John Thomas Morgan

Audited 27 Jul 2026 - Junction #9. His Travis County death certificate (file 14222, reg. 8689, Ancestry coll. 2272 image 40394_b062034-01198) was read in full. It CONFIRMS his identity superbly: birth 19 Jan 1847 exactly matching the date the tree already carried but had never cited, birthplace South Carolina matching, death 30 Mar 1932 at Austin matching. Occupation "Retired Farmer" and burial at "Boggy" Cem. on 31 Mar 1932 are new from this record.RECORDED NEGATIVE - so that nobody re-hunts this document. Field 13, father's name, reads "DON'T KNOW", and fields 14-16 carry ditto marks, i.e. also unknown. This certificate therefore does NOT corroborate Hampton Morgan [3134] as his father. That link still rests on the single 1880 census line it rested on before, and must be answered somewhere else - a Travis County probate, or the questions Q3/Q4 in morgan-osburn-junction.md section 3.Identification chain shared with his wife [348]: the informant here is their son B. E. Morgan [1168]; on her 1937 certificate it is their son John Morgan [1167]; same undertaker C. B. Cook, same burial ground, adjacent West 5th Street addresses five years apart.---Audited 27 Jul 2026 (second note, added with the [348] birth correction).AGE DISCREPANCY - FLAGGED, NOT RESOLVED, AND NOT ACTED ON. The 1880 U.S. Census, Travis Co., dwelling 212 (coll. 6742 rec. 7301735, image read) records him as "John Morgan, 29, Self, birthplace S C". Age 29 in 1880 implies birth ~1851, but his 1932 death certificate gives 19 Jan 1847, which this record's own birthplace column (South Carolina) corroborates.The same census under-ages his WIFE by a comparable margin - she appears at 27 (b. ~1853) against the 1848 her certificate claims. A roughly 4-5 year offset affecting BOTH spouses in the same household is a systematic feature of that enumeration, not two independent errors, so it must be resolved as ONE question rather than person by person. His birth date is therefore left at 19 Jan 1847 and nothing has been changed here.Note the asymmetry that justified changing hers and not his: for HER, the census and the certificate disagree on BIRTHPLACE as well as year (Arkansas vs Mississippi), and a second census agrees with the first. For HIM, census and certificate AGREE on birthplace (South Carolina) and only the age differs, with no second record in conflict.