|
a.
|
Note: Well, as we know, the censuses before 1850 do not list the children's names, and the 1820/1830/1840 Tennessee censuses list several Easley's. The South Carolina
1820, 1830 and 1840 censuses all only list two (2) Easley's each, John Easley and
Samuel Easley; this Samuel Easley is never listed as having any children in them or elsewhere. This John Easley is not listed as having any children in the 1820 census;
James Easley was born October 9, 1820, and so that was too late for the 1820 census.
The 1830 South Carolina census for this John Easley lists 2 boys under 5, 3 boys
5 and under 10, and 1 girl under 5, for a total of 6 children. The 1840 South Carolina
census for this John Easley lists 2 boys 10 and under 15, 2 boys 15 and under 20,
1 girl 5 and under 10, and 1 girl 10 and under 15, for a total of 6 children.
For this John (Allen) Easley, listed in rootsweb, there are only a TOTAL of 6 CHILDREN!
So, by this, there should have only been 5 CHILDREN listed in the 1830 census for this
(Colonel) John Allen Easley, but it lists 6, and James Easley would be the reason for
the 3 boys 5 and under 10 in the 1830 census. The 1840 census matches the number of
children, sex, and ages for the children listed in the rootsweb and other entries,
which does not list James Easley; however, James Easley would have been almost 20 by the time the census was taken in 1840, and had probably already left home, getting
married Aug. 29, 1843, in Maury Co., Tennessee. The only other Easley other than
John Easley listed in the 1820 and 1830 South Carolina censuses is Samuel Easley, who had no children and moved to Tennessee around 1840 before the 1840 census was taken; possibly James Easley went to Tennessee with him. James Easley's parents were both born in/from South Carolina, as the 1880 Bell Co., Texas, census indicates for him, as is indicated for this John Easley and his wife, Elizabeth King, in rootsweb. James I. (J.) Easley's children have names of ancestors up the line(s), such as William, Elizabeth, John (S.), James, and Samuel, further indicating a connection. He cannot be found in any other family lines.
|
