Jane (Horn) Walker's application for a widow's pension
was denied, specifically because she could not prove
what she needed to prove about her marriage to Edward.
No deception seems to have occurred, but especially
since the government rejected the pension application,
genealogical thoroughness requires an examination of
the possibilities that deception or error could arise
and why such deception is unlikely.
In order to receive a widow's pension under the law
under which she applied, Jane had to prove two key elements:
that she was married to Edward and that they were married
before 1794. The government accepted several methods
to prove a marriage; certainly one way was to present
a copy of the marriage license when available. But Tennessee
was not even a state when Edward and Jane were married,
and the county at the time apparently did not issue
such licenses.
Further, according to Jane, the couple was married
in a frontier church that had long before "gone
to destruction"; the reference may be to the Double
Springs Baptist Church, which did burn sometime in the
early 1800s but may have been to another church. Certainly,
churches came and went as the population rapidly shifted
in pioneer days. But she stated that no church record
was available at that time, certainly a believable proposition,
and, for that matter, as the church was Baptist, quite
possibly no church record was even kept in the first
place.
The government would also accept testimony from people
who had attended the wedding. Jane stated essentially
that everyone who had attended was dead or had moved
on to places unknown. Weddings in the era were minor
affairs, with few people beyond witnesses attending.
Given that Edward and Jane had married more than 50
years before the original pension application in a county
they had left more than 25 years earlier, her statement
is quite believable, and, in fact, quite likely.
Most commonly, as in Jane's case, applicants attempted
to prove a common law marriage. Edward and Jane were
married in a church, but common law marriages were generally
legal and easier to prove in an era with few documents
even for major life events. The government accepted
the fact of a marriage in any case where two people
lived together and called themselves married. That facet
was easy for Jane to prove; the couple had lived in
the area more than 25 years when she first applied,
and most of their children were there as well. Testimony
from a host of disinterested parties was available on
that fact, and, indeed, the county court itself weighed
in and declared them married on two different occasions.
The facet that she could not easily prove was the date
of the marriage. The government would assume a date
based on the age of the oldest child. How much leeway
the government gave is unknown; for instance, to prove
a marriage by 1794, would a first child born in 1800
have been soon enough? But, in Jane's case, she had
two children born before 1794 and a third born in 1795,
any one of which should easily have proven a marriage
prior to 1794.
So, to prove those ages, the government wanted family
Bible records recorded contemporaneously with the births
of the children, a record that Jane did not have as
the original record was with a daughter in Indiana;
the record in Indiana may or may not have been contemporaneous,
but certainly Jane's copy was not. From the record,
it appears that either the family or the lawyer or both
never entirely understood what exactly the government
wanted and never pursued other avenues for proving the
marriage, so the pension was ultimately denied, but,
because of the attempt, the family
Bible records survive.
Jane originally applied for a pension in May 1840,
sending what she and her lawyer/advisor Alfred Noel
apparently thought were sufficient family records to
back up her claim of the marriage date. The government
required a Bible record in which the births had been
written at the times of the births themselves, and further
records in the pension request suggest that neither
Jane nor Noel clearly understood the requirement. In
fact, the records that Jane first sent in 1840 were
stated up front to be a copy of records from Edward's
Bible made by his son Jonathan.
This first application was denied, but not on the basis
of the Bible records. Instead, the first act under which
Jane applied required that she be a widow by the date
of the act, which was passed less than two months before
Edward died. After a new pension law passed, Jane applied
again in May 1843, referring to her previous application
for evidence.
In August 1843, the Pension Office questioned the genuineness
of the Bible record and asked for a copy of the Bible
itself along with evidence to show by whom and at what
time the entries were made. Jane filed additional depositions
the next month stating that record had come from Jonathan's
Bible but that Jonathan had moved away, so she had no
access to the book. In truth, of course, Jonathan's
Bible would have proven no help as it would have further
shown that the family record was not recorded contemporaneously,
but Jane herself had indicated that the record was a
copy when it was first submitted.
Instead of sending the book, she sent the second set
of records, these torn from the pages of Edward's personal
Bible that Jonathan had. Again, she and Jonathan stated
up front that the Bible from which they were taken was
a later copy, that Edward had given his earlier Bible
to a daughter who had moved to Indiana, and that Edward
himself had copied part of the records and Jonathan
the rest into Edward's new Bible.
Also included in the response was a deposition from
her oldest son Joseph about his age as well as a court
opinion indicating that Jane qualified for the pension.
Jonathan, who had moved away, was living within 20 miles
of Jane, and, in November, he filed a deposition stating
further the provenance of the second set of family records.
The packet of information was sent back to the Pension
Office in December, and the government did not respond,
at least according to the extant record, until August.
In August of 1844, the government raised two objections,
one that Jane's name was written as "Mary"
with her "X" mark and the second that two
sets of Bible records had been sent and claimed to be
genuine originals. The first was easy to explain, as
Jane was illiterate and a clerk mistakenly used the
wrong name. The second remark suggests on its face that
the clerk had not bothered reading the explanations
given related to the family Bible records; even if he
did understand the provenance, neither record was contemporaneous
nor was it claimed to be.
In December of that year, Alfred Noel sent Edward's
Bible, not the Indiana copy but the later one, to the
Pension Office, along with a letter expressing considerable
frustration over the situation. The Pension Office responded
in March that it appeared that both sets of records
were taken from the same Bible and that the Bible was
not of sufficient age to prove the marriage. In fact,
the records may very well have come from the same Bible;
no claim was made to the contrary. Edward's Bible had
passed to Jonathan, and the first copy of the records
sent may have been made on other pages within it.
The Pension Office did suggest, though, as an alternative,
getting the testimony of someone who specifically knew
the couple before 1794 and could attest to them having
claimed to be married before then. Jane had already
testified 5 years before that she knew of no person
who had attended the wedding still being alive or otherwise
available, but anyone who knew the couple before 1794
could testify that they claimed to be married before
that time. Had fraud been intended, one would think
that Jane would have had little trouble finding an older
person in the neighborhood who would make such a claim
on her behalf.
Alfred Noel's letter in December 1844 is the last in
the record that implies strongly that Jane was still
living. She may have died shortly thereafter and certainly
seems to have done so before 1850; there are no other
records in the file that suggest that any other evidence
was sent to the Pension Office during her lifetime.
There was one more attempt made in 1852, at which time
she was clearly dead, by the estate, which was summarily
rejected because of the time that had elapsed since
the government had last requested documentation.
Although the family quite possibly saw the whole process
as unfathomable bureaucratic bumbling, the government's
requirements were quite explicit, and Jane failed to
provide the evidence needed to satisfy those requirements
as did many widows. Her pension application was probably
the only time in her life that Jane had to prove anything
about her marriage or anything else, and few records
were ever kept in that era.
The choice of using Bible records to prove the marriage
was not a good one; whether Jane understood or not,
the government wanted contemporaneously-recorded Bible
records and Jane did not have such records in her possession.
She should have chosen another avenue for proving the
date, although she may or may not have been able to
do so. The last avenue suggested by the government may
have been possible but perhaps was not. After all, that
avenue would require her to identify someone who had
known the couple in another county during the first
three and a half years of her marriage, not necessarily
someone who had attended the wedding itself; whether
such a person was still alive in her area is unknown.
So the government requirements were never met, and
specifically the marriage was never proven to the satisfaction
of the Federal Government. The standards for genealogical
proof, though, are a little different, and we have the
benefit of additional records not available to the government
at that time.
The first set of questions relates to Jane's character;
certainly, there are many glowing statements from some
of the county's leading citizens related to her character.
Such statements notwithstanding, her application was
questioned solely on the basis of the antiquity of the
family records. Although she did not send the required
contemporaneously-recorded pages, she appears not to
have understood the requirement to do so or simply sent
what she could and hoped for the best.
More to the point, in the case of both submissions,
the provenance of each was given along with the submission,
not in response to governmental objections. In other
words, there is no suggestion within the record that
Jane was trying to deceive in any manner; all statements
made about the records are consistent and all relevant
points made in advance of objections raised by the government.
Was Jane actually the widow of Revolutionary War pensioner
Edward B. Walker?
The proof that she was is overwhelming. Edward's own
pension application does not mention a wife or family,
but when he died, the law allowed a widow or orphan
to collect the prorated portion of the pension that
had not been paid before his death. Jane stepped up
to claim that portion, marking the first recorded time
that she needed to prove a marriage to Edward.
In order to claim that portion of pension, Jane needed
only to prove that she was married to Edward at the
time of his death, not at some prior time as with the
widow's pension, and there was no need to prove any
children. She appeared before the county court, which,
at that time, functioned as both a court of record for
some types of cases as well as the legislative and executive
body for the county.
She presented Edward's actual pension certificate,
which is still contained in the records of that final
pension payment. Testimony was also given by two men
that Edward had died on a specific date and that she
was indeed his widow. One of those two men was her son
Jonathan, although his relationship was not specifically
stated. The other man testifying to the same two facts,
though, was Peter Niel, who was completely unrelated
to the family; in fact, he was the chairman of the county
court itself. Clearly, at least one high-ranking official
was quite familiar with the family and the two people
claiming to be related to Edward.
The exact timing of Edward and Jane's move to Claiborne
County is still unknown, although their children started
arriving there by 1818; within the final pension payment
claim itself is that Edward had lived in Claiborne County
for "upwards of forty years" before his death,
having previously resided in North Carolina. In fact,
Edward had been in Tennessee for more than 40 years
but probably in Claiborne County itself for only about
20 years by the time he died based on what few deeds
and surveys have been found. Several of his Claiborne
County neighbors, though, had lived near him in Tennessee
for most if not all of those 40 years.
In any case, the Walker family had long been established
in the area, and most of the adult children still lived
there at the time that Edward died and later when Jane
applied for the pension. Certainly, a number of people
would have been quite familiar with the family and would
have known both Edward and Jane and their claim to be
married, the claim being all that was necessary for
the legal requirement for the final payment of Edward's
pension, not for a widow's pension for Jane.
Many people likely knew at least several of the children,
most of whom lived near each other during the relevant
time frame, and neighbors probably knew that the children
claimed Jane as their mother. Further, while few if
any disinterested people were in a position to know
exact dates of the marriage and births of the children,
they probably knew which of the children were the oldest
and at least approximately the ages of one or more.
In other words, Jane was clearly not an older woman
who had suddenly moved into the area claiming that she
was once married to a soldier that no one had other
met. In fact, she was the widow of a man that many people
would have known, and she made the claim shortly after
Edward's death.
The idea that the people involved in the final pension
payment process might have engaged in a conspiracy to
lie can be dismissed out-of-hand. For that matter, even
if no one else had known the Walkers, the idea that
Peter Niel could have been bribed to lie as the second
witness is just as preposterous. The final pension payment
was a mere $19, with some unknown portion of that going
to the lawyer who went to Knoxville to collect it. Any
bribe of any portion of that $19 would have been too
small to have tempted anyone, much less a man with the
considerable means that Niel had.
Additional evidence in Jane's attempt to obtain a widow's
pension later also speaks to her having been married
to Edward at the time of his death, including an additional
county court ruling in her favor.
Was Jane the mother of the children mentioned in the
Bible records?
Without the Bible record, the children of Edward B.
and Jane would be harder to prove; it certainly serves
as a good genealogical record assuming it is true. However,
some of the children can be proven with direct evidence,
and most of the others through extremely strong circumstantial
evidence even without the Bible record. But if Edward
left a will, it is no longer extant, and he appears
to have owned no property when he died, so no trail
of deeds is available.
In fact, though, only the mother of Joseph needed to
be proven for the pension, as he was born well before
the deadline. Joseph himself testified in 1843 that
he was the son of Edward and Jane and testified to his
own birth date from his own Bible which he stated was
copied from his father's Bible. Jonathan testified the
same day that he was a child of the couple, 38 years
old, and the eighth child of the couple; he noted that
a child who had died as an infant had not been recorded
in the Bible, making Jonathan the eighth child.
Once again, one of the key arguments to be made for
believing the testimony involves the amount of time
that the family had been in the same area. Even the
court clerk mentioned that the family was well-known
to the court itself, and other evidence points to community
involvement that would suggest that any number of people
were in a position to know family relationships long
before any pension application or other reason to deceive
arose. In particular, Jonathan was a Methodist minister
and Joseph had given land to build a church, so one
can easily surmise that neither was a recluse and unknown
to the larger community.
The value of the pension itself - by itself - rules
out the possibility of a widespread conspiracy among
all the disinterested parties; there was not enough
money involved to make such a conspiracy worthwhile.
And very few pensions were awarded in Claiborne County,
so there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that
a group of people colluded to get several pensions and
split them or anything of the sort.
The remaining avenues of potential deceit would have
involved lying to the community about parentage and
marriage long before the idea of needing to do so for
a pension would have ever arisen. Such a deceit would
have had to have been perpetrated for decades by not
only Jane but Edward himself and the children; certainly
no reason to do so seems obvious.
For these reasons, one can assume that Jane was in
fact the child of at least the first and eighth child
and can be assumed to have been the mother of the others.
When the family first moved to Claiborne County and
for a number of years thereafter, at least some of the
younger children would have been living with Edward
and Jane. Since only the oldest child needed to be proven
for the pension, there was no value in listing the other
children unless they were, in fact, her children.
Were the birth dates correct?
The birth dates correspond with the 1830 age ranges
shown in the Census; for the children traced to 1850
and beyond, the dates are closely consistent with what
the children reported, including reports after Jane
had died. The only reason to deceive on the dates would
have been to adjust them to indicate a marriage before
one actually taken place. Evidence shows quite strongly,
though, that no manipulation was done.
In particular, the entry for Joseph, the most important
one in terms of proving the marriage date, was written
by Edward himself or at least in a handwriting very
suggestive of his and stated to be his by his son. Certainly,
Edward himself would have had no reason to backdate
the birth, since he would not have been aware at the
time of requirements of the pension act.
Beyond that, ample outside evidence exists for several
children on their birth dates that would have no reason
to be altered for pension purposes, including for two
children either one of which would prove a marriage
in the appropriate time frame. In particular:
Joseph's tombstone gives his birth date as June
1791; while the inscription was redone several decades
ago, traces of the original inscription remain. The
tombstone is in the Walker Cemetery on his former
property on Little Sycamore Road in Claiborne County
and has been photographed and examined in person.
Edward Jr.'s tombstone shows the same birth date
as the Bible records but was erected in 2006, with
the date based on those Bible records. However, the
subsequent discovery of a copy of Edward Jr.'s own
Bible records has resulted in confirmation of the
same date.
Youngest child Elizabeth's tombstone records her
birth day as 30 May 1813, two years to the day before
the Bible records indicate. However, census record
in 1850 and 1860 both support the Bible date, and,
in any case, the Bible records would not have been
modified to make her appear younger than she really
was. A photo of the tombstone in Foster Cemetery in
Harrison County, Missouri taken by Kevin L. Sutton
shows the date clearly; curiously, the "3"
in 1813 is slanted in a different direction from the
rest of the number, suggesting perhaps an alteration
at some point.
In short, outside evidence supports the ages reported
on the children and specific dates in three cases. As
noted elsewhere, transcription errors may have and,
in fact, did occur, but, in general, the information
is correct.
Was Jane married 1 May 1790 to Edward?
Because the Bible records support a marriage prior
to 1794, Jane would have no particular reason to have
made up the information about the marriage itself. However,
the exact date can be called into question. At one point
in the pension, she indicates that she was married "about"
the first of May 1790 and in another "on or about";
1 May 1790 was a Saturday, a definite possibility for
the marriage, but the exact date is uncertain.
Summary
Although the known copies of Edward's Bible records
were not recorded contemporaneously and were not adequate
to meet government requirements of proof for the pension,
they can be assumed to be correct, at least within the
limitations of transcription error mentioned in the
earliest section. Potential reasons that the records
were constructed to defraud the government have been
analyzed and dismissed as possibilities; in addition,
outside evidence uniformly supports key entries in the
Bible record.