Skip to content
September 15, 2017 / Joanne Yeck

¬†Buckingham Notables: Lucy Scruggs, Part II » SRR_1940_Scruggs_Lucy


Leave a Comment
  1. Joanne Yeck / Oct 18 2017 5:56 am

    Kathie, Inconsistencies in ages abound in census material. Always take one piece of data as a clue, rather than a fact. Many slaves had no idea of their birth year. Ages were estimated and, often, exaggerated. More documents to come. Please comment again once you’ve averaged your data. And, many thanks for commenting. You may inspire other readers to dig deeper into the “facts” of Lucy Scruggs’ life. Joanne

  2. Kathie Phelps Mann / Oct 17 2017 7:35 pm

    Did the reporter from the newspaper article state Lucy”s age wrong or is the census wrong? (She couldn’t be 104 in 1958 if she’s only 69 in the 1940 census). I’ve found some other things that point to Lucy being younger (born later) than was originally stated in the article…..I guess I will stay tuned. (Or if you have any questions on what I found, you can email me privately- so I don’t spoil any suprises you have for Part III on Lucy).
    : )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.