In the News
Howell, Vincent (Vinson)
By Don Taylor
“In the News” is my reporting of newly discovered newspaper articles regarding the ancestors I am researching. The information found in newspapers often raises more questions and more research areas, but invariably suggests new avenues for research plus providing texture to the life of an ancestor.
Hiram Vincent Appointed Guardian
Hiram Vincent is my wife’s 3rd great-uncle. He is the son Berkett Vincent (c. 1776 – c. 1845) and the brother of John Vincent (1817-bef. 1870), my wife’s 2nd great-grandfather. This set of four articles show Hiram being appointed and maintaining his guardianship for two of his sons.
From the Bolivar Bulletin (Bolivar, TN) dated Friday, 6 March 1874.
“Synopsis County Court, March Term | 1874.” Guardians Appointed.
Hiram Vinson Guardian of his children.
It seems strange to me that Hiram would be granted guardianship of HIS children. I wonder if it was a legal thing or if there is more to the story. Certainly, the County Court Records should talk about what may have occurred.
Two years later, the following ran in:
TheBolivar Bulletin (Bolivar, TN) dated Thursday, 13 April 1876.
Hiram Vinson for J H and T A Vinson.
“J H Vinson” and “T A Vinson” must be Hiram’s two sons, Joseph Hiram Vincent and Thomas Anthony Vincent. In 1876, Joseph, the older of the two, would have been 15 years old and Thomas, 13. Yes, they are minor children, but I would not expect that a formal guardianship by their father would be required. There must be something else causing this. Court records should tell the story.
Two years after that, the following ran in:
TheBolivar Bulletin (Bolivar, TN) dated Thursday, 11 April 1878.
County Court Synopsis of Proceedings April Term 1878
Hiram Vinson renewed his bond as guardian of his children.
Finally, two years later the following ran:
TheBolivar Bulletin (Bolivar, TN) dated Thursday, 15 April 1880.
Venire July Circuit Court
Hiram Vincent renewed bond as guardian J H and T A Vincent.
Once again, the articles highlight that the surname Vinson and Vincent are used interchangeably. As a note, I use Vincent when speaking of the family line and use Vincent when talking about an individual. I use Vinson when a particular document uses the name. In 1880, the two boys would have been 19 and 17 respectively.
Determine why Hiram needed to be granted guardianship of his children in 1874. (Get copies of the court documents.)
All “In the New” entries used in this posting came from Newspapers.Com, their Tennessee Newspapers collection.
My wife’s third great-grandfather, Burkett Vincent, may have had 12 children, or he may have had eight. He apparently had two wives, Elizabeth Rose and an unknown first wife. To attempt to understand the Vincent family of Halifax, North Carolina, I thought I’d look closer at the children of Burkett (and Elizabeth).
Known Children of Burkett & Elizabeth Vincent
William Hiram Vincent
There were also two boys and two girls who were born between 1810 and 1820. It is unclear if these are William, John, Elisha, and a heretofore unknown girl. There was also another girl born between 1804 and 1820 that is presumed to be Burkett’s oldest daughter.
I’ll take a look at each of the children, in turn, starting with:
William Hiram Vincent (1814-1893)
1890 Census (Not Available)
1880 Census[i] – Hiram Vinson was a farmer living with three of his children in District 9, Hardeman County, Tennessee. With him are his daughter, Francis, and two sons, Joe and Tom.
1870 Census[ii] – Hiram Vincent was a farmer living with seven implied children. The oldest one and the youngest two were his children according to the 1880 Census, so I’m confident ascribing the other four children as his. This adds, James J., William, McAllister, and Martha to his list of children. It also provides a first name for his daughter Mary Frances, and middle initials for Joseph and Thomas. All the children were born in Tennessee, so I’d expect to find the family in Tennessee during the 1860 Census.
1860 Census[iii] – Hiram Vintson [sic] and his wife Catherine are living in Hardeman, Tennessee, with their children, Mary, James, William, Elisha, and Martha. Elisha wasn’t enumerated in the 1870 Census, so he is assumed to have died between 1860 and 1870. Mary and James attended school. All were enumerated as having been born in North Carolina, although later censuses all suggest they were born in Tennessee.
1850 Census[iv] – Hirum Vincin [sic] and his wife Catherine are living in Hardeman, Tennessee with their daughter, Mary. Hirum and Catherine had been married within the past year. Hirum is listed as “Overseer” for an occupation. Of Interest, Hirum is listed as 32 years old, suggesting birth between 1827 and 1828, where other census records suggest he was born between 1825 and 1826.
1840 Census – In my initial review of Burkett Vinson, I ascribed the male, 20 to 29 years old, as presumed to be John Vinson. Upon further research, I have learned that John had two brothers also born between 1810 to 1820, Hiram and James. The male, 20 to 29 years old in the household of Burkett Vinson could easily have been any of the three. A look through the other Vinson’s in Halifax County yielded four results. Only Burkett and Robert had households that included a 20 to 29-year-old male. Further, Paul Vincent of Hardeman County, Tennessee was the only household with a 20 to 29-year-old. So, Hiram could have been the young man in the household. Alternately, Hiram could be elsewhere, or he could have been missed completely.
1830 Census – In my review of Burkett Vincent, it appeared that the teenager, age 15 to 20, in the household of Burkett Vincent is Hiram (William Hiram Vincent).
1820 Census – In my review of Burkett Vincent, it appeared that one of the children, a male under 10, in the household of Burkett Vincent is Hiram (William Hiram Vincent).
William Hiram Vincent is in the FamilySearch tree as ID LHCZ-XB8. Census records before 1850 do not appear to clearly identify William Hiram Vincent as being enumerated. No new information regarding his parents was discovered.
[i] 1880 Census, Family Search, 1880 Census – [William] Hiram Vinson – District 9, Hardeman, Tennessee. “United States Census, 1880,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MD7D-QFM : 15 July 2017), Tom Vinson in household of Hiram Vinson, District 9, Hardeman, Tennessee, United States; citing enumeration district ED 58, sheet 474A, NARA microfilm publication T9 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), FHL microfilm 1,255,260.
[iii] 1860 Census, Family Search, 1860 Census – [William] Hiram Vintson [Vincent] – 7th District, Hardeman, Tennessee. “United States Census, 1860”, database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M8TD-4ZK : 18 March 2020), Martha A Vintson in an entry for Hiram Vintson, 1860.
[iv] 1850 Census (NARA), 1850 Census – Hirum Vincin – Hardeman, Tennessee. “United States Census, 1850,” database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MCDF-P2G : 4 April 2020), Mary Vincin in household of Hirum Vincin, Hardeman county, Hardeman, Tennessee, United States; citing family 676, NARA microfilm publication M432 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
I used to, mistakenly, say that there are no real “Brick Walls.” Typically, a “Brick wall” is just a difficult record to find or a record that isn’t worth paying someone else to find for you. In the case of Elizabeth, who married Burkett Vincent and had several children with him, including my wife’s 2nd great grandfather, John Vincent, there just might be a true brick wall. I have a couple more really involved actions to try but I’m not holding my breath thinking it will solve my dilemma.
3rd Great-grandmother: 37. Elizabeth Rose ? (1785 – 186?)
Elizabeth Rose (1785-186?)
I am yet to find a source for Elizabeth’s parents. I took a look at Ancestry Trees and found the following parents indicated:
Forty-seven (47) trees suggest William Rose (1759-1801) and Sarah Crawley (1775-1863).
Fourteen (14) trees propose Elisha Rose Sr. (1753-1795) and Hannah Sellers (1758-1812).
Two trees indicate Elisha Rose and Pheroby Powell (died 1794).
I have not found any sources proving her parents identities. All suggest other people’s trees as their source.
It appears that Elizabeth’s husband, Burkett Vincent. Died before the 1850 Census as Elizabeth is enumerated as the head of a household consisting of her and one daughter, Nancy. Also, during the 1850 Census her son John is living next door.
Looking at censuses before 1850, Elizabeth would have been a female in the household of her husband, Burkett.
The Burket Vinson household of the 1840 Census included a female age 50 to 59 which is presumed to be Elizabeth. Additionally, there are males and females enumerated that align with Burkett (Jr.), John, and Nancy in the household.
The 1830 Census throws the monkey wrench into the works. None of the children of Burkett and Elizabeth are enumerated. Rather four different boys and three different girls are enumerated. All older. I suppose it is possible they were entered on the wrong columns, but I don’t know. My suspicion is that Burkett had a first wife and children with her. The children were still with him, and another female, possibly a sister of Burkett, was in the household.
This idea carries on even stronger into the 1820 census. There, living in Burkett’s household is a female over 45. Elizabeth would have been 35 in 1820. So, I don’t believe it is Elizabeth with Burkett in either the 1820 or 1830 censuses. A scenario wherein Burkett was married, his wife died, he remarried Elizabeth. Elizabeth appears to have had children from a previous marriage, who then took on the Vincent surname.
Of course, this is all speculation, but it does provide a plausible explanation for the conflicting Census Records.
What I think I know
1785 – Elizabeth was born – Parents unclear.
1835 – Elizabeth Rose possibly married Burkett Vincent sometime between 1830 and 1840.
1840 – Elizabeth is probably the female 50-59 in the household of Burkett Vincent
1850 – Elizabeth is the 64-year-old head of a household consisting of her and her 25-year-old daughter, Nancy.
1860 – Elizabeth is the 75-year-old woman in the household of her son, John, his wife Ellenor, and their six children.
I believe that Elizabeth died sometime before 1870.
Further Actions / Follow-up
Query private tree owners for birth source information.
Detail the lives of each of the children of Burkett Vincent and Elizabeth Rose.
Detail the lives of the probable siblings of Elizabeth Rose.
Sometimes, while researching through the census records, some realization occurs that makes you smile and say, “oh wow!” Such was the case while I was researching my wife’s great-aunt Anna Lee (Howell) Boseman. During the 1910 census, just like during the 1900 census, women reported how many children they had and how many were still living. In Anna’s case she had 13 children and nine were living. All nine were identified as living with her and her husband, so that means any child born before 1910 and not listed must have died before the census.
The Living with William and Anna during the 1910 Census are the following children:
William Boseman Jr. 21
Jessie Boseman 17
Bernice S Boseman 15
Mollie M Boseman 13
George D Boseman 12
Russell L Boseman 8
Virginia L Boseman 5
Lilie M Boseman 3
Martin V Boseman 0
Maggie who was with the family in 1900 is missing in 1910, so Maggie must have died before 1910. The other five children are in both censuses:
Anna Lee Howell was born in November 1866
She Married William Jackson Boseman in 1886
They had 13 children, nine of them were living in 1910; eight of them lived to adulthood.
She died in her residence, at the ripe old age of 84, on 31 July 1951 in Weldon, Halifax County, North Carolina and is buried at Cedarwood Cemetery.
I feel that the connections identified by ThruLines as going through Anna Lee (Howell) Boseman are highly reliable.
This week I took a look at some of my wife’s Ancestry DNA matches and some of her ThruLinestm results.
There were no new matches in her 2nd cousins and closer, so I started looking at her third cousins.
The first three were 3rd to 4th cousin.
cM shared on x Segments
3C = 3rd Cousin
196 cM 11 Seg
3C – Samuel Aquilla & Martha Ann (Bryan) Long.
179 cM 8 Seg
No Tree – I’m awaiting response to contact email.
166 cM 9 Seg
No Tree – I’m awaiting response to contact email.
No new connections on her grandparents.
For her great-grandparents, there were 2 matches for her Howell/Vinson line and 3 for her Hobbs/Long line. There were no new individuals on her Darling, McAllister, Huber, or Trümpi lines.
Both of the individuals connect via Grandpa Howell’s sister Anna Lee Howell. One indicates that he is descended from William J. Boseman and the other indicates he is descended from Virginia L. Roseman. My records indicate that Anna Lee married William Boseman in 1886 and had three children with the Boseman surname, Maggie, William, and Jesse. After that, my records show that she had five children with the surname Roseman. I’m not showing that Anna had a second marriage or showing any other reason for the surname change.
That lets me know I need to look more closely at Anna Lee Howell and her life and her children. Also, I’ll look more closely at William Jackson Boseman (1888-1962) and Virginia L Roseman (1905-___) and see if I can untangle the surname.
There were three ThruLinestm matches along the Hobbs line. All three were through great-aunt Annie Hobbs (1872-1953) who married Frank Alton Armstrong, Sr in 1890. They had three children, their oldest, Hazel G Armstrong (1895-1997). Hazel married Itimous Thaddus Valentine (1887-1970) and had five children that I am aware of. One of those children (possibly living) had at least four children, two of whom tested and were already in my (private) tree. The third person matching is J.H. a great-grandchild of Hazel through one of the other children (possibly living). I didn’t have him in my tree, but I did have his mother in my private tree, so I’m confident enough in his relationship to add him to my tree.
ThruLinestm indicates that both are second cousins twice removed. DNA Painter’s Shared cM Project 3.0tool v4 indicates that 2C2R should share between 0 and 261 cM of DNA with an average being 74cM. The ThruLines match “RC” and my wife share 52 cM and the second match shares 60 cM; so the proposed relationship fits the amount of DNA shared.
Genetic matches and TrueLines confirmed several people in my tree. It let me know that I need to further research three ancestors on a secondary line, and it allowed me to confidently add one new cousin.
If you are a descendant of Peter Fletcher Howell (1842-1924), I’d love to learn how you and my wife are related. Testing with Ancestry DNA is an excellent way for us to confirm our relationship and possibly you broaden your tree as well.
The ads and some of the links on this website are “affiliate links.” If you purchase after clicking on them, I will receive a small commission which will help me pay for this site. Please see my Disclaimer Page for more information.