North Carolina Livingstons

Public Forum for anyone interested in tracing their roots.
Forum rules
Remember that this forum is publicly accessible. Do not share private information that you wish to remain private on the Ancestral Search forum.
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

1850 Census Williamson District, Richmond County, North Carolina

Hugh Livingston's Census page 550
with other householders
Nancy Gibson
Thomas Quick
Lydia Wright
Isaac WIlliamson
Hugh Livingston
Duncan Smith
John Covington

George Parker is also recorded in the Williamson District but he is not apparently living near Hugh Livingston as he is listed on page 531 or 537 of the 1850 Census now with large family including Peter Parker.
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

1860 Census Wolf pitt, Richmond County, North Carolina Gibsons Store Post Office

Martha Pate
Theo Steve?
Peter W. Bowyer
Charity Whitefield
Hugh Livingston b. 1804 N.C.
Mary Skipper


WIlliamson District, Rockingham District and Wolfpitt and censused with different neihghbours every 10 years this is confusing.
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

HI Alan,
I looked through what seemed to be a mountain of documents from 1872 to 1874 I think it was but having almost given up finding anything of value to the research I found this one document which I thought that you, Duncan and Jeane might find of interest.
I don't know that there was a family feud regarding Hugh Livingston's estate in 1872 but it seemed to be a lengthy process taking a couple of years starting it looks like early in 1872 shortly after Hugh's death. THis was the most pertinent document I found with any information of major significance for family research purposes regarding the settling of Hugh's Livingston estate beginning in 1872.

State of North Carolina Probate
County of Richmond March 11, 1872

To D Stewart Judge of Probate in and for the County of RIchmond
The Application of Duncan Livingston for letters of Administration upon the estate of Hugh Livingston deceased
shows:
1. That Hugh Livingston late of the State of North Carolina County of RIchmond died ______ in February 1872.

2. That his wife Mary Livingston his next of kin is entitled by the law of this state to administer upon his estate and that she having renounced her right he applies by her request.

3. That the property belonging to the estate of the said Hugh Livingston consists of the Household and Kitchen Furniture, two Mules, fifteen head Hogs, twenty head of Sheep, ten head of Cattle, 500 lbs of Bacon, one Cart, 1 Buggy, 1000 lbs fodder? 10 bundles Peas, one Watch, one Gun and one thousand acres of land lying on both sides of the Green Pond Road worth about Ten Hundred Dollars.

4. The parties entitled as heirs at law of his estate are his wife Mary and his children Ann Peel wife of Fletcher Peel, John Livingston, Duncan Livngston, Mary McPherson wife of Archibald McPherson, Martha Livingston, Hugh Livingston, Sarah Livingston, Peter Livingston, Alexander Livingston,
Charles Livingston
J. H. Long Atty. for Applicant

State of North Carolina, Richmond County
Personally appeared before me D. Stewart Judge of Probate for the County aforesaid. Duncan Livingston the applicant named who being duly sworn says that the facts stated in the above application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th of March 1872
D. Stewart Judge of Probate
Alan Livingston
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:57 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Alan Livingston »

Donald,

i just got in email contact with Jeane Parker today for the first time, as she contacted me through the DNA project web page. She tells me Peter Parker lived in the household of George Parker, but was not an heir in George's 1852 will, indicating no relation. then, Peter Parker married one of George's daughters shortly after. so, we can be pretty sure that the Livingston DNA does not go back to George. sounds like Peter Parker was about the right age to be the child of either Hugh or one of his brothers-probably Hugh judging from the census location data. wow, we have us an almost two century old soap opera going here.

Alan
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

Hi Alan,
Well my best guess is that based on the seemingly combined family of George Parker and his wife in the 1850 Census in Williamson, Richmond County the simplest explanation for that large seemingly combined family is that George Parker was a widower with children from his first marriage who remarried Peter's mother a widower who had two children a boy and a girl from her first marriage. The boy was Peter Parker born 1833 in South Carolina. Peter and his sister after George Parker married his mother they adopted the name of their step father George but as we know their birth father was not a Parker but someone else. This also might explain why their two sets of Parker children in the 1850 Census curiously both list as being ages 16 and 18. I have never seen that in all the years I have gone through a million an one census records. It has to be a blended family not unlike the Brady Bunch and second marriage probably for both parents. That is my best guess and I could be wrong of course about all this.

We know as Jean mentioned that Peter was not mentioned in George Parker's will which I think is a clue to the fact that George was Peter's step father as I am suggesting..So who was Peter's father if this the case then what possibly could have been Peter's biological father's name. No one knows for certain as it is not written down anywhere but the rumours that one of the Parkers was not a Parker but a Livingston and more interesting is the fact that Peter Parker's descendant when tested should end up with results of his DNA him to a highland Livingston family that apparently lived in North or SOuth Carolina. For Obvious the most likely family we suspect of being that Livingston family was that of Hugh Livingston. So was I think quite right to suspect some kinda link with Hugh Livingston. And given that in the 1840 Census a George Parker is second person listed next to your ancestor Hugh Livingston it it truly a mystery that cries out to us to try and solve it for the Parker family if we can. Yes I can imagine you weren't expecting such excitement in your Livngston genealogy. Does this make sense to you this possible scenario as I have suggested? The nature of the Y chromosome test makes it impossible for this Livingston family connection to be with anyone else than one of Jerome's male ancestors I can only think of possibly Peter or possibly George Parker himself which I am inclined to think is the not case. That is to say that George Parker's father was actually a North Carolina Livingston. I think that very unlikely. And all the more reason to consider Peter Parker as more likely candidate if not George. WHether it is Peter you know I can prove for certain but certainly all the things I mentioned here point the most in his direction I am thinking.
Tell me do you know anything about a Green Pond where Hugh's 1000 acre farm was situated. COuld that of been the same thing as Pate's Pond?
regards,

Donald
Alan Livingston
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:57 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Alan Livingston »

Donald,

Yes, I think Hugh was most likely Peter Parker's biological father. Hugh was born in 1805, and his wife was 12 years younger than he. Peter was born in thr late 1820s or early 1830s according to Jeane's email today. That would have made Hugh a single man in his twenties at the time of Peter's birth, and most likely a neighbor of George Parker. Seems to add up pretty darn well.

I found Pates pond a few miles to the north west of the Green Pond area. Go to google earth or google maps, and search "green pond". You will find a green pond church and a green pond cemetery labeled as laurel hill, nc or Gibson, nc. Strangely, I do not see a pond labeled green pond. This green pond community looks about one mile to the east of "crooked creek", which was the reference on the land grants to Duncan and Hugh's grants. So the geography fits perfectly.

You can also find a church about a mile away named Livingston Tabernacle. And I remember an old map years ago that labeled a nearby area "Livingston Quarters", but I never heard the story on that. Clues, clues, clues.
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

HI Alan,

Take another look at the George Parker information from Richmond County, North Carolina. I had not realized for some reason that Hugh Livingston and George Parker were both living in Rockingham District at the time of the 1840 Census and apparently close neighbours. No doubt this probably what got Jean suspecting there might some family connection with your Livingston family group and the Parkers. That and of course the DNA results.

1830 Census Marlborough County South Carolina (Just south of Richmond County, N.C on the South Carolina side of the border. (Get out your map with the border counties with N.C)
George Parker Residence
1 male between 20 and 29 (George Parker was known to be born abt. 1803 in South Carolina)
1 female between 20 and 29 (This could a first unknown wife or his wife Nancy who may have been his only wife see theory no. 2)
100 percent certain this is the same George Parker that later is living in neighbouring Richmond County, N.C and beside Hugh Livingston in subsequent census apparently.

1840 Census Rockingham District, Richmond County, N.C. excerpt of census page George Parker is located on. Note George Parker's proximity to Hugh Livingston in that census info.
Samuel Pate
Hugh Livingston
Betsy Hodge
George Parker

1850 Census Williamson Township, RIchmond County, N.C. Notice what appears to be more than one family or a blended family from a second marriage. See theory no. 1 Note Peter Parker and Laura Parker George Parker and family not censused in close proximity to Hugh Livingston family as in the 1840 Census but both censused in same township of Williamson still in the 1850 Census.
George Parker age 47 b. S.C. Farmer
Nancy Parker age 49 b. S.C.
Jemina Parker age 18 b. S.C.
Laura Parker age 16 b. S.C
Mary Parker age 10 b. S.C.
Peter Parker age 18 b. S.C
Mary Parker age 16 b. S.C.
Eli Stan age 20 b. S.C.
Jane Stan age 19 b. S.C

Notice what appears to be at least three groups of sibblings possibly some or all possibly adopted by George Parker if you include Eli Stan and his sister Jane and they werent a married couple.
Now for my theory no. 2 based on the fact that George Parker was close to the border with South Carolina and had in fact lived there in the past and the info in the 1850 Census. Theory no. 2 is that George only married once and that wife was Nancy maiden name thought to be Leviner. As my second theory goes George and Nancy out of the goodness of their hearts fostered and adopted some or all of their children listed in the 1850 Census in Willaimson, Richmond County and most of them took on the name Parker in the 1840's and brought these orphans from South Carolina to live with them in neigbouring Richmond County, N.C. Two apparently did not. THey were named Stan. And most they adopted from SOuth Carolina which of course borders with Richmond County, North Carolina. George Parker and his wife were living in RIchmond County, North Carolina by sometime before the 1840 Census and without children of their own took it apon themselves to adopt orphaned brothers and sisters from South Carolina. Later in the 1850's two of these adopted orphans Peter and Laura of the George and Nancy Parker household married and moved a little south of the border in CHesterfield, SOuth Carolina.

Next part of the Parker family saga appears to be that Peter Parker married Laura Parker. It is now pretty clear that this is the Peter Parker and Laura Parker listed in the previous census of 1850 as living in Willamson Township, Richmond County with George and Nancy Parker and that they were not infact brother and sister but almost certainly step brother and step sister when they were married in the 1850's. And as Jeane pointed out Peter is not mentioned in George Parker's will. THey appear sometime after their marriage abt. 1855? residing just across the border with South Carolina in Bennettsville, Marlborough County, South Carolina in the same County that we see George Parker recorded as residing in the above mentioned 1830 Census. This could be where Peter Parker may have been born as his census info indicates he was born likely a County near the border in South Carolina rather than North Carolina. I am also thinking that the Parkers could have adopted Peter as a young baby and then gave him a popular Parker first name Peter. There seem to a very large number of Parkers named Peter in North Carolina in the 1860 Census for example. I am thinking that if Peter was adopted by the Parkers, the couple chose the name Peter for a reason that possibly a brother of George was named Peter. Just a hunch if Scenario no. 2 holds any water. In any event interesting that there were so many Peter Parkers in North Carolina at this time. Some of them I assume are related to George who was born apparently in neigbhouring SOuth Carolina.
And Finally
1860 Census Bennettsville, Marlborough County, South Carolina (Marlborough County, South Carolina just across the border from Richmond County, North Carolina)
Peter Parker age 39 b. S.C
Laura Parker age 29 b. S.C.
Laurence Parker age 4 b. S.C.
Mehala Parker age 2 b. S.C.

I really think from considering all of the clues that Jeane is on the right track regarding the Parker-Livingston connection whatever the actual scenario was. These are a couple of theories of mine for what they are worth. Perhaps Peter was not included in George Parker's will because even though Peter and Laura weren't actually related by blood they were still not in favour of their marriage.

regards,

Donald
User avatar
Kyle MacLea
Posts: 1043
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:54 am
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Contact:

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Kyle MacLea »

Fabulous work, really insightful!

Kyle=
Kyle S. MacLea
Clan Society Life Member; DNA Project Co-Admin
New Hampshire, USA
kyle -dot- maclea -at- gmail -dot- com
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

Hi Alan,

Duncan Livingston was said to have three sons John, Charles and Hugh. I think I may have just found Charles. A Charles Livingston of Richmond County has a will dated June 1st 1835. His wife later notes that he had this will in his pocket book or two years before his death but there is no death date in the documents connected with the will and subsequent probate. It is however inferred that he died in 1838 but I think his death was more like 1837 or 1836. I think the probate document accompanying the will is dated January 1838 so it therefore unlikely his death happened in 1838 and from what the wife is saying under oath he died a year or two after his wrote the will which would be 1837 or 1836. So that is what happened to Charles.

There is no information of any major significance in the Probate info. The 1835 Will is somewhat helpful in that it make his wife Mary his executor and mentions his only son Daniel followed by his daughters Sarah, Anna Eliza, Euphemia and Susan. I have a hunch this is Hugh's brother. So far this is the only document pertaining to Charles I have seen. We can deduce that he died probably in 1837 or 1836 and the names of his widow and the children. The age of the children is not known but Daniel is still of school age as money is to set aside for his education and it is mentioned that he has not yet come of age indicating he is not yet an adult. And from later census info we know that his son Daniel was born abt. 1828 or 1829 in N.C. and from the 1880 Census, Daniel states that his father (Charles) was born in Scotland and not North Carolina. So his father was born before his grandfather Duncan Livingston set sail from Scotland for North Carolina. From this I would think it safe to assume that Duncan Livingston probably arrived sometime between 1795 and 1805. And that is a good estimation because we know that Duncan is first recorded in the 1810 Census as residing in Richmond County and that his son Hugh was born in North Carolina in 1805 or perhaps as early as 1804. So all of this new information is definitely something to work with the existing information.

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
Posts: 2770
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: North Carolina Livingstons

Post by Canadian Livingstone »

Hi Alan,

Briefly leaving Richmond County in 1850 working as a blacksmith apprentice in neighbouring Anson County, we later find Charles Livingston's only son Daniel White Livingston born abt. 1828 as a soldier with a North Carolina regiment during the civil War. IN the 1880 Cenus however he is residing with his wife and family at Laurel HIll, in Richmond County. North Carolina. I think this is the Daniel Livingston you wanted to know about. He would of have a been a first cousin I presume of your ancestor Peter Livingston son of Hugh Livingston. I am wondering if the white was his mother's maiden name. His mother's first name was Mary according to Daniel's father's 1835 will. Of interest in the 1880 Census that his father was born in Scotland and his mother in South Carolina. If correct this is a clue that his father Charles Livingstone died 1836 or 1837 was the older brother of Hugh Livingston born abt. 1805 or earlier, suggesting that Duncan arrived possibly in the 1790's and before 1805 in North Carolina. It is not likely that Hugh's older brother Charles was born any either than the 1790's in Scotland. So there was a bit of nice clue about that in the 1880 Census where it lists the birthplace of the parents of all householders and those censused.

1880 Census Laurel Hill, Richmond COunty, North Carolina

Daniel W. Livingston age 52 Farmer b. North Carolina father born Scotland mother born south carolina (father was Charles Livingston b. abt. 1785 Scotland died 1837 Richmond County, N.C Mother: Mary White
Mary Livingston age 50 b. N.C.
Charley Livingston age 19 b. N.C.
Sallie Livingston age 15 b. N.C.
Mattie Livingston age 10 b. N.C.
Catharine Livingston age 8 b.N.C.
John Livingston age 6 b. N.C.

1880 Census Laurel Hill, Richmond County, North Carolina
Nelson Livingston farmer age 60 born N.C. (Nelson was a former slave of Charles Livingston b. 1785-1837 of Laurel Hill, Richmond County, N.C.)
Bella Livingston age 47 (Bella Gilchrist) born N.C.
James Livingston age 11 b. N.C.
Eliza Livingston age 17
Caroline Livingston age

1880 Census Laurel Hill, Richmond County, North Carolina
Peter H. Livingston Farmer age 25 b. N.C. Father born N.C. Mother born N.C (father Hugh Livingston b. RIchmond County, N.C abt. 1805 d. Feb. 1872 Laurel Hill, Richmond County, N.C. mother Mary Gibson)
Annie Livingston age 25 b. N.C.
Marie Livingston age 9 b. N.C.
Henry Gibson age 21 b. N.C. (likely a cousin. Peter's mother's maiden name was Gibson)
Post Reply