I would like to look more into the Jesse Lear who died in 1872. He is the one who lived in Jessamine at some point who is a Garrard County Lear who is related to John Lear of Culpepper, VA. That's a mouthful, huh? Anyway, he died in (or his will was probated in) 1872. IF this is the case, it would stand to reason that if my William Lear was descended from him, he would be listed in this will. Hear me out on why.
William fought in the Civil War for Kentucky. When he got home, his Unionist family told him if he liked the South so much he should move there. So he did. To Shreveport, Louisiana. If he were listed in this will/estate, he would be listed as William Lear of Louisiana, Shreveport, or maybe an unknown location, since I am not sure how much he kept up with the family at that exact point in time, although he did have communication with them later on in life.
Backing up a bit, William Lear appears on the 1850 census with the family of Henry Lear and Massey Pond. Cool, William is Henry's son right? Not necessarily. He is listed in an odd way on the census, like he is in Henry's household, but not his child. Henry and several children are listed in order of descending age, followed by William Lear, Hebron Lair, and Lucy Lair, in descending order, separate from the other children. As if they are living with Henry, but are not his children. If that makes sense. I will post a screen shot later. Granted, it could just be the census taker was sloppy. Massey is listed separate from Henry in this census in the household above him. This could be the result of sloppy work. It could also be that they were separated. "Separated in the 1800s?!?!?! That didn't happen!" you say. But indeed it did. A member of my half-brother's family was divorced in the 1800s. Likewise, one of my ancestors got pregnant before she was married, had the baby, and lived at home with her father. She appeared on the census with the baby father's last name and the baby in the household of her father and the father of the baby in the household of his father. I thought the census taker messed up. There was no hint from family that the first child was born out of wedlock. However, marriage records show that they just were not married yet, and a forthcoming cousin admitted that she was pregnant and had the baby and had to wait to see if he would marry her. He did. But it just goes to show that what looked like an error on the part of a census taker was actually an error in family lore, I guess you would call it.
That being said, it is most likely that William's parents were dead by 1850. Given the youngest child was 3-years-old (if I remember correctly off the top of my head, which is all I have with Ancestry on the fritz), his parents died between 1847-1850. If his parents were dead by 1850, then when Jesse died in 1872, if he were descended from Jesse, he would be listed as an heir to Jesse's estate. See where I am going with this? Because I have a tendency to ramble. He would be listed as an heir by virtue of his parents not being alive to inherit. Unless Jesse was his father. Then he would be an heir by virtue of being Jesse's child.
The only cases where this could prove false would be 1) If there is another generation in there. As in, Jesse is his great-grandparent and not his parent or his grandfather. I need to do the math and see if this is possible, but it seems to me that it could be. Although given that situation in other parts of my family, I would think William would then be in the care of his grandparents, if they were living, rather than Henry Lear. But that is not always the case. 2) If William was disinherited. Which is also possible. His family was angry he served with the Confederate Army and told him he should move South, according to what he told family anyway. So it is possible that in a fit, they disinherited him. However, in other parts of my family, there was still a paper trail when this happened, or they were somewhat disinherited through the will itself by leaving them a penny or something of the sort. Also, William served side-by-side with Joseph R. Lear, who remained in Nicholasville long afterwards. It would seem if it was that bad of an offense, Joseph would have been disinherited as well.
That being said, this would not tell me who William's father was (unless that will DOES state that William was an heir, but I would think that would have come to light by now), but it could at least eliminate one group of Lears from the Lear infinity pool.
What do YOU think?
No comments:
Post a Comment