The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1922-03-17
PART lli.

teNes, 1T WAS. published ia 1859 or
1860. and is not accurate az to real
legal proof on this question and on
several others to which I will call
attention. His conclusions depend
~ on the alleged statements OF
Mrs. Leslie. midwife who had
been dead 50 years when the peo.
pie were making their statements
~ to what she said; (b) Mrs. Sarah
Latham had been dead 35 years be-
fore. the statement WAS made. In
other words. Mrs. Leslie was dead in
1908 before the original contro-
v.rsy as to the line from the gum
at Twelve Mite creek to the stone
at Waxhaw creek had been settled
add Mrs. Latham had been dead at
least since 1879. according to the
testimony OF the folks who gave
their Statements: and one witness
stated that he had heard (c) Mrs.
cousar make the statement. who
rad Been dead possibly rs years
Size must therefore have been dead
s'ace 1888: aud, finally (d) what
tsey heard James Faulkner say
Jackson said. which was that James
fraulkner-whoh had then been dead
80 or SO years-said that Jackson
told him while they were sleeping
together in the McKemey house that
he was boru in that house Now,
Parton says that Jackson believed
he was born in South Carolina. but
taat ire did not know any better. not
kdoW'ing where he was born James
F,utkner says. il we believe him
that jackson did not know where he
was born. and hence Parton has dis
credited one OF his most material
witnesses because he evidently does
not believe Faulkner III Faulkner
was right. that Jackson knew where
he was born. the folks who brought
down the tradition merely forgot
which place Faulkner said Jackson
said he was born. So we can not
place findins on the testimony Of
Faulkner because Parton himself
repudiates Fauikuer's statement
aad says that Jackson did not know
where he was born. He certainly
caa mot ask us then to believe
Fsufkner-that- he was born In Nc
Kemey's house.
Then coming to the statements Of
the other witnesses. John Latham. a
son OF Sarah. who says she attend
ed the birth at midnight when only
years OF age (p. 81 OF Parton) :.
testifies that soon after Jacksou's
father died Mrs. Jackson left Twelve
,Si:s creek to GO aud live with Mrs.
crawford in Lancaster district.
South Carolina: that on her way she
called at the house Of George Nc
Kemey. aud while at McKemey's she
was taken sick and Andrew was
born. and as soon as she was able
to travel she went to Crawford's
Let US lay that beside Parton's con-
clusion, He says On page Sc:
Fhe 1ereafAr family of the Jack
sons never returned to their home
on the banks OF Twelve Mile creek
but went from the burial yard to
the house. not very far OF, OF Mrs.
Jac&son's brOther-in-law. George
McKemey by name.
Now. his Nathan) witnesses say
that they did return to the Jackson
home and were removing to Craw-
ford's when they stopped at Nc
Kemey's. Parton thereby discred-
its Mrs. Leslie and Mrs. Latham, and
without them he can do nothing.
Then to increase the contradiction
Parton brings up one Charles Finly
who is said while in the flesh tO
have said that he took the Jackson
family to the burial and then con
veyed them to the residence o,
George McKemey where Andrew wal
soon afterwards born (see p. $50
This contradicts the statement o
Sarah Latham. the most numerousi,
quoted witness, aud also contradict,
James Faulkner. both OF whom sal
that Mrs. jackson returned to he'
home, and whNe moving from
Twelve Mile creek to Crawford
stopped with her sister. Mrs. Nc
Kemey. and was there delivered o
Andrew (p SAY. So the two mos
material witnesses produced by Par
ton are contradicted by Parton an
his other witness Finly. and thei
story is discarded as being inciden
tai to the removal to the Crawford's
The most reasonable theory is t