Posts tagged ‘Jane Mangum’

January 23, 2013

Google earth and me

Yesterday, I was thumbing through the binders, my old, not yet fully retired, system for organizing the family info, when I came across a land record for a George W. Crawford in Arkansas.  I printed it years ago from the bureau of land management’s online records. At the time I wasn’t sure if it was “my” George Crawford (1810, NC – aft 1880, prob. AR) or “the other” George W. Crawford (1813, TN – 1882, AR). I didn’t have time to look at it in depth, so there it stayed, forgotten, tucked in amongst other forgotten pieces of miscellaneous Crawford “documents”, until now. For reasons of doing better genealogical work and cleaning out some paper, I want to determine if this land belonged to my ancestor or another George.

Good genealogical research requires one to work from the known to the unknown. One George, “my” George W. Crawford, is found in Mississippi in the census records of 1850[1], 1860[2] and 1870[3]. Nearby is his likely father, Thomas, who can be found in the 1840 census of nearby Pickens County, Alabama with a male appropriate to George’s age category in the household[4].  In 1841, in Itawamba County, Mississippi, George married Jane Mangum. Jane is the daughter of John Mangum, who also lived in Pickens County, Alabama[5], and was enumerated there in the 1830 census prior to moving to Itawamba County, Mississippi. After the end of the Civil War, and after living in Mississippi for most of his adult life, George and his family moved to Polk County, Arkansas. He is enumerated there as G. W. Crawford along with his family in 1880 in Cove township[6].

Also in Polk County, Arkansas, in Mountain Township in 1880, is another George Crawford. This George is enumerated in Marion County, Arkansas in 1850[7], then in Mountain, Polk County Arkansas in 1860[8], 1870[9] and 1880[10]. Many people have confused the two and mashed them into one person. An examination of their family members shows that they aren’t. That’s a topic for another blog post.

The land record is for land in Polk County, Arkansas, S30, T2S, R28W of the 5th Principal Meridian, filed with the Bureau of Land Management in 1890[11]. Whose land record is it likely to be? Both men are said to be deceased by this time.  However, filing BLM records years after the actual possession is not uncommon. The land record could be for a son, as both had sons named George W.  Another possibility is that the land was granted to an unrelated George Crawford. It was not uncommon for people to receive land grants in a place where land was made available which was not where the applicant lived. The land was then sold for cash to buy land closer to home. There are nearly 800 George Crawfords listed in the census index search for 1880. Given all those possibilities, it still could be the land of one of the Polk County men or their sons. But which one? Is there a way to find a clue regarding to whom the land was granted?

Can we learn anything about what family might have owned the land before looking at the deeds in the courthouse or on microfilm? The date is not particularly helpful. Is there any other information which can be determined just from the land record? Geography may help. Cove is in the Middle of the county,  Mountain is in the northern part of the county. Is there a way to use the Township and Range of the land grant to determine where where this land is located relative to the townships, above? Ordinarily, the bureau of land management’s online records are the starting place to locate the lands. However, for whatever reason, the page refuses to load for me today. I don’t own a plat map of Arkansas. I need to find another way to find the land on a map without spending money. Because I’m cheap. Did the name Crawford in my ancestry not give you that hint? Fortunately, there is a site, Earth Point with a Township and Range Search, which works with Google Earth to map the land description! These are both free! The results, though not absolute proof of which family likely owned the land, were very interesting.

Here is the land:
Here it is in relation to Cove, Polk, AR:
And here it relative to Mountain, Polk, AR

This map made the relationships much more clear. Though more research is needed in the deed records of the county in order to be certain, the land is likely that of a George Crawford who lived near Mountain Township. Unfortunately, I probably still need to keep the copy, if only to be able to point to it and say: “Not our George”.

[1] 1850 United States Federal Census, District 6, Itawamba, Mississippi, Population Schedule, page 313A (stamped), dwelling 156, household 159, entry for George Crawford, 40, born in NC,, (   : accessed 2012) digital image online of NARA Microfilm Publication M432, roll 373, Washington, D. C.

[2] 1860 U.S. census, population schedule, Itawamba, Mississippi, Population Schedule, page 204, dwelling 1344, household 1344, entry for George Crawford, 60, born in NC,, (   : accessed 2012) NARA microfilm publication M653, Roll 583, Washington, D. C.

[3] 1870 U.S. census, population schedules, Itawamba, Mississippi, page386A, Household 243, Family 243, entry for George Crawford, 55, born in S. Carolina,, ( : accessed 2012); digital images online of NARA microfilm publication M593, roll 732, Washington, D.C.

[4] 1840 United States Federal Census, Pickens, Alabama page 337 (stamped), entry for Thos Crafford [sic], one male 15-19, one male 20-29, one male 30-39, one male 50-59, one female 20-29, one female 50-59,,  ( : accessed 2012) digital image online of NARA microfilm publication M704, roll 12, Washington, D. C.

[5] 1830 United States Federal Census, Pickens, Alabama, page 111 (stamped), entry for John Mangum, one male 5-9, two males 10-14, one male 15-19, one male 60-69, one female under 5, one female 5-9, one female 10 – 14, one female 30-39,,  ( : accessed 2012) digital image online of NARA microfilm publication M19, roll 2 Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[6] 1880 United States Federal Census, Cove, Polk, AR, page 526D, dwelling 178, household, 183, entry for G.W. Crawford, 67, born in NC, father born VA, mother born VA,, (  : accessed 2012) NARA microfilm publication T9, Roll  54, Washington, D. C.

[7] 1850 United States Federal Census, Marion, Arkansas, Page:  312B (stamped), dwelling 47, family 48, entry for George Crawford, 37, birthplace Tenn., ( : accessed January 2013) digital image online of NARA microfilm publication   M432, roll 28,  Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[8] 1860 United States Federal Census, Population Schedule, Mountain,  Polk,  Arkansas, page 625 (stamped), dwelling number 223, family number 212, entry for George Crawford, 45, birthplace Tenn., ( : accessed Jan 2013) digital image online of  NARA microfilm publication M653,  roll 48,  National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

[9] 1870 United States Federal Census 1870,  Mountain,  Polk,  Arkansas, page  298B (stamped), dwelling number 508, family 508, entry for George Crawford, 57, birthplace Tenn.,,

( : accessed Jan 2013) digital image online of NARA microfilm publication   M593, roll 61,  National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

[10] 1880 United States Federal Census, Mountain,  Polk,  Arkansas,  enumeration district 131, page 566B (stamped) page  566B, number 153, family 153, entry for George Crawford, 60, birthplace Tenn., father’s birthplace Tenn., mother’s birthplace, Tenn.,,

(  : accessed January 2013) digital image online of NARA microfilm publication T9, roll  54, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

[11] Bureau of Land Management, “Land Patent Search,” database, General Land Office Records ( : accessed 2003), George W. Crawford, Polk County, Arkansas, Homestead certificate H697.

August 17, 2012

Will the Real Nancy Catherine Nixon PLEASE STAND UP?

On the wall of my Uncle Jesse’s home, in his living room, over the sofa, was the only piece of artwork I remember from his home. It was a picture, said to be of James Nixon and his bride, Nancy Catherine Nixon. The only picture I have that survives in our immediate family, is a photocopy of a photo taken from the original, below.

A few years after going online with my genealogical search, another descendant of Nancy Catherine Nixon contacted me. She had a picture of James and Nancy Catherine Nixon said to be from their wedding day. She asked if I would like to have a digital copy. “Of course!”, I replied, although I fully expected to receive another copy of the picture above. What I received is the picture, below. As you can see, comparing the two photographs, these are not the same people. Either the couple above are James and Nancy Catherine or the couple below is, but they are not the same couple.

I don’t have the original of either photo. So, I am not able to look at the photos or tell anything about them by physically examining them.  Although  I do know that photo number one, from my uncle’s house was oval and in an ivory frame which was very ornate. I think I remember something else about the photo which hung on the wall, which, if I am not imagining the memory, dates it to a precise time period. I will elaborate about that at the end.

Both photos are said to have been taken on their wedding day. There are some distinct differences which may fix the date and solve the mystery of the identity of the two couples. For one, couple number one is dressed more formally with garments which appear to have been made especially for the event. Secondly, the style of dress of both couples is distinctive and not likely due to regional differences from the same time period. That is, the garments indicate that these photos are most likely from different eras. Perhaps details of their garments can help date the photo.

From the hat, the neckline on the dress, etc, it appears that the clothing in picture number one is more formal. The second couple’s clothing is less formal and looks to have been less costly, perhaps indicating that they had less money than the first as Nancy two’s dress appears to have been taken from her closet, one of her best dresses, rather than a dress made especially for the occasion.

The first photo has been digitally corrected to make it lighter.  It was a very dark photocopy as you can see, above.  Few details can be seen in the original picture. One thing that is apparent, is that the man is wearing a four in hand tie. Once the image was enhanced, the notched lapel on the jacket became apparent. It is outlined in the image to the below.

The first photo, the Uncle Jesse photo, digitally corrected to make it lighter, shows that the man is wearing a tie or cravat knotted at the neck with a notched lapel on the jacket. It is outlined in the image to the left.  The points on the collar of his shirt have a tight spread and line up approximately with the centers of his eyes.
In the second, the man’s lapel is either not notched or is notched in a different location of the previous photo. The lapel is outlined in the photo, left. There is a possibility that a notch is located just above the bottom of the picture. The man is wearing a bow tie and his shirt collar is wider spread, lining up with the sides of his face.

Both men have moustaches. James one’s moustache is smaller.

Picture of the two possible Nancy Catherine Crawfords

Nancy One and Nancy Two

Both women are wearing necklaces, the beads can be seen on both. The second woman’s necklace clearly has a drop or lavaliere and is of a “choker” style as it appears to be tight and sets high on her neck. The first woman’s necklace sits comfortably where her neck meets her shoulders. No clearly visible collar appears on her dress, the photo is not very clear and details of her garment are not very visible. There are some slight differences in intensity which suggest that her neckline of her garment was oval or v-shaped and exposed some skin on her upper chest, or perhaps there is a sheer material, organza, or some other type covering the area. If a sheer fabric were employed, then the cost of the garment increases, organdy, batiste and sheer silk fabrics were costly. Unfortunately, we cannot see the full dress in either picture, to see how the sleeves are made and how the waistline and hip area was shaped, to see if there were a bustle, or some other information which would tell more about the garment to be able to determine a time period with greater accuracy.

Nancy One’s neckline, her new husband’s lapel and her hat, appear to  me to date to the 1840’s. Her neckline appears similar to the style of that in the image to the left, from Wikipedia. Her hair may also be in the ringlet fashions popular at the time. However, she is not wearing the bonnet style of hat popular in that time period. In fact, her hat looks to be like those popular during the 1860’s and 1870’s, which could clearly date the picture to the 1878 date of James and Nancy Catherine’s wedding. The James One’s tie is more of that of the 1870’s. James Two’s tie is more like one from the 1890’s.

Additionally, the wealth and location factors need to be considered. Then as now, those with less means to have the latest fashions or in a location where news of what is current may lag behind for some time are not as current or in style. These people may have been five or even ten years bIsaac Densonehind in updating their apparel which makes dating the picture using the fashions difficult. Compare, for example, the image to the right, said to be of my second great grandfather, Isaac Denson (1793-1875). Isaac wears a cravat at his neck, a style popular in the 1840’s and 1850’s. Was he current in his fashion or lagging behind? To answer that, consider that, according to the 1850 census, the value of his property Isaac was a wealthier man than the Crawford’s and the Nixon’s. In the 1850 census, the value of his property is listed as $1900. The property value of Nancy Catherine Crawford’s father, George Crawford, is listed as $150. James Nixon’s father, John Nixon, had property valued at $320. Isaac Denson was likely to have had the economic means to wear the current fashion. Isaac was a prominent man in his community, therefore, he probably updated his fashion, at least his tie, on a regular basis. In this fashion plate, also from Wikipedia, the men are wearing the same distinctive tie as Isaac. Therefore, this picture of Isaac, can be dated to the 1840’s or a later.

Finally, what about that memory that I have of the Uncle Jesse photo? I remember was that it was not viewable from any angle other than straight on. That is, my mom pointed to the picture when I was on my way through the room, being a child of nine, I was itching to run outside and play with my cousins. She said something like “see that picture, that’s your great grandmother and great grandfather”. I probably shrugged my shoulders, she was thinking that I was indicating I was not so impressed, when, actually, I couldn’t see anything but a dark image, possibly resembling a negative, my memory is sketchier on the photo-negative part. My mother then stood me right in front of the photo in order to see it. If all of that is true, and my memory isn’t being inventive, then this means it was probably a Daguerreotype. Which means it was not of my great-grandparents, but could be of my great great-grandparents, George Crawford and Jane Mangum as Daguerreotypes were only made from 1840 to 1850.

August 10, 2011

Setting the genealogical record straight

I know old family tales die hard. Sometimes, it takes a lot of evidence to put these tall tales to rest. For example, DNA evidence was required to separate the Stephen and James Langford bunch from the John “Jack” and Rufus Wiley Langford bunch. For years, they were all thought to be brothers and their father said to be a man named John or perhaps Eli. Long story short, the four are not genetically brothers, well, technically Stephen and James may be brothers and John “Jack” and Rufus Wiley may be brothers, but the DNA of Stephen’s descendants doesn’t match that of the descendants of John “Jack” or Rufus, etc. Now we know that Eli is likely the father of the former two and we have a few clues for the father of the latter two, none of whom is named John. This genealogical misunderstanding occurred due to an interview of a grandchild of James Langford, in which a statement made was misinterpreted.

Something like that happened to Jane Mangum. A record was misread, the wrong conclusion was reached, this was passed along as truth. It was then published in a book.

But inventing fiction? That is galling. Especially after this fiction has been proven wrong.

Sigh, this is just getting so tiresome. Let’s get this straight, one more time.

Jane Mangum did not marry Jedediah Brown. Not only did she not marry him, she had no children with him. Jane married George W. Crawford on 08 JUN 1841 in Itawamba, MS. The marriage was officiated by Samuel Adair, her brother-in-law. Supporting documentation was found by Kerry Peterson. This handwritten document, in which a nephew of Jane’s, Samuel Newton Adair, details aspects of relationships in his family, proves her marriage to George Washington Crawford and no other and her intergenerational connection to John Mangum, the Patriot. Thus proven it has been accepted by the DAR. A photocopy of the original document was sent to me by Becky Hamblin. The information about Jane (Jeney) is in an excerpt from Samuel Newton Adair, genealogical notes, transcription:

b. “Luna, New Mexico, October 7, 1919. I, Samuel Newton Adair, will write what I know about my mother’s folks. My grandfather’s name was John Mangum and he married Rebecca Noles, so my grandmother’s name was Rebecca Mangrum, my grandfather Mangum was a revolutionary soldier with General Morgan (one of his minute men.) He was taken prisoner with a lot of other men by the british soldiers and they set them on a log and split their heads open, all but my grandfather’s and he had some kind of varmint skin cap on and that and the skull stopped the force of the sword and it glanced off and cut his ear nearly off and they turned him lose. He married after the war was over as stated above. Their children are: Cyrus Mangrum, Joseph Mangrum, John Mangrum, William Mangrum and James Mangrum. The daughter’s names were: Jeney Mangrum, Gemima Mangrum, Rebecca Mangrum, and Lucinda Mangum. They were all my uncles and aunts. Joseph Mangrum married Emiline Hanner, William married Aunt Sally Adair, John married Aunt Mary Ann Adair, James Mangrum married Jane Clark, my father’s niece. I don’t know who uncle Cyrus Mangum married. Jeney Mangrum married George Crawford, Gemima Mangrum married Samuel Jefferson Adair, my father. Rebecca Mangrum married Joseph Adair, my father’s cousin. Lucinda Mangrum married James Richery, my father’s nephew.”

Clearly, Jane married G. W. Crawford, and, as Kerry says it:

Any marriage to Jedediah M. Brown is incorrect and has been passed down falsely from Delta Hale’s book on John Mangum and an incorrect DAR application (Per “California DAR Ancestry Guide” by the California State Society of the National Society of the DAR, 1976: Daughter of John Mangum, Revolutionary War private from South Carolina: “Jennie, b. Jul 14, 1824; m. Jedediah M. Brown.”). Delta appears to probably have seen and misinterpreted an LDS temple endowment ordinance that occurred on 17 Dec 1915 in the Salt Lake Temple for a similar but different individual: “Jane Brown Mangum, b. 14 Jul 1834, Murry Co., Tenn., d. 10 Jul 1913, baptized 1893, endowment at the request of Jedediah M. Brown, [who lists himself as] friend, with Agnes A. B. Robinson acting as proxy.” (Source: FHLfilm 184114, p. 816, ord. 23301, Salt Lake Temple Records, Endowments for the Dead – Female, Book 2D, 1915-1916.)

Why am I revisiting this?
Well, a question popped up the other day on a list to which I belong, regarding same name syndrome. The question was “Can you give examples where someone has glued two family trees together erroneously due to ‘the name is the same’?” My example was, of course, Jane Mangum, daughter of John Mangum, the Patriot. BT-dubs, we don’t call him the Patriot out of associative pride, but due to the many men named John Mangum who existed at about the same time and within the same line. After seeing the question, I decided to check on Jane Mangum on WorldConnect and on FamilyTreeMaker’s site. After all, it has been several years since this information was found, surely most people have begun to correct their trees.

Nope, now they are making up children.

Just when you think you have done your genealogical duty, somebody blows you off. There are those who refuse to believe a fact pattern supported by documentation: census, written depositions of members of the family from the time period, in this case a nephew, Marriage Records, etc., and refuse to disavow fiction which was born of ignorance of Jane’s life. You see, Jane was the only one of Rebecca Canida Knowles Mangum’s children who did not become Mormon. Hale didn’t know the facts of Jane’s life because neither Jane nor her descendants  lived near her at the time the DAR application was made or the book was being written.

Likely, the marriage information became “pass along”. Initially found in Hale’s book, it was passed from family member to family member. There was no one, until the advent of the internet, who challenged it. I am also pretty clear that whatever “work” was done, was done for these new fictitious children  was done with nothing more in depth than a search on or from within Familytreemaker, so there is no need to go further than that to keep disproving this.
The citation on this entry for Jane’s alleged marriage to Jedediah Brown in 1855 is actually a link to Ancestry’s copy of her marriage to George Washington in 1841. Jane was not a polyandrist.
It defies logic to assert that Jane had Thomas Jefferson Crawford in 1845 and Martha Jane Brown in 1845.  This Martha Jane Brown is said to have been born 10 years before the fictional marriage to Brown. In fact, the census search for Martha J. Brown born 1845 in Mississippi does find one person, in the 1850 census, the daughter of Simeon J. and Manerva Brown in Holmes County, Mississippi. There is another Martha Brown, daughter of David and Eliza Brown in Lafayette County, Misssissippi. There is a Martha J. Brown in the 1880 Federal Census enumeration for Panola County, Mississippi,  in a household headed by a Jane Brown.  Martha J. and her mother Jane are enumerated as black. Jane Mangum daughter of John Mangum, was white.
In 1850, in Mississippi, there is only one Jedediah Brown, son of Samuel and Elizabeth, in Yalobusha County. He’s fourteen. In 1870, there is a Jedediah Brown in Bountiful, Utah. He is in the Rebecca Brown family. He’s 4. From the information from Kerry Petersen, above, this is probably the Jedediah Brown who is in the midst of all this confusion. We find Jedediah M. Brown listed with wife Elizabeth, born in England in 1866, again in the 1900 Federal census for South Precinct, Davis, Utah and the 1910 Federal Census for South Bountiful, Davis, Utah. He definitely was not married to Jane Mangum. His children, enumerated with him in 1900 are Samuel, Agnes, Leo F., Elsie E. and Lucy L. In 1910, the children listed are Samuel J., Agnes A, Frederick L, Afton and Emily. In the Federal Census for 1920, now in Salt Lake, Utah, we find Jedediah, Elizabeth, Afton and Emily.

How does this happen? What can we do to prevent it in our own genealogical work? To paraphrase the old real estate adage, “citation, citation, citation”. Meaning, we need to be able to trace the provenance of every fact included in the database. Otherwise, if the pertinent information is called into question, we have no way of knowing what to believe. Of course, whenever possible it pays to make our sources primary, from original documents. Had this been done, Jane’s marriage to George Crawford would have been in Hale’s book, not the erroneous Brown marriage. When I say primary, I mean the original document attesting to the actual event at the precise time it occurred. I don’t like using the terms original or derivative, mostly because in my mathematics related Master’s degree, a derivative is a precise mathematical term referring to measuring how a function changes as the input changes. The sense in genealogy is defined as an item being derived from another source, that is, secondary.
If we can trace the provenance of everything in our database, then erroneous information can be detected by following the trail. Hale’s assertion in her book for the Brown marriage was not based on a fact. If the information in a database is from Hale, then it needs to be removed from that database once a primary source is found which disputes her information. If it is unsourced in the database, perhaps passed from one family member to another without citation, then how can it be determined to be truth or not? It can’t without extensive research. If you don’t cite, you could wind up researching one fact over and over and over and over again.

Also, we must avoid making facts fit the truth as we think we know it. In this case, a “pass-along” genealogy with a phony fact, the Jane Mangum – Jedediah Brown marriage, was the jumping off point. No record could be found for that marriage, it didn’t happen, so it doesn’t exist. To substitute, the census records, above, may have been used to change her name to Eliza Jane, since Jedediah Brown was married to Elizabeth thus making one fact fit the truth as the researcher thought he or she knew it.

Of course, there is always the possibility that someone just made it all up.

October 15, 2010

Jane Mangum

When I began to search for the roots of Nancy Catherine Crawford, my great-grandmother, I found some facts fairly rapidly. Nancy Catherine was born in Mississippi, in 1850, she died in Indian Territory in 1905. First check, Mississippi for a Nancy Crawford, bingo, Itawamba County, Mississippi. Okay, not so bingo, Crardford doesn’t really pop up when searching for Crawford. In any case, there she was, with her mother George W. and her mother Jane.
Next stop, searching available records online for Jane and George, yielded a record on Itawamba Historical Society for Jane Mangum and George Crawford, the officiant was Samuel Adair:
46 George Crawford Jane Mangum 8 Jun 1841 Samuel Adair
So, her name was Mangum. Now, to what specific Mangum family does Jane belong? There is a John Mangum in Itawamba County in 1840 with a daughter of the appropriate age. Checking published genealogies, though, I found that John did, indeed, have a daughter named Jane, but, these genealogies had her married to Jedediah Brown. Were these right? There was no record for a marriage of Jane and Jedediah in Mississippi. There was a Cyrus Mangum in Pickens County, AL, a son of John, who also had a daughter in the correct category in 1840. But this daughter turned out to be Mary Mangum who married John Turman and followed her father’s family to Texas.

I became increasingly convinced that my Jane was John’s daughter, and that ‘accepted’ genealogies have her married to the wrong man [Jedediah Brown] and born in the wrong place, I had to search all the possibilities. That is, I know that my Jane Mangum married in Itawamba County, that the only family of Mangums in Itawamba county are John’s family. But as yet, I had no ‘smoking gun’, so to speak, to directly connect her to him, a will would be handy but did not appear to exist. So, I had been ‘proving’ the connection by disproving other possibilities, e.g., did a grand daughter come with them to MS, etc. and also by making associations, e.g., my Jane Mangum and George Crawford were married by Samuel Adair, husband to Gemima Mangum, also John’s daughter. Curiously, I could find no listing of children for the Mangum – Brown connection, nor could I find a Jedediah, or even a J* Brown in any pertinent census years.
Apparently, the Jedediah Brown information was asserted, without any accompanying proof, by a descendant of a collateral line who was trying to get into the DAR. As it wasn’t important to the claimant’s request for DAR membership, it went unchallenged.
The only thing I can surmise for all these Jane Mangum incongruities is that there were three Jane Mangum’s born about 1824 – 1826 time frame: one in Tennessee, one in South Carolina, and one in Alabama, John’s daughter. The South Carolina Jane Mangum married an M. D. Brown. The Tennessee woman, Sarah Jane Mangum, was born in Hardin County, in 1826 and married Daniel Hitchcock. My Jane Mangum was born in May of 1825, in Alabama, as she reports on most every census. Of course she could have been born in TN while her mother was visiting there and was not aware of it. Curiously, again, Jane Mangum Crawford apparently claimed to one of her children to have been born in Scotland, who knows why, or at what time in her life. Looks like to me that all the Janes were ‘stirred’ together and came out as one person.
Jane Mangum Crawford died in 1904 in Oklahoma. At least her tombstone has that date. If my Jane Mangum is John and Rebecca’s daughter, any and all of her work would have been done as proxies, if that’s the correct word, as she never became Mormon, but was, I think, a Baptist, as were most of the Crawfords. On searches that I have done for ‘Jane Mangum’ on, I have noticed that the only marriage that is listed that is from a primary source is the Crawford one, the Jedediah Brown info is not only not primary but and is very vague, e.g. anywhere from 1840-1854 and Tennessee to Alabama to Mississippi for the same event. That’s piling on the suspicions for me. I don’t have obituaries, but another Crawford cousin is sending photos of Jane’s tombstone. I don’t know quite why, again, but it has her name as Virginia Crawford. In all official records, she used Jane, not only her marriage but also census. I will ask if they know of any obituaries for them and start searching if they don’t. Newspapers were few and far between in Indian Territory for Jane; George has a higher chance as he died in Arkansas.”

Finally, I found someone who had a wonderfully well researched amount of information on worldconnect, Kerry Petersen. When the “official records” aren’t enough to connect all the dots, reaching out is the way to go. Especially, as it was beginning to appear, Jane had not moved with her family to Nauvoo, then migrated to Utah, so the story of the family went with them and not much stayed with Jane. I emailed Kerry. Kerry is an excellent researcher and a generous person to boot. I sent him the paragraphs above. He sent out the word to the “cousins” and soon, a record was found which substantiated my thougts, in one beautiful sentence from a grandson of John Mangum, Samuel Newton Adair and son of Samuel Jefferson Adair and Gemima Mangum Adair: “,…, and Aunt Jenny married George Crawford”.
So, turns out, Delta Hale asserted the Jedediah Brown marriage in her book and on her DAR application. Now, thanks to the primary records found in the official records and the transcription which Kerry sourced and Becky Hamblin Adair obtained from her great-great aunt Thora Adair, the DAR accepted my application and has deemed this information to be the correct history of Jane.
Jane, you deserve a “Real Daughter” marker for your grave.