Sometimes, when conducting research, we get lucky. We find a certain document that gives us much-needed information or a clue that leads us in the right direction for further research. Having access to the probate case file for Amelia Virginia's mother was certainly a stroke of luck. Not only did it give us valuable information that we didn't have before, but it also substantiated pieces of information that we were almost sure about, and gave us clues that helped narrow down certain time frames/dates. Oh, and of course, since we are trying to fill in the family's story, and not just fill out a genealogical data sheet, there were several helpful bits in there as well. Here is a quick rundown of what we learned from the case file:
1) Amelia Virginia's mother was most likely not named "Sophena" as is written on the 1860 census. The probate papers show multiple versions of her name, but the most likely of these is "Sophama."
Okay, now, I know I said this was going to be a quick run-down, but I have to put this out there: The whole name thing was really bugging me; I kept wondering how Sophama could have been misinterpreted as Sophiana. And then I realized that the family would have spoken with a Georgia accent, or a combination North Carolina-Georgia accent, and since there are variations to the Southern accents out there, the person writing her name may not have been completely familiar with the way they pronounced things. Sounds like a good theory, right? So I did a bit of research into Southern accents, and even though we are talking about Southern accents from nearly two hundred years ago (Silas having been born around 1810), the same principles probably apply. (In fact, I read several years ago that the modern Appalachian accent is probably very similar to the colonial American accent, and that is a pretty thick accent.) Anyway, apparently in today's deep South accent, which includes Georgia, the middle initial in So-pha-ma would have been pronounced as two separate syllables, making it sound something more like So-phah-am-ma. In addition, whereas Sophama would be pronounced by someone without a Southern accent with the stress on the "am" syllable, they would have put the stress earlier in the word. These two linguistic characteristics could explain how Sophiana could have been derived from Sophama-with-a-Georgia-accent (and somebody mistaking the "m" for an "n"). As for Sophania, that could have been an error made by accidentally dotting the third bump on the "m" in Sophama, which then could have been accidentally transcribed in subsequent documents. As for Sophena, that one still has me stumped, but I think for now I am going to refer to her as Sophama instead of Sophena. (Of course, research being the way it is, though, I might change my mind again!)
2) "Sophama" died sometime before October 5, 1858 - probably within the year prior, which means she did not die in childbirth with Harrison. (It dawned on me just now, while writing this post, that that doesn't mean she didn't die in childbirth - Harrison was born in January of 1856, so it is quite possible that she died during childbirth with an additional child who also did not survive.)
3) Amelia Virginia's father was still living in October of 1862.
4) Frances Angelina was for sure the eldest child of Silas and Sophama. She died before April 30, 1860.
5) Louisa was actually named Sophama Louisa.
6) Melvina was "Melvina T." and Seaborn was spelled just like I typed it.
7) James died prior to October 5, 1858.
8) One of the slaves was named John. (You will see how this is relevant in a later post.)
So, as I said, sometimes we get lucky with our research. But you know what? Sometimes we get really lucky. Sometimes those clues lead us to exactly what we need to find. Or, sometimes we just accidentally stumble on associated documents that answer even more of our questions.
As it happens, with our current line of research we managed to get not just lucky, but really lucky.
In addition to the probate case papers we looked at last time, I recently discovered the court minutes and records for this case, and the minutes for the associated Scarborough case, which will answer some of the questions we still have. (And in case you are wondering what questions we still have, keep reading!)
When did the mother actually die? Can we find an exact date or narrow it down further?
Was her name really Sophama?
Why did Silas need to petition the courts to be appointed as guardian for his own children?
What did the "G" for Sophama's middle initial stand for? Was she really a Garrett?
What happened to the probate case after 1862, since the papers don't really seem to have a conclusion?
What happened to the family after spring of 1863 (the date of the last evidence we have for them in Anderson County)?
Did James die at the same time as his mother?
When exactly did Frances Angelina die?
Silas had petitioned the courts to allow him to keep the slaves. It appears this was allowed, but was that a decision of the probate court or a result of the other case?
The Civil War was going on during the course of this probate and the related case. Did this have any affect on the outcome of either of them?
Okay. I debated back and forth with myself over whether we should look at everything all mixed up but in chronological order, or if we should look at each type of record in the order that I found them. There are benefits and drawbacks to both, but I think keeping each type separate might be less confusing, so I'm going to try that.
Now, I actually have no less than four separate indexes for this probate case:
The first one was created in 1991, and is supposedly an index to the indexes. It is different from all of the other index pages in that it names the children individually, and not just their mother. If you were paying attention in the last post, you will notice a few transcription errors in it. I actually came across this one years ago, but back then I was more just exploring the new FamilySearch website than actively researching the family. Also, only the indexes were "unlocked" on the website for the general public, so since I didn't have access to them anyway, I promptly forgot all about it.
The second one is the original index, and our family can be found on it twice - near the middle of the left-hand side, and then almost at the very bottom of the right-hand page. This is what FamilySearch says in the description for this microfilm item:
Probate index 1A 1846-1895 [NOTE: This appears to be the first index. This book contains a confusing number of case file numbers. Early case files were filed alphabetically without numbers, later numbers were assigned but they were still filed alphabetically. At a later date a new system was set up, the files remained in alphabetical order and were numbered as such. Therefore some without numbers now have them and those with numbers have a second number. NOT ALL changes are reflected in the index book.]If you look in the left margins, you can see what they are talking about as far as the numerous notations go, but our case papers say "21" at the top, and the index says "F21," so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. (The real problem is the way this stuff was put onto microfilm!)
The third one says in the FamilySearch description that it is a transcription of the previous book (but I'm not sure what "previous" refers to).
The fourth one is actually from the back of the index book that contained the third one (see the page numbers?), and is therefore an index to that index. I don't know how I even found it, because almost all of the old record books have the index in the front, not the back, and once I get through the letter of the alphabet I'm looking up, I don't generally scan through the rest of the index pages.
So. If you actually looked at each index page, you're probably saying, it all seems simple enough, right? Well, if you look at the top of the second index page, you will see that it says it is an index to the probate Records. But did I find any of those pages in the records books? I did not. Or if I did find one, it was not about our family. I finally figured out that it is actually an index to the probate Minutes (which is an entirely different set of books), by scanning through every single page of the minutes looking for our case and then noticing that the page numbers I found them on sounded familiar! Then, on a later day, after I found the third and fourth indexes, I discovered that those are actually the pages for the record books, which means the third index is NOT a transcription of the second index! (You have to have a lot of patience and perseverance to find what you are looking for on the FamilySearch website!)
Okay then. Let's look at the minutes. (You'll notice that these images are not in black and white. It dawned on me yesterday that, when looking at the Georgia Tax Digests, the microfilm images from FamilySearch were in black and white, but the digital images on Ancestry were in color. This means that the color ones are what the old books, with their non-acid-free paper, actually look like today! So I put a filter on these ones to make them look more authentic. If anyone wants the unedited, full-page non-filtered images, shoot me an email and I'll send you a download link. And remember, these will all be combined into one pdf file and put up on the Blackshear documents page when I am finished with the family!)
Here is the first entry for our case:
In case any of you don't know how to read cursive (I know that sounds ridiculous to us older folk, but it really is a thing for some of our kids out there), or have poor eyesight, or are just too lazy to enlarge the photo, here is what it says:
(October Term 1858)
Estate of Minor Heirs of Sophama
Blackshear decd-
Silas M Blackshear Guardian
Now
at this term of the court
Comes
on to be heard the Petition of Silas M Blackshear, asking
that
Letters of Guardianship issue to him of the persons and
Estates
of Seaborn Q, Melvina T, Sophama (C), Amelia V,
Simeon
M, and Harrison . M. Blackshear, minor Heirs of
Sophama
Blackshear, decd, their mother, and it appearing to the
Satisfaction
of the Court, that the legal notices had been given
and no
protest having been filed – and the said Seaborn Q,
Sophama
(C), and Melvina T, being over the age of fourteen
and being
legally cited to appear at this term of the Court, and
choose
for themselves their guardian, came not, but sent
their
written request that their father Silas M. Blackshear
should
be appointed – and the Said Silas M. being the
father
and natural Guardian of Said minors and legally
entitled
to Letters as such –
It is
therefore ordered decreed and adjudged
by the
Court, that Said Petition be granted and ordered
to
record.
Further ordered that
Letters of Guardianship of
the persons
& Estates of the Said S Q, M T, S (C), A V,
S M, & H M Blackshear, minor heirs of
Sophama Blackshear
issue to said Silas M. Blackshear
decd
k upon his giving Bond, within the legal time, in the
sum
of Four Thousand dollars.
Further ordered that Wm
Rogers, Gabriel
Rogers
and R. Underwood be appointed appraisers of
the property
of Said Minors, and report to the Court
within
Sixty days.
Further ordered that the
Bond this day
filed
by Said Guardian, in the Sum of Four Thousand
dollars,
with J. S. Hanks & J. J. Davis as securities be
approved
and ordered to record.This pretty much covers the first several documents that were in the probate case file we looked at last time. There isn't really any new information other than one big thing: the clerk who sat in on the court proceedings and took down the minutes, seemed to be pretty sure that the mother's name was Sophama.
(Oh, and this does say that Messrs Hanks and Davis backed the guardian bond, so their names should have been listed at the top of that form as sureties.)
(Oh, and I don't know what the deal was with Louisa being entered as Sophama "C." Maybe the clerk didn't know what a cursive capital L was supposed to look like???)
(Oh, and this is where we learn that this "written request" was sent into court (probably in the hands of their father who had to appear and pay his bond and all that), which means it was most likely written by a family member who ought to know what their mother's real name was, and it says Sophama.)
The next entry:
You'll notice that there is no date on this page, yet I added one to the caption - I made sure to look on the surrounding pages and note the date in the file name of each image when I saved them, so we would know when each was recorded.
This was also mentioned in the case papers, but only after the fact, in the first annual report, where Silas requested that he be able to retain use of the slaves. This court order says that he was "authorised and required" to hire them out, which sounds contradictory to me, "authorized" implying he wanted permission, and "required" implying that he didn't have a choice in the matter. I wonder how he managed to get the planting in and crops harvested if he was unable to work and had only Seaborn to help on the farm. I wonder if the girls all had to pitch in as well.
The next few entries are from more than a year later:
We saw Silas' request in his first annual report to keep the slaves (instead of hiring them out) due to his inability to work. Now we can see that the probate court approved that request. We can also see that, two years after the case was filed, the mother was still being referred to as Sophama.
Okay. We are going to stop here for a moment and talk about the mother's name again. I just went back to the case papers to see if the spellings of her name were consistent through time in both the case papers and the minutes. I noticed a few things that I didn't really notice before:
First, the minutes said that the children failed to appear in court, but instead sent in a letter requesting their father be named as their guardian. This means that the letter was not written by the same clerk who was filling out the case papers. The letter had the mother's name spelled as Sophama, which is just one more piece of evidence indicating that that was her actual name!
Second, the next two papers that were filled out, the Guardian Bond & Oath and the Letters of Appointment, both have the name written, and then overwritten:
See? I don't know how I didn't notice this before! This has Sophiana corrected as Sophama (or vice versa). If it was Sophiana written first and then corrected, there would have been no way to remove the dot from the letter "i." This would explain why later clerks might have gotten it wrong. It also occurred to me that the cover paper in the case file may have actually been written later, when the case was finished, and the clerk at that time might have just been copying from one of the case papers.
I am getting more and more sure that Sophama is the correct name.
The next entries in the minutes are from one year later:
It looks like the court expected Silas to just show up, and when he didn't, they presented him with a summons.
Nothing new (or even interesting for that matter). The next round of minutes begins after another year:
I'm beginning to see a pattern here - the one year mark rolls around, Silas doesn't show up, so they order him to be summoned, and then he finally comes. . . Or not:
Now I see why every year the annual report was presented several months later.
Now, looking back at all of these entries from 1861 and 1862, I noticed that the spelling of the mother's name is all over the place again. The weird thing is, they all seem to be written in the same handwriting. This last one didn't even spell the last name right, so I'm still sticking with Sophama!
If you remember, in the case file, the 1862 annual exhibit was the last paper. But there were several more entries in the minutes:
This was exactly one year after the last annual exhibit was presented, and they weren't messing around this time - they just cited him to appear right off the bat.
This is the first time that we see Silas not showing up with his annual exhibit in the term of court following his citation. And for some reason, neither of these citations were in the case file. Maybe because they were never actually delivered (the previous ones all said on the back that they were executed by delivery and then filed with the court)?
I couldn't figure out what that word before "citation" was, but since this is saying that the sheriff specifically is being ordered to go out and cite Silas to appear in court makes me think that I was right about the previous citations not being delivered to his person.
Okay, wait a minute. These entries jumped from 1864 to 1867. That is three whole years! So, either the index did not list all of the pages for this case, or Silas never did appear and the courts somehow dropped it and then picked it up again. (Maybe in the chaos following the end of the Civil War it just got forgotten.) I'm guessing that it was the latter, since the case file never shows any citations delivered or annual exhibits submitted after 1862.
Well, it looks like they were still trying to get him to show up.
And, still trying. I was wondering for awhile why they would be dragging the probate process out for nearly ten whole years, and then it dawned on me that Amelia Virgina and her two younger brothers would have been still under eighteen years of age at this point. Since Silas requested that the court appoint him as guardian of their estate, he would have had to file paperwork every year until they were no longer minors!
Here is the crazy thing, though: The property of the estate was two slaves and one mule. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves in January of 1865, and the Civil War was officially over in April of that year. This means that, other than the mule (if it was still living or hadn't been conscripted by the Confederate Army), the estate didn't even have any property anymore at this point!
And here is the other crazy thing: Remember how I said that Silas is no longer on the tax rolls for Anderson County after 1863? It is very likely that he had either passed or moved away. That would explain why he wasn't showing up for court, huh?
Holy Moly. There a couple of things going on here. First, the minutes have starting saying The Estate vs S M Blackshear. This implies that Silas was now a defendant in the case - probably because he was shirking his duties as guardian. Also, this says "to show cause if any she has why she fails to make her Annual Exhibit..." I'm sorry, what? Did the clerk of the court have no idea that S. M. Blackshear was actually a man? Weird, weird, weird.
The courts tried for another couple of months:
And then there was the last entry in the minutes:
And that was the end of it. I feel like I need to go back through the minutes and see if there were any missing entries during the years 1865 and 1866. I'm also pretty bummed that the minutes don't say why it was dismissed. You know my guess - Silas Blackshear was no longer living in Anderson County so it was pointless to keep trying to summon him to present an annual report.
So, did we get any of our questions from above answered yet? Well, we now know that the case continued after 1862. But the minutes did not answer the question about what happened to the family after that year, since Silas never showed up for court again. In fact, now I am wondering more than ever what happened to the family.
The fact that the spelling of the mother's name gets crazier and crazier as time goes on - as well as the confusion over the gender of S. M. Blackshear - could have been because the people working in the courthouse were no longer familiar with the family and their case, which is another indication that they may not have been living there any longer.
We also now know that it was the probate court that allowed Silas to keep the slaves to work on his property. Unfortunately, that was probably the question I cared about the least, and that's all we've got. So let's take a look at the probate records and see if they give any more information.
And here is a transcription of all of those pages:
These pages in the record book pertain to the selection and appointment of a guardian for the Blackshear children. They say that Silas felt it was "in the interest of said minors" that a guardian be appointed. When all I had was the probate case papers, I couldn't figure out why he would need to be appointed the guardian of his own children. Well, this tells us that for some reason he thought it was necessary to involve the courts and make it legally official. After finding the District Court minutes, I discovered that the reason for this was the lawsuit that his son-in-law filed against him and was pending at that time (we'll look at the details of that case in the next post).
As for the guardian bond, I had previously assumed that maybe the money that he owed which led to his property being auctioned off was due to taking out a loan to post this bond, but this kind of makes it sound like he didn't actually have to post the bond up front, but only pay the money if he failed to perform his duties as guardian. Maybe that's why he needed the two other men to sign as sureties - in case he failed in his duties and then didn't have the money to pay. Then again, it does say that he had "given Bond," so I really have no idea! Well, you know me, I don't like having questions hanging over my head, so I looked online for information about Texas guardian bonds. This is what I found on a legal website:
I also noticed that, like many modern fathers, Silas wasn't clear on how old his children really were. He was off on the ages of the oldest three children, estimating the girls both at a year younger and Seaborn at three years younger (under age of fourteen). This is why only the two girls were cited to appear in court. Apparently the children set him straight on their actual ages, because Seaborn signed the written request to have their father appointed as their guardian. And, being good Southerners or just Victorian Era people, Seaborn signed his name first, even though he was younger than his sisters!
And one more thing: Melvina T. is referred to as Tabitha. So now we know what the "T" stood for. Which is actually really helpful, because her marriage record says "Tabitha M Blackshear," and now we can be absolutely certain that the two are one and the same person.
Moving on. . .
And the transcription:
This is almost identical to what we saw in the case papers and minutes. The only difference is that this clearly says that the younger slave was named Peter, which makes a lot more sense than the spellings we saw before!
This says that Silas was cited on January 24th to appear in court six days later. I didn't find an entry in the minutes, however, showing anything happening until February of that year. Maybe the index missed that page and so I didn't look it up.
Oh, and you know what? When I kept seeing that the court was being held in the town of Palestine, I was reading it as Pal'-es-tine, like in the Middle East, you know? Well, I called the research librarian in Palestine, Texas, and guess how the people who live there pronounce it? Pal'-es-teen. Who knew?
I would just like to point out that those "typos" are the Anderson County clerk's mistake, and not mine! There is a bit of new information here: The lawsuit that Silas Scarborough brought against Silas Blackshear was for the purpose of dividing up the inheritance. No wonder Silas was asking the probate court to allow him to keep the slaves for use on his own property.
Neither this page nor the next really tell us anything new. I did notice, however, that up until this point the mother's name has been spelled pretty consistently as "Sophama." I also noticed that, even though this page comes later in the record book, it was actually filed prior to the page above, which was the annual exhibit that this was citing him to submit!
And now we have the former sheriff as the county clerk and five different spellings of the mother's name and a mispelled last name. I guess A. G. Cantley wasn't the problem after all!
Anyway, this entry makes it look like the other court case had been decided, since it is much more formal with its "so and so is entitled," and it states the specific interest each party has of the property.
And a couple of other things to take note of: All of the girls are being referred to by their middle names, except for Samantha. (I don't think we know her middle name, do we? I'll have to go back and check!) That's pretty interesting, don't you think? Also, I had assumed way back in my earlier post that Silas would have lost the slaves when all of his property was auctioned off, but we can see that he didn't, which makes sense because they weren't actually his property.
And this is where the records end for this probate case. Why would the records end here when the minutes continued for several more years? Well, these seem to be the documentation of the papers that were included in the case file that we looked at last time. If no other citations were actually delivered and no annual exhibits were presented, there would have been nothing else to record in the record book.
So, where does that leave us?
Well, if it's genealogical research you are interested in, you are probably pretty excited, because we've discovered some new information about Amelia Virginia's family that, as far as I have discovered, isn't floating around anywhere out there.
If, however, it's only the family history you care about, you're probably a little disappointed, because the story is still pretty full of holes.
I've been working on this post for something like six weeks now (thanks for sticking with me - things have been crazy!), so even though I have a few more things to say about Sophama's death and burial, I am going to end it here. Next time we are going to look at the Scarborough vs Blackshear case, and after that I've found another (early) court case that is pretty interesting. After that, we will investigate what happened to the family after 1862, and then finish up with a bunch of miscellaneous stuff, including some never-before-shared bits about Amelia Virginia's life after her marriage to W. C. Cheatham, as well as the family data sheet and timeline.
- Therese
The next entry:
You'll notice that there is no date on this page, yet I added one to the caption - I made sure to look on the surrounding pages and note the date in the file name of each image when I saved them, so we would know when each was recorded.
(November
Term 1858)
Estate
of Minors Sophama Blackshear decd –
Silas . M. Blackshear Guardian
Ordered by the court that the
Inventory
and appraisement filed by Said Gaurdian, as the prop-
erty
of his wards be approved and ordered to record.
Further ordered that said
guardian be authorised
and required
to hire out the negroes belonging to Said wards, for
the
year 1859, on the first day of January next as the law
directs.This was also mentioned in the case papers, but only after the fact, in the first annual report, where Silas requested that he be able to retain use of the slaves. This court order says that he was "authorised and required" to hire them out, which sounds contradictory to me, "authorized" implying he wanted permission, and "required" implying that he didn't have a choice in the matter. I wonder how he managed to get the planting in and crops harvested if he was unable to work and had only Seaborn to help on the farm. I wonder if the girls all had to pitch in as well.
The next few entries are from more than a year later:
(February
Term 1860)
Estate of Heirs of Sophama
Blackshear decd
S
M Blackshear Guardian
Ordered by the
Court
that this case be continued until the next regular
term
– pending Annual Exhibit.
(March
Term 1860)
Estate of Heirs of Sophama
Blackshear decd
Silas . M .
Blackshear Guardian
Ordered by the Court that this
case be
continued until next regular term - -
pending Annual Exhibit.
Further ordered that citation
issue commanding Said
Guardian to appear at next term and make
his Annual Exhibit.
(April Term 1860)
Estates
of Minors Sophama Blackshear decd –
Silas . M .
Blackshear Guardian
It is
ordered by the Court that
the Annual
Exhibit, this day presented & examined,
by
Said Guardian, on the condition of said minors
Estates
be approved and ordered to record.
Further ordered that said
Guardian be hereby
authorized
to keep together the negroes belonging to said
minors,
for their benefit, until the termination of
the
suit now pending in the District Court of Anderson
County,
in which said minors are interested.We saw Silas' request in his first annual report to keep the slaves (instead of hiring them out) due to his inability to work. Now we can see that the probate court approved that request. We can also see that, two years after the case was filed, the mother was still being referred to as Sophama.
Okay. We are going to stop here for a moment and talk about the mother's name again. I just went back to the case papers to see if the spellings of her name were consistent through time in both the case papers and the minutes. I noticed a few things that I didn't really notice before:
First, the minutes said that the children failed to appear in court, but instead sent in a letter requesting their father be named as their guardian. This means that the letter was not written by the same clerk who was filling out the case papers. The letter had the mother's name spelled as Sophama, which is just one more piece of evidence indicating that that was her actual name!
Second, the next two papers that were filled out, the Guardian Bond & Oath and the Letters of Appointment, both have the name written, and then overwritten:
See? I don't know how I didn't notice this before! This has Sophiana corrected as Sophama (or vice versa). If it was Sophiana written first and then corrected, there would have been no way to remove the dot from the letter "i." This would explain why later clerks might have gotten it wrong. It also occurred to me that the cover paper in the case file may have actually been written later, when the case was finished, and the clerk at that time might have just been copying from one of the case papers.
I am getting more and more sure that Sophama is the correct name.
The next entries in the minutes are from one year later:
(April Term 1861)
Estate of Minors of Sophama Blackshear Decd
Silas M Blackshear Guad
It is ordered by
the court
that this case be continued until the next
term
of this court - - pending anl Exhibit.
(May Term 1861)
Estates
of Minors of
Sophamia Blackshear Decd
S M Blackshear Guard –
It is
ordered
by this court that this cause be continued until
the
next term of this court pending anl Exhibit
Further
ordered by the court that citation issue to Said
Guardian
commanding him personally to be and app-
ear at
the next term of this court then and there to
make
his annual Exhibit as Guardian of the Estate
of
Said MinorsIt looks like the court expected Silas to just show up, and when he didn't, they presented him with a summons.
(June Term 1861)
Estate of Minors of Sophauna Blackshear Decd
S M
Blackshear Guard
It is ordered
by the
court that the annual exhibit of Said Estate this day
presented
by said guard be approved and ordered to recordNothing new (or even interesting for that matter). The next round of minutes begins after another year:
(June Term 1862)
Estate of Minors of Sophamia Blackshear
Decd
S M
Blackshear Guard
It
is ordered by the court that this cause be continued until
the next term of this court pending anl. Ex.I'm beginning to see a pattern here - the one year mark rolls around, Silas doesn't show up, so they order him to be summoned, and then he finally comes. . . Or not:
(July Term 1862)
Estate of Minors of Sophamia Blackshear
Decd
S M Blackshear Guard : It is
ordered
by the court that this cause be continued until
the next term of this court pending anl. report
(August Term 1862)
Estate
of Minors of Sophamia Blackshear Decd
S M Blackshear Guard
It is ordered by the court that this
cause be continued until
the next term of this court pending
annual Exhibit Further
(September Term 1862)
Estate of Sophema Blackshear
S M Blackshear Guard : It is ordered
by the
court that citation Issue to Said Guardian requiring
him
to appear at the next term of the court and this cause be
continued until the next term of the courtNow I see why every year the annual report was presented several months later.
(October Term 1862)
Estate of Minors of Sophema Blacksher
Decd
S M Blacksher
Guard : It is
ordered
by the court that the annual Exhibit this day presented
by
Said Guardian be approved and ordered to record.Now, looking back at all of these entries from 1861 and 1862, I noticed that the spelling of the mother's name is all over the place again. The weird thing is, they all seem to be written in the same handwriting. This last one didn't even spell the last name right, so I'm still sticking with Sophama!
If you remember, in the case file, the 1862 annual exhibit was the last paper. But there were several more entries in the minutes:
(October Term 1863)
Estate of minor Heirs of Sophma Blackshear
S.
M. Blackshear guard:
it is order-
ed by the Court that this cause be
continued until the next term of the
Court and that citation issue to the
said S. M. Blackshear guardian as
aforesaid citing him to appear at the
next term of the Court to make his
annual
exhibit of the condition of said estate.This was exactly one year after the last annual exhibit was presented, and they weren't messing around this time - they just cited him to appear right off the bat.
(November Term 1863)
Estate
minor heirs Sophronie Blackshear
S M Blackshear Guardian:
Annual Exhibit In the above cause
It
is ordered by the court that citation issue and that
this
cause stand continued.This is the first time that we see Silas not showing up with his annual exhibit in the term of court following his citation. And for some reason, neither of these citations were in the case file. Maybe because they were never actually delivered (the previous ones all said on the back that they were executed by delivery and then filed with the court)?
(December Term 1863)
Estate of the minor Heirs of Sophema
Blacksher
S M Blacksher Guard: It is
ordered
by the Court that this cause be continued
until
the next term of the court and then
citation
issue to Said guardian commanding
him
to mak his Annual Exhibit of the
condition
of Said Estate
(January Term 1864)
Estate
Minor Heirs of Sophonia Blacksheer Annual
S M Blackshear Guardian: Exhibit
It is
ordered by the court that (?) citation
issue
to the sheriff of Anderson County requiring him
to cite
said S M Blackshear Guardian as aforisaid person
ally
to be and appear at the next Term of this Court and
make
his annual exhibit as Guardian of said minors
and that this cause be continuedI couldn't figure out what that word before "citation" was, but since this is saying that the sheriff specifically is being ordered to go out and cite Silas to appear in court makes me think that I was right about the previous citations not being delivered to his person.
(February Term 1864)
Estate
Minor heirs of Sophonie Blacksher
Annual
S M Blackshear Guardian: Exhibit
Ordered
by the Court that this Cause be Con
tinued
(July Term 1867)
Estate
of minor heirs Sophronia
Blackshear decd
vs Annual
Exhibit
S M Blackshear Guardian
Ordered
by the Court that citation
Issue
requiring S M Blackshear guar
dean
as aforesaid to appear at the
next
term of this Court and make
his
annual Exhibit of the condition
of
Said Estate and further that the
cause
continue to next term of this
CourtOkay, wait a minute. These entries jumped from 1864 to 1867. That is three whole years! So, either the index did not list all of the pages for this case, or Silas never did appear and the courts somehow dropped it and then picked it up again. (Maybe in the chaos following the end of the Civil War it just got forgotten.) I'm guessing that it was the latter, since the case file never shows any citations delivered or annual exhibits submitted after 1862.
(August Term 1867)
Estate
minor heirs Sophronia Blackshear decd
vs Annual Exhibit 1st day
S M Blackshear Guardian
ordered
by the court that the above
entitled
cause be continued To next
term
of this court
Well, it looks like they were still trying to get him to show up.
(September Term 1867)
Estate minor heirs Sophia Blackshear
S M
Blackshear Guard
It is
Ordered
by the
Court that the above entitled cause
be
Continued until the next term of this
Court
pending Annual ExhibitAnd, still trying. I was wondering for awhile why they would be dragging the probate process out for nearly ten whole years, and then it dawned on me that Amelia Virgina and her two younger brothers would have been still under eighteen years of age at this point. Since Silas requested that the court appoint him as guardian of their estate, he would have had to file paperwork every year until they were no longer minors!
Here is the crazy thing, though: The property of the estate was two slaves and one mule. The Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves in January of 1865, and the Civil War was officially over in April of that year. This means that, other than the mule (if it was still living or hadn't been conscripted by the Confederate Army), the estate didn't even have any property anymore at this point!
And here is the other crazy thing: Remember how I said that Silas is no longer on the tax rolls for Anderson County after 1863? It is very likely that he had either passed or moved away. That would explain why he wasn't showing up for court, huh?
(October Term 1867)
Estate
Minor Heirs Sophia Blackshear
vs
S M Blackshear Guard
It
is Ordered by
The Court
that alias Citation issue for the
Guard
aforesaid to be and appear at the
next
term of this Court to show Cause if
any
she has why she fails to make her
Annual
Exhibit of the Condition of Said
estate
and that this Cause be Continued
until
the next term of this Court.Holy Moly. There a couple of things going on here. First, the minutes have starting saying The Estate vs S M Blackshear. This implies that Silas was now a defendant in the case - probably because he was shirking his duties as guardian. Also, this says "to show cause if any she has why she fails to make her Annual Exhibit..." I'm sorry, what? Did the clerk of the court have no idea that S. M. Blackshear was actually a man? Weird, weird, weird.
The courts tried for another couple of months:
(November Term 1867)
Estate
Minor Heirs Sophia Blackshear
vs
S. M.
Blackshear Guard
It is
ordered
by the
Court this cause be continued the Annual
Exhibit
pending.
(December Term 1867)
Estate
Minor Heirs Sophia Blackshear
vs
S. M.
Blackshear Guard
It is
ordered by the
Court
this cause be continued pending the Annual
Exhibit.And then there was the last entry in the minutes:
(January Term 1868)
Estate
Minor heirs Sophia Blackshear
vs
S. M.
Blackshear Guard
It is
ordered
by The
Court, this cause be dismissed from
the
Court.And that was the end of it. I feel like I need to go back through the minutes and see if there were any missing entries during the years 1865 and 1866. I'm also pretty bummed that the minutes don't say why it was dismissed. You know my guess - Silas Blackshear was no longer living in Anderson County so it was pointless to keep trying to summon him to present an annual report.
So, did we get any of our questions from above answered yet? Well, we now know that the case continued after 1862. But the minutes did not answer the question about what happened to the family after that year, since Silas never showed up for court again. In fact, now I am wondering more than ever what happened to the family.
The fact that the spelling of the mother's name gets crazier and crazier as time goes on - as well as the confusion over the gender of S. M. Blackshear - could have been because the people working in the courthouse were no longer familiar with the family and their case, which is another indication that they may not have been living there any longer.
We also now know that it was the probate court that allowed Silas to keep the slaves to work on his property. Unfortunately, that was probably the question I cared about the least, and that's all we've got. So let's take a look at the probate records and see if they give any more information.
And here is a transcription of all of those pages:
Petition
Of Letters
Filed Oct.
5th 1858
A G Cantley
clk
S.M.Blackshear
Citation
To choose Guard
T & S Blackshear
Issued Octr
5th 1858.
AGCantley
Clerk.
Selection
Of Guard-
Filed Oct.
25. 1858.
A. G. Cantley
Clerk.
Bond
& oath
Filed Octr.
25. 1858.
A. G. Cantley
clerk.
Letters
Of Guard
Filed Oct.
25. 1858.
A. G. Cantley
Clerk
|
Record Book G pages
182-185
Estate
of Minor Heirs of Sophama Blackshear decd
Silas M. Blackshear
Guardian
The
State of Texas}
Anderson
County } To the Honl J.W. Gardner Chief
Justice
of Anderson County
The petition of Silas M.
Blackshear
who
is the father and natural guardian of the persons of following named
children
who are minors and residents of the county of Anderson and
State
aforesaid, to wit: Tabitha Blackshear
aged about eighteen years
and
Sophama L. Blackshear about sixteen years, Seaborn Q.
Blackshear,
Amelia V. Blackshear, Simeon M. Blackshear, and
Harrison
M. Blackshear who are under the age of fourteen years
would
state that by the death of their mother Sophama Blackshear
they
became interested and inherited certain property from her Es-
tate, Your petitioner believes that it is in the
interest of said minors
that
a Guardian of their Estate be appointed by your Honorable
Court. He therefore prays that the said minors who
are over fourteen
years
of age be cited to appear at the next term of your Honl Court
to
choose their Guardian and if they should fail to choose a Guardian
that
your petitioner may be appointed Guardian of their estate as well
as
Guardian of those minors who are under the age of fourteen years and
that
notice may be given as the law requires.
Silas M.
Blackshear
_________
Notice
Whereas
Silas M. Blackshear has this day filed in the office
of
the Clerk of the County Court of Anderson County his petition
praying
that he be appointed Guardian of the persons & Estates of
the
minor heirs of the Estate of Sophama Blackshear decd
All
persons will take notice that said petition will be acted
upon
at the next term of County Court pertaining to Estates
to
be holden at the Court House in the town of Palestine on the
last
Monday in October 1858, when and where the same may be
contested
as they think proper.
October
5th AD. 1858 . A. G.
Cantley clerk
Co.
Cl. A. Co.
_________
The
State of Texas } To the
Sheriff of Anderson County --
County
of Anderson } Greeting:
You are hereby commanded to summon
Tabitha
Blackshear and Sophianna Blackshear, who are minor
heirs
of Sophianna Blackshear decd and over the age of fourteen,
to
be and appear at the next regular term of the County Court of said
County
pertaining to Estates of deceased persons to be holden at
the
Court House in the town of Palestine on the last Monday in
October
AD. 1858, it being the 25. day of said month then and
there
to choose a Guardian of their Estates, in accordance with
a
petition this day filed in the clerks office of said county by Silas
M.
Blackshear.
Herein fail not and due return
make to me of this at my
Office
according to law.
Witness
my hand and
official
seal at office at Palestine this 5th day of October
SS A. D. 1858.
A. G. Cantley clerk
Co. Cl. A.
Co.
Executed
by delivering to Tabitha Blackshear and Sophianna
Blackshear
a copy of the within subpoena October 14, AD. 1858.
B.
F. Durham Shff A. Co.
By
T. L. Pinson Dept.
_________
The
State of Texas } We the
undersigned children and heirs
County
of Anderson } of Sophama
Blackshear deceased, do
hereby
select our Father Silas M. Blackshear as Guardian of
our
Estates, and pray the Honorable the Chief Justice of Anderson
County
to appoint him such.
Seaborn
Q. Blackshear
Melvina
T. Blackshear
Sophama
L. Blackshear
_________
The
State of Texas } County
Court pertaining to Estates
Anderson
County } October
Term 1858
To all to
whom these presents may come- Greeting
Know
ye that Silas M. Blackshear as principle and J. S.
Hanks
& J. J. Davis as sureties are held and firmly bound unto
the
Chief Justice of the County of Anderson in the sum of Four
Thousand
Dollars for the payment of which well and truly to be
made
unto the said Chief Justice we bind ourselves, our heirs,
executors
and administrators jointly and severally firmly by these
presents. Signed with our hands & sealed with our
seals(the seals being scrolls)the 25. day of Octr
A.D.
1858. The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas
the
above bound Silas M. Blackshear has been appointed Guardian
of
the persons & Estates of the minor heirs of Sophama Blackshear
decd Now if the said Silas M. Blackshear
shall well and
truly
perform all the duties required of him under the said appoint-
ment,
then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to
remain
in full force and effect.
S. M. Blackshear seal
Approved
Octr 25th 1858 J.
S. Hanks seal
J. W. Gardner J. J. Davis seal
Chief J. A.Co.
The
State of Texas }
Anderson
County } I, Silas M.
Blackshear do solemnly
swear
that I will well and truly perform all the duties
devolving
upon me as Guardian of the persons & Estates of the
minor
heirs of Sophama Blackshear decd
S. M.
Blackshear
Sworn
to and subscribed before me A. G. Cantley clerk of
the
County Court of said county this 25th day of October A. D. 1858.
A.
G. Cantley clerk
Co.
Cl. A. Co.
_________
The
State of Texas } County
Court pertaining to Estates
County
of Anderson } October
Term 1858
To all to
whom these presents may come-
Greeting
Know
ye that Silas M. Blackshear is this day duly appointed
Guardian
of the persons & Estates of the minor heirs of Sophama Black-
shear
decd and the said Silas M.
Blackshear having duly qualified
and
given Bond as such Guardian he is therefore duly authorized to take
upon
himself the performance of the duties of the said trust of such Guard-
ianship
according to law.
In witness whereof we
have hereunto set our official sig-
SS natures and the seal of
said Court in the town of Palestine
on the 25th
day of October A. D. eighteen hundred & fifty-eight.
J.
W. Gardner Chief Justice
of Anderson County
Attest: A. G.
Cantley County Clerk
of Anderson County
|
These pages in the record book pertain to the selection and appointment of a guardian for the Blackshear children. They say that Silas felt it was "in the interest of said minors" that a guardian be appointed. When all I had was the probate case papers, I couldn't figure out why he would need to be appointed the guardian of his own children. Well, this tells us that for some reason he thought it was necessary to involve the courts and make it legally official. After finding the District Court minutes, I discovered that the reason for this was the lawsuit that his son-in-law filed against him and was pending at that time (we'll look at the details of that case in the next post).
As for the guardian bond, I had previously assumed that maybe the money that he owed which led to his property being auctioned off was due to taking out a loan to post this bond, but this kind of makes it sound like he didn't actually have to post the bond up front, but only pay the money if he failed to perform his duties as guardian. Maybe that's why he needed the two other men to sign as sureties - in case he failed in his duties and then didn't have the money to pay. Then again, it does say that he had "given Bond," so I really have no idea! Well, you know me, I don't like having questions hanging over my head, so I looked online for information about Texas guardian bonds. This is what I found on a legal website:
A guardianship bond is essentially an insurance policy that is posted by the guardian to ensure that the estate will be reimbursed if the guardian stole assets of the estate, misappropriated them in some manner, or negligently lost the assets. The bond must cover the liquid assets of the estate (everything other than real estate) plus any income anticipated for the year, because these are the assets that the guardian could potentially steal or lose.
Many times, clients are concerned that they are going to be required to pay the bond amount or put up collateral to secure the bond. Generally, this is not the case. Rather, the bond is taken out through a bonding company, similar to an insurance company. Just like you would pay an annual premium on a homeowners insurance policy, the guardian likewise pays an annual premium on a guardianship bond.
An important note about the bonds in a guardianship proceeding: payment of the bond premium is an element required for a guardian to be qualified to serve as the guardian. Until the bond premium has been paid, the proposed guardian will not have any authority to act on behalf of the Ward.So it looks like Silas paid an amount, but not the whole four thousand dollars. (So maybe the loan he took out was related to this.) Also, if Davis and Hanks were the sureties, I think that means they were backing the bond the way a modern insurance company or bail bondsman would today.
I also noticed that, like many modern fathers, Silas wasn't clear on how old his children really were. He was off on the ages of the oldest three children, estimating the girls both at a year younger and Seaborn at three years younger (under age of fourteen). This is why only the two girls were cited to appear in court. Apparently the children set him straight on their actual ages, because Seaborn signed the written request to have their father appointed as their guardian. And, being good Southerners or just Victorian Era people, Seaborn signed his name first, even though he was younger than his sisters!
And one more thing: Melvina T. is referred to as Tabitha. So now we know what the "T" stood for. Which is actually really helpful, because her marriage record says "Tabitha M Blackshear," and now we can be absolutely certain that the two are one and the same person.
Moving on. . .
And the transcription:
Inventory
& appraisement
Filed Novr
29. 1858
A. G. Cantley
clerk
By ZW. Cantley
D.C.
|
Record Book G page 204
Estates of Minor heirs
of Sophama Blackshear decd
S. M. Blackshear - Guardian
Anderson
County Texas}
Novr
the 17th 1858 } We the appraisers of the property of
heirs
of
Sophama Blackshear decd Silas M. Blackshear Guardian
have
appraised all property pointed out by said Guardian viz:
One boy
John 35 years of age worth $1350.00
One boy
Peter 16 years of age worth 1450.00
One mule 5 years of age worth 145.00
$2945.00
R.
H. Underwood}
Wm
H. Rogers} Appraisers
Gabriel
Rogers}
Sworn
to before me Nov 22,
A.D. 1858
A.G. Cantley, clerk
|
This is almost identical to what we saw in the case papers and minutes. The only difference is that this clearly says that the younger slave was named Peter, which makes a lot more sense than the spellings we saw before!
Citation
Filed Jany
21.1860
A.G. Cantley
Clerk
|
Record Book H pages 2-3
minor Heirs of
Estate
of Sophama Blackshear,
Silas M. Blackshear Guardian
The
State of Texas } To
the Sheriff of Anderson
County
of Anderson} County. Greetings.
You are
hereby
commanded to summon S. M. Blackshear to
be
and appear at the next regular term of the Probate Court of said
County
to be held at the Court House in the town of Palestine on the
last
Monday in Jany A.D. 1860, it being the 30, Day of said month, then
and
there to make his 1st Annual Exhibit as Guardian of Minor
Heirs
of Sophama Blackshear. By order of the
Chief Justice.
Herein
fail not and due return make of this according to law.
SS
Witness my hand and official seal at office in Palestine
this 10th day of January A.D. 1860.
A.G. Cantley clerk Co. Cl. A. Co.
Executed
by delivering to S. M. Blackshear a true copy of the
within
citation Jany 24th. 1860. B.
F. Durham Shff A. C.
By T. L. Pinson Deputy
|
This says that Silas was cited on January 24th to appear in court six days later. I didn't find an entry in the minutes, however, showing anything happening until February of that year. Maybe the index missed that page and so I didn't look it up.
Oh, and you know what? When I kept seeing that the court was being held in the town of Palestine, I was reading it as Pal'-es-tine, like in the Middle East, you know? Well, I called the research librarian in Palestine, Texas, and guess how the people who live there pronounce it? Pal'-es-teen. Who knew?
Record
Book H page 78
Estate
of Minor Heirs of Sophama G. Blackshear DcD
S M Blackshear Guardian
Exhibit The State of Texas}
Anderson
County }
To the Honorable J. W. Gardner
Filed April Chief Justice of Anderson County
– Your Exhibitant
30th 1860 Silas M. Blackshear as the
Guardian of the follow
A.G Cantley ing number heirs of Sophama G.
Blackshear to wit
Clerk Melvina, Louisa Seaborn Virginia
Simon and Harri
C
C A. Co son Blackshear would make the
following showing
And Charges
himself with the following property –
To wit.
Negro man
named John valued at $900.00
Negro man
Peters $1200.00
One mule $90.00
Total Amount 2190
Your
Exhibitant would farther state that one
Silas
Scarborough married Francis Angelina
one of the
heirs of the said Sophama, who has since
died leaving
minor Children and there is a suit
now pending
in the District Court of Anderson
County Texas
by said Scarborough as the natural
of the
children of the said Angelina for a Di
vision and
Partition of said property and he
would
further state that he is old and infirm
and not
Capable himself of making a suppo
rt and
educating said minors without retainin
g possession
of said negros and mules to and
and assist
him in taking care of said minors
who are of
tender age until the decision of the
Cause in the
District Court and further states he
is the
Father of said children.
S.
M. Blackshear
Sworn to and
subscribed before in open Court this April
30th
1860 A.G
Cantley
Clk C cl a co
I would just like to point out that those "typos" are the Anderson County clerk's mistake, and not mine! There is a bit of new information here: The lawsuit that Silas Scarborough brought against Silas Blackshear was for the purpose of dividing up the inheritance. No wonder Silas was asking the probate court to allow him to keep the slaves for use on his own property.
Record
Book H page 83
The
Estate of Minors of Sophama Blackshear Decd
S M
Blackshear Guardian
The State of
Texas } To the Sheriff of Anderson
County - Greeting
Citation County Anderson
} You are hereby commanded to
summon S.
M.
Blackshear Guardian of the Heirs of Sophama Blacksh
Filed ear decd to be and
appear at the next regular term of the County
April 21 Court of said County
- pertaining to estates of enclosed
persons to be
1860 holden at the Court
House in the town of Palestine on the last
A.G. Cantley monday in April AD. 1860 it being the 30 day of said
month, then
Clerk and there to file his annual Exhibit of the
condition of said
a
c a co Estates by order of the
Chief Justice Anderson County
Herein
fail not and due return make to me of this at my
office
according to law.
SS Witness my hand and official seal at
office in Palestine this 20 day
of April AD 1860.
A
G Cantley Clerk Co Cl A Co
Issued April
2 1860
A G Cantley Clerk c c a co
A G Cantley Clerk c c a co
Received in
office April 6th A.D. 1860
B.
F. Durham Shff A C
By
his Dept T. L. Pinson
Executed
April 9th AD 1860 by delivering to the Deft a true copy
Of the
within Citation
B.
F. Durham Shff A C
By his Deputy T. L. Pinson
Record
Book H page 403
Estate of
Minors of
Sophama
Blackshear Decd
S
M. Blackshear Guardian
Anl Ex The State of Texas }
Probate Court
Filed 24 County of Anderson } June Term AD. 1861
June To the
Hon Wm Alexander chief Justice
1861 of Anderson County. The undersigned guardian
A.C. Camp of the persons and of the
estates of the minor heirs
Clerk of Sophama Blackshear Decd
would Respectfully
submit the
following as his annual exhibit of said
minors estates
viz.
Exhibitant
charges himself with the
Following property
to wit.
Negro
man named John valued at $900
“ “
“ Petters “ “ 1200
One
mule “ “ 90
Total
amount $2190
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
S.
M. Blackshear
Sworn to and
subscribed before me
this 24th
day of June A.D. 1861.
A.C.
Camp clk
Co
Cl – Ac Co
Record
Book I pages 19 -20
Estate of
Sophina Blacksher Minor }
vs }
citation }
Issued Oct 6th 1862
S M
Blacksher Guardian }
B. F. Durham C Cl A Co
The State of
Texas } To the sheriff of Anderson County Greeting
County of
Anderson } You are hereby commanded to summon
Annual S
M Blacksher to be and appear at the
Exhibbit regular term of the County
Court of said County pertaining
to estates
of deceased persons to be holden at the Court House
in the town
of Palestine, in the last Monday in October AD
1862 it
being the 27th day of said month there and then to make
His annual
report as Guardian of Sophinia Blacksher minor.
Herein
fail not and due return make to me of this at
my office according
to law.
SS Witness
my hand and official seal of office in
Palestine
this 6 day of Oct AD1862
B
F Durham clerk Co Cl ACo
Received in office
the 6th of Oct 1862 T S Parker Shff ACo
Executed by
delivering to S M Blacksher a copy of this Cita
tion This 20 Oct 1862
T
S Parker Shff AC
S M
Blacksher Guardian of Minor} Exhibit
heirs of
Sophronia Blacksher } Filed October 27th 1862
B F Durham C.C.C. A.Co
The State of
Texas }
Anderson
County } The exhibit of S M Blacksher
as the
Guardian
of the minor heirs of Sophn
nna Blacksher
The following is a list of the
property in which
the minors
of whom he is Guardian have an interest To wit
Negro Boy John Valued at $900.00
Boy Peters 1000 00
½ Interest in mule 90 00
$1990.00
Exhibitant
states that as the father and surviving husband
he has an
interest of 1/3 of said slaves during his lifetime
and an
interest of ½ of said mule that he is the Guardian
for Seaborn,
Melvina, Louisa, Virginia Simeon and Harrison
Blackshear. That besides said minors the heirs of
Angelana
Scorbrough are Entitled to an equal interest
with each
one of his wards and Samantha Rogers who
is Entitled
to an equal interest with each of the heirs
as the
daughter of the said (Sophrono) Blacksher
there is no
other property belonging to said minors
that he has
a knowledge of
S
M Blackshear
Sworn to and
subscribed before me this 27th
of October
1862
B
F Durham C Cl ACAnd now we have the former sheriff as the county clerk and five different spellings of the mother's name and a mispelled last name. I guess A. G. Cantley wasn't the problem after all!
Anyway, this entry makes it look like the other court case had been decided, since it is much more formal with its "so and so is entitled," and it states the specific interest each party has of the property.
And a couple of other things to take note of: All of the girls are being referred to by their middle names, except for Samantha. (I don't think we know her middle name, do we? I'll have to go back and check!) That's pretty interesting, don't you think? Also, I had assumed way back in my earlier post that Silas would have lost the slaves when all of his property was auctioned off, but we can see that he didn't, which makes sense because they weren't actually his property.
And this is where the records end for this probate case. Why would the records end here when the minutes continued for several more years? Well, these seem to be the documentation of the papers that were included in the case file that we looked at last time. If no other citations were actually delivered and no annual exhibits were presented, there would have been nothing else to record in the record book.
So, where does that leave us?
Well, if it's genealogical research you are interested in, you are probably pretty excited, because we've discovered some new information about Amelia Virginia's family that, as far as I have discovered, isn't floating around anywhere out there.
If, however, it's only the family history you care about, you're probably a little disappointed, because the story is still pretty full of holes.
I've been working on this post for something like six weeks now (thanks for sticking with me - things have been crazy!), so even though I have a few more things to say about Sophama's death and burial, I am going to end it here. Next time we are going to look at the Scarborough vs Blackshear case, and after that I've found another (early) court case that is pretty interesting. After that, we will investigate what happened to the family after 1862, and then finish up with a bunch of miscellaneous stuff, including some never-before-shared bits about Amelia Virginia's life after her marriage to W. C. Cheatham, as well as the family data sheet and timeline.
- Therese
