SELF SEEKERS:

THE SELF FAMILY ASSOCIATION QUARTERLY ONLINE NEWSLETTER SUPPLEMENT

Editors
Tim W. Seawolf Self    
Barbara Ann Peck
   seawolf@selfroots.com
Volume 7, no. 2   April, 2004
======================================================================= =======================================================================

WELCOME

Welcome to the 26th issue of the quarterly online newsletter supplement to "Self Portraits: The Self Family NetLetter," the Website dedicated to Self family research at http://www.selfroots.com

You are receiving this newsletter because you were kind enough to join "Self Seekers: The Self Family Association." We appreciate all of your contributions, large and small, and we hope you will continue to support our page, our surname list, and this newsletter.

=======================================================================

SPRING IS HERE!

Spring came early to Southern California this year!  March came in like a lamb and turned into a lion--not a cold and soggy one, but one with a hot-tempered roar worthy of August.  Granted, the weather hasn't been the same all over the country, but with frost giving way to flowers, it's been a pleasant surprise to hear from so many new cousins.  These newcomers have given up some of their hours in the sun to look for their roots.  We will continue to notify you of those who have just begun our fascinating quest.  If you haven't received any forwarded mail from us in a while, don't hesitate to check in and see if anyone new has written to us.  Sometimes they can hold a key to the door in that brick wall you've been up against.  Even more likely, your expertise will help them get started.  Spring is the time for new beginnings--and that includes new cousins, new friends, and new excursions into the past!  Enjoy!

=======================================================================

We are so happy to be the largest repository of Self information. With several domains, a second Webpage at RootsWeb, a GenConnect Board and a suite of cluster pages at RootsWeb (see the link on "Self Portraits"), a Listserv, a Collaboration Surname list on the LDS "Family Search" site, well over 5,000 pages of connected and unconnected Self lines, and over 1450 valid e-mail correspondents willing to share information, we are well able to help you with your family research. We are also the Surname Resource Center (SRC) for the surnames of Self, Selfe, and Selph. We also host SelfSite at RootsWeb, an extension of Self Portraits containing our Census pages as well as state-by-state and county-by-county "loose ends," Selfs presently unconnected to any of the major branches; and Self Family Album II which presents more old Self photos. Family Record Online enumerates families presented on our Self Family of the Week page. And each time a new "Self Seekers" newsletter is released, we upload the one for the same month from the past year to our public page for all cousins to enjoy.

=======================================================================

ANNOUNCEMENTS

We would like to have your gedcom so that we can add your information to our database. With your permission, we will also list and distribute your gedcom on request (but only with your permission). Please send us gedcoms so that we can start a library that will help others. If you've already submitted one, kindly re-send so that we will have the latest information. We would appreciate being kept informed of new family members as well as other changes.

If you haven't joined our Self Surname Mailing List yet, please subscribe. Instructions will be found on the main page of our Website. Note that we also host the Swindle, Eden, Edens, Cease, Breeze, Brezee, Bishop, Outred, Salazar, Snackenberg, Snackenberger, Schneggenburger, and Varian Surname Lists as well as listservs for Erath County, TX., King County, TX., Bossier Parish, LA., Murray County, GA., and Clay County, NC. In addition, we host the King County, TX, Murray County, GA, Union County, GA and Clay County, NC USGenWeb sites. Our four county sites join "Self Portraits" in featuring a handy search engine for locating topics discussed in previous messages posted to their corresponding listserv--please click on the button directly beneath the instructions for joining the listserv on the main page of each site.

You've noticed by now that we've moved our "Self Seekers" newsletter to the RootsWeb "Free Pages" Server.  We've decided to keep all our secondary sites in one place--it makes it much easier to keep track of the files.  The new URL is   .  Please add it to your Bookmarks and Favorites.

===================================================================

SELF SEEKERS MEMBERSHIP FEES

If you haven't made your 2004 contribution yet, please do so now...

===================================================================

MORE ABOUT SPAM
by Barbara Peck and Tim Seawolf-Self

SPAM--the avalanche of unsolicited e-mail advertising in your inbox--is probably the number one menace in Cyberspace today.  Its persistence and proliferation has started to erode the joys of genealogical research and inhibit free communication among researchers. We've noticed that more and more cousins have been changing their e-mail addresses to escape SPAM.  Thus, their current contacts suddenly lose touch with them, and those who attempt to answered their scattered postings will be met with bounces.  Sometimes we receive so many pieces of SPAM that we inadvertently delete legitimate messages in our haste to clear the junk out of our inbox.  

When we last wrote about SPAM, there was little that could be done about it.  But since that time, there have been several attempts made to stem the flow of unwanted messages including a new federal law that took effect on January 1 of this year.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY?

In the summer of 2003, the amount of SPAM flooding our mailboxes seemed to spiral out of control.  This onslaught was met immediately with software designed to stop it in its tracks.  Initially these programs were designed to be used at the Server level, and many ISPs promised users that most of the annoying messages would be intercepted.  Surprisingly, their track record was decent.  The concept was that most SPAMmers use bulk e-mail to deliver their pitches, so the anti-spam efforts concentrated on messages of this type.  There were a few problems.  For instance, people often can't resist sending messages to multiple addresses.  They may want to notify everyone on their contact list about a chance in e-mail address;  they may want to wish everyone a happy holiday or tell them of some special event in their lives.  There are even times when the outcome of passing on a certain "chain letter" to as many people as possible can hold special appeal.  Also, there are listservs that often distribute the same message to hundreds of subscribers at one time.  The Servers targeted these innocent "mass mailings" at first, but the ISPs soon adjusted their systems to allow certain types of bulk mail to pass through.

Another way to deter SPAMmers was to install software that filtered out certain words.  Most personal e-mail clients already have a limited filtering capability.  You can choose words or phrases that are likely to appear in commercial messages and relegate messages containing those elements to your delete folder or trashcan.  

Both of these methods worked well for awhile until the SPAMmers realized what was happening.  They had already found a way around the bulk problem by using forgery or even sending individual messages, sometimes with the recipient's name in the TO line and/or in a "friendly" greeting.  They began to "trick" the filters by using words with variant spellings or inserting odd characters or punctuation into them.

Another SPAM-fighting idea was conceived:  allow the user to decide which people he or she wants to hear from.  This seems like the perfect solution.  It addresses unwanted senders and bulk mail alike.  Here's how it works:  a message comes to your ISP's Server, but instead of being placed in your in-box, it is returned to the sender with a set of instructions.  In order to become part of your "accept" list, the sender must follow a link included in these instructions to access a Website or frame.  He then must view a graphic display of letters and/or numbers and re-type them into a cgi-type box.  If he copies the display correctly, the message is passed on to the recipient who then has another chance at monitoring the details before bothering to read or reply to what you sent.  An example of this type of anti-SPAM filtering exists at Earthlink and several other major ISPs.  The problem here, of course, is that it's a hassle for the sender.  In theory, if bulk mail is sent out, there will be no live person at the sending end to interact with this safeguard, so the message is probably SPAM and will be deleted directly off the Server.  Assuming that the sender is human and has the patience to put up with the inconvenience, this method works fine for the average end user.  For us, as Web publishers, it would be a disaster.  We WANT to hear from strangers who may turn out to be cousins, and we don't want to make communication with them into an unfriendly and hostile experience.  An "accept" list for us would mean something on the order of several thousand individuals which would, in turn, slow our e-mail down to a crawl.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

It's obvious that SPAMmers are experts at working around the restrictions imposed by anti-SPAM software.  In addition to continuing their harassment, they are showing us that they don't subscribe to fair advertising practices.  They care nothing about potential customers and target markets--all they want to do is to continue to bombard anyone and everyone with their garbage.  It seems as if they view anti-SPAM software as a challenge, a real-life video game that they must "beat" at any cost.  For many, it appears that getting out their dubious messages ranks higher in importance than making any sales.

In mid-December 2003, the government stepped in.  President Bush signed a bill designed to reduce the volume of junk mail that clogs the Internet every day.  It's known as the "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act" or "CAN-SPAM."  This law, which took effect on January 1, 2004, was the seventh and only successful act to pass through the legislature.  As you might expect, it contains both good (anti-SPAM) elements and bad.

HOW WILL THIS LAW HELP YOU?

There are several points in this new law that will help reduce the amount of SPAM you receive--or at least the amount of frustration you get from dealing with it.

CONTACT:  SPAMmers are now limited to contacting customers only--they are not supposed to toss their mail randomly to those who are probably not interested in hearing from them.  This provision sounds wonderful--but its success depends both on the consumer and on the way that SPAMmers interpret the limitations.  The legislators surely intended that a "customer" is someone who has ordered a product or service at least once [through other means] from the particular SPAMmer and is most likely to do business with them again.  What about dissatisfied customers?  Perhaps the SPAMmer will consider "doing business" as writing for information or even entering one's e-mail address in a box to eliminate further contact.  As the consumer, you must be very careful NOT to reply in any way to unwanted e-mail solicitations.  Don't click on the REMOVE link or send e-mail to them demanding that they stop bothering you.  Don't visit their sites because the presence of a "cookie" on your computer may translate into "doing business" with them.  If you follow these guidelines carefully and still receive repeated SPAM from a given advertiser, then you are entitled to take action.

PORNOGRAPHY:  Messages containing pornographic content must now be explicity labeled as such.  Many SPAMmers are no longer content to send plain text but distribute what are essentially little Web pages.  Many of us have been subjected to SPAM that enlarges into a collection of embarrassing sexually-oriented pictures, and the SPAMmers have no idea if they are sending to young adults or to the very young or very old who may be shocked or highly offended by such scenes.  Again, since you're now given the chance to delete these messages based on subject content, use your filters as much as possible to relegate them to your trash can immediately.  If you open and view them, their HTML code may set unwanted cookies on your hard drive.

FRAUD:  SPAMmers may not send messages that are fraudulent.  Believe it or not, the claims made via e-mail were not, until now, punishable as fraud if they failed to work.  Again, it's better not to interact with these messages in any way, but if you do--and if you find out that the products or services are not what was promised in the e-mail message--you have the right to complain.

RETURN ADDRESS:  The ban on fraud extends to "forged" or "falsified" return addresses.  SPAMmers long ago adopted the practice of "forging headers" to protect themSelfs from retribution.  If their targets were able to identify them, they could receive "mail bombs"--nonstop return of their own SPAM choking their inboxes.  Also, if their ISPs had a prohibition against SPAMming, people would complain to the Providers and the Providers would end up canceling the SPAMmer's account.  So SPAMmers learned how to falsify their return addresses, sometimes making up ISPs that didn't exist, or more often, going through "mail drops" (illegal use of Servers) at legitimate institutions or even in other countries whose laws against SPAMming are not strict or even nonexistent.  Now, it is against the law to forge headers.  The recipient must be able to return a message to a SPAMmer or filter out mail coming from actual addresses.

SINGLE NATIONWIDE STANDARD: At last there is a single nationwide standard in the fight against SPAM.  Until recently, it was up to the individual states to enact legislation aimed at curbing SPAM.  Now, SPAMmers all over the United States must obey the same laws.  Once a country unites in this way, the next step is international law regulating electronic communications.

DO NOT E-MAIL LIST:  The next logical step would be a national "do not e-mail" list modeled after the "do not call list" that protects consumers from unwanted telemarketing.  For such a list to work, however, you must be willing to take it as seriously as possible.  First and foremost:  subscribe each new e-mail address you acquire to the list.  Removing addresses you no longer use isn't really necessary, but the addition of new addresses is imperative.  Remember, too, that any changes take some time to become effective and act promptly to avoid being SPAMmed.

HOW WILL THIS LAW HINDER YOU?

As good as CAN-SPAM may seem at first glance, there are, of course, some unfortunate provisionss, too.  We need to remember that legislators and officials listen to our complaints, but unless they maintain a secret address at home, they rarely check their inboxes for new mail--an aide does that for them.  Just hearing about the evils of SPAM is nothing like the first-hand experience.  In addition, today's world demands that one constantly strive for political correctness--a "fair" balance where no one is "offended" by anything you say or do.  So you can always expect a few negatives in any good law.

CONTACT:  Okay, you say, I won't respond to any SPAM I receive.  Therefore, I won't be a "customer," and it will never be legal for SPAMmers to contact me.  The problem is, you may unwittingly be a customer as described above.  Just downloading (but not reading) one of those fancy HTML messages may set a cookie on your computer which the SPAMmer can claim is "contact."  Cleared out your cookies?  Well, those inquiries you made two years ago may have placed you on a customer list.  And now, in some states, you may be punished more severely with this law in place.  This is because before the law took effect, those states had much stricter laws involving customer contact which have now been overridden by the all-encompassing federal version.  In other words, some individual state legislators are very unhappy because CAN-SPAM gives the "green light" to practices they have long held to be illegal.

TYPE OF CONTACT: Another drawback to this law is that it legalizes certain types of contact that you may or may not consider to be a nuisance.  Technically, SPAM is "commercial" e-mail, but some people feel that all unsolicited e-mail should be banned.  Now states can no longer criminalize the distribution of political, religious, or nonprofit bulk e-mail even if you do not wish to receive it.

FREE SPEECH:  Many of the arguments for maintaining the legality of certain types of SPAM are based on the First Amendment.  The problem with this is line of thought is that while we are all free to express our views without censure in the United States, we are also free to ignore these views.  For example, no one is forcing you to watch a violent movie.  You simply don't turn it on or don't go to the theater where it's playing.  But most SPAM forces you to interact repeatedly with it in order to get it to go away--THIS time.  While we can just ignore discreet advertising banners at the tops of Web pages, we must stop what we're doing, click some link, type in a word or our address, etc. to attempt to get off of the SPAMmer's list.  This doesn't seem like simple "free speech" because the consumer is being forced to pay attention.

OPT-OUT:  This is a good idea gone bad.  Many states already have "opt-out" provisions for SPAM--the messages must provide a way for the consumer to get off their mailing list.  Usually this is a link at the bottom of the window and leads either to a blank e-mail message or a Web site where one can enter their address.  It's commonly known that if you acknowledge the receipt of SPAM, even by "opting out," the sender will know that your address is good and continue to send mail to you.  Even if the SPAMmer chooses to honor this request, nothing is stopping him from selling your address to other SPAMmers and thus profiting through the back door.  We have all heard these caveats so many times that providing for "opt-out" in the new law is probably useless.

NO LAWSUITS: No matter what happens, consumers are now prohibited by law from suing SPAMmers.  Two other versions of the bill would have allowed such remedy.  This means that there is now no "private right of action" for recipients of SPAM.  If they complain, it must now be to the "authorities."

WHO WILL HELP?

Two federal agencies will share the primary responsibility for enforcing the CAN-SPAM Law.  Most of the authority is held by the Federal Trade Commission.  The other group is the National Association of Attorneys General.

SUMMARY

All of us have had our electronic genealogical research spoiled somewhat by unsolicited commercial messages.  The amount of SPAM generated in 2003 was of landslide proportions.  Consumer complaints finally forced the government to act and pass the new CAN-SPAM law, designed to reduce the amount of SPAM in your inbox.  Like all laws, CAN-SPAM has good features and bad.  Hopefully the positive elements will outweigh the negative, and this law will be a good start toward helping you manage your e-mail in the future and thus enjoy your online experience a lot more.

LATE BREAKING NEWS!!  We just heard on KABC-TV (Channel 7, Los Angeles) that Bill Gates is going to sue the SPAMmers who have ignored the January CAN-SPAM law.  Seeing that no "do-not-SPAM list" or even a "get-tough" address to send illegal messages has  yet materialized, this is at least a step toward actually doing something.  We need to make public examples of those who flaunt the law and stuff up our in-boxes!

(NEXT: COMING TOGETHER)

===================================================================

OBITUARY
contributed by Cousin Barry

ROBERTS, REBA SELF, age 82, widow of Earl “Jake” Roberts,  a resident of Wood Presbyterian Home, Sweetwater, TN formerly of Madisonville, TN passed away 9:45 a.m. Monday, January 12, 2004 at Sweetwater Hospital. Member of Madisonville Church of God.

Survivors:
Daughters & Sons-in-law- Audrey & Bennie Lane- Nashville, TN
                                           Connie Hamilton- Tellico Plains, TN
                                           Carolyn & Mike Patty- Madisonville, TN
                                           Lequita Thomas- Sweetwater, TN
Sons & Daughters-in-law- Austin & Kathy Roberts- Kansas
                                           Gary & Marsha Roberts- Georgia
                                           Larry & Katherine Roberts- Ooltewah, TN
9 grandchildren
6 great grandchildren
sister- Violet Best- Vonore, TN
brother- Dillard Self- Tellico Plains, TN
several nieces & nephews
preceded in death by parents, William and Mary Mae Bryson Self; great grandsons- Freddie D. Lenderman and K. Martin Lenderman.

Funeral 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, Biereley-Hale Chapel, Rev. Paul Fritts, Rev. Verlin Self officiating. Interment 11:00 a.m. Thursday, Haven Hill Memorial Gardens. Family will receive friends 6 - 8 p.m. Wednesday at Biereley-Hale Funeral Home, Madisonville, TN.

===================================================================

NEW LITTLE SELF
contributed by Cousin Barry

Lydia Elizabeth Self
(b. 2003)
Daughter of Cousins Barry and Svitlana

===================================================================

MINOR SELF LINES
by Barbara Peck and Tim Seawolf-Self

In 2003, we presented an article on the major unconnected Self lines.  Now we'd like to concentrate on the minor lines that are still not connected to Olde Robert Selfe, even by "best evidence."  In this first installment, we've included Self branches from Alabama.  We hope to feature more small family lines in the following newsletters.

ALABAMA

MELISSA CAROLINE SELF:  Melissa Caroline Self was born June 6, 1830 in AL., possibly in Calhoun County.  She died July 10, 1906 in Jackson, MS.  She m. Mar. 11, 1847, John Muckelroy, b. Feb. 20, 1827 in Franklin County, TN and d. July 3, 1866 in Jacksonville, TX., son of Elijah and Catherine (Burrows) Muckelroy.  We know of two children:  Amanda Elzina Muckelroy (1852 - 1928) and Martha Embley Muckelroy (1852 [sic] - 1916).  They were both born in Cherokee County, TX where they married, lived out their lives, and died.  Amanda m. 1870, Henry Lafayette Martin and had 10 children, one of whom--Leila Josephine (1883 - 1929)--married back into the Muckelroy family.  Her husband, Robert (1872 - 1955), was the son of James and Mary (Cheatham) Muckelroy.  Martha m. 1876, Rufus Brantley Hood (1829 - 1888) whose parents, Robert and Mary (Ish) Hood, came from Tennessee.

WILLIAM THOMAS SELF:  Born Apr. 25, 1854 in Paulding County, GA and dying on Dec. 29, 1927 in Etowah County, AL., William Thomas Self lived in Cullman County, AL at the turn of the 20th century.  His son, James Elmer Self (1896 - 1972) was born there.  William Self had married his wife, Mary Frances Herndon, in 1886, but we have no idea if there were other children before or after James.  James himSelf shuttled between Alabama and Georgia, marrying Mary Lee Hester Massey (1902 - 1977) and fathering 11 children, most of whom grew up and flourished in Etowah County.  Some had ties to Illinois and Indiana.

SARAH SELF:  De Kalb County, AL was the birthplace of Sarah Self (1856 -     ).  She m. John Word and had at least one child, Eula Lee (1878 - 1975).  Eula Lee moved to Texas, eventually dying in Amarillo, Potter County.  She and her husband, Pleasant Everett Easley (1871 - 1944) had three children, Elmer, Annie, and Everett.  The youngest child lived in Potter County while the two older ones lived in Grayson County.

UNKNOWN SELF:  Who was the male Self who married Susannah Marshall, b. 1805 in TN, daughter of Jonas Marshall of Virginia?  The family went to MS and was in Fayette County, AL before 1850.  Children were Jackson (1833), Sarah (1835), James (1838), Abner (1840), William (1842) and Jasper (1845).  What happened to them after 1850?

LEVESTA KATE SELF:  Levesta Self was born 1821 in Jackson County, AL.  She married James Madison Bennett and had one daughter, Jane (1850 - 1927).  Jane Bennett m. Riley Yoakum, b. 1841 in Dade County, MO and d. June 17, 1908 in Lincoln County, MT.  The family migrated to the west, living in Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah.

ELIJAH SELF: The family of Elijah Self is a mysterious one. Elijah Self was born 1838 in Jefferson County, AL.  This fact--along with his given name--suggests strongly that he comes from the Job Self line since Isaac Self, a Job descendant, founded a large family in this area.  Elijah died after 1865 in either Kansas or Alabama.  He m. about 1858 in Walker County, AL., Martha M. Williams, b. 1839 in AL and also died about 1865, daughter of Augustus and Martha B. (Rodgers) Williams.  Elijah's mother may have been named Mary, possibly born about 1807 and related to Mahala Self of NC., born 1800.  Elijah had two known children:  George T., b. 1859, and Martha Jane (1865 - 1926).  We don't know what happened to George, but Martha Jane Self m. Mar. 3, 1881 in Walker County, AL., Myron Apeller Parker (1860 - 1931) and eventually moved to Tarrant County, TX.  Who was this Elijah?

HARRIET JOLANDAH SELF:  Another mystery in Jefferson County, AL--Harriet Jolandah Self was born Oct. 8 1876 and died Feb. 25, 1976.  She m. Sep. 2, 1896, Julius Eugene  McClendon, b. Jan. 15, 1872 in Springville, St. Clair County, AL and d. Apr. 10, 1944 in Clay County, AL., son of James Samuel and Levina (Hooper) McClendon.  This family had 10 children.

WILLIE J. SELF:  The Marion County, AL Selfs are associated with the Presley Self line. But where does Willie J. Self fit in?  He was born Feb. 1, 1896.  Died Oct. 26, 1974.  He m. Jennie Rosie Etta Wiginton, b. Jan. 24, 1897 and d. Dec. 8, 1975, daughter of Simon Andrew and Paralee Williams (Winsett) Wiginton.  The couple had 9 children.

WILLIAM SELF:  Can you identify William Self?  He was on the 1840 Census in Marshall County, AL with 6 males and 4 females.  One of the males was named Solomon (1820 - 1849) who m. Morning Elizabeth Tidwell.  This couple had two children, Martha C. (1845) and Francis/Frances (1849).

BETSY SELF: Betsy Self was probably related to William Self (above).  She was born about 1850 in Marshall County, AL and later m. David Hill.  She had 6 children.

JIM SELF:  We have Jim Self in our Morgan County, AL fragments.  He m. Jennie Lou Sivley, daughter of Jesse Finis and Bethany H. (Reeves) Sivley.  There were 8 children in this family.

SARAH SELF:  She was an early member of the Self family who lived in Perry County, AL.  She married Malcolm Roberts and had at least one child, Margaret A. Roberts (1836 - 1912).  Margaret m. Peter Washington Nichols and had six children and many grandchildren in Perry County.

C. H. SELF:  It's bad enough when the Census taker misspelled names--but when he lists just initials, it's very frustrating.  The 1880 Walker County, AL Census shows that C. H. Self was born 1842 in AL and married, M. C., b. 1843.  He had 3 daughters--Mary, Sarah, and Martha--but the other 5 children living with him, plus a niece, had only initials.

MAHALA SELF:  We're not sure where Mahala Self was born, but it was somewhere around 1832, probably in Alabama.  She m. Richard York and had at least one child, Mary, b. about 1851 in Arkansas.  Mary m. Thomas Beggs, and the one daughter we know about--Mary Margaret Beggs--married Samuel Watson Wilson and moved to Texas.

WILLIAM C. SELF:  Born Feb. 1845 in Alabama, William Self's father was from South Carolina and his mother was from Georgia.  He married Sarah ???, b. May 1851 in Alabama and moved to Bosque County, TX where his seven children were born.  The family was in Indian Territory before the 1900 Census.

HERMAN GoVAN SELF:  Herman Self was another Alabama son.  Born Feb. 6, 1907 and died Jan. 17, 1970, he married Telia Winnie Dunnavant (1908 - 1984) in 1925.  He had 10 children.

J. M. SELF:  We feel that this individual may be fairly closely related to Tim's line.  Born 1816 in Tennessee, J. M. Self died after 1850 in Murray County, GA.  His brief marriage to Margaret Melinda Sloan occurred in 1850.  They had one daughter, Caroline, b. 1846.

MARY ANN SELF:  She's another unplaced person, born 1833 in AL.  She m. John Edgar Tyler, b. 1827 in TX.  Their four children were William Edward (1853), Martha (1857), Mary (1858), and Alissa [or Alicia] (1860) who m. James Washington Harvey in TX.

NANCY SELF:  We'd like to verify whether Nancy Self, b. 1830 in AL and married to Nathaniel William Calvert, 14 years her junior, was born with the Self surname or a widow.  The Calverts had four children--Hannah (1859), Henry (1862), Robert (1875), and Eddy (1879).  We're suspicious because the first two children had the surname Self and also because of the gap between Henry and Robert.

WILLIAM T. SELF:  Born July 30, 1840 in AL., he married Lucinda J. Lesley (1844 - 1909) in 1875.  They had four children:  William, Malinda, Robert (1876) and Ed (1879).  Note that the last two children have the same names and dates as those ascribed to Nathaniel and Nancy Calvert above.  Are these people related?  Is this coincidence or a misprint?  We can tell you that the information was obtained at very different times from very different sources.

MARY ANN SELF:  A younger Mary Ann Self than the one above was married before 1847 to Billy Mitchell.  Daughter Susan married Frank Nix.  Daughter Elizabeth Ann (1847 - 1924) married George Washington Nix (1846 - 1921) and died in Prentiss County, MS.  The couple had 15 children who all lived fairly long lives in Alabama and Mississippi.  Who was this Mary Ann?

SUMMARY

If you know about any of these Selfs from Alabama, please send us a chart or gedcom showing their ancestry.  In the issues to follow, we'll be listing other "Loose Ends" from other states.  You'll find these people listed on the "Loose Ends" section of "SelfSite" as well.  We'd just love to put them in their place!

(NEXT: Minor Self Lines, Continued)

---

---

Maybe your ancestors used to tell stories about life in the "old days," stories you remember hearing as a child. Please tell us about them. We will even supply editing and formatting; but we'd all love to know about daily life in the Self families of old--and you may be able to help. Please contact us. And please state that your story is specifically for the newsletter.

---

LOOSE ENDS

Please go to our "Loose Ends" subsection at our SelfSite at RootsWeb.

DEAD ENDS

Please go to our "Dead Ends" subsection at our SelfSite at RootsWeb.

---

SELFS IN SPACE

What would you like to see here? This space is reserved for any topic of interest to Self cousins. Express YourSelf!!

---

If you do not wish to receive this electronic publication, please take a moment to e-mail us.

====================================================================

DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES AND LIABILITY

Some parts of this newsletter contain information contributed by individuals. The editors may not monitor or censor the information placed on these Pages. We do not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for, the information posted here.

Each individual contributor is solely responsible for the content of their information, including any and all legal consequences of the postings. We are in no way, in whole or in part, responsible for any damages caused by the content in this newsletter or by the content contributed by any person.

We do not warrant, or guarantee any of the services, products, or information used for these pages. We do not make any warranty, expressed or implied, and do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any of the information disclosed in this publication, or represent in any way that the use would not infringe privately owned rights.

NOTICE: The information in this newsletter is Copyrighted, and must not be used for any commercial purposes or republished in any form without prior permission. This newsletter is copyrighted, except where previous copyright applies.

Copyright 1998-2004 Tim Seawolf-Self and Barbara A. Peck, All Rights Reserved

---

Back to Menu

Go to Index

Go to Self Portraits