Untangling Four Holes Swamp is not an easy thing to do. All we have to work with are census and land records and when you get down into the details, you discover that there are missing pieces of information.
Census records present us with the challenge that we only have head counts in gender and age groups with just the name of the head of the household to work with. We can't be sure that those records accurately reflect all of the Rudd households, nor do we know if everyone in the household is a family member. Family groups seem to fade from existence about 1830 and 1840 only to gradually reappear in 1850, 1860 and 1870. So linking them back to each other is very difficult. It seems to indicate that during a generation or two, the head of households died and wives remarried, as well as the likelihood that some of the offspring went to live with other family members only to resurface once they started their own household. And then of course, there's the problem of the females being of little use to us unless they were a head of household.
The land records are useful to an extent but are incomplete since we don’t find a grant, survey and deed of sale for each parcel of land. So I’m just going to have to work with what I’ve got and put forth the best theory I can, based on the documentation I can provide.
Here you will find the chart I’ve compiled that extracts from the census records all the Rudd households I’ve been able to satisfy myself to undoubtedly be our Rudd families in South Carolina between 1800 and 1840. I’ve repeatedly tried the conventional method of age progression in an attempt to track the development of the households to the next decade. That has only served to frustrate me to no end! So maybe what we need is an unconventional approach.
We know that George Lounsdell Rudd named four sons in his 1797 Screven Co., GA Deed of Transfer and that Deed was filed in the SC State Papers under the Wills Index in 1804. He said that the two sons, James and Lias, were not of age, so how can they be the two 26/45 y/o males in his 1800 household?
Let’s conduct a little exercise and see how the age progression for the males should look in 1810 and compare it to what is actually reported in 1810. We’re going to only deal with the males in this exercise and I’m going to combine the Burlingham and George L. households and list the males by age group.
Here you can see the Rudd households reported in the 1800 and 1810 census for Charleston and Colleton. There were two family groups in 1800 and there were five family groups in 1810. When you look at the 1810 census page you can see that Elias, Margaret the older, Elijah and O’Riley are living beside each other on the Colleton side of Four Holes Swamp. Margaret the younger is living on the Charleston side of Four Holes Swamp.
What we see here is there was one under 10 y/o male in Burlingham Rudd’s 1800 household, so there should be one 10/16 y/o male in 1810 but there are two. One is in Elias Rudd’s household and the other is in O’Riley Rudd’s household. Granted it could be that one of those males was born immediately after the 1800 census and, therefore, does show up in 1810 as a 10/16 y/o male. That would give us two 10/16 y/o males in 1810.
In 1800 there were no 10/16 males so in 1810 there should be no 16/26 y/o males, but there are two and they are both living in the household of Elijah Rudd. Where did they come from?
Look at the 1800 households. There were two 16/26 y/o males who should progress to the 26/45 y/o age group and considering that the two 26/45 y/o males could remain in that same group we could have two to four 26/45 y/o males in 1810. But we only have two.
Finally, in 1800 we have two males over the age of 45. Likewise the 26/45 males could also progress to the over 45 y/o age group if they were indeed over 36 y/o in 1800. So we have the possibility of two to four males over the age of 45 in 1810. But we have none. Taking those last three age groups together there are six males in 1800 and when we progress those same groups to 1810 we have only two males. For sure the males that were over the age of 45 in 1800 have died by 1810. We know that one of them was George Lounsdell Rudd who died in 1804, the other one is the 45 y/o male in the Burlingham Rudd household. Two additional males in the 1800 households have died or moved elsewhere and they come from the group of four males that are the two 26/45 y/o males in George Lounsdell’s household and the two 16/26 y/o males in Burlingham’s household. In addition, we see that between 1800 and 1810, there were two males who had been born between 1784 and 1794 appear in the Four Holes Swamp area. They do not appear to have come out of either of the 1800 households.
In 1810 there were five households but only three of them had male heads. Of the two female heads, one is Margaret Rudd, the widow of George Lounsdell and the other is Margaret the younger, as I have nicknamed her, she is most likely relates back to George Lounsdell and his wife, Margaret. As I discussed in the narrative South Carolina Rudds ~ Part 3 she appears to be living on land that joins land owned by George Lounsdell Rudd that crosses the border of Colleton and Charleston at the basin of Four Holes Swamp. So that leaves us with three male head of households in 1820, Eli, James and Burrel.
In 1810 there are no males under the age of 10 y/o. So it fits that there would be no males to progress to the 10/16 age group in 1820.
There are two 10/16 y/o males in 1810; one in the Elias household and one in the O’Riley household and we should see them progress to two 16/26 year olds in 1820, but there are none. Perhaps they died or moved away.
In 1810 there are two 16/26 y/o males; these are the same males that we looked at previously that seemed to have no source in the 1800 households. They should progress to the 26/45 age group being 26-36 years old. We see there are three 26/45 y/o males in 1820. Looking back at 1810 we see there were two 26/45 y/o males and no males over 45 years. So projecting to 1820 we see how we could have two 26/45 y/o males by advancing the two 16/26 y/o or we could have up to four 26/45 y/o if the two males in that age group don’t progress. Or it’s possible those two males progress to the over 45 y/o age group. By combining those age groups we should see four males and that is what we see in the 1820 census records three males 26/45 and one over the age of 45, a total of four males.
It is difficult to say which household came from which household but my guess is that in 1810 the Elias Rudd household is Eli the son of George Lounsdell Rudd. In 1820 the Eli Rudd household is the same Eli but he is now the over 45 y/o male and the 26/45 y/o male is the Elias Rudd we will see in the 1830 and 1840 census. The same Elias Rudd that leaves a Last Will in St. James Goose Creek where he does us the favor of naming his children. In that Will you’ll notice he names only one son and five daughters. I’ll demonstrate for you why I believe this is him when we get to that part of this mystery we’re solving.
Now, looking back at 1810, the Elijah Rudd household has two 16/26 y/o males that progress to 26/45 y/o males in 1820. I believe this Elijah household is the aforementioned Elias Rudd that moves into the 1820 Eli Rudd household and the other one is James Rudd. Since we do know that George Lounsdell named a son James, this is most likely him. But George Lounsdell didn’t name a son Elijah that we know of. He did name a son Lias and I have to wonder if this could be him. You know when you think about that name, Elijah, it sounds very much like a combination of the names Elias and James if you were to take the first three letters of each name ... Eli-Jam, especially considering how the name James was abreviated during that time period. What if this mystery to their identity hinged on the understanding of the names by the clerk that transcribed the census taker’s notes! By the way, I’m not yet convinced that the Elias that moves into Eli's household is the Lias in the 1797 Screven Co. Deed, but I do believe that Elijah is the same Elias. Something I do suspect, however, is the reason these two males don’t track back to either of the 1800 households for Burlingham or George L. is because they migrated over from Screven Co., GA during the decade. Later when we look at the Barnwell family groups, we will see another household that looks to have males that migrated during the same period.
That brings me to the 1820 Burrel Rudd household. The only possibility left is the 1810 O’Riley Rudd household. As I mentioned earlier we saw that the 10/16 y/o male did not progress to 1820. But the 26/45 y/o male can progress and stay in the same age group. The 16/26 y/o female in 1810 also progresses to a 26/45 y/o female in 1820 and the 26/45 y/o female can also progress to the over 45 y/o age group. My guess is that in the 1810 O’Riley household, the 16/26 female was the wife and the 26/45 female was someone’s mother. It would appear that O’Riley and Burrel are the same man by different names. The other reason I think this is the case is demonstrated by looking at the land records for Burlingham Rudd.
In 1808 there was a land grant for 606 acres to Burlingham Rudd that was authorized in 1813. The grant has an accompanying survey documenting the same dates. This land was then sold in 1814 by Burlingham Rudd to William Harrall
And let me call you attention to a very important piece of evidence on this deed ... notice that Burlingham Rudd signed his legal signature. Burlingham Rudd 2nd has demonstrated to us in the Anson Co., NC land records that he could not sign his name therefore, he used an "X" for his mark, later on his last deed, he used a "B" for his mark. On this deed we see his wife is named Sarah. This indicates to us that there was indeed a Burlingham Rudd two years before the 1810 census and four years after the 1810 census.
There are other land records for Burlingham Rudd. In 1802 a survey for 116 acres that documents existing land owned by Burlingham Rudd in partnership with James McNish and bordered by land owned by Ely Rudd. This land was issued in 1815. There is a 1819 grant for 352 acres that was issued in 1820 that has an accompanying survey that documents the same years. Regretfully, neither of these two additional land documentations have a accompanying deed of sale so we could see if Burlingham Rudd used his same signature, but we can tell from the surveys that they bear similar if not the same names of the bordering land owners.
And then there is this extract from a 1809 Charleston Directory of land owners. You see the names Burlingham, Elias, Ely and Jane. My guess is that in matching this directory to the 1810 census we have: Burlingham = O'Riley, Elias = Elijah, Ely = Elias, Jane = Margaret the widow of George Lounsdell or the other Margaret the younger.
So if all these land records involve the same Burlingham Rudd then that means he was at Four Holes Swamp at least as early as 1802 and that takes me back to the 1800 census.
In the 1800 households there were two 16/26 y/o males who should progress to the 26/45 y/o age group and considering that the two 26/45 y/o males could remain in that same group we could have two to four 26/45 y/o males in 1810. But we only have two.
In addition, we have two males over the age of 45 in 1800 and the two 26/45 y/o males could also progress to the over 45 y/o age group if they were indeed over 36 y/o. So we have the possibility of two to four males over the age of 45 in 1810. But we have none. So taking those last three age groups together there are six males in 1800 and when we progress those same groups to 1810 we have only two males. Therefore, the males that were over the age of 45 in 1800 have most likely died by 1810. We know that one of them was George Lounsdell Rudd who died in 1804; the other one is the 45 y/o male in the Burlingham Rudd household which means that he was not the head of that household. This is a major discovery for me! I’ll explain why in a little bit.
Therefore, out of the six males in 1800, the two older males died leaving us with the evidence that out of the remaining four males, two either died or moved and two remained which is reflected in the 1810 Elias Rudd and O’Riley Rudd households. I’ve demonstrated that I believe that Elias is in actuality Eli the son of George Lounsdell Rudd. Eli Rudd was granted 500 acres of land in 1798 that was surveyed for George Lounsdell Rudd and bordered his property.
You’ll notice on that land survey it appears that George Lounsdell had land on both sides of Four Holes Swamp and as I mentioned earlier the Swamp became the border between Colleton and Charleston and that’s why in 1810 we see Elias, Margaret the mother, Elijah and O’Riley on the Colleton side and Margaret the younger on the Charleston side.
So it appears that in the 1800 household for George L. Rudd we see Ely among the two 26/45 y/o males. Who the other one is, I have no clue. If the 10/16 y/o female is not George Lounsdell’s daughter, then she might be Ely’s new wife. Or perhaps she the wife of the other unknown male and that’s the origin of how Margaret the younger ended up on land that appears to belong to George Lounsdell, as his widowed daughter-in-law. Then of course, we see George the father and Margaret the mother. I wonder if the other female over the age of 45 is George’s mother, the wife of Burlingham 1st.
Now let’s move O’Riley Rudd back into the 1800 Burlingham household. In 1810 O’Riley is 26/45 y/o and that means in 1800 he falls in the 16/26 y/o age group. So he is one of those two males in the household. The over 45 y/o male is not the head so it’s likely the over 45 y/o female is the wife of that male. Which might indicate these are the parents of the female that is the wife of Burlingham Rudd, and she would be the 10/16 y/o female in 1800 who becomes the 16/26 y/o female in 1810. Perhaps the other 16/26 yo/ male in 1800 was her brother. Lastly, the under 10 y/o male in 1800 does progress to the 10/16 y/o male in 1810, noting however, that this male son does not appear in the 1820 census, therefore, he has died or moved away. And just one last point, the 1802 land survey for Burlingham Rudd does document that he owned land in partnership with James McNish prior to 1802 and that’s most like the location of his residence in the 1800 census.
Now let’s move on to the 1830 and 1840 census.
Starting with the Elias Rudd in 1840 we see his household and next door to him is Tabitha Rudd. We know from his Last Will and Testament he did us the great favor of naming his living children; George W. the one son, and five daughters; Amelia Ann, Mary S., Margaret, Tabitha Bradwell and Catherine Long. Therefore, the Tabitha Rudd next door is his daughter and at the time his Last Will was written in 1847 two daughters, Tabitha and Catherine were married. He goes on to say that everything he leaves to his wife, Elizabeth, until her natural death will then pass on to his three younger children, George, Amelia and Mary.
Looking to the 1850 census we can determine that Tabitha married Isaac Bradwell and was born about 1811. She was his second wife and about 27 years his junior, they have one 6 y/o daughter, Leah. She married rather late in age for a female of that time so that’s probably the reason she was living in a separate household in 1840. Her father gave to her the share of his land that she would eventually inherit. It looks like she married after 1840 and before 1844.
Catherine married James Long and was born about 1816. She appears to have been married to James in the 1840 census where they have one daughter under 5 y/o, therefore, she was not in the 1840 households.
As is the case with the census records at times, especially with the females, their ages often seem to advance on a one-for-two basis, they age five years for each ten year decade once they reach the age of puberty! So in this comparison all I can offer to you is that the number of male and female bodies do seem to match up going from 1830 to 1840 by factoring in the number of bodies we should have based on Elias Rudd’s Last Will. According to him the household contained the head, one son, four daughters (because Catherine was already married), and a wife; two males and five females. When we combine the Elias and Tabitha households for the 1840 census we have three males and six females which indicate one unknown male and one unknown female between the two households.
But looking back to the 1830 census we have a much clearer picture of a match between names and ages except for the female under 5 y/o. That has to be George W. Rudd, the son. His age advances properly … of course, he’s a male. And since his father will die in about seven years, he was 17/22 y/o at the time. Another interesting thing in the 1830 household is the unknown 20/30 y/o female. Is she the origin of the unknown male and child in the 1840 census? Perhaps she was a family member and she died in childbirth. According to the make up of the two households in 1840, the unknown male is living is Elias and the unknown child is living with Tabitha.
As I said earlier, I get the impression that Elias and wife, Elizabeth, are living in the same household with Ely Rudd in the 1820 census. It’s difficult to determine but my theory is that Elias and family are living with Ely. When we looked at the progression of the males from the 1810 to the 1820 census we found that as a group of four males; two 16/26 y/o and two 26/45 y/o, they ended up as three 26/45 y/o and one over 45 y/o. Obviously the over 45 y/o came from one of the 26/45 y/o males and it doesn’t appear to be O’Riley in 1810 because he and 1820 Burrel seem to be the same man. That only leaves us the 1810 Elias Rudd household as the source of the over 45 y/o male in 1820 Elias Rudd’s household.
Now taking the fact that Ely is now our likely over 45 y/o male let’s look at the land records. Ely’s first grant was in 1798 for 500 acres at Four Holes Swamp that bordered George Lounsdell’s property a road ran through the parcel and Benjamin Singletary was a border land owner. Ely’s next grant was in 1819 for 291 ½ acres at Four Holes Swamp the grant was issued in 1820 and has an accompanying survey which names James and Jonas Singletary as border land owners. This indicates to us that Ely was still alive by the 1820 census and his land acquisition in 1819 appears to be in the same area as his 1798 land.
The first land record that I’ve located for Elias Rudd was an 1818 grant for 216 acres that has an accompanying survey dated the same year.
In looking for the names listed on the survey as border land owners in the 1820 census I find Mrs. Mary Smith on page 77. Eli, Burrel and James Rudd are on page 95. So it seems to me that this parcel of land for Elias Rudd is not in the same general area as the other Rudd households in 1820.
Elias Rudd’s next land record is an 1820 survey that shows he is adding to land he already owns at Partridge Creek. This is the land he leaves to his children in his Last Will. On the survey you’ll see the name of Peter Varner as an owner of bordering land and when you compare that to the 1820 census page Peter Varner is at the bottom of the page, two households below James Rudd. Eli is at the top of the page. This indicates that the land in Elias’ survey is moving in the opposite direction of Eli. And it just could be that James is living on the land that Elias acquired in 1818.
Another consideration is that since we know that Elias’ daughter Tabitha was born about 1811 they must have been living somewhere in the Four Holes Swamp area between the time Elias and Elizabeth married and the 1820 census but he doesn’t show up as head of household until the 1830 census. My impression is that he and his family were living with Ely Rudd until after the 1820 census and then they relocated to the Partridge Creek area. It does cause me to wonder if something dreadful happened between 1810 and 1820 that caused Ely to loose his wife and son and daughter.
In the 1830 census we see Mary Rudd, she looks to be the widow of a Rudd male. There are three considerations; 1) the former Mary Whaley who married Burlingham Rudd in St. James Goose Creek that created several documents which you can see here, 2) the widow of James Rudd, the son of George Lounsdell, 3) she relocated to the area from somewhere else.
Personally, I don’t think she is Mary Whaley Rudd even though the 1830 census for Burlingham is incomplete, I don’t think he was dead yet. On October 15, 1829 he witnessed this deed for Mary Rudd to her daughter.
Mary Rudd’s marriage settlement based on the pre-nuptial agreement between her and Burlingham was filed on January 22, 1835. I doubt she would have waited five years to take control over her property.
Finally, Burlingham’s estate inventory was filed in 1836.
My guess is he died in late 1834. It’s very unfortunate for us that no family information was recorded for his household in the 1830 census when he was certainly alive and recently married. My first thought was perhaps the census taker only recorded the slaves because Burlingham wasn’t there when he came around to enumerate the household. Maybe that was the case. But dang it!! If they only knew what an important task they were charged with in recording our family for us!
I think this Mary Rudd very well could be the widow of James Rudd and I can understand why it was easy to overlook her presence. The family lore is that James’ wife’s maiden name was Sarah Bowman and after James died, she remarried George Poland. I believe this is correct. But I also believe Mary is Sarah. One reason is there aren’t any other known Rudd males in that time period who could have been her husband so unless she migrated into the area for the 1830 census she is by default James’ widow. Another reason I think she is James’ widow is her location in the 1830 census is a pretty close match to the same general area as James Rudd in 1820. Finally, the age progression is a perfect match. I think this is just one of those cases we often see of a female with the interchangeable name of Mary.
And what’s really interesting about her, is in 1830 there are three sons and one daughter. Family lore says James and Sarah had two sons. Well, look here at the 1850 census for Sarah (Rudd) Poland and husband George Poland. See that son James Rudd listed in the household? Looks like Sarah’s son doesn’t it? He’s 28 y/o which means he was born in 1822, after the 1820 census. There is a tax record at the South Carolina Archives online search database that says:
Date: 1825/04/26Therefore, James most likely died after April 1825 and before the 1830 census. And you’ll notice that above Sarah and George Poland is Jacob Rudd living in the Sol Cannady household. I think the Amelia who is listed as Sol’s wife is Amelia Ann, one of Elias Rudd’s daughters named in his Last Will. I wonder if Jacob is one of the sons of James and Mary/Sarah?
Description: RUDD, JAMES, TAX RETURN FOR 100 ACRES IN ST. JAMES GOOSE CREEK PARISH.
Names Indexed: RUDD, JAMES
Locations: CHARLESTON DISTRICT/SAINT JAMES GOOSE CREEK PARISH
As I said when we began this exercise I was going to have to work with the records I have found and put forth my best theory based on the documentation I can present to you. So here it is.
Starting with the 1800 census, we see two heads of household, one is Burlingham Rudd and one is George L(ounsdell) Rudd. George Lounsdell has died by the 1810 census and we don’t find the name Burlingham but we do find the name O’Riley Rudd. My analysis leads me to the conclusion that O’Riley and Burlingham are the same man and therefore, the male over the age of 45 y/o in the 1800 household is not named Burlingham Rudd, but some other male.
In the 1810 census we have three male heads of household, Elias, O’Riley and Elijah. Elias Rudd looks to be Ely the son of George Lounsdell, O’Riley is Burlingham but I can’t yet determine who his father was. I have two theories. First, is he is also a son of George Lounsdell, granted I don’t have any evidence to support this, but as I’ve said before in other narratives, I find it very hard to believe that George Lounsdell didn’t name a son for his father, Burlingham 1st. We know that George Lounsdell did name a son George Jr. in the Screven Co. GA Deed of Transfer and we don’t find that name here in Four Holes Swamp. If it is the case that O’Riley and Burlingham are the same man, then he’s not George Jr. That would indicate that George Lounsdell had more than the four sons named in the Deed of Transfer which would actually be in keeping with the norms of the day if Burlingham was the oldest son, older than George Jr., and had already been given his share. I have always been curious as to why the Screven Co., GA Deed had no mention of land being distributed along with the other property. I now think it very likely that the land was given to this Burlingham, the oldest son and if George Jr. did live beyond the migration of George Lounsdell from Screven Co., GA to Charleston Co., SC, that George Jr. remained in Screven. Other than that possibility, this Burlingham Rudd could be the son of another son of Burlingham 1st, such as the son Walter that was named in the Prince Frederick Parish Register. Perhaps it was Walter and his wife who were the over 45 y/o male and female in the 1800 household.
Also in 1810, we see the arrival of the Elijah Rudd household at Four Holes Swamp. Based on the age group of these two males we can’t place them back in the 1800 Charleston census, therefore, my conclusion is they arrived after the 1800 census and the two males are Elias and James. As I mentioned earlier, this appears to be James the son of George Lounsdell, and this Elias might just be Lias that is also a son of George Lounsdell. But that presents us with the problem of having two sons with similar names that seem to be used interchangeably in the records. I tend to believe these two males remained behind in Screven when George Lounsdell and Burlingham migrated into Four Holes Swamp and they followed a short time after. Perhaps they stayed behind with George Jr.
In the 1820 census, we see the Eli Rudd household and the makeup of the household compared to the previous 1810 census leads me to conclude that Eli Rudd is the son of George Lounsdell and living with him is Elias Rudd of the Goose Creek Last Will and his new family including wife, Elizabeth and two daughters, Tabitha and Catherine. Something has happened to Eli’s family. The 10/16 y/o son in 1810 doesn’t show up in 1820 and since he could be a male head of household, if he doesn’t show up in Barnwell, then perhaps he died. The under 10 y/o daughter could have been married by the 1820 census, but the mother appears to have died.
We clearly see James Rudd the son of George Lounsdell and his new family. Thank you George for naming just one son James!
The Burrel Rudd household appears to advance also but the 10/16 y/o male in the 1810 O’Riley household does not show in 1820. So once again, if he doesn’t show up in Barnwell, perhaps he died.
By 1830 it appears that Ely, son of George Lounsdell has died and Elias Rudd has moved onto the land he has accumulated at Partridge Creek. The census appears to misrecord his young son, George W., as a female instead of a male and there is an unknown 20/30 y/o female in his household. By 1840 we see Elias Rudd with his family as recorded in his Last Will of 1847 with the exception that there is an unknown 20/30 y/o male and unknown under 5 y/o female among the combined households of Elias and Tabitha. Perhaps this male is the widower of the unknown female in the previous census and this is their child.
We also see Mary Rudd living as head of household who appears to be a Rudd widow. Of three possible sources, my theory is that Mary is James Rudd’s widow and therefore, she is Sarah Bowman who married George Poland after James died. The 1850 census documents a 28 y/o James Rudd, Jr. living in the George Poland household with wife, Sarah. A male of that age does appear in Mary Rudd’s household and the ages of the other children in James’ household do advance properly. In addition, Mary Rudd appears to be living in the same general area of James Rudd in the previous census and as Sarah Poland in 1850.
Finally, we are left with the puzzle as to why there is no family information for recorded for Burlingham Rudd in the 1830 census when we can safely assume, based on other documents, he was still living. I think the most significant outcome for me in this exercise is that it adds one more element to my quest to identity of the two 1800 Burlingham Rudd households, one in Charleston and the other in Barnwell. Since I have determined without any doubt that Burlingham 2nd could not write his signature, he first used the mark “X” and later used the mark “B”, he has become increasingly unlikely the Burlingham Rudd in 1800 Charleston. And for the first time, there appears to be two emerging theories as to who this Burlingham Rudd in Charleston could be; either a son of George Lounsdell or perhaps the son of another brother, such as, Walter Rudd who we never see again after the Prince Frederick Parish baptism register.
If you have tried to follow the Rudd branch at St. James Goose Creek back from the 1880 census you know how difficult it is. Fortunately, there were some estate probates that were filed that give the names of minor children and on an individual family basis, you can get back somewhere around the late 1870s. But there is a big gap in information from the 1830 to the 1870 census. So for our Rudd cousins who are looking to connect back to the Four Holes Swamp branch of our family, it can be very frustrating … hair pulling frustrating!
We know that Elias Rudd had a son named George W. Rudd and that George W. left an estate probate. But what we see here as a result of this exercise is that James Rudd left three sons, and one was named James Jr. who had a son named David. There are possibly two other sons of James Rudd, Sr. we haven’t yet identified. Burrel Rudd had a son under the age of 10 in 1820, so if that son survived then he was under the age of 17 when Burrel married Mary Whaley. If he lived, he ought to show up in the 1850 census as thirty something. Burrel also could have had other sons before his wife, Sarah, died. Perhaps that’s how she died. It’s doubtful that Burrel and Mary Whaley had children from their marriage. Mary’s first son with her first husband George Whaley was born about 1801 and she married Burrel almost 26 years later. And then keep in mind we do have two 10/16 y/o males in 1810 that we don’t know what happened to them.
Hope this helps in your search.