Jane Bell (Martin)

Jane Bell (Martin)

TennesseeConfirmed

3rd-great-grandmother · Sumner County, Tennessee

⚠ NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH Jane Bell (c.1879–1955, Texas), Earl's great-grandmother and the wife of William Leonard Proeger Sr. Two different women, four generations apart, with the same name. This is the 3rd-great-grandmother, wife of Peter Hines Martin of Sumner County, Tennessee.

Married

Peter Hines Martin

Sources

9

Images

5

Life in the order the records give it

Birth1850

🔑 Born TENNESSEE

written on her own line by two enumerators ten years apart S98 S161, and on the 1850 sheet hers is the only birthplace filled on the household's seven lines. The Ancestry tree is now corrected to Tennessee (22 September 2026), on these two schedules S98 S161. Nothing read in this research gives Virginia for her; that was her husband's birthplace S105, copied across to her.

Death1850

🔑 She ran the farm as a widow, in her own name. Farmer stands in her own occupation column on both schedules: $6,000 of real estate in 1850 S98, and $9,240 real with $11,840 personal

better than $21,000 — in 1860 S161, in a household of three.

Census1850

🔑 William Bell, 65, under her roof in 1850 S98 was her BROTHER

her husband's will S172 leaves "Mr. Wm Bell … a house and a support with his Sister as long as he Shall choose to accept it." Born about 1785, nine years older than Jane; the arithmetic had withdrawn the father reading and the will names the relationship. It is also why he is in her house: Peter provided for it.

Family parents, marriages, children, siblings

Marriage1793

Married Peter Hines Martin (1793–1849) on 2 July 1818. 🔑 The county MARRIAGE REGISTER has now been read S162: the licence issued and the rite solemnized the same day, certified by Rev. William Hume, V.D.M.

the officiant named for the first time. It is the record behind the Dodd compiled index S106.

Marriage1849

Widowed 4 July 1849 at Gallatin, Sumner County S105; still heading her own household in District 12, Sumner County at the 16 June 1860 enumeration S161.

Children1850

🔑 Her son Joseph Daniel Martin is named in his father's will S172

"To Joseph D Martin I give unto a light bay filly now two years old", inside the passage disposing of the estate for the benefit of my children. He is in her household in 1850 at 18 S98 and again in 1860 at 27, by then a farmer in his own right S161. A census names a household, not a parentage, and neither sheet says "son" — and neither does the will: the filiation is carried by the structure of the bequest. The Probable comes off on the document; the caveat stays.

Open questions what is probable, weak or missing — confirm or correct it

Open question

⚠ Birth year UNSETTLED — c.1794 or c.1797–98. The 1850 census gives her age as 56 (born 1793–94) S98; the 1860 census gives 62 (born 1797–98) S161. Ten years apart the ages advance only six, and they cannot both be right. The 1818 marriage favours the earlier year — a bride of about 24 rather than 20 S162; the 1820 tally puts her in the 16–25 bracket and leans later S163; the 1840 bracket, 40–49, contains both and is neutral S164. No record read gives a month or a day. A row stands in the research review queue.

Open question

⚠ The family was larger than the record names. The 1820 tally shows a daughter under 10, never named S163; the 1840 sheet shows six sons born roughly 1821–1835, of whom only David and Joseph are named anywhere S164. Tallies, not names.

Open question

⚠ The 1830 census S174 puts one female aged 30–40 in the household and settles nothing about her birth year

the bracket contains both c.1794 and c.1797–98. It is not cited for either.

Photos & documents 1 photo · 4 documents

Photos (1)

Open photo

Documents (4)

Documents · 4 page images all documents

Retrieved from the UNT Libraries' Portal to Texas History, or — for the University of Texas Cactus yearbooks — from Texas ScholarWorks. Each thumbnail opens the full page scan, which can also be downloaded. The quoted text is the OCR that ships with the scan, copied verbatim; the page image is the authority.

Open full page

Tennessee, U.S., Marriage Records, 1780-2002 — bound clerk's register, printed heading **"MARRIAGE RECORD, 1818"**, opening pp. 196/197 (Ancestry coll. 1169, record 4572939, image VRMUSATN1780_040401-00127; the collection and film place it in **Davidson County** — the page itself names no county) · full resolution 4644 x 3432 px, 70/70 DeepZoom tiles — page p. 196, fifth entry

County marriage register · 2 July 1818

View full page Download image

Open full page

Tennessee, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1779-2008 — Sumner County **Will Books, 1789-1904**, opening pp. **126/127** (Ancestry coll. 9176, record 3819223, image 004776071_00479) · full resolution 3880 x 2984 px — page pp. 126-127, the Martin will and its probate entry

County will book · 1849-06-30 / proved August Term 1849

View full page Download image

Open full page

1850 United States Federal Census, SCHEDULE I — Free Inhabitants in **District No. 12**, County of **Sumner**, State of **Tennessee**, enumerated **3 November 1850** by **Thos. J. Watson, Ass't Marshal**; page 521/286, dwelling/family 17, lines 3-9 (Ancestry coll. 8054, record 6921047, image 4206054_00574) · full resolution 3368 x 4421 px, 63/63 DeepZoom tiles — page dwelling 17, lines 3-9

Federal census schedule · 3 November 1850

View full page Download image

Open full page

1860 United States Federal Census, SCHEDULE 1 — Free Inhabitants in **District No. 12**, County of **Sumner**, State of **Tennessee**, **Post Office Gallatin**, enumerated **16 June 1860** by C. A. Blackmore(?), Ass't Marshal; Page No. 30, dwelling/family 209, lines 30-32 (Ancestry coll. 7667, record 22611436, image 4297417_00518) · full resolution 4690 x 6621 px, 130/130 DeepZoom tiles — page p. 30, dwelling 209, lines 30-32

Federal census schedule · 16 June 1860

View full page Download image

In the record Generation 5 — Earl's 3rd-great-grandparents

1. S981850 US Federal Census — Jane Martin household, District 12, Sumner County, Tennessee. Jane Martin, 56, Head (b. ~1794); David, 19; Joseph, 18; Martha, 16; Louisa, 14; Mary McMurry, 7; William Bell, 65. NARA M432, Roll 897, Page 286a. Ancestry collection 8054, records 6921047 / 6921049. Re-read in full on 18 September 2026, and it carries two names this entry had left off. Jane heads the household with no husband present because Peter Hines Martin died 4 July 1849, the year before [S105]. And William Bell, aged 65 — a man of her parents' generation, living under her roof — is her maiden name walking into the record on its own legs, independent of the marriage index [S106] and of the family chart [S103] that first supplied it. ⚠️ This household is still what makes Joseph Probable rather than Confirmed as Peter's son: right name, right age, right county, in the widow's house the year after the father died — but a census names a household, not a parentage. Peter's 1849 Sumner County probate file was what would close it [S107] — and it has: his holographic will of 30 June 1849 [S172] names Joseph D Martin in the children's division, and calls William Bell Jane's brother.
2. S105Peter Hines Martin Sr — Find a Grave memorial 138765883, with Ancestry member documents. Born 4 November 1793, Virginia; died 4 July 1849, Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee. Parents given as John Martin and Sarah Martin; spouse Jane. Indexed on Ancestry as collection 60541, record 4605011; the exact day and month are corroborated by member-submitted documents. Retrieved 18 September 2026. This is the record that answered a question this page had been posing as unanswerable. This page had carried Joseph's father as a man who died shortly before the 1850 census and could not be named — an inference drawn from his absence from it [S98]. The inference was right to within a year. The name came from a pencilled box on his great-great-grandson's pedigree chart [S103], and the "H" is Hines. ⚠️ Find a Grave is a compiled memorial, not an original. The dates are corroborated by the chart, by the 1818 marriage [S106] and by the 1850 widow's household; his own parents, John and Sarah Martin, rest on this memorial alone and stay Probable until an original is traced.
3. S106Peter H. Martin and Jane Bell — marriage, Davidson County, Tennessee, 2 July 1818. Tennessee, U.S., Compiled Marriages, 1784–1825 (Dodd), Ancestry collection 2099, record 3593. Retrieved 18 September 2026. An actual record for a name that existed only on a family chart. Box 29 of Chart 1 reads JANE BELL in pencil and nothing more [S103]; this is the marriage behind it. ⚠️ A compiled marriage index is a transcription, not the county register, so it is corroborated rather than relied on alone: William Bell, aged 65, is enumerated in Jane's household in 1850 [S98] — a Bell of her parents' generation under the widow's roof, which reaches her maiden name from a completely different direction.
4. S1611860 U.S. Federal Census — Jane Martin, widow and head of household, District No. 12, Sumner County, Tennessee. Ancestry collection 7667, record 22611436, image 4297417_00518. Post Office Gallatin, enumerated 16 June 1860, page No. 30, dwelling and family 209, lines 30–32. Read from the image at full resolution — 4690 × 6621 px, 130/130 DeepZoom tiles, 22 September 2026. Jane Martin, 62, F, Farmer, real estate $9,240, personal estate $11,840, born TENNESSEE; Jo. D. Martin, 27, M, do [Farmer], born Tennessee; M. L. Martin, 21, F, born Tennessee. The estate figures are written once on line 30 with a brace drawn down the three lines. 🔑 JOSEPH D. MARTIN IS IN THE WIDOW'S HOUSE A SECOND TIME, TEN YEARS ON. The tree held him only from his 1866 marriage forward S95, with the link to Peter and Jane resting on the single 1850 household S98. Here he is again under the same roof, now entered as a Farmer in his own right, six years before he married Nannie Chenault. ⚠ It does NOT upgrade Probable to Confirmed, and the reason is the kind of evidence: a census names a household, not a parentage. Ancestry's own index says inferred child, and inferred is the right word. Two household enumerations make coincidence hard to argue; neither states the word "son". Peter's 1849 Sumner County probate S107 was the document that would close it — and it has been read, 22 September 2026, as [S172]: Joseph D Martin is named in his father's own hand, inside the children's division. 🔑 Her birthplace reads TENNESSEE for the second time, on her own line, ten years after the 1850 sheet said the same S98. Nothing read in this research gives Virginia for HER. Her husband Peter Hines Martin was born in Virginia S105, and a birthplace copied sideways from a husband to a wife is the commonest error in an online tree. 🔑 She was worth better than $21,000, in her own name. $6,000 of real estate in 1850; $9,240 real and $11,840 personal here, in a household of three, with Farmer in her own occupation column both times. 🔴 THE TWO AGE COLUMNS CANNOT BOTH BE RIGHT. 1850 gives 56 (born 1793–94); this sheet gives 62 (born 1797–98). Ten years apart the ages advance six. The disagreement is printed rather than smoothed: the 1818 marriage S162 favours the earlier year (a bride of about 24 rather than 20), the 1820 tally leans the later S163, and 1840 is neutral S164. No record read gives a month or a day. The year is UNSETTLED and a row stands in the review queue. ⚠ M. L. Martin's initials are not clean — a large looped capital reading M or Jn — and the age reads 21 with 24 possible. At 24 she is the Louisa, 14, of 1850; at 21 she matches no child on that sheet. Transcribed as read, not resolved. ⚠ Abram Martin, 65, born NORTH CAROLINA, $10,000 real and $11,950 personal, stands two dwellings from Jane in 1860 and two doors from her in 1850, with Mary Martin 53, Malvina 26 and John Franklin 20. A brother of Peter is the obvious hypothesis and it is recorded as a hypothesis only: Peter was born 1793 and Abram about 1795, Peter's grave names his own father John — the name Abram gave a son — but Peter was born in Virginia and Abram in North Carolina, and that is a real obstacle, not a detail. Captured, not researched, not added to the tree.
5. S162Tennessee marriage register, 1818 — the COUNTY RECORD behind the Dodd index: Peter H. Martin to Jane Bell, 2 July 1818, with the officiant named. Ancestry collection 1169 (Tennessee, U.S., Marriage Records, 1780–2002), record 4572939, image VRMUSATN1780_040401-00127; a bound clerk's register under the printed heading "MARRIAGE RECORD, 1818", opening pp. 196/197. Read from the image at full resolution — 4644 × 3432 px, 70/70 DeepZoom tiles, 22 September 2026. The fifth entry on the left leaf, verbatim: "Martin, Peter H. — To — Jane Bell. Issued July 2d 1818. I solemnized the rite of matrimony between the within named parties on the 2d day of July 1818. Wm. Hume, V.D.M." 🔑 THE MARRIAGE IS NOW ON THE COUNTY REGISTER, NOT ON A TRANSCRIPTION. This site carried the date from Tennessee, U.S., Compiled Marriages, 1784–1825 (Dodd) S106, and flagged it in its own words: a compiled marriage index is a transcription, not the county record. This is the record that index was compiled from. The date does not move by a day. S162 is cited ahead of S106, and S106's caveat comes off — the entry is kept, because the Dodd index is what found the marriage. 🔑 The licence and the wedding fell on the same day — issued 2 July 1818, solemnized 2 July 1818. They did not wait. 🔑 The officiant is named for the first time: Rev. WILLIAM HUME, V.D.M. — Verbi Dei Minister, a Presbyterian minister, and the busiest name on the opening: he also married Mann to Alexander and Tait to Coleman that same fortnight. He appears nowhere else in this research. ⚠ The page itself names no county. Davidson County comes from the collection and the film, not from the leaf; the entries around it are ordinary Middle Tennessee returns of June–August 1818 under ministers Wm. Anderson, Benj. Darrow, Levin Edney, Joseph Love, Edmund Lanier, Joel Anderson, R. W. Oakley J.P. and James Whitsitt. ⚠ A marriage register of 1818 has no age column, no birthplace column and no parentage column. It cannot touch Jane's birth year directly — it bears on it only by inference, a bride of about 24 on the tree's c.1794 against about 20 on the 1860 reading S161. ⚠ It names no parent of either party. Jane's maiden surname is the whole of what it gives about her family.
6. S1631820 U.S. Federal Census — Peter H. Martin, town of GALLATIN, Sumner County, Tennessee: a MANUFACTURER employing four. Ancestry collection 7734, record 1017030, image 4433291_00158 (one read closes two hints, Peter Hines Martin and Jane Bell). Read from the image at full resolution — 3716 × 4500 px, 72/72 DeepZoom tiles, 22 September 2026. Enumerated 7 August 1820. The sheet carries two fragments: the close of the town of Gallatin list, ending with the clerk's note "Whole amount in Gallatin 429", and below it the start of the Sumner County list. Peter H. Martin stands on the second line of the Gallatin fragment, above Mathew Neale and John Perkins. His tally: free white males 10–15: 1, 16–25: 2 (of whom 16–18: 1), 26–44: 1 — Peter himself, 26 that August; free white females under 10: 1, 16–25: 1; Persons engaged in Manufactures: 4; slaves, females under 14: 1. Totals: 6 free white, 1 enslaved, 7. 🔑 HE WAS NOT A FARMER, AND THIS IS THE EARLIEST OCCUPATIONAL FACT THE RECORD HOLDS FOR HIM. Four hands in manufactures, in the town of Gallatin, in 1820, is a workshop. Nothing in this research had ever said what Peter Hines Martin did for a living. The line page already knew he was enumerated at Gallatin in 1820; this is that entry, read rather than cited. 🔑 A daughter under 10, in August 1820 — an earlier child who has never been named. It is consistent with the 2 July 1818 marriage S162. Every known child of this couple is a decade later — David c.1831, Joseph 1832, Martha c.1834, Louisa c.1836. A tally is not a name: this is a lead, not a person. 🔴 ON JANE'S AGE THIS SHEET LEANS AGAINST THE TREE, AND IT IS ONE TICK ON A BOUNDARY. There is one female 16–25 and none 26–44. A woman born about 1794 was 26 on 7 August 1820 and belongs in the upper bracket; born 1797–98 she was 22 and belongs where the mark is. So 1820 leans the same way the 1860 schedule does S161, against the 1850 schedule and the tree S98. It settles nothing and is not acted on — a bracket boundary on a form notorious for them, reported by the head of household. But the "prefer 1850, prefer c.1794" reading now has two records leaning the other way, not one. ⚠ The two males 16–25 and one 10–15 are too old to be this couple's children — apprentices or journeymen in the manufactory, or younger siblings. Unnamed, and not claimed as kin. ⚠ One enslaved female under 14, recorded because the page records it. By 1840 the household held ten S164. ⚠ Gallatin neighbours on the fragment include William Trousdale, later Governor of Tennessee, and John Perkins, who reappears on the 1840 sheet.
7. S1641840 U.S. Federal Census — P. H. Martin, Sumner County, Tennessee: a household of twelve, six sons, eight in agriculture and ten enslaved people. Ancestry collection 8057, record 3431539, image 4410645_00752. (No. 4.) SCHEDULE of the whole number of persons within the division allotted to A. D. Bugg(?), page 20, row 8. Read from the image at full resolution — 4062 × 3312 px, 56/56 DeepZoom tiles, 22 September 2026. Free white males: 5–9: 2, 10–14: 2, 15–19: 2, 40–49: 1. Free white females: under 5: 2, 15–19: 1, 20–29: 1, 40–49: 1. Total free white 12 · persons employed in agriculture 8 · total slaves 10 (2 males under 10, 4 males 10–23, 1 male 24–35, 1 female under 10, 2 females 10–23). 🔑 The two boys aged 5–9 land exactly on David and Joseph of the 1850 sheet S98 — born c.1831 and c.1832, so 8 and 9 in 1840. 🔑 SIX SONS, born roughly 1821–1835, of whom only two are named anywhere in this research. With the unnamed daughter of the 1820 tally S163, this couple had a large family and most of it is unnamed. 🔑 The scale of the household is now documented. In 1820 it held one enslaved person; by 1840 it held ten, with eight people working the land. This is the trajectory that ends in Jane's $6,000 in 1850 and better than $21,000 in 1860 S161. It is recorded plainly because the page records it. ⚠ On Jane's age this sheet is NEUTRAL and cannot be used either way. A female 40–49 covers births from 1790 to 1800 and therefore contains both candidate years. ⚠ A one-bracket slip, recorded not reconciled: Martha, 6 in 1840 on the 1850 arithmetic, has no 5–9 female slot; the enumerator entered two girls under 5 where the 1850 ages want one under 5 and one 5–9. ⚠ Ancestry indexes the name "P K Martin". The image reads P. H. ⚠ The identification is on the name, the county, the year and the 40–49 brackets — Peter turned 46 in November 1840 and Jane, on c.1794, was 46. An 1840 schedule names only the head of the family; every other person on the row is a tally mark. ⚠ Woody Martin heads a family on the same page of the same division, and Jno. McMurry is a neighbour — the surname borne by the Mary McMurry, 7, in Jane's 1850 household S98. Both captured, neither explained.
8. S172The last will and testament of Peter H. Martin — Sumner County, Tennessee, written in his own hand 30 June 1849, proved August Term 1849. Tennessee, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1779–2008; Sumner County Will Books 1789–1904; Ancestry record 3819223, image 004776071_00479. Read from the image at full resolution, 22 September 2026. "I Peter H. Martin of the County of Sumner and State of Tennessee, being in my usual health and of sound and disposing mind, do make and ordain this my last will and Testament." To his wife Jane Martin, for life: the home plantation, the timbered tract bought of William Walton, the horses Charley and Rhoda and choice of three more, eight cattle, the farm gear, a year's provisions, the household furniture, twenty stock hogs, and "Choice of my Servants to the Number of three." The residue "to be sold at public sale for the benefit of my children." "My Town property to be Sold at a Credit for the benefit of my Children. Robert B. Martin has had an advance of three hundred & seventy dollars for which he will account to the other children in the division of my estate … The Shoe Store may be sold to the Crutchers & R. B. Martin and the latter allowed to retain the use of the Capital I put in." "To David B. Martin I give … a dark bay filly four years old. To Joseph D Martin I give unto a light bay filly now two years old." "To Mr. Wm Bell I leave a house and a support with his Sister as long as he Shall choose to accept it." "Witness that I have written with my own hand this 30th day of June 1849 … P. H. Martin (Seal)." Witnesses Thomas Crutcher, J. B. Wilson, W. H. Crutcher; proved in open court, Sumner County Court, August Term 1849, on the oaths of Thomas Crutcher and Wm H Crutcher; recorded by Wm S. Munday, Clerk. 🔑 This is the document the line page named as the one that would close the Joseph question [S107] — and it had never been read. 🔑 Joseph D Martin is named by his father, inside the passage disposing of the estate for the benefit of my children, in the same breath as David B. Martin and immediately after Robert B. Martin is told to account to the other children in the division of my estate. Three named Martins stand inside the class "my children" in the testator's own instrument. ⚠ The caveat travels with it: the will never writes the word son beside any of the three names. The filiation is carried by the structure of the bequest, not by a kinship term. It is far stronger than the two census households the link rested on [S98] [S161], and it is still not the word. 🔑 William Bell was Jane's BROTHER — with his Sister, in Peter's hand. S98's open brother or uncle is answered, and it explains why he was living in her house in 1850: her husband provided for it. 🔑 Peter Hines Martin kept a SHOE STORE, with capital still in it in 1849 and partners in the Crutchers, and held town property apart from the plantation. Read with Persons engaged in Manufactures: 4 at Gallatin in 1820 [S163], it is one trade across thirty years — and David, 19, "Clerk" in 1850 [S98] was clerking in his father's store. 🔑 Holographic, and four days before his death — written 30 June 1849, and his grave gives 4 July 1849 [S105]. 🔑 Nine people in an instrument Ancestry indexes under one name: Jane Martin, Robert B., David B. and Joseph D Martin, Wm Bell, William Walton, and three witnesses. ⚠ Ancestry's Probate Date 30 Jun 1849 is the date the will was written and sealed; probate is the August Term. ⚠ The will bequeaths Servants by choice of three; it names none of them.
9. S1741830 U.S. Federal Census — Peter H Martin, County of Sumner, State of Tennessee. Ancestry collection 8058, record 754848, image 4409701_00274; stamped 137. Read from the image at full resolution, 22 September 2026. One read closes two hints — the same row is served under Peter and under Jane. Peter H Martin — the initial is plainly H, not M and not K — MALES: under 5 = 3 · 5–10 = 3 · 10–15 = 2 · 15–20 = 2 · 30–40 = 1; FEMALES: 5–10 = 1 · 10–15 = 1 · 15–20 = 1 · 30–40 = 1. Fifteen free white persons. 🔑 Thirteen people under twenty in a household formed in July 1818 [S162]. On 1 June 1830 the eldest child of that marriage could be eleven; two boys of 15–20 and two of 10–15 cannot be Peter and Jane's children. With four hands in manufactures at Gallatin in 1820 [S163] and a shoe store still carrying his capital in 1849 [S172], apprentices and journeymen boarding in the house is the natural reading — stated as a hypothesis; the schedule says nothing. It is the first thing on this line that explains the household's size. ⚠ Jane's birth year: NEUTRAL. One female 30–40 covers births from 1790 to 1800 and contains both candidate years (c.1794 and c.1797–98), exactly as the 1840 bracket does [S164]. This sheet must not be cited for her birth year either way. 🔴 The enslaved-persons columns are NOT on the served image. The sheet ends at the free-white-females column; the 1830 form carries those tallies on the facing leaf, which was not fetched. Ancestry indexes Total Slaves 10; that figure is an index of a leaf not read, and is cited as indexed, never as read. ⚠ The enumerator's name runs off the right edge of the served image. Neighbours on the page: Reuben D. Warner above, Josiah W. Baldridge below.