Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Lewsader Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: LEWSADER family members lets try this:
Posted by: Mary Cunningham Date: January 21, 2002 at 16:49:42
In Reply to: Re: LEWSADER family members lets try this: by Wayne O. Cunningham of 412

Hi, fellow Cunningham and Lewsader,
I am new to the forum but my sister and I have been tracing the Luzaders for years. Our lineage is

Aaron Louzada + Blume Michael
Aaron Luzader II + Sarah Cole
Andrew Luzader + Rebecca Davis
Abel Lewsader + Mary Bailey
Rebecca Lewsader + Charles L. W. Proudfoot
Harriet Proudfoot + S. W. Burg
Ina Burg + Ed Herke
Mary Lane (Herke) Cunningham (me)
Shirley (Herke) Tonderum (sister)
We, too, have considered the John Lusadder born in Ohio around 1820 to be one of Andrew's sons along with Isaac,also born in Ohio around 1826. Although we have no proof, I am inclined to think that the four Lusader girls who marry in Fountain Co. in the 1830's also belong to Andrew. In the 1830 census for Fountain Co. he is the only Luzader listed. The marriages I am thinking of are
Elizabeth Lusader (Nov 13, 1832) James Montgomery
Catherine Lusader (Jan. 24, 1835) George Montgomery
Mariah Lusader (Mar. 6, 1836) John Brewer
Rachel Lusader (July 11, 1839) Benjamin Vanhook
maybe Rebecca Lewsadder (March 9, 1848) James Stanton
We are also inclined to think that the Polly Redding who marries Burton Bailey, Oct. 21, 1832, becomes a widow in May, 1836, is the Polly Bailey who marries Andrew in Nov, 1837, and later is the Polly Lusader who marries Samuel Prevo, Aug 21, 1847.
The only child that we can find for the second marriage of Andrew is Thomas Luzader born 1838. Possibly the second child is one of those who never reached maturity. In reading Andrew's (b.1835)biographical sketch, I wondered if they meant to say that Andrew was the youngest of the first ten, but that the family was a total of twelve. Probably best, however, to take it as it is stated, "he the youngest of the twelve"(first marriage)
I have found this forum most enlightening. You are so well informed.

Mary Cunningham


Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Agreement of Use
Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network