury. 

Earlier in this chapter we have already analyzed and identified the three probable sons of Edward Arterbury, namely, Elijah, Nathan and Hasel.  We also spoke briefly of the household of Salley Arterbury, and presented the case for her having been the widow of Israel Arterbury, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury.  However, we did not analyze or evaluate the young male members of Israel and Salley’s household.  Let us do that analysis at this time.  In Figure 16-3 we presented a link-diagram of their respective households between 1800 and 1820.  In those households were recorded the existence of two young males reported aged under 10 in 1800, 10 thru 15 in 1810, and 16 thru 25 in 1820.  Consequently, it is possible to surmise that those two presumed sons were born sometime between 1795 and 1800, and that they were still living in their mother’s household in Daviess County in 1820.  Assuming that they eventually married and established their own households, independent of their mother, we might expect to find them living in Daviess County in 1830.  As fortune would have it, there were in fact two new households appearing for the first time in Daviess County in 1830 headed by young male Arterburys, summarized as follows:

Name:     Eijah W Atterbury

[Elijah W Atterbury]

[Ejah W Atterbury]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 20 thru 29:      1

Name:     Manos Atterbury

[Maner? Atterbury]

Home in 1830 (City, County, State):  Daviess, Kentucky

Free White Persons – Males – Under 5:            2

Free White Persons – Males – 10 thru 14:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          1

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      1

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

By process of elimination, it seems probable that Eijah W. and Manos Atterbury were brothers, and sons of Israel and Salley Arterbury.  One factor that might auger against this conclusion is that two young persons in Manos Atterbury’s household were aged 10 thru 14 years.  If Manos Atterbury had not left his mother’s household and married until sometime after 1820, then he probably could not have had two children born before 1820.  One possible explanation for this seeming discrepancy might be that Manos could have married a widow, who already had two young children from an earlier marriage.  Manos could not be found in any census records in either 1820 or 1840, so we have no further information on which to base a conclusion regarding his probable ancestry.  All things considered, the author is inclined to accept Manos and Eijah W. Atterbury as brothers, and sons of Israel and Salley Arterbury.

Through a considerable effort we have fairly reliably established the identity of yet another of the six Arterburys in Spencer County in 1840.  As a result of having established Eijah W. [aka Eigah] Artebury as the probable son of Israel and Salley Arterbury, we have seemingly eliminated Eigah Arterbury from having had any immediate and direct kinship connection to any of the other five Arterburys living contemporaneously with him in Spencer County in 1840. 

Sariah Arterberry

We will now analyze the household headed by a person named Sariah (probably Sarah) Arterberry, reiterated as follows:

Name:     Sariah Arterbury

[Sariah Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State): Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 20 thru 29:         2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Free White Persons – Females – 50 thru 59:      1 [Sariah Arterbury?]

Since there were two adult females listed in this household, it is not possible to state with any certainty just which of those females might have been considered to be the head of the household.  If we assume that the oldest female, aged 50 thru 59 was Sariah Arterberry, then is might be concluded that the other younger persons in the household were her children or children’s spouse(s), and that she was the widow of a deceased Mr. Arterberry.  If the younger female, aged 30 thru 39 was Sariah Arterberry, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the two young males may have been her siblings, and that the older woman may have been the mother of one or more of the other members of the household.  Either one of these scenarios seems plausible.

Case 1 Sariah Arterberry (aged 50 thru 59):  If we assume that Sariah Arterberry was the oldest female in the household, then we are accepting that she was born sometime between 1781 and 1790, and that she had been married to a deceased Mr. Arterberry.  We are also accepting that she probably had at least one surviving son in his 20’s still living at home, and possibly a daughter in her 30’s still living at home.  When we plumbed the depths of the Arterberry/Atterberry family genealogies from this time period in search of a widowed Sariah (or Sarah) Arterberry still alive in 1840, very few candidates could be found.  The most obvious candidate, given the geographic location of Spencer County and the kinships of those Arterberrys already identified from this cluster of six households, would be the widow of Israel Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  Earlier in this chapter the author hypothesized that Israel’s widow was the Salley Arterberry recorded across the Ohio River in Daviess County KY in 1820.  The name “Salley” is a recognized nickname for Sarah, and that Salley Arterberry would have been of the appropriate age to have been reported as aged 50 thru 59 years in 1840.  However, Salley [aka Sarah or Sariah] Arterberry could not be located in the 1830 census, so we have no basis for assuming that she may still have been alive in 1840.  Yet, people do go missing from the census records, as we have already observed in this manuscript of the John Goodwin household in 1860.  It should also be recognized that Salley Arterberry, presumed widow of Israel Arterberry is not known to have had any children who would match the demographics of the apparent children in Sariah’s household in 1840.  All things considered, the author is not inclined to lend much credence to Sariah Arterberry having been the widow of Israel Arterberry.  Absent any other viable candidates, it seems unlikely that Sariah Arterberry was the older woman in this household.

Case 2 Sariah Arterberry (aged 30 thru 39):  In this case it is assumed that Sariah [aka Sarah] Arterberry was actually the younger female of the household.  Again, plumbing the depths of the Arterberry/Atterberry genealogy during this time period, we find evidence of one possible candidate, Sarah Arterberry, who appeared as the head of a household in Jackson County TN in 1830, summarized as follows:

The age of Sarah Arterberry from Jackson County TN would be a perfect fit for the Sariah Arterberry in Case 2.  Also, the two younger males in Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830 would be a perfect fit for the two young males in Sariah’s household in 1840.  The author is not absolutely certain of the identity of the Sarah Arterberry of Jackson County TN, but does have a theory.  Sarah Arterberry appeared as the head of household in Jackson County in only one census year, 1830.  Also in Jackson County TN in 1830 were four other households headed by male Arterberrys named: Moses, Thomas, George and James.  Moses Arterberry is generally accepted as the son of Nathan and Patty Arterberry.  Thomas, George and James are believed to have been sons of Moses.  The author has been unable to find anyone claiming to know the identity of this Sarah Arterberry.

The author’s hypothesis regarding the identity of this Sarah Arterberry is predicated on a review of the 1820 census for Jackson County.  In that year there were a total of three households headed by persons named Arterberry: Moses Arterberry, Elizah [Elijah] Arterberry and Priscilla Arterberry.  We have already established the identity of Moses Arterberry as a son of Nathan and Patty Arterberry.  Priscilla Arterberry is reliably known to have been Priscilla Mayfield, widow of Nathan Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  Many genealogists have identified Elijah Arterberry as a son of Nathan and Patty, and brother of Moses Arterberry.  The author is not persuaded of that connection.  It seems more likely that Elijah Arterberry was the son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah [possibly Mitchell].  The author believes that Elijah was the same person recorded living adjacent to Edward Arterberry’s household near Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY in 1810.

As a basis of comparison, the author has compiled a link diagram between the households of Elijah Arterberry in 1810, Elijah Arterberry in 1820, Sarah Arterberry in 1830 and Sariah Arterberry in 1840 as illustrated in Figure 16-15.  For an added dimension, the author has added the household of E. D. Arterberry to this link diagram.

In the 1810 household of Elijah Arterberry he appears to have had a wife, and a son and daughter, both under the age of 10 years.  In the 1820 household of Elijah Arterberry his wife seems to be missing, presumably deceased.  The two children from 1810 were continued in his household in 1820, aged 10 thru 15 years.  Three new sons appear to have been added to the family between 1810 and 1820.  Continuing forward to Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830, her elder male sibling (aged 20 thru 29) appears to still be in the household, as well at two of the younger brothers: one aged 10 thru 14 and the other aged 15 thru 19.  Elijah was no longer in the household, presumably deceased.  Moving forward to 1840 to the household headed by the younger female, Sariah Arterberry, there appears to be a continuation of the two younger brothers, now reportedly aged 20 thru 29.  Missing from this household is the eldest brother, which the author believes possibly could have been E. D. Arterberry, whose household was reported in Spencer County in 1840.  The reported age of E. D. Arterberry tracts very closely with the presumed elder brother of Sarah/Sariah Arterberry, but he was reported with three seemingly older children: a son aged 15 thru 19 and two daughters aged 10 thru 14.  If E. D. Arterberry was the elder brother of Sarah Arterberry, and a son of Elijah Arterberry, then we are left with the mystery of how he acquired three children born before 1830.  Perhaps those older children were step-children, acquired at the time of his marriage.

Leaving E. D. Arterberry aside for the moment, let’s focus our attention on Elijah Arterberry and his presumed daughter, Sarah.  If the author’s interpretation of the kinship connection between Elijah and Sarah as father and daughter is correct, then how might we explain Sarah’s having been designated as the head of household after the apparent death of her father.  To answer that question, let’s first look at the composition of Elijah’s household in 1820.  In that household Sarah and her elder brother were identified as being aged 10 thru 15.  Also, in the 1830 household the youngest children was reported age 10 thru 14.  This suggests that both Elijah and his wife could have died virtually anytime between 1820 and 1830.  Assuming that Elijah died intestate (which was a common occurrence in that time period), and that Sarah had reached her majority before her father’s death, and that her siblings were still minors, the Court could very well have granted guardianship of her younger brother’s to Sarah.  In fact, Sarah may have been granted administration over her father’s estate.  The existence of a more mature Sarah Arterberry in Jackson County TN in the 1830’s is supported by the fact that she was listed on the tax rolls in 1836.

It is also conceivable that Elijah could have married a much younger woman after his 1st wife’s death, who happened to be named Sarah.  Elijah’s 2nd wife would probably also been granted guardianship of her step-children, even though the eldest son would have been almost as old as his step-mother.

Given the closely corresponding household compositions for Elijah Arterberry and Sarah and Sariah Arterberry, it is the author’s opinion that there is a high level of probability of Sariah Arterberry having been either the eldest daughter or widow of Elijah Arterberry.  If Sariah Arterberry were the widow of Elijah Arterberry, then is it possible that the elder woman in the household in 1840 may have been Sariah’s mother.

E. D. Arterberry

E. D. Arterberry’s household appeared near the top of Page 38 in the 1840 Spencer County census record, summarized as follows:

Name:     E D Arberberry

[E D Arterberry]

Home in 1840 (City, County, State):

Spencer, Indiana

Free White Persons – Males – 15 thru 19:         1

Free White Persons – Males – 30 thru 39:         1 [E D Arterberry]

Free White Persons – Females – Under 5:         1

Free White Persons – Females – 5 thru 9:          2

Free White Persons – Females – 10 thru 14:      2

Free White Persons – Females – 30 thru 39:      1

E. D. Arterberry’s household was on the same page as the household of Eigah Arterberry, and on the page following the household of Sariah Arterberry and Solomon Arterberry.  E. D.’s household was only twelve households removed from Sariah Arterberry’s household.  As discussed in the preceding section, the demographics for E. D. Arterberry are a match for the eldest male reported in Sarah Arterberry’s household in 1830 in Jackson County TN.  Based on the close geographic proximity of E. D.’s household in 1840 to that of Sariah Arterberry, and the matching age range of Sariah’s presumed elder brother in the 1830 census, it seems possible to the author that E. D. Arterberry may have been Sariah Arterberry’s brother or step-son.

Assuming the posited kinship connection between Sariah Arterberry and E. D. Arterberry to be correct, might we be able to offer any more concrete evidence of such a connection?  Let’s for a moment contemplate the likely given name for the eldest son of Elijah Arterberry.  Following the naming conventions in vogue during the colonial and post-colonial era in America, it would be normal for Elijah to have named his first-born son after himself, namely, Elijah.  Might not the first name of E. D. Arterberry have been Elijah, named in honor of his own father?  Possibly!  What of the middle initial “D”?  What might the middle name of E. D. Arterberry have been?  Anyone familiar with the author’s monograph entitled “The Mitchell family of ChesterCounty” may be able to make an educated guess as to the answer of that question.  Based on our accepted (assumed) kinship for E. D. Arterberry as a son of Elijah Arterberry, his grandparents would have been Edward Arterberry and Keziah (mnu, possibly Mitchell).  In the aforementioned Mitchell monograph the author establishes a very strong case for Keziah, 1st wife of Edward Arterberry, having been his 1st cousin, Keziah Mitchell.  Also, in that same monograph the author built a very strong case for Keziah’s parents having been David Mitchell and Mary Davidson.  It seems entirely possible to the author that E. D. Arterberry’s middle name may well have been Davidson, in honor of the surname of his presumed great-grandmother, Mary Davidson.

Summary/Conclusions

We started this investigation for the primary purpose of establishing the kinship/ancestry of the heads of six households clustered in relatively close geographic proximity and headed by persons having the surnames of Arterberry/Atterberry in Spencer County Indiana in 1840.  It is the author’s opinion that we have been highly successful in establishing the identity Sol Arterberry as Solomon Arterberry, son of Richard Arterberry and Rebecca [mnu, possibly Bennett].  Also, to the same level of certainty, this analysis established Stephen Arterberry as the eldest son of Solomon Arterberry.  As an adjunct to this investigation and analysis of Solomon Arterberry, the author believes that we have also identified three heretofore unknown daughters of Solomon Arterberry and Anny Green: Lucretia, Dalila and Elizabeth Ann [aka Anny], as well as confirming Samuel Arterberry as yet another son.  To a lesser degree of certainty, we have posited the possibility (but inconclusively) that Adam Arterberry may also have been a younger son of Solomon Arterberry, and brother of Stephen and Samuel Arterberry.

To a slightly lesser degree of certainty this analysis has identified Eigah [aka Eijah W.] Arterberry as a son of Israel and Salley [Sarah] Arterberry, son of Michael and Elizabeth Arterberry.  To a fairly high level of certainty, this analysis identified six children of Eigah Arterberry as: James W., Nancy, Charles C., Nancy, Isaac, William and Robert A. Arterberry.

To almost the same level of certainty as Eigah, the author believes sufficient evidence has been offered to establish Sariah Arterberry either as the daughter, or 2nd wife of Elijah Arterberry, presumed son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah [mnu, possibly Mitchell].

And, lastly, the author has posited the possibility that E. D. Arterberry may have been Elijah Davison Arterberry, eldest son of Elijah Arterberry, presumed son of Edward Arterberry and Keziah.

Assuming for a moment that the kinships and ancestries posited by the author regarding these six heads of households in Spencer County are correct, we are left to ponder the motivation for their having settled in that area, and the cause of their seeming disappearance (excepting Solomon Arterberry) just 10 years later.  In the case of Solomon Arterberry, it seems probable that he was drawn to Spencer County in the early part of 1830’s by the pre-existing presence of his Meek family kinsmen.  Suffice it to say that Solomon’s decision to move from Grayson County KY to Spencer County IN would also account for the presence of his sons Stephen and Samuel (and possibly Adam Arterberry), as well as his daughter, Dalila and her husband, Atha Tucker.

As for the attraction that drew Eigah, Sariah, and possibly Elijah Davidson Arterberry, we may have to dig a little deeper.  Keep in mind that Edward Arterberry and his presumed sons, Nathan and Hasel, as well as the presumed widow of Israel Arterberry, were living in Daviess County in 1820 and 1830, immediately across the Ohio River from Spencer County.  So, Eigah’s move from Daviess County to Spencer County would have been a very short relocation, one accomplished with relative ease.  Of course, the same cannot be said for Sarah Arterberry and her immediate family, who would have traveled all the way from Jackson County TN, a distance of almost 170 miles overland.  Unlike Eigah, Sariah’s move would have been a major undertaking, an endeavor probably requiring a very strong familial attraction.

Edward Arterberry had already died, probably sometime around 1825, so it wouldn’t have been a attraction of grandparents.  If the author’s identification of the Elijah Arterberry of Jackson County TN having been the son of Edward and Keziah, then his family would have felt quite isolated from the other members of their immediate family.  The nearest living kin of Sarah Arterberry in the 1830’s would have been Elijah’s brother, Nathan Arterberry, how continued to reside in Daviess County KY until his death in about 1852.  It seems likely that it was in part Nathan’s location in Daviess County that may have drawn his brother’s (Elijah’s) family away from Jackson County TN in the mid-1830’s, but why to Spencer County instead of Daviess County?

There is one further kinship connection we need to consider, before attempting to answer that question.  There very likely was a more direct kinship connection between the families of Edward Arterberry and Israel Arterberry, than we have yet to disclose.  Nathan Arterberry, son of Edward Arterberry in on record having married a woman named Levica Arterberry.  As we stated earlier in this chapter, many researchers have posited Levica Arterberry as a daughter of Edward and Keziah.  Wait a minute!  Hasn’t the author posited Nathan Arterberry as a son of Edward and Keziah?  We can’t possibly have brothers marrying sisters.  So, if the author is correct about Nathan’s parents, then we are left to puzzle over the identity of Levica Arterberry.  It is the author’s belief that Levica Arterberry, with a fairly high level of certainty, was the daughter of Israel and Salley Arterberry.  Also, assuming the author is correct about Eigah Arterberry having been a son of Israel and Salley Arterberry, then Nathan Arterberry and Eigah Arterberry would have been brothers-in-law, Nathan having married Eigah’s sister.

If the foregoing kinship connection between Eigah Arterberry and Nathan Arterberry is correct, then Sarah Arterberry would have been a near kinsman of Eigah Arterberry, with Elijah and Nathan having been brothers.  Assuming that E. D. [Elijah Davidson?] Arterberry was a son of Elijah Arterberry, then he and Eigah would have been 1st cousins (through marriage). 

Although somewhat tenuous and totally lacking in primary documentation, the author has built a fairly strong circumstantial case for the otherwise inexplicable and arduous relocation of the Elijah Arterberry family from Jackson County TN to Spencer County IN in the mid-1830’s.

One final point connecting the Edward and Israel Arterberry families is the fact that William Henry Arterberry, son of Nathan and Levica Arterberry, was recorded living in Spencer County in 1860.  Although no records could be found of Sariah, E. D., Adam, Stephen or Eigah Arterberry after the 1840 census, it seems possible that descendants of those families may have continued to reside in Spencer County.  It may have been the presence of those kinfolk that drew William Henry Arterberry to relocate to that area sometime after 1850.

Things that other future researchers might consider in their search for any descendants of these children of Solomon and Anny Arterberry, Edward and Keziah Arterbury, and Israel and Sally Arterbury are the myriad of events that transpired in the decade following 1840.  These events are briefly summarized as follows:

  1. Rise of Mormonism: for a period of almost 20 years the early foundations of Mormonism took root in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri where thousands of adherents were cultivated and converted from the pioneering families of the region.  Dr. Priddy Meeks traveled among his kinsmen in Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri, proselytizing to win over believers to his newly found faith.  After being driven out of Missouri, the Mormons attempted to establish a new settlement at Nauvoo Illinois.  After the murder of their prophet, Joseph Smith, and his brother, Hyrum Smith, the Mormons looked westward to the wilderness west of the Rocky Mountains for safe refuge.  Consecutive expeditions were launched in the latter half of the 1840’s, and by 1850 the new Mormon republic was established between the Wasatch Range and Great Salt Lake.  By living among Dr. Priddy Meek’s kinsmen in Spencer County, it is possible that some of these Arterburys may have become Mormon converts, and elected to join the migration westward.
  2. California Gold Rush: news of the discovery of gold in the foothills of central California in January 1848 triggered one of the most rapid and massive migrations in the history of the fledgling nation.  By the middle of the 1850’s over 300,000 people had been drawn to that region.  It is possible that some of the Spencer County Arterburys may have become swept up in this mania for quick riches, and disappeared among the mining camps of the Sierra Nevada.
  3. Mexican-American War:  annexation and creation of the Republic of Texas by the United States Government in 1845 triggered armed conflict with Mexico, which became known as the Mexican-American War.  This battle raged for two years between 1846 and 1848, drawing many American combatants from all over middle-America.  Many American soldiers, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in February 1848, were offered payment for their transportation back home, or land grants for settlement in Texas.  Many opted to accept land grants and undertook the relocation of their families to Texas.  Might some of the Spencer County Arterburys been involved in the Mexican War and either killed or elected resettlement?
  4. Midwestern Cholera:  Cholera is mainly a waterborne disease, and occurred in 19th century North America mainly in mid-America and principally along major waterways.  Its origins and treatment were virtually unknown until the early part of the 20th century.  There were generally three major pandemic periods ascribed to Cholera outbreaks in America: 1832, 1849 and 1866, but in reality, cholera was almost continuously present, and often misdiagnosed.  The main cause of cholera during that time period was from ingesting contaminated water.  In most rural and small town communities water was consumed from shallow wells or streams, which had become contaminated with effluent from human sewage.

“In the 1849–51 outbreak, St. Louis lost 4,557, Cincinnati 5,969, and Detroit 700. In each outbreak, deaths totaled 5–10% of the population.”[6]

Cholera was considered “bad for business” and frequently went unreported or under-reported.  The true extent and scope of mortality attributable to cholera during this era cannot be known, as much of the “evidence” is anecdotal at best.  Suffice it to say that entire families were wiped out by this disease, much like the Plague in Britain and Europe in earlier centuries.  Given the agrarian nature of the pioneer’s existence along the banks of the Ohio River in Spencer and Daviess Counties, we can assume that the Arterburys lived within this vulnerable zone on each side of the river.  Can the sudden and almost simultaneous disappearance of the families of Hasel, Manos, Eigah, Sol, E.D., Sarah, Adam and Stephen be explained by the presence and inevitably lethal impact of this or similar disease?

Regardless of the actual cause of their seeming disappearance, the author was unable to trace the families of any of these presumed descendants of Edward and Keziah, and of Israel and Sally beyond 1840, with the exception of the presumed children of Eigah W. Arterbury and William Henry Arterbury.

To facilitate the reader’s better understanding of the genealogical connections developed by the author throughout this rather wide-ranging and rambling excursus into the Arterburys of Spencer County Indiana in the 19th century, the following Descendant Charts are offered:

Add Descendant Charts.

Keziah Arterbury

During the course of developing the foregoing analysis of the Spencer County Arterburys there was considerable attention applied to the family of Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  The basis for that attention was principally due to the fact that possible connections to three of the 1840 Spencer County Arterbury households kept looping back to descendants of Edward and Keziah.  We even briefly explored the possible ancestry of Keziah, herself.  One strand of that analysis focused on a possible connection to Hasel Hardwick utilizing the author’s research tool which is dubbed maternal surname perpetuation.  While this analytical technique has been proven useful and reliable in some instances, we must admit to a certain degree of skepticism in its application to the possible ancestry of Keziah Arterbury.

During the course of the author’s research into another strand of the South Carolina Arterburys, namely Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, the author unexpectedly stumbled upon a reservoir of genealogical data contained in the temple records of the Mormon church at Nauvoo, IL.  This reservoir of data interestingly enough includes references to Edward and Keziah, which may contain unexplored genealogical links to the ancestry of Keziah.  We will now reintroduce these Nauvoo Temple records at this juncture in a renewed attempt to establish the possible identity of Keziah Arterbury.

Before delving into the details of these temple records, it may be helpful to provide some background.  The referenced temple records were the result of the “temple work” performed by a woman named Elizabeth Edwards between 1841 and 1844.  The main body of the work performed by Elizabeth Edwards consisted of rituals, which the early Mormons referred to as proxy baptism or baptism of the dead.  Without delving into the historical and biblical foundation of this ritual, or the many stages through which the practice has evolved over the centuries, suffice it to say that, in its infancy in the 1840’s, the ritual consisted of a living member of the church undertaking the rite of baptism in the name of a deceased ancestor.  Following are excerpts taken from the History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which specifically reference events connected to these baptisms:

“November 8, a temporary baptismal font was dedicated in the Lord’s house at Nauvoo, a description of which was published in Millennial Star.”

“This font was built for the baptisms for the dead until the temple shall be finished, when a more durable one will supply its place.-Millennial Star, vol. 18, pp. 743, 744.”

“Monday, 8th. At five o’clock p. m., I attended the dedication of the baptismal font in the Lord’s house. President Brigham Young was spokesman.”

“The baptismal font is situated in the center of the basement room, under the main hall of the temple. It is constructed of pine timber, and put together of staves tongued and grooved, oval shaped, sixteen feet long east and west, and twelve feet wide, seven feet high from the foundation the basin four feet deep. The molding of the cap and base are formed of beautiful carved work in antique style; the sides are finished with panel work; a flight of stairs in the north and south sides leading up and down into the basin, guarded by side railing.”

“Sunday, November 21, the first baptisms for the dead in the font were administered by Elders B. Young, H. C. Kimball, and John Taylor.”[7]

“Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body, must be in the font; those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river.  A box should be prepared for the use of the font, that the clerk may be paid, and a book procured by the moneys to be put therein by those baptized, the remainder to go to the use of the temple  The Times and Seasons for May 2, 1842”

“Article 5. And again, I give unto you a word in relation to the baptism for your dead. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder; and let him be eyewitness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord; that in all your recordings, it may be recorded in heaven, that whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth may be loosed in heaven; for I am about to restore many things to the earth pertaining to the priesthood, saith the Lord of hosts.”  NAUVOO, September 1 1842, Epistle from Joseph Smith Jr. to all Saints [of the Church of LDS].  In a follow-up letter from Joseph Smith Jr. to the Saints dated 6Sep1842, he set forth in much greater detail the biblical foundation for the practice of baptizing the dead.  However, that expanded dissertation on the practice did not set forth any specifics regarding which living beings were authorized to undertake such baptisms, nor was there any delineation offered regarding the “proxy’s” relationship to the dead.

“I knew of the work being done on the temple at that place from the time it began until the building was burned in 1848. It was not finished. The basement was fitted for occupation, and the baptismal font was ready for use. The auditorium on the first floor was completed sufficiently to be seated and occupied for assembly purposes. The stairway on the south side was completed for use. The auditorium on second floor, the stairway on north side, nor any other portion of the building except those above-named were completed; though the small rooms above the second floor auditorium were used by President Young and the resident church authorities for various purposes.”  JOSEPH SMITH [III], Lamoni Iowa, June 26, 1897

“10Jun1844 – F. M. Higbee was granted a writ by the Carthage Court for the arrest of Joseph Smith and numerous other Nauvoo LDS leaders, including William Edwards, on the charge of Riot.  [Destruction of the “Expositor” press.]  Although subsequently released from custody following wits of habeas corpus, this same group were rearrested on 14Jun1844.”  NOTE: the referenced William Edward is believed to have been William Holliday Edwards, the eldest son of Thomas Striplin Edwards and Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards.

“William Holliday Edwards: 13 June 18211–13 May 1846.2 Policeman.3 Born in Overton Co., Tennessee.4 Son of Thomas Edwards and Elizabeth.5 Baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints, before Oct. 1839.6 Ordained an elder, Oct. 1839, in Commerce (later Nauvoo), Hancock Co., Illinois.7 Appointed Nauvoo policeman, Dec. 1843.8 Married Eliza Allred, 1 Jan. 1844, in Nauvoo.9 Among those arrested for destruction of Nauvoo Expositor press, 1844.10 Accompanied James Emmett’s expedition to explore western U.S., 1844; left expedition and returned to Nauvoo, 1845.11 Died in Garden Grove, Decatur Co., Iowa Territory.12”

A fundamental principal of the proxy baptism ritual was that a deceased person, who when living, had not been afforded the blessing of baptism (a recognized prerequisite for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven), could be baptized after death.  The caveat being that the deceased person had the option of accepting or rejecting such baptism by proxy at the Day of Judgment.

Early manifestations of proxy baptism seem to have allowed a female to undertake baptisms for both deceased males and females.  Similarly, living males could undertake baptisms for both deceased males and females.  Further, from a quick glance at the list of persons for whom Elizabeth Edwards is reported to have undertaken proxy baptisms, it would appear that she may have been limited to deceased ancestors only, i.e., someone of direct kinship.  The author cannot state that this ancestral connection was practiced absolutely, but it would certainly appear so.  As we scrutinize the probable ancestral connections of each of the recipients of Elizabeth Edwards’ proxy baptisms, the reader may ultimately have to judge for themselves the actual process and the implied kinships.

Who was Elizabeth Edwards, and how might she have been connected to the Arterbury family?  In the main, we only “know” of Elizabeth’s ancestral identity through our analysis of the Nauvoo temple records.[8]  But, her ancestral identity, as suggested by the proxy baptisms, is also supported by a death record for Elizabeth Pettigrew in Salt Lake UT summarized as follows:

Name: Elizabeth Pettegrew

Age: 67

Birth: Date: 1790 [30Aug1790, Chester County SC, daughter of Nathan and Priscilla]

Death: Date16 Jul 1858

Death City: Salt Lake City

Death County: Salt Lake

Spouse: David[9]

There is also the Nauvoo Temple blessing record for Elizabeth Edwards, abstracted in the index card displayed in Figure 16-16, below:

The death record does not give the maiden name for this Elizabeth, widow of David Pettigrew, but it does identify Elizabeth’s parents as having been named Nathan and Priscilla and gives her birth information as 30Aug1790 in Chester County SC.  When that data is compared to the ancestral data given in Elizabeth Edwards’ patriarchal blessing record, it seems evident that Elizabeth Edwards and Elizabeth Pettigrew were one and the same person.  Thusly, from the patriarchal blessing record, we now know that Elizabeth’s parents were Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury.  The author is indebted to one specific researcher for virtually all of the Mormon records referenced in this work.  That researcher is known to the author only by her first name, Kathy, and her e-mail address of kgsearcher@aol.com.  On 15Oct2018 Kathy offered the following data:

kgsearcher@aol.com

To: battebe@yahoo.com

Oct 15, 2018 at 6:52 PM

Robert,

From the Nauvoo Temple records for Elizabeth she did temple work for the following people and how she was related to them. I hope this helps, I just wonder if the Nathan and Patty that people have listed as coming from Michael may be in error. Just a thought, as the evidence seems to show that Elizabeth is his granddaughter. Here is the list:

Michael Artebury  gd. dau

Elizabeth Artebury  gd. dau

John McDaniel  niece

Elizabeth McDaniel niece

John Mayfield  niece

Permeli Mitchell  sister

Allen Mayfield  niece

Fanny Mayfield  niece

Jonathan Mayfield  gd. dau.

Jimy Mayfield  gd.dau

William Roden  niece

Molly Roden  niece

The record for this couple is a little confusing.

Aunt     Neddy Arteberry  written very faintly next to aunt is the word uncle. Since this was a marriage record I would guess uncle is the correct word.

Aunt     Cissy Arteberry

Uncle John McDaniel

Aunt Elizabeth McDaniel

The list is a abstract of the original rolls. The next time I get to SLC I will have to see if I can see the original records to see if the abstract was done correctly.

Let me know what you think.

Kathy

From the foregoing abstract data from the Nauvoo Temple records we have the list of deceased ancestors of Elizabeth Edwards for whom she undertook proxy baptisms.  The author has located the abstracted records cited by Kathy, and attached those abstracted index cards in Figure 16-17, shown herein below.  Those baptism abstracts are contained in three consecutive index cards, and display the names of the recipients.  On Card Nos. 147 and 148 Elizabeth’s kinship is given relative to each party, and presumably the original roll record is identified in the right-hand column.  However, Index Card No. 149 appears to reverse the kinship focus to the recipient, rather than to Elizabeth.  Also, Card No. 149 has repeat entries for John and Elizabeth McDaniel.  Kathy seems to imply that the entries on Card No. 149 may have been in reference to marriages, even though the card heading states that they were baptismal records.  It does appear from the variance in the card formatting, that there was something distinctly different between the data on Card Nos. 147 and 148, versus the data on Card No. 149.  Pending a review of the  original roll records, the author cannot explain this variance in formatting. 

Each of the parties listed in Figure 16-17 are analyzed by the author as follows:

  1. Michael Artebury – gd. dau

Elizabeth Edwards apparently reported herself to have been the granddaughter of Michael Arterbury.  From the burial record abstract for Elizabeth Pettigrew and the patriarchal blessing record of Elizabeth Edwards, we have her parent’s names as Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury.  From the deed records of Chester County SC we have Priscilla Arterbury purchasing a 75 acre tract of land from her brother-in-law, William Roden, on Brushy Fork on 19May1790.[10]  It seems highly probable that this Priscilla Arterbury was the mother of Elizabeth Edwards Pettigrew.  It also seems unlikely that Priscilla Arterbury would have been purchasing land, if her husband were still alive, so it might be presumed that Nathan Arterbury had died within the year before May1790.  We also have Elizabeth‘s date of birth from her burial and blessing records as having been 30Aug1790.  From that fact, we might assume Nathan’s date of death having been sometime between about Dec1789 (when Elizabeth would have been conceived) and May1790 (when presumably widow Priscilla Arterbury purchased land).  It seems peculiar to the author that Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards Pettigrew did not undertake a proxy baptism for her parents, Nathan Arterbury and Priscilla Mayfield.  Perhaps there are provisions within the LDS Church ordinances which cover baptism of the parents of church members by some other means outside the rite of proxy baptism.

  • Elizabeth Artebury – gd. dau

Ditto.  Elizabeth Arterbury was the wife of Michael Arterbury, and presumed mother of Nathan Arterbury, and grandmother of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards Pettigrew.

  • John McDaniel – niece

John McDaniel was the uncle of Elizabeth Edwards, by virtue of his having married a sister of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, namely, Elizabeth Mayfield.  The estate settlement of Jonathan Mayfield on 25May1818 in Chester County named Jonathan’s six surviving children, including married daughters: Priscilla Arterbury, Elizabeth McDaniel and Mary Roden.

  • Elizabeth McDaniel – niece

Ditto, above.  Elizabeth Mayfield McDaniel was Elizabeth Edwards’ aunt.

  • John Mayfield  niece

John Mayfield was a brother of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury.

  • Permeli Mitchell – sister

The identity of Permeli Mitchell is perhaps one of the least certain of all of the persons known to receive a proxy baptism by Elizabeth Edwards.  She appears to have been identified as a “sister” to Elizabeth Edwards.  Since all of the females contained in this list appear to have been recorded by their husband’s surnames rather than their maiden names, it might safely be assumed that Permeli had married someone named Mitchell.  If we take this abstracted record at face value, it seems reasonable to assume that Permeli Mitchell probably was born Permeli Arterbury, daughter of Nathan and Priscilla Arterbury, and that she must have married an unknown Mitchell.  Unfortunately, there is a 30 year gap in the census records between 1790 in Chester County SC and 1820 when Tennessee census came into being.  While there were numerous male Mitchell candidates available in Chester County (most of whom were kinsmen of the Arterburys), there is virtually no way to determine from the records which Mitchell may have been the husband of Permeli.  The fact that Elizabeth did not perform a baptism for Permeli’s husband may suggest that he was still living in 1841.  The best we may be able to glean from this record is that Elizabeth may have had an older sister named Permeli, who had married a man surnamed Mitchell, and who had died before 1841.

  • Allen Mayfield  niece

Allen Mayfield was a brother of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury.

  • Fanny Mayfield – niece

Since the only female Mayfield siblings of Priscilla Mayfield known to have been living at the time of their father’s estate settlement in 1818 did not include a woman named Frances, or Fanny, then it seems very likely that Fanny was the wife of one of the Mayfield brother, possibly the wife of Allen Mayfield, since Fanny’s name followed immediately after Allen in this list.

  • Jonathan Mayfield – gd. dau.

Jonathan Mayfield was the father of Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, and maternal grandfather of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards.

  1. Jimy Mayfield – gd.dau

Jimy [aka Jemima?] Mayfield was the presumed mother of Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury, and grandmother of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards.  She may have predeceased her husband, as there was no mention of a wife in the estate settlement of Jonathan Mayfield.

  1. William Roden  niece

William Roden was the husband of Mary Mayfield, daughter of Jonathan and Jimy Mayfield, and uncle of Elizabeth Edwards.

  1. Molly Roden – niece

Molly [aka Mary] Mayfiled Roden was the wife of William Roden, and aunt of Elizabeth Edwards.

  1. Neddy Arteberry – aunt: [written very faintly next to “aunt” is the word “uncle”. Since this was a marriage record I would guess uncle is the correct word.] [Foregoing note added by Kathy]  This person was almost certainly Edward Arterbury, the brother of Michael Arterbury.  That being the case, then Edward Arterbury would actually have been Elizabeth Edwards’ grand-uncle.
  2. Cissy Arteberry – aunt:  This person very likely was Keziah Arterbury, wife of Edward Arterbury, in which case, she would have been Elizabeth Edwards’ grand-aunt.
  3. John McDaniel – uncle:  John and Elizabeth Mayfield McDaniel have already been presented in this section, herein above.  Uncle would have been the correct kinship relationship to Elizabeth Edwards.  It is unclear why John and Elizabeth McDaniel would have appeared in the Nauvoo Temple registry for a second time.  Perhaps, as suggested by Kathy, Items 13 thru 16 may have been associated with a marriage record, as opposed to a baptismal record.  If so, it raises the question, whose marriage?
  4. Elizabeth McDaniel – aunt:  Ditto, Item 15, above.

This concludes our presentation of the Nauvoo Temple records related to Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards Pettigrew, except to state that several baptismal records were also found in conjunction with her husband, Thomas Striplin Edwards, who received his patriarchal blessing at the hand of Hyrum Smith at Nauvoo on 22Nov1842.  A review of those records suggests that Thomas Edwards only undertook proxy baptisms for his direct ancestors, not including any relations through his marriage to Elizabeth Arterbury.  Those records also indicate that Thomas Edwards undertook proxy baptisms for both male and female ancestors.

In addition to the baptisms that were performed in the Temple font at Nauvoo commencing in Nov1841, it should be noted that baptisms for both the living and the dead were performed at Nauvoo prior to Nov1841 in the waters of the Mississippi River.  Like the Temple baptisms, those performed in the Mississippi River were recorded.  A partial record of those baptisms performed in the river prior to Nov1841 have been microfilmed and digitized in a document entitled Nauvoo baptisms for the dead in the Mississippi River which can be accessed online.[11]  An excerpt from that document, which encapsulates baptisms undertaken by Thomas Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards (page 13) is exhibited in Figure 16-18.  From this records it can be seen that Elizabeth Edwards undertook baptisms for both her father (Artibury) and her sister (Permeli Mitchell) on 4Jun1841.  Also found later in these records were the entries displayed on page 102 (Figure 16-19) in which Elizabeth undertook baptisms for Allen and Fanny Mayfield (uncle and aunt), and William and Molly Roden (uncle and aunt).

Now, having presented the principal ancestral records found in the Nauvoo registries relating to Elizabeth Edwards, we will attempt to infer the possible connections between Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards and Edward and Keziah Arterbury, aside from the obvious Arterbury blood ties.  First, it struck the writer as peculiar that Elizabeth Edwards would single out Edward and Keziah, to the exclusion of all her other Arterbury kinfolk who had predeceased her.  For example, why would she not have undertaken a proxy baptism for her other great-uncles, i.e., John Arterbury, William Arterbury Jr., Nathan Arterbury, or Charles Arterbury, and their respective spouses, all of whom were deceased before 1841?  She performed a proxy baptism for each of her Mayfield kinsfolk, including her maternal grandparents, aunts and uncles, excepting Abraham Mayfield, who was still living in 1840.  What, if anything, was special or unique about Edward and Keziah Arterbury?

The answer to this question may lie in a more precise and structured analysis of the kinship connections between Elizabeth Edwards and the various kinfolk for whom she undertook proxy baptisms.  The author has performed a fairly thorough study of the early history of the LDS church, particularly as it pertains to the practice of proxy baptisms, excerpts of which study and research have been iterated earlier in this section.  Nothing in that study lent any more definitive articulation of the proxy baptism ritual than has already been expressed.  In fact, nothing was found which expressly articulated anything relative to the proxy baptismal process other than the general reference to “the baptism of your dead”.  From this expression it might be inferred that such baptisms were limited to direct kinfolk [blood relations?], hence the reference to “your dead”.  Nothing was found to provide any instruction which might limit the gender of the dead vis a vis the gender of the living member.

However, upon scrutinizing the persons for whom Elizabeth Edwards undertook proxy baptisms, they appear to have been predominantly Mayfield kinfolk of Elizabeth Edwards’ mother [maternal kinfolk].  Exceptions include Elizabeth’s sister, Permeli Mitchell, her paternal grandparents, Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury, and her great-uncle and aunt, Neddy [Edward] and Kissy[ [Keziah] Arterbury.  Notably missing from this group was Elizabeth’s mother: Priscilla Mayfield.  Also missing were the husband of Elizabeth’s sister, Permeli, and her uncle, Abraham Mayfield, who presumably were still living in 1841.  The fact that Elizabeth Edwards undertook baptism for her father and not for her mother is striking.  Perhaps she had undertaken baptism for her mother, and that record is simply missing, or perhaps her mother had already been baptized, or it is entirely possible that her mother may still have been living in 1842.

Kathy (kgsearcher@aol.com) suggested in a recent e-mail that she was unaware of any church-ordered restrictions on proxy baptisms in the 1840’s, which would have guided Elizabeth Edwards in her selection of baptismal candidates.  In fact, Kathy suggests that it may simply have been a matter of the strength and depth of Elizabeth’s personal knowledge of her kinfolk.  This suggests that Elizabeth may have had a better knowledge of her Mayfield kinfolk, vis a vis her Arterbury kinfolk.  That possibility seems plausible, given that Elizabeth’s father may actually have died before her birth.  Kathy further suggests that Elizabeth may have been guided by a sense or awareness that those family members for which she performed her work “needed it more than the others.”  Following is an extract from Kathy’s most recent communication:

“In the research I’ve done on this it does appear that in the early days of doing proxy baptisms family members did the work for family members regardless of sex. Today only females do the work for females and males for males. In either case it is not limited to the paternal or maternal lines.

Why Elizabeth only did people mainly from her mother’s side of family would only be a guess at this point. It could be they were the family she had the best memories of. The short time the LDS were able to perform the Nauvoo Temple work was very limited and short. With the persecutions, mobs and other pressures on the Saints at that time, those may have contributed to the reasons…

There was no special reason for just a maternal line being done. All family members were and are important. It could be that with the limited time Elizabeth had she felt or was impressed that those she did have the work done for needed it more then the others.”[12]

While Kathy does not purport to be an authority on the ritual of proxy baptism as performed within the early LDS church, she clearly has spent a considerable amount of time researching and analyzing the history of her immediate ancestors, which include Thomas Striplin Edwards.  The author is inclined to accept Kathy’s assertion that Elizabeth Edwards would have been free to perform her work on any or all of her known ancestors, regardless of gender and regardless of whether connected to the maternal or paternal lineages.  That being said, we are still left with the mystery surrounding the inclusion of Neddy and Kissy Arterbury to the exclusion of all of the other Arterbury ancestors from Neddy’s generation, who were also deceased by 1840.

If the determining factor were simply a matter of Elizabeth Edwards’ knowledge of her ancestral background, might there have been factors in Elizabeth’s past which could have afforded her a greater knowledge of her Mayfield ancestors vis a vis her Arterbury ancestors.  First, it should be recognized that Elizabeth’s father very likely had died a few months before her birth.  Consequently, Elizabeth would have had no first-hand knowledge of her father, and possibly not even of her father’s immediate family. 

It can’t have been something as simple as living proximity, as Elizabeth wasn’t brought by her mother from Chester County SC to Jackson County TN until her early teens.  As a teenager living along the drains of Brushy Fork she surely would have become acquainted with most of her Arterbury, Mitchell and Mayfield kinfolk.  True, Edward and Keziah probably were Elizabeth’s nearest Arterbury neighbors along with the Mayfields, Rodens and Mitchells on Brushy Fork, but the other Arterbury brothers were not that far removed, some living on Burshy Fork, most living south of the Sandy River along Welches Fork.  It is also probable that these families all attended the Sandy River Baptist church, where such close social exposure should have left lasting memories on this young woman.  Furthermore, in Jackson County TN Elizabeth may have finished her teenage years in the near vicinity of her cousin, once removed, Moses Arterbury, presumed sole surviving son of Nathan and Patty Arterbury.  After Elizabeth’s marriage to William Hudspeth in about 1807, possibly in Jackson County TN, she and William are believed to have continued in residence in Jackson County for six or seven years.  They are believed to have continued living in the near vicinity of Overton County TN until about 1814, when they moved to Madison County AL where their final child, James William Hudspeth was born.  After William Hudspeth died in Madison County AL in about 1816, Elizabeth moved her family back to Overton County TN. 

In Overton County TN Elizabeth met and married Thomas Striplin Edwards, a basket maker from Rutherford County NC in about 1818.  Thomas and Elizabeth’s first child, Francis Marion Edwards, was born in Overton TN in Mar1820.  The family was recorded in the 1820 census living in Overton TN.  By Jun1821 Thomas and Elizabeth had moved to Illinois, where their 2nd son, William Holliday Edwards was born.  By Jul1820 they had moved to Mount Vernon, Jefferson County IL, where their 3rd son, Thomas Striplin Jr. was born.  In Nov1825 the family was still living in Illinois (possibly Jefferson County) when their final child, Ellen Shepard Edwards was born.

In the 1830 census the family was recorded living in Sangamon County IL with a total of seven children in the household: five males and two females, presumably a mixture of Hudspeth and Edwards children.  It appears that Elizabeth’s two oldest daughters from her marriage with William Hudspeth were no longer living at home.  In 1832 Thomas S. Edwards filed a plat map for 40 acres in Menard County IL.  In 1836 Thomas S. Edwards filed ten separate plat maps of approximately 40 acres each in Pike County IL.  Presumably he had relocated his family from Menard County to Pike County, where he settled into farming multiple tracts of land all situated in Section 16, Township 4S, Range 4W.  Figure 16-20 illustrates the approximate locations of the various plat map filings by Thomas S. Edwards in Menard County and Pike County between 1832 and 1836.  This figure also illustrates the location of the plat filed by Dr. Priddy Meeks in Brown County in 1839.  A more precise location of the tracts purchased by Thomas S. Edwards in Pike County in 1836 is illustrated in Figure 16-21.

In the Winter and Spring of 1838/9 Mormons began flooding into Quincy IL on their exodus from Missouri, following the issuance of the eviction and/or extermination order from Gov. Lilburn Boggs.  The “gentiles” of southern Illinois were very generous and humane in their reception of this group of “strangers” who suddenly, and unexpectedly appeared in their midst.  They opened their homes and their hearts to this beleaguered group of exiles.  Following is an excerpt from the “History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, which describes the resettlement of several Mormon families in the near vicinity of Pike and Brown Counties:

“This place [Quincy] is nearly full of our people, yet they are scattering off nearly all the while. I expect to start to-morrow for Pittsfield, Pike County, Illinois, about forty-five miles southeast from this place. Brother George W. Robinson told me this morning that he expected that his father-in-law, Judge Higbee, and himself, would go on a farm about twenty miles northeast from this place. Some of the leading men have given us (that is our people) an invitation to settle in and about this place. Many no doubt will stay here.”

In the 1840 census the household of Thomas S. Edwards was located in Pike County IL, between the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.  The household appears to contain Thomas S. Striplin Sr., aged 40 to 50, and four children: three males and one female, aged 15 to 30.  These children match the age ranges of the children born to Thomas and Elizabeth.  But, it would appear that Elizabeth was absent from the household, as well as all of her children by William Hudspeth.

By 1841 both Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards began appearing in the records of the Nauvoo Temple.  However, none of those records mention any direct connection between Elizabeth and Thomas.  They both appear to have undertaken proxy baptisms for various ancestors in the Nauvoo Temple, beginning in 1841.  Both Edward and Elizabeth received their patriarchal blessings from Hyrum Smith on 22Nov1842.  They both continued to appear in temple records until the year 1844.  On 1Feb1844 Thomas S. Edwards appeared in the Nauvoo Temple records marrying Sarah S. Smith.  Kathy reports that a schism arose within the Mormon church at Nauvoo, and that Thomas Striplin Edwards sided with a break-away sect, which eschewed Joseph Smith’s ordinance favoring polygamous marriage, whereas Elizabeth reportedly remained faithful to the followers of Joseph Smith.  This schism and adherence to separate branches of the Mormon church may explain the events in their respective lives after about 1843, but probably does not account for their apparent estrangement in the 1840 census.

On 11May1850 Thomas S. Edwards was recorded marrying Rosetta Brott in Knox County IL.  In the 1850 census the Thomas S. Edwards household was recorded in Fulton County, which is due easterly of Nauvoo IL.  Thomas’ wife was reported as Rosetta, and there were four young children aged 7 thru 20, all listed with the surname of Edwards.  Given the date of Thomas and Rosetta’s marriage, these children almost certainly were not of Thomas’ blood, but likely from an earlier marriage of Rosetta.

Also, in 1850 there is a census record in Salt Lake UT for the household of David Pettigrew, aged 59.  In David’s household were recorded two young women named Betsy and Elizabeth, aged 26 and 28, respectively, both born in South Carolina.  Given the death record of Elizabeth Pettigrew dated 16Jul1858 (presented herein above) it seems highly probable that one of these young women would have been Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edward Pettigrew.  Just which one is anyone’s guess.

Thus ends our saga of Elizabeth Arterbury Hudspeth Edwards Pettigrew.  The reader can make of the various marital gyrations of Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards, what they will.  The main point of presenting this rather elaborate history of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards, is to provide sufficient information as to allow us to evaluate whether there may have been something special in the connection between Elizabeth Edwards and Edward and Keziah Arterbury, to have warranted her singling them out from all of her Arterbury kinfolk for the ritual of proxy baptism.  Two possible affiliations occur to he author which will be presented hereinafter.  There may be more, but those will be left to the imagination of the reader:

  1. Mitchell Connection:  Several Mitchell-Arterbury researchers have opined that Keziah, wife of Edward Arterbury, may have been Edward’s 1st cousin, the daughter of David and Mary Mitchell, born Mar1753 in Prince Georges County MD.  First, it should be stated that this writer is totally unaware of any documentary proof of such a union.  But, it must be admitted that Keziah Mitchell would have been of the appropriate age to have been Edward’s wife (being about five years his junior), and there is strong evidence to suggest that Keziah’s family had relocated to Chester County SC sometime around 1769.  Edward is on record as having been in Chester County by about 1772.  So, we certainly can pass the time and place convergence test.  Other factors auguring in favor of Edward’s wife having been Keziah Mitchell is the fact that they lived their entire period in South Carolina along Brushy Fork and Wilson’s Creek, the same tributaries on which the Mitchell’s resided.  Also, the transactions involving Edward and Keziah frequently included members of the Mitchell family.  Let’s hypothesize that Edward’s wife was his 1st cousin, daughter of David and Mary Mitchell.  Let’s also hypothesize that Elizabeth Edwards’ sister, Permeli, had married a descendant of David and Mary Mitchell.  This hypothesis has a higher probability of actually happening, as Priscilla and Nathan were living among Nathan’s Mitchell kinsmen on Brushy Fork for a decade or more, before Priscilla upped stakes and moved to Tennessee.  So, her eldest daughter would have had more than ample opportunity to meet and marry a Mitchell kinsman.  Again, we appear to have passed the time and place convergence test.  So, assuming these two hypothetical events actually happened, we then must ponder whether that connection alone may have been sufficiently strong for Elizabeth Edwards to sponsor her grand-aunt and grand-uncle for the ritual of proxy baptism?  Being totally unfamiliar with Mormon doctrines and ordinances, it is difficult for the author to place any value on the probability of this being Elizabeth’s primary motivation.  Perhaps other persons more knowledgeable in these matters can offer better insights.

ADDENDUM:  On rereading this manuscript during the Corona Virus outbreak in Winter 2019 the author had an epiphany (hopefully not a delusion).  A year earlier, when the author was initially performing the research for this piece, it was suggested by his Mormon source (Kathy) that these proxy baptisms may have been guided by a gender-driven relationship.  Initially, because both Elizabeth Arterbury-Edwards and Thomas Edwards appeared to have sponsored baptisms for both male and female ancestors, the author dismissed gender as a factor in his analysis.  On rereading this manuscript one year on, it occurs to the author that there may, in fact, have been a gender-driven connection underlying these baptisms.

If we exclude Elizabeth’s paternal grandparents [Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury], and her paternal uncle and aunt, [Edward and Keziah Arterbury], the other ten family members were all related to Elizabeth’s maternal [Mayfield] ancestors except for her presumed sister, Permeli Mitchell.  From this “fact”, it might be construed that Elizabeth was guided by some biblically-based stricture that limited her authority to undertake proxy baptisms only for ancestors connected by either blood or marriage to her maternal family branch.  If that were the case, then we could have the basis for the baptisms of Jemima [mnu] Mayfield, her husband [Jonathan Mayfield] [maternal grandparents], and their children [Elizabeth Mayfield-McDaniel, John Mayfield, Allen Mayfield, and Mary Mayfield-Roden], and those children’s spouses.

Such rationale could establish the basis for the baptisms of all fourteen parties except for Elizabeth Edwards’ paternal grandparents, a paternal aunt and uncle, and a sister.  It may well have been the fact that the paternal grandparents [Michael and Elizabeth Arterbury] were connected to Elizabeth Edwards by the marriage of her mother [Priscilla Mayfield] to their son [Nathan Arterbury], that she would have found the authority to sponsor their baptism.  Similarly, Permelli Arterbury-Mitchell, may have been eligible to receive proxy baptism because of her having descended from Elizabeth’s mother [again, a maternal branch connection].

If all of the foregoing arguments are held to provide the authority for the underlying proxy baptisms, then how is the baptism of Edward and Keziah Arterbury to be explained?  It is the author’s belief that the authority for Edward and Keziah’s baptism derived from Keziah’s kinship to Elizabeth, and that Edward’s baptism drew its authority from his marriage to Keziah.  Such kinship association and baptism authority could explain the reason that Elizabeth had not sponsored proxy baptisms for any other of her Arterbury [paternal] ancestors. 

If the authority for the proxy baptism of Edward and Keziah Arterbury flowed from the kinship connection between Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards and Keziah Arterbury, then what might that kinship connection have been?  It occurs to the author that that kinship very likely flowed through Mitchell blood.  We have already hypothesized that Elizabeth’s sister, Permelli, had married an unknown Mitchell, and speculated that that unknown Mitchell was very likely descended from David and Mary Mitchell, the brother and sister-in-law of Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards’ paternal great grandmother, Elizabeth Mitchell Yaxley Arterbury.  We have also hypothesized that Edward Arterbury’s wife may have been Keziah Mitchell, a younger daughter of David and Mary [Davidson] Mitchell.  If these presumed kinship connections are correct, then Edward and Keziah would have been 1st cousins.  Edward Arterbury had 1/4 Mitchell blood through his mother, Elizabeth Mitchell Yaxley Arterbury.  If we accept the ancestry of Keziah as a daughter of David and Mary Mitchell, then she could have also held 1/2 Mitchell blood, a more recent and stronger blood relationship to Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards’ brother-in-law, the unknown Mitchell husband of Permelli Arterbury Mitchell.

The author is of the opinion that the foregoing expanded analysis of the proxy baptisms sponsored by Elizabeth Arterbury Edwards provides a relatively strong argument that Keziah, wife of Edward Arterbury, was a daughter of David and Mary [Davidson] Mitchell, and that Edward Arterbury and Keziah Mitchell were 1st cousins.

  1. Elijah Arterbury Connection:  For some inextricable reason it appears that Edward and Keziah’s eldest son, Elijah, moved his family from Hardin County KY to Jackson County TN sometime between 1810 and 1820.  Elizabeth Edwards’ mother, Priscilla, also appears to have moved to Jackson County TN sometime before 1820.  Since the census records for Jackson County TN did not commence until 1820, we have not been able to establish just how long Elijah Arterbury and Priscilla Mayfield Arterbury may have live contemporaneously in Jackson County.  Further complicating this analysis is the fact that Jackson County census is recorded in alphabetical order in 1820, so we have no means of assessing the living proximity between the Arterbury households in Jackson County.  They could have been immediate neighbors, or they may have lived at opposite ends of the County.  That being said, the author has subsequently in this chapter defined the probable migration path of Elijah Arterbury’s children from Jackson County in 1830 to Spencer County IN in 1840.  From our recent discussions of Elizabeth Edwards, we have also learned that she had lived in Overton County TN between about 1808 and 1818, before moving to Illinois with her family.  Overton County immediately abuts Jackson County to the northeast, so it is possible that Elizabeth may have been able to establish a close connection with her cousins in Jackson County, particularly since her mother was in residence in that county for perhaps 20 years or more.  Is it possible that that relatively close geographic proximity between the families of Elizabeth Arterberry Edwards and Elijah Arterbury formed a lasting bond, which may have been a motivating factor in her selection of Edward and Keziah as candidates for proxy baptisms?  One other question to ponder is whether Elizabeth Edwards may not have been the older female, aged 50 thru 59, in Sariah Arterbury’s household in Spencer County in 1840?  The author has not been able to establish the whereabouts of Elizabeth Edwards in 1840.  It seems entirely possible that she could have elected to live with her kinsmen in Spencer County, as she was likely the only survivor of her immediate blood line.  Keep in mind that Spencer County was the home place of Dr. Priddy Meeks, and that he was converted to Mormonism at about the same time as Elizabeth and Thomas Edwards.  Further, Dr. Priddy Meeks was living in the vicinity of Pike County IL when he was first introduced to Mormonism.  And, lastly, Dr. Priddy Meeks went on a mission to Kentucky and Indiana to spread to work among his brethren.  Might Dr. Priddy Meeks have been instrumental in the conversion of Thomas and Elizabeth Edwards?  Certainly, if Elizabeth Edwards did actually reside with Sariah Arterbury’s family in Spencer County for a period of time, that may have been sufficient contact to trigger her election of Edward and Keziah for proxy baptism.

We have given the reader two fairly strong arguments for Elizabeth Edwards having sponsored Edward and Keziah Arterbury.  It is also a possibility that Elizabeth was motivated by a combination of these two factors.  It is also possible that Elizabeth was motivated by something totally outside our comprehension.  It is the author’s hope that in raising these question, it may motivate some other intrepid researcher to dig deeper, and may add flesh to these meager bones.

APPENDIX 16-A

Genealogical Research Tools

The following research and analytical tools were devised by Robert Atteberry in about 2006 to facilitate his analysis of genealogical records within a qualitative and quantitative framework and to establish a rational basis for evaluating hypotheses or conclusions reached regarding kinship connections or affiliations.  Application and use of these tools has been proven to elevate the probability of otherwise purely hypothetical events having occurred.  The reliability of outcomes decided from the application of these tools is not absolute, but can be used to establish connections that might not otherwise be recognized to exist.

Tool No. 1:  Time and Place Convergence – this is one of the most fundamental and important tools available to a genealogical researcher.  This tool is so simplistic in its concept, that its value may not occur to the average researcher.  If we have an hypothesis about a particular event, i.e. a marriage, a child’s birth, or a land transaction, a time and place convergence test may enable us to either include or exclude that event from having occurred.  Given the limited mobility of persons living in colonial America, it is reasonable to expect that they would need to have been in the near vicinity of one another around the same time that the event took place.  In the case of a marriage, we must establish the presence of each of the individuals, and/or their possible family members, at the same place at the same time.  Absent the ability to establish time and place convergence of the involved parties, the probability of the event having occurred must be considered less likely if not impossible.  If we can establish to a fair degree of certainty that the parties could not have been in the same place at the same time, we may be able to debunk the hypothesis to a level of improbability.

Tool No. 2:  Close Geographic Proximity – census, tithing, processioning, road orders, voter rolls and other like records frequently can be used as a means of establishing close geographic proximity.  For example, logic suggests that census records were compiled by the chronicler actually traveling to the homes of the householder’s.  Further, logic suggests that these census records were collected over a period of several weeks, as the chronicler systematically traveled along the byways of the precinct, in a longitudinal sequence.  Consequently, the persons abutting an individual entry in the record were very likely that individual’s nearest neighbors, getting more distant as we radiate out in either direction within the census record.  When families migrated and settled, they frequently undertook their relocation in the company of other, near relations or closely allied families.  So, when we find a cluster of households of apparent kinsmen in a census list in close geographic proximity, we can ascribe a higher level of kinship, the nearer that proximity.  If parties are immediately abutting in a list, and bear the same surname, there is a high probability that they shared a full-blood kinship, i.e., father and son, or brothers.  Moreover, if it can be established with certainty that they lived in the same household, they almost certainly shared a full-blood kinship. 

Examples of close geographic proximity interpretation:

  1. Edward and Elijah Arterbury in 1810:  In the 1810 census of Elizabethtown, Hardin County KY the households of Edward Arterbury and Elijah Arterbury were listed immediately abutting one another.  Having studied the composition of the households of Edward Arterbury in the 1790 and 1800 census, it seemed clear that he had an older son born before 1790.  Further study of Edward’s household in 1810 indicates that that older son was no longer living in Edward’s household.  Evaluating the household of Elijah Arterbury in the 1810 census, it is clear that he was a relatively young adult.  Since he could not be found in any of the earlier census records, it was reasonable to assume that Elijah had recently become a head of his own household sometime between 1800 and 1810.  Aggregating all of these factors about the households of Edward and Elijah Arterbury, and given their extremely close geographic proximity in 1810, it is logical to conclude that Elijah Arterbury was the older son of Edward Arterbury.
  2. Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Arterbury in 1810:  In the 1810 census record from Grayson County KY the households of Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Artebury were listed abutting one another, excepting Michael, who was separated only by the household of James Watkins.  Also, abutting Michael Arterbury were the households of Abraham and John Peebles.  Following the author’s interpretation of close geographic proximity, it seems reasonable to assume that these three Arterbury men shared a very close kinship, possibly a full-blood relationship.  We know with some certainty that this Michael Arterbury was the eldest of the Arterbury brothers, descended from William Arterbury, the immigrant.  We further know, with a fairly high level of certainty, that Israel Arterbury was a son of Michael Arterbury, given his appearance in the Barnwell District census records of South Carolina in 1800, and Michael’s appearance in the Orangeburg District census in 1790.  We further know, from the marriage record of Mary Peebles and Melchizedek Arterbury on 11Jan1808 in Hardin County, that Melchizedek was the son-in-law of John Peebles.  Many Atterbury genealogical researchers, including James E. Branch, claim that Melchizedek was a son of Charles and Sarah Arterbury.  In the 1810 census record Charles Arterbury was recorded on page 6 of 8 in Grayson County, whereas Melchizedek, Israel and Michael Arterbury were recorded in a tight cluster on page 5 of 8, separated from Charles Arterbury by 61 households.  Charles Arterbury was recorded abutting the household of Isaiah Arterbury, the presumed eldest son of Charles Arterbury (close geographic proximity).  If Melchizedek were a son of Charles Arterbury as claimed by numerous researchers, why was Melchizedek living next door to Michael and Israel Arterbury, and his father-in-law, John Peebles, and not next door to Charles Arterbury?  This may be an example in which the theory of close geographic proximity does not work, or it may be an example of it actually working.  It seems more likely to the author that Melchizedek was actually a son of Michael Arterbury, and not of Charles Arterbury.
  3. Edward, Nathan and Hasel Arterbury in 1820:  In the 1820 census of Daviess County KY were recorded households headed by Edward Arterbury, Nathan Arterbury and Hasel Arterbury, all in relatively close geographic proximity on the same census page (11 of 17).  From an analysis of the household composition for Edward Arterbury in 1790 thru 1820, it is evident that he had two younger sons born after 1790, who were no longer in his household in 1820.  Since Edward’s was the only mature adult male household in Daviess County in 1820, it seems reasonable to assume that Nathan and Hasel were the young sons, previously recorded living in Edward’s household in 1800 and 1810.  Again, not all genealogical researchers concur with this kinship attribution between Nathan, Hasel and Edward, but given the aggregation of factors, and their relatively close geographic proximity in 1820, it is the author’s belief that Nathan and Hasel were Edward and Keziah’s  younger sons.
  4. Zachariah and James Arterbury in 1840:  In the 1840 census from Bonne Femme, Howard, Missouri we have the record of the household of J. Atterbury.  Closer scrutiny of this record indicates the persons first name initial to actually have been “Z.”.  Review of the Howard County census in 1830 reveals the existence of the household of Zachariah Atterbury, which composition closely aligns with the 1840 record for Z. Atterbury.  Most genealogical researchers, including James E. Branch, report Zachariah as a son of Charles and Sarah Arterbury.  Yet, living in Z[achariah] Atterbury’s household in 1840 was an elderly male aged 80 thru 89.  It seems probable that this elderly male was the father of Zachariah Atterbury.  Assuming that to be the case, the only octogenarian male Atterbury known to be living in Missouri in 1840 was James Arterbury, widowed husband of Dorcas Wilkerson.  James Arterbury is believed to have had three sons living in Missouri in 1840: James Jr., Ashford and John.  If James Atterbury was the elder male in Zachariah’s household in 1840, and if he had three sons still living in Missouri in 1840, why would he be living in the household of a purported nephew, rather than in the home of a son?  Probably because Zachariah was James Arterbury’s son, and not the son of Charles and Sarah as claimed by so many other researchers.  Again, we have a fundamental geographic proximity test (two parties living in the same household) which almost certainly establishes a full-blood kinship connection between James Atterbury and Zachariah Atterbury as father and son.

Tool No. 3: Maternal Surname Perpetuation – throughout the colonial records we encounter given names (either first or middle) which of their very nature are recognizable as having been surnames.  When the histories of those families are studied in greater detail, that obscure given name can almost always be traced to the surname of a maternal ancestor.  The author has dubbed this practice of using maternal surnames as a given name “Maternal Surname Perpetuation“.  It is an understandable, almost innate, desire, given the practice within western civilization of married woman adopting the surname of their husband.  Without the practice of maternal surname perpetuation, the female surname heritage abruptly ends with a daughter’s marriage.  Awareness of this practice can be used by a genealogical researcher as an additional tool in our research arsenal to unravel the mystery of a female’s ancestry.  Once invoked, the practice can then be passed on to future generations.  So, we must be careful in our interpretation of the genealogical record, to insure ourselves that we are dealing with the very first instance of that maternal surname occurrence within that family branch.  We should also be aware of the fact that the repetitive usage of a maternal surname as a given name can actually jump across family lines. 

Examples of Maternal Surname Perpetuation interpretation:

  1. David Davidson Mitchell:  In Chester County records can be found the name of David Davidson Mitchell in connection with land records involving various members of the Mitchell and Atterbury families.  Clearly, the middle name of Davidson was not a conventional given name, but does occur with some frequency as a surname, primarily emanating from Britain.  Researching the ancestry of David Davidson Mitchell it became clear that he was a son of David and Mary Mitchell, who first began appearing in records in Chester County SC around 1769.  Further analysis of David Mitchell’s family established, with a fairly high level of certainty, that he was an uncle of the Atterbury brothers, descended from William Atterbury (immigrant) and Sarah Mitchell, sister of David Mitchell.  Further research into David Mitchells wife, Mary, suggests that she may have been born Mary Davidson, probable daughter of John Davidson and Elizabeth Marbury of Prince Georges County MD.  It was only through the recognition that Davidson was probably a maternal surname passed down through the David Mitchell line from his wife, that the author was able to locate and document Mary Davidson’s probable parentage.
  2. Greenberry Atterbury:  It should be obvious to the more experienced researcher that Greenberry was not a common given name, and that it probably emanated from a surname.  A search of London vital records spanning the 16th thru the 19th centuries revealed a total of 85 instances of the surname of Greenberry, and zero instances of the given name of Greenberry.  A similar test of the U.S. census records for 1810 revealed a total of 59 instances of the given name of Greenberry and exactly zero instances of the surname of Greenberry.  Of the 59 instance of the given name of Greenberry, 2 were reported in South Carolina, 14 in Kentucky and 21 in Maryland.  A similar test was performed on the 1790 census in which there were a total of 35 instances, with 27 having been in Maryland.  Clearly, from this data it can be inferred that the surname of Greenberry was not very common in Britain, and virtually non-existent in America.  Also, use of Greenberry as a given was strictly a colonial America phenomenon, which initiated mainly in Maryland during the 18th century, and then migrated westward into Virginia and the Carolinas, and ultimately to Kentucky by 1810.  In searching for a match that most closely fit geographically with the Atterburys, we discover the existence of Greenberry Roden in Chester County as early as 1790.  Greenberry Roden is believed to have been a son of John Roden and Elizabeth Potts.  Research into the ancestry of Elizabeth Potts suggests her mother was Elizabeth Greenberry, wife of John Potts.  Given the frequent interactions between various members of the Roden and Atterbury families in Chester County, including membership in the same church, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Greenberry Atterbury’s given name had some connection with the Roden family.  Through a rather extensive investigation, with which we will not burden the reader at this juncture, it was established that Greenberry Atterberry’s mother very likely was Sarah Roden, daughter of John and Elizabeth Roden, sister of Greenberry Roden, and wife of James Atterbury, son of William Atterbury Jr. and his wife, Bridget.  If the author’s analysis is correct, then we have an instance where the maternal surname perpetuation first occurred within the Roden family, and then was passed on within the Atterbury family through a Roden-Atterbury intermarriage.  Without knowledge of the practice of maternal surname perpetuation, the author very likely would never have been able to make the connection to the Roden family.
  3. Hasel Arterbury: Much like the cases of Davidson and Greenberry, the given name of Hasel does not seem to fit with our 20th century notion of traditional given names.  Yet, in London during the 16th thru the 19th centuries there were a total of almost 100 instances of Hassell in its multitude of corruptions appearing as given names.  A similar search of London records revealed a total of 1331 instances of Hassell, etal., as a surname.  So, unlike Greenberry, Hassell was a much more common surname, and not all that uncommon of a given name in England.   In the American census of 1790 there are a total of four instances of a given name of Hassell, and 44 instances of the surname of Hassell.  The seemingly unrelated surname of Haskell appears to have been much more common as a  given name and a surname in both Britain and America than Hassell.  In spite of its apparent popularity as a given name in Britain, it was quite rare in America.  Only four instances of the given name of Hasel are found in the 1790 census in America.  However, there were records of interest found in Chester County SC in 1790 thru 1810 involving a Hazle or Hazel Hardwick, who lived along the Sandy River in relatively close proximity to the Arterburys and their known kin.  In fact, Hasel Hardwick was one of three people who supplied the security bond for administration of the estate of James Atterbury, son of William Atterbury Jr.  In tracing the genealogy of Hasel [aka Hazle] Hardwick it is suggested that he was a son of Joseph Hardwick and Ann Hasel, born about 1727 in Stafford County VA.  He presumably received his given name from his mother’s maiden name (maternal surname perpetuation), although documentation of these facts is lacking.  He in turn, passed his given name along to his son, Hasel Hardwick Jr., who appeared in Chester County records along with his father, including the 1800 census.  A daughter of Hasel Sr., Susannah Hardwick, married Peter Petrie in Chester County, and they are believed to have named their first born son Hasel Petrie.  So, clearly the given name of Hasel or Hazle was a very rare name in the Atterbury neighborhood around Chester County.  The fact that Edward and Keziah appear to have given the name of Hasel to their son would seem to suggest a connection to Hasel Hardwick.  It seems entirely possible that Keziah may have been another daughter of Hazel Hardwick, which kinship connection could account for Edward and Keziah naming a son Hasel Artebury.

Tool No. 4: Allied Parties Analysis – we should never ignore the allied parties encountered in association with our ancestors, as they frequently prove to be related kinsmen.  The most common instances of allied parties are found in marriage records, guardian records, estate records, land records, court records, church records, and yes, census records.  Each category of record is briefly dissected as follows:

  • Marriage Records: petitioners, bond agent, minister, witness(es), affiants.
  • Guardian Records: minor children, parents, guardians, witness(es), bond agent, affiants.
  • Estate Records: testator/deceased, kinsmen, heirs/legatees, bond agents, debtors/creditors, appraisers, administrators, trustees, grantors/grantees, bidders/buyers, assigners/assignees, guardians, litigants.
  • Land Records: grantors/grantees, former owners (chain of title), spouses or other kinspersons, adjacent owners, bond agents, affiants, litigants/claimants, witnesses.
  • Court Records: This category covers a multitude of record types, usually involving some form of debt or tort: claimants, defendants, witnesses, bond agents, injured parties, appraisers, obligees, commissioners.
  • Church Records: organizers, members, lay leaders, ministers, officers, disenfranchised, petitioners/supplicants, witnesses, accusers/recusants.
  •  Census Records: targeted surnames, heads of households, household members, nearest neighbors (usually within one page proximity).

Each allied party should be thoroughly evaluated within the limits of available resources, as to their ancestral backgrounds, places of origin, occupations, religious affiliations, length of residence, migratory path, and age and gender relative to our target.  This is not intended as an exhaustive sampling of allied party sources or vetting methods, but should give the researcher a solid basis for recognizing the presence of a prospective allied party, and the methodology to be applied in vetting each party.  This may seem a bit extreme, but the author has found from experience that allied parties more often than not have a meaningful affiliation with the targeted ancestor, and frequently lead to other lines of inquiry that can further fill in the voids in our knowledge, thus providing a broader and more detailed understanding of our target ancestor.  Who knows, we may even find other, heretofore unknown, kinsmen hidden among the forest of mysterious bystanders. 

APPENDIX 16-B

1830 Arterbury Household List


[1] https://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/PMeeks.html, accessed 15Oct2018.

[2] http://genealogytrails.com/ind/spencer/twp-histories.html, accessed 20Oct2018.

[3] This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been a brother of Atha Meeks, who was murdered by Indians at his cabin in Spencer County IN in 1812.  Atha Meeks was the father of Dr. Priddy Meeks, who converted to Mormonism, married Sarah Mahurin (daughter of Stephen Mahurin and Sarah Meeks) and migratied to Orderville Utah.  This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been the same person, who witnessed the LWT of Richard Arterberry I, and went the surety bond on Richard’s estate administration.

[4] This Priddy Meeks is believed to have been the Thomasonian Herbalist Doctor, who married Sarah Mahurin and migrated to Salt Lake Utah as part of the 2nd Mormon migration.

[5] Stephen Mahurin (1774-1849) – Find A Grave Memorial, accessed on 16Apr2021.

[6] The Black Cholera Comes to the Central Valley of America in the 19th Century – 1832, 1849, and Later, Walter J. Daly, M.D.,  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2394684/

[7]

[8] The author is indebted to Kathy (E-mail Address: kgsearcher@aol.com) for the discovery of the Nauvoo Temple records re: Elizabeth Edwards and her husband, Thomas Striplin Edwards.

[9] https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/6967/30846_00027917-00045/243000?backurl=https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/51881209/person/412014423478/facts/citation/1122018727263/edit/record, accessed 1Jan2019.

[10] Chester County, South Carolina Deed Abstracts, Volume I: Deed Books A-F, Brent H. Holcomb, 2005, p. 84.

[11] https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2114299, accessed 5Feb2019.

[12] Extract from an e-mail from Kathy at kgsearcher@aol.com to the author dated 4Feb2019.

Leave a Reply