Finding the Will... and the Means

...or on going home to trim the trees         

(Author's note: Again, this is a straight-up genealogical analysis for someone else's family tree. If you have no interest, you should bail out now. Peace.)

As always, critically, unedited. 

This week, my hands have been busy trimming trees. Not the kind in the yard, mind you, but the sprawling, sometimes overgrown branches of our family histories. Call it what you will, but sometimes our genealogical trees become so cluttered with dead weight, they start resembling an Amazon rainforest, or perhaps a soggy English garden desperately in need of constant weeding.

I confess, I'm often the chief culprit in this leafy chaos. Blame it on my famously short attention span or the convenient excuse of an old man's failing memory, but the truth is, like most family historians, I employ the "hunter-gatherer" method of collecting genealogical information. My intentions are always the best: to return and meticulously verify everything later. As they say, "you can't make wine if you don't crush grapes." Nevertheless, it truly behooves any family historian (and yes, I specifically say family historian, not "genealogist") to revisit those gleanings, separate the wheat from the chaff, and focus on weaving the stories behind the data.

For me, the easiest way to do this is by picking a single lineage and methodically, almost gingerly, working backward in time. My mission is to find proof of birth, marriage (if applicable), and death, connecting each individual to their parents and, in turn, to the next generation. While I'm not always looking for terra firma in my initial hunts, I'm certainly not accepting "pie in the sky" claims either—like a seventy-year-old woman giving birth, only to have died the year before her alleged husband was even born. (Believe me, that sort of thing is out there!) What I'm truly seeking, especially when vital records are scarce, is a cohesive argument or a solid foundation for analysis. For instance, if a marriage record is absent, but the alleged husband and wife are buried side-by-side in the same cemetery, that's usually enough for me to move on. You get my drift.

It's all about finding proof (or at least an analysis of correlating information) I can really sink my teeth into, as this somewhat iconic lady from the 80s probably said best.                     

The Willeford Wall

So, this week, my focus returned to Paige Dunham's family tree. Like all of our family trees, it has its share of cool, slightly gnarly branches to explore. I decided I would zero in on Paige's maternal great-grandmother's lines—those of Mayme (Willeford) Page, 1888-1964—to see just how far back I could trace them before hitting a verification roadblock.

                   

         

   Above: Mayme Sue (Willeford) Page's parents' wedding certificate                     

From Mayme back to her parents, things flowed pretty smoothly. Her 1964 death certificate clearly names her parents (and Paige's great-great grandparents): John B. Willeford and Ella Moore. It was a kick to discover that Paige's great-great-grandfather's middle name was "Bundy" (a potential investigation all on its own!), but even more delightful was learning he went by the nickname "Shake." Personally, I found that to be not just curious, but undeniably cool. He even appears in a photograph, seen working with the local fire department on parade day, noticeable in his black coat.

                   

Above: "Shake" Willeford's parents' marriage record

Sadly, "Shake" died young at only age 39. 

However, fortunately, connecting "Shake" Willeford to his parents, William A. Willeford and Elizabeth Susan (Means) Willeford, is also relatively straightforward. The family remained in Cabarrus County, North Carolina, and "Shake" reliably appears in the U.S. Census records within that household. There's a very occasional minor spelling variation (Williford vs. Willeford), but, at least in this instance, that seems to be well within the realm of normal. "Shake" and his wife are interred together at Oakwood Cemetery, while his parents rest at Mount Olivet. This seems like typical "my family gets buried here" behavior, with respective family groups maintaining their plots. The marriage of Shake's parents is also well-documented by a solid record.

Thus far, this particular branch of Paige's tree can be verified to look like this:

But as usual, I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Temptation of "Uncle Billy"

It's right around this point, however, that the Willeford line gets interesting. There's surprisingly little concrete evidence to connect Shake's father, William A. Willeford, to his (alleged in so many family trees to be) parents, William "Williford," Sr., and Nancy Brantley. This brings us to a frustrating standstill around the year 1831. (Indeed, it's more likely he was the son of an "Edward Willeford" who lived there in 1830, but solid proof eludes us.)

                            

In fact, the proposed connection to William "Williford" and Nancy (Brantley) Williford is so tempting that many genealogists cite it without proof. When examining it, it’s easy to see why people were eager to graft this onto their trees; on the surface, it seems to make perfect sense, as seen in these clippings about the 106-year-old "Billy Williford," an alleged ancestor or kinsman of "Shake's."           

         

But, alas, there's no proof.

There's even a tantalizing marriage record semi-attached to all of this: a record for William Williford and Nancy Brantley. This claims a further Brantley kinship for Paige to someone named "Etheldred 'Dred' Brantley."                               

 

Like you, that name didn't immediately ring a bell for me, but a quick Google search of "Dred Brantley" reveals a fascinating and, frankly, disturbing historical connection: he was converted to Christianity by the enslaved man Nat Turner during or after the horrific Nat Turner Rebellion. Etheldred Brantley was a slave master. Unfortunately, historical accounts indicate that Etheldred Brantley of the Nat Turner Rebellion had no children, making a direct lineage connection highly improbable. (Rumors are that old Etheldred was also gay and a sadist.)

The name "Etheldred" certainly worked for the Brantley/Williford clan of Southampton, Virginia. The Brantleys, who had some connection to the Willifords, eventually moved to Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The question then becomes: Are these "Willifords" the same family as the "Willefords" of that same place?

My knowledge of such historical complexities like the Nat Turner Rebellion is limited, I confess. Yet, at first glance, the question immediately sprang to mind: Could Paige Willeford's family connect to the Brantleys, and thus, to the Nat Turner Rebellion? If so, that would be incredibly noteworthy, if not historically significant. However, despite the intriguing possibilities, there’s no evidence beyond the shared "Willeford/Williford" surname. The connection to Etheldred Brantley, like the story of "Uncle Billy" Williford, rumored to be one of the oldest men in the state, is interesting, maybe even serendipitously coincidental, kinda cool, but again, unproven.

Sorry, Paige, you don't get to keep this "Oldest man in the county." LOL.

This particular temptation is especially strong given that 106-year-old "Uncle Billy" Williford was in Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, in 1873—the very same place where "Shake" Willeford and his family resided that year. Concord, in 1870, had a population of only 878. That's one hell of a confluence of Willeford/Willifords not to be connected!

Yet, like so many promising branches grafted onto our family trees, there's no proof of it.

Time to get out the chainsaw.

For now, "Shake" Willeford and his father, William A. Willeford, stand alone as the furthest confirmed ancestors in Paige’s Willeford line, hitting a brick wall at 1831. I'm not comfortable calling anything beyond that point definite, at least not yet.

Turning to the Means

But what about "Shake's" mother, Elizabeth Susan (Means) Willeford, 1835-1884? How far back can we trace her line? It will likely come as no surprise that we land in roughly the same historical and geographical spot: Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. But this time? Well, for me, this is where it really gets interesting.

Conveniently, "Shake's" parents, Elizabeth Susan Means and William A. Willeford, mentioned above, are buried in the same Cabarrus County's Mt. Olivet Cemetery as Elizabeth's parents, William C. Means, 1809-1853, and Barbara (Patterson) Means, 1804-1875. We even have a marriage record for them, "Bill and Barbara", apparently signed by her father, Charles Patterson, which is consistent with family trees. While Charles Patterson is likely Barbara's father, it's also not (thus far) proven. As you will see from the image dated 1827, this marriage looks more like a sale of property than what we would consider a wedding. 

For me, it doesn't read directly like a dowry but more like a "bride price."     

However, this is all well and good. We've "pushed the means" back to the year 1827, and we have a pretty firm grasp of the identity of "William C. Means, Jr." (who is also called "William C. Means" in some family trees) and his wife Barbara. It seems like it should be easy peasy at this point. However, as with the Willeford/Williford clan, things get a bit mucky. They get especially "mucky" when the first thing you see is the 1850 Slave Schedule for Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, for none other than:

"William C. Means."

Not to mention the problem that "our" William appears to be married to somebody else. 

   

Above: The list of the fifty enslaved people of William C. Means of Cabarrus County is continued on the following page. Remember, slaves are not listed by their names but by their owners.

Forgive me if I am getting too far ahead of myself.

When I first saw the above record, I thought, Oh, well, another enslaver in the South. I guess I got a little ho-hum about it. I don't mean to discount it, but researching in North Carolina (and the rest of the South) in 1850 means you really shouldn't be surprised by it. That being said, I guess what surprised me here was the rather large number of enslaved people on the schedule.

There were fifty.

Okay, I fold. I admit, I was startled. The number of enslaved people went far past the beloved family "cook, nanny, maid, and a couple of farmhands." Honestly, I wasn't sure how to feel. Was I looking at a plantation owner here? A quick Google search told me that this number, 50, was on the higher side of the norm. (Like enslaving people should have ever been normal.)

I kept thinking: Is Paige somehow connected to a huge southern plantation owner? Not that it matters. It was just maybe more than I expected? Just who was William C. Means of Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina—a place that surely had less of a population in 1850 than it did in 1870? So I started looking...and I found his obituary. See the image below: 

    

            

It was all so strange.

Several family trees showed William C. Means of Concord, Cabarrus County, NC, as the father of Elizabeth Susan (Means) Willeford. But something was off. The dates don't line up. Could it be that there were two men in a town of less than 800 people by the same name? (Okay, sure...but....) Were they somehow related to each other? Check out these census images for the two men named "William C. Means" living there in 1850.

Yet still, why had they made that mistake? Or was it a mistake?

Below: Paige Dunham's confirmed ancestor: "William C. Means, Jr." #136 on the enumeration

Below: The other "William C. Means," aka "The General" #129 on the enumeration

Notice that the census enumeration numbers are only seven numbers apart.

 So not only did these two men have the same name, live in the same town of less than 800, but they also lived basically "seven doors down" from each other. One of them, Paige's apparent ancestor, is even referred to as "William C. Means, Jr." Now, keeping in mind that the title "junior" did not always apply as meaning "the son of," it is an interesting idea that connects these two men. Given that each of them has a birth year close to the other one, it seems that it is likely. Quite simply, the scenarios are basically two:

1.) William C. Means and William C. Means (Jr. or otherwise) are two unrelated men of the same name who just happen to have lived "on the same block." 2.) William C. Means and William C. Means (Jr., or otherwise) are related to each other and happened to have lived on the same "block."

The obituary and FindAGrave.com memorial no. 21974717 clarifies that of these two men, one was fully called "William Cresswell 'The General' Means." He looks to have been a fairly prominent Confederate war officer. By the look of the census records, he was rather prosperous also with $10,000 in 1850-era real estate holdings—not to mention the 50 enslaved people he owned, whose upkeep and labor were certainly not inexpensive. (Yeah, eww.)

So the question becomes, what is the relationship between these two men? Why is one referred to as "Jr."?

Is Paige's William C. Means "The General's" nephew?

There are no obvious easy answers here, only more questions.

Yeah, we need to get out that genealogical chainsaw again. 

Regardless of any relationship between "the two men of the same place" living in "the same block and born within a decade of each other," "The General" does not appear to be the father of Paige's ancestor William C. Means.

Yes, there is more unraveling to be done among the Willefords and the Means.

I have brought both of these lineages up, those of the Willefords and the Means, to show just how easy it is for a family tree to grow branches and limbs that might not necessarily belong to it. While it's easy to explore and to "hunt and gather" information, at some point, the determined family historian (or indeed genealogist) must go back and see if they have "the will and the means" to trim that tree.

It's the only way to ever get at the truth.

☮