Errors of The Reeves Review II
Abner Reeves
Page 499, ID 112The lineage listed as (Malachi, William, William, Timothy, Richard, John, Robert) is incorrect other than Malachi and William. Earlier individuals shown in red are incorrect and proven to be so by DNA.
This page is from the Supplement at the rear of the book and was apparently a duplicate listing for Abner Reeves who was previously listed on Page 20 ID 112.The notation in the supplement is that it had been consolidated with the help of ... a professional genealogist who shares with us these lines, to the betterment of all concerned. However, this is one of the most glaring examples of poor research and in addition it is untrue, defamatory and slanderous.
The passage makes the following statement: After Abner's death Sarah Reeves = 23 Sep 1816 to Jonathan Reeves, possibly a brother of Abner. TRUTH - Abner's brother Jonathan died in Wake County, North Carolina in 1798 where both he and brother Hardy were living at the time and were recorded in the 1790 census as well as tax lists. There is absolutely no documentation that indicates Jonathan, son of Malachi Reeves ever migrated to either Georgia or South Carolina.
It then goes on to say that Jonathan died shortly after, and according to custom, all that she had inherited from Abner's estate was claimed by the children of Jonathan, leaving Sarah twice widowed and with a large family penniless, and unwelcome in any of the homes of Jonathan's children. This is blatantly untrue. Sarah Wright Reeves married Jonathan Reeves, the son of Malachi and Fortune Reeves. In his 1849 Meriwether County, Georgia will, he left all of his property, specifically including money, notes, carriages, horses and a man servant, to his wife, Sarah. And at her death she was to dispose of it as she pleased. He appointed his step-son William Reeves as his executor. Another step-son, Tyre Reeves, was one of the justices presiding over the court when the will was presented for probate in November 1849. [Meriwether County GA Will Book A, pgs 148-149]
These statements in the Reeves Review II were patently untrue and false. It is unthinkable that a qualified professional genealogist would produce such a fabrication.