ILLINOIS GENEALOGY EXPRESS

A Part of  Genealogy Express
 

Macon County, Illinois
History & Genealogy

< CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS >

CHAPTER X. -
Biographical Sketches of Early Settlers
who came here prior to 1836, and their families, up to the Present time; Births, Marriages, Deaths, etc.
Pages 246 - 298

AB - CD - EF - GH - IJ - KL - MN - OP - QR - ST - UV - WX - YZ
 

JAMES EDWARDS was born in 1806, near Raleigh, North Carolina.  When a young man he came to Tennessee, and remained there a few months; then removed to Illinois, arriving in Macon county in the fall of 1827, when there was but 160 acres of land entered upon the south side of the river.  He was accompanied to this county by Dempsey Pope and Jones Edwards - the latter a brother of his, who remained 12 or 15 years, and removed to Iowa, where he died.  James E. worked the first year after he came to Illinois for John Ward.  During that time the Indians made some threats against the Winds, and Edwards was one of a company of 12 to assist in driving them away.  A few more Indians made their appearance in the vicinity in 1828, but soon left, and were followed and overtaken in the prairie, a short distance east of Mt. Zion.  There were twelve in number, besides the squaws.  A gun was taken from one of them, after a severe struggle, by Smith Mounce, of the Ward company.  It was returned, however, by order of John Ward, who had command of the expedition, and the Indians were then ordered to move on, which they did.  This was the last appearance of the Kickapoos, or other Indians, in Macon county.  James E. was married to Nancy L. Hill, in the winter of 1830-31.  She was born in Mecklinburg county, Virginia, June 22, 1806; moved to Rutherford county, Tenn.; removed to Illinois in 1829, and has ever since resided in this county.  Of their children -      MARTHA E. was born Mar. 31, 1834, and married Abraham Lynch, and died.  NANCY E. was born Jan. 26, 1836; married John D. Smith, and died on the 11th of Aug., 1869.  JEROME was born Mar. 22, 1837, and married Mary J. Stingly.  JOHN was born Sept. 9, 1838, and died in Indiana on the 12th of Sept., 1862.  FRANK was born Jan. 4, 1840, and was married to Mrs. Henry Edwards, Mar. 16, 1874.  SARAH J. was born Aug. 4, 1841, and died Mar. 20, 1854.  RUFUS was born Jan. 1, 1843.  SAMUEL S. was born June 22, 1844; married to Isabel Allen, Dec. 24, 1873.  ANN was born Aug. 13, 1846; was married to Richard Whitley, in Oct., 1862, and now resides in Vernon county, Mo.  HENRY was born Apr. 6, 1848; married to Elizabeth Brown in 1869, and died on the 7th of Nov., 1872.

HON. CHARLES EMERSON was born in North Haverhill, Grafton county, New Hampshire, Apr. 15, 1811; he came to this state in the year 1833 and located at Jacksonville, where he spent one term in Illinois College; he removed thence to Springfield, Illinois, and studied law under the instruction of Judge Keys; on his being admitted to practice law he came to Decatur and entered upon the practice of his profession in the spring of 1834; in 1841 he married Nancy Harrell who died Dec. 16, 1866; he remained here until 1847 and then went to Paris, Edgar county, where he remained three years, returning in 1850 on his return he was elected to the legislature and was-re-elected in 1851; in June, 1853, he was elected judge of the circuit court, which position he filled until 1867, when he ran for judge of the supreme court but was defeated by a small majority by Judge Walker now of the supreme bench;  he then resumed practice and was elected to the constitutional convention in 1869.  He attended the early part of that convention but was suffering with a severe cold and cough which terminated his earthly career, on ___ day of April 1870.  As to his judicial career his memory needs no comment; his mind was evenly balanced and he held the scales of justice so impartially that few dared to question the correctness of his adjudications; he seemed to be absolutely unbiased.  Though he was a man of strong convictions prejudice was never attributed to him in the discharge of his judicial duty.  Meanness he absolutely detested, yet no man was brought before him, however serious his crime, but received a fair and impartial trial.  He was a strong party man, yet, when on the bench his opponents never had occasion to utter one word against him as to prejudice, bias or partiality.  His mind was broad and grasping; the intricacies of the law he could comprehend readily, above solve the most difficult and perplexing questions of law and fact with scarcely after reflection. He had the power of presenting his views succinctly and in  such a way that those who heard him, in making a decision, at once acknowledged the justness and correctness of his position in the matter in question.  He was charitable, his hands being upon on all occasions to succor distress, to encourage enterprise and support good institutions.  He was  modest and unaffected and possessed not one particle of personal vanity; "he had no desire for display, and no ambition for admiration."  He made no effort to win attention in conversation or argument, beyond what the occasion it was always from the full mind accustomed to deep reflection.  He never obtruded his opinions upon the others, but brought them out only as they were sought, and then with clearness and earnestness.  To the casual observer, or on first introduction he was thought to be cold and reserved; of manner, dress and deportment, but his simplicity was never accompanied with want of perception of what was right and fit for the occasion.  The first impression of a stranger was that of disappointment; it hardly seemed credible that such simplicity should be accompanied with his known position and reputation in life.  The consciousness of power was not there; "there was no play of lights and shades of rank; o study of effect in tone or bearing."  He never thought of himself and the air of office was not there.  What was said of the great Marshall may with equal truth be said of Judge Emerson:  "after all what may be said of his fame in the eyes of the world, that which in a just sense was his highest glory, was the purity, affectionateness, liberality and devotedness of his domestic life.  At home he indulged himself in what he most loved, the duties and blessings of the family circle.  There his heart had full play.  There the sunshine of his soul diffused its soft radiance and cheered and soothed and tranquilized the passing hours."  The writer has seen him in the family circle surrounded by his children, so completely absorbed in their childish pranks, that he seemed almost oblivious to all passing events; to them he was kind and affectionate, and  indulgent to a fault, almost.  In his public character he was upright and conscientious.  He would not do what he thought to be wrong no matter how popular or pressing was the public clamor; he would not shrink from what he thought right through he might stand alone in his position.  In this he was as firm as a rock.  On one occasion, having made a decision, he was reminded that the supreme court had decided directly the contrary doctrine: "I know that, he replied, "but they are wrong and I am right, and I will give them one more chance correct their error."  He loved the law, not as a trade, but as science; he disdained to mislead the court, the jury or his client; the practice of law was to him the enforcement of the principles of right and justice, rather than the temporary success his knowledge of the rules of practice might give him.  He resorted to no technicalities for success.  His treatment of his brethren at the bar was kind and courteous, whether practicing with them or while on the bench.  To the younger members of the bar he was a friend indeed, and was never known to take advantage of their inexperience that he might show his own strength and knowledge, as some petty judges delight to do.  He was studious, and his judicial learning was above the ordinary judges of our courts, yet the original bias as well as choice of his mind was to general principles and comprehensive views, rather than technical and recondite learning.  In his character, in his family circle, in his practice, in his judicial career, in all the varied stations in life, he was a model worthy of emulation, not perfect and without blemish, but his better characteristics so far exceeding the imperfections and blemishes, that the latter were almost unobserved.  Of their children -      Albert was born Feb. 5, 1842, and is now residing in Monticello, Piatt county, Illinois.  Jerome was born Dec. 25, 1846, and is now living in Clarinda, Iowa.  Joseph was born Sept. 11, 1850; is now living in Lake City, Moultrie county, Illinois.  Elizabeth was born Nov. 3, 1852, and married S. H. Record, of Charleston, Illinois, where she now resides.  Laura M. was born Apr. 11, 1857, and now resides in Decatur.  Lucy A. was born Apr. 13, 1859, and now resides in Charleston, Illinois.

GEORGE W. FALCONER was born in 1777, in Frederick county, Maryland, and came to this county in 1839, and died Jan. 6, 1856.  His children were - Jeremiah, Anna, Eliza, Enoch G. and Mary.

JOHN FALCONER was born Jan. 21, 1830, in Frederick county Maryland, and came to Macon county in 1839.

DAVID FLOREY was born in 1803, in Virginia.  Came to Illinois in 1825, and settled in what is now Macon county.  Came with Draper, P. D. Williams and Epperson.  Was married to Isabella Wright, who was born in Virginia.  One child was born of this marriage - Jerome, who was born in 1838, now resides in Macon county.  Was married a second time to Rachael Rittenhouse, who was born in 1826. Of their children -      J. W. was born in 1850.  Mellissa J. was born in 1858.  Franklin was born in 1862.

NOTES