Contents
Whose family are you here for?
Showing both families — every line on the page. Pick a side to hide the other
family's ancestors; Earl, Kristin and their three children stay on either way.
Person · Nancy Hays Wilder
The record
- HHomethe fan · what changed · open questions
- MMigrationbirths and deaths on a map, by decade
- TTimeline609 entries · 5 eras
- PPeople290 cards, by generationNancy Hays Wilder
- LLines13 surname pages
The evidence
- DDocuments896 thumbnails, filterable
- SSourcesS1–S1207, with where each is cited
The findings
- How the wall came downProeger line
- The glass patentsProeger line
- How the Caffey half was closedCaffey line
- What the DNA saysits own page
- Four routesMigration
- The asymmetryLines
- Open questions20 questions
- Add to this recorda form, read by Earl
How to read this record
Every claim is tagged
Most family trees flatten everything into the same confident typeface. This one does not.
The three research tags below are the whole point of the exercise: they say what a document
proves, what the weight of evidence suggests, and what nobody has found yet. A fourth marks
what the family stated directly, where no document has been retrieved at all — it is kept
separate on purpose and is never quietly promoted to confirmed. A fifth, added on
13 September 2026, marks biological evidence: a DNA result is not a document, and it is not
testimony either. Two further labels mark where this page withholds information
rather than lacking it.
ConfirmedAttested by a document that was actually retrieved and read — a census sheet, a
government index, a grave marker, a family-written obituary.
ProbableStrongly supported but not nailed down: a user-contributed tree, a masked index field,
or a chain of consistent circumstances. Believable, not proven.
Not foundSearched for and not located. This is a statement about the search, not about the
person — the record may well exist somewhere unsearched.
Family testimonySupplied by the family and recorded on their word — no document has been retrieved for
it. Note the diamond rather than the dot: this is provenance, not proof, and it stands
apart from the three record tags above S24.
DNA evidenceBiological evidence consistent with a claim. It corroborates origins; it does
not by itself establish a person or a link. Note the bar rather than a dot or a diamond:
no DNA result on this page is ever counted as confirmed, because no document
was read for it S46.
Living — withheldThe person is living. By the privacy rule for this page, name and relationship are
shown, and at most a year the family has already published. Full dates of birth, ages,
places of residence and record identifiers are held back.
Research in progressA branch that is actively being worked on. The node exists in the structure so the
shape of the family is honest; the detail is simply not in yet.
- Born
- Not found
- Died
- Not found
- Sources
- 3
Research status
Research status: PROBABLE — accepted by Earl 28 September 2026 pending more evidence. W. M. Wilder's typescript
Wilder and Some Connecting Families, p. 571, calls Nancy Wilder, born in Tennessee about 1802 and wife of Moses Williams, the “dau of James & Nancy Hays Wilder”
S863. That Nancy and Moses match the 1850 Owsley County couple
S173. What is weak: the compiled family history is the only source, with no primary record behind it. Online trees merge her with
Jane Wilder, 72 in 1850 and 82 in 1860, wife of the Hancock County, Tennessee, tanner James Wilder
S871; that family stayed in Tennessee while the book's couple went to Kentucky, so the birth in 1777 and death in 1870 the trees give are that woman's or no record's.
Evidence: W. M. Wilder's typescript family history (p. 571) calls Nancy Wilder, wife of Moses Williams, the daughter of James and Nancy Hays Wilder. Weak or missing: The compiled history is the only source; online trees merge her with Jane Wilder of Hancock County, Tennessee, whose dates are not hers. Not yet confirmed. Know more? Confirm or correct this →
Life in the order the records give it
Birth—
Her birth and death dates are not in any record read
Open questions what is probable, weak or missing — confirm or correct it
In the record
Generation 8 — Earl's earliest known
- S1731850 U.S. Federal Census — Moses Williams household, County of Owsley, State of Kentucky. Ancestry collection 8054, record 17453010, image
4192506_00389. SCHEDULE I.—Free Inhabitants, enumerated on the 4th day of Sept 1850 by Luther Brawner, Ass't Marshal; dwelling and family 281/281, lines 18–25. Read from the image at full resolution, 22 September 2026. Moses Williams, 50, Farmer, real estate $750, born TENNESSEE, cannot read or write; Nancy Williams, 48, born Tennessee, cannot read or write; Nathan 21, Laborer; a son of 18 whose given name has faded off the page; Lydia, 15, born TENNESSEE; George 10; Nancy 8, born Tennessee; Abraham, 5, born KENTUCKY. 🔑 A new generation on a line that had none — published as a candidate, PROBABLE since 24 September 2026. The Williams side stops at Lydia on this record; this sheet puts her, at fifteen, in the household of Moses and Nancy Williams in the county she marries in six years later [S143], and there is no second Lydia Williams on the page. ⚠ The hedge is stated plainly: an 1850 schedule states no relationship whatever. Ancestry's own word is inferred. This is the same evidentiary shape as James and Elizabeth Brock [S167] [S169] and it is weaker — that is a two-census chain, this is one sheet. It is published as a CANDIDATE, not probable, not confirmed, and nothing has been written to the tree. 🔑 Age 15 contains the tree's 30 May 1835 by two days. Reference day 1 June 1850; 15 requires a birth between 2 June 1834 and 1 June 1835. The tightest corroboration the date has; the day itself is still unattested by any document. 🔑 The family left Tennessee between c.1842 and c.1845 — Nancy, 8, born Tennessee; Abraham, 5, born Kentucky. Lydia was a child of about seven to ten when they moved. 🔑 Lydia's birthplace is Tennessee, in her own household, at fifteen — the first of three contemporaneous records to say so, with the 1856 bride's column [S143] and the 1860 Travellers Rest sheet [S171]. ⚠ Both parents illiterate (col. 13 ticked). ⚠ Line 21's given name is unread. Ancestry indexes James, 18; the ink is no longer on the page, and he is recorded here as unread, not as James. ⚠ The $750 leads with a 7 in this hand; $450 cannot be wholly excluded. ⚠ What would settle the parentage is the 1840 schedule with the same household, an Owsley County marriage bond for Lydia in 1856 naming a father's consent, or a probate for Moses Williams. None has been pulled. - S863W. M. Wilder, Wilder and Some Connecting Families (typescript), p. 571, “A Tennessee Fragment”. Ancestry U.S. Family History Books, record 4519537298. Image examined, read 28 September 2026. Probable “F-2 James Wilder b in Va. m Nancy Hays, came to Tennessee with his father [David Wilder of Luther, Hancock Co.] and later moved to ‘Old Settlement’ Ky. They had: G-1 Nancy Wilder (dau of James & Nancy Hays Wilder) b in Tenn. abt 1802 d in Madison Co., Ark. after 1878, m Moses Williams (b abt 1799 in Tenn. d 7/27/1874 Madison Co., Ark.)”, “who was a veteran of the War of [1812]”. A compiled family history; the entry continues on p. 572, not yet read.
- S8711850 U.S. census — James Wilder household, Subdivision 32, Hancock County, Tennessee. Ancestry collection 8054, record 6185865 (image 4206039_00301). Image examined, read 28 September 2026. Confirmed Dwelling and family 24, lines 22–24: James Wilder, 60, tanner, born North Carolina; Jane [Wilder], 72, born Virginia; Elizabeth, 37, born Tennessee. ⚠ This James Wilder, born about 1790 and still in Tennessee, is not the James Wilder of S863, who was born in Virginia and moved to Kentucky. Cited to keep the two apart.