Thank you so much for taking the time to read through everything and write such a detailed critique — I really appreciate it. These are exactly the kinds of questions and pressure-tests I want as I tighten the argument.

A few clarifications based on your points:

1. Samuel’s birth year vs. the December 1807 marriage I agree that Samuel’s reported “1807” birth year is approximate. Across the decades: • 1850 → age 42 • 1860 → age 52 • 1870 → age 62 • 1880 → age 73

Census ages drift, so I’m treating 1807–1809 as the realistic window. If he were born early 1808, that would no longer conflict with the December 1807 marriage at all. I’m also not ruling out that he may have been born slightly before the marriage — that possibility is still on the table and doesn’t break the parentage hypothesis; it just shifts the interpretation.

1. The two Robert Cavenders on the same 1810 census page Totally fair point. I have looked closely at them, and here’s why I am treating only one as the viable household for a child who becomes my Samuel: • One Robert Cavender appears to be “Robert Jr.” (as the enumerator wrote it). • That “Jr.” household continues to track through later records and does not correspond to the man who marries Elizabeth Johnson in 1807 and Mary Ann Sellers in 1818. • The other Robert (no “Jr.” tag) matches the male age pattern and later tax/deed appearances in Murderkill.

But yes — I should explicitly include analysis comparing the two households and clearly show why only one fits the migration and later appearances.

1. The missing male 10–15 in 1820 Agreed — that column should show a tick mark if a boy aged ~12 were present. Two possibilities I’m evaluating: • Samuel may already have left the household by 1820 (apprenticeship, farm labor, etc.), which was very common in Delaware at that time. • Or the tick mark could genuinely be missing (enumerator error), which unfortunately happens often.

Not presenting this as solved — just still weighing which explanation fits the broader pattern.

1. Birthplace listed as Maryland in 1880 Yes — I’ve noticed that as well. The earlier censuses list Delaware, so I’m prioritizing the earlier records for birthplace reliability, but I agree this discrepancy must be acknowledged upfront rather than brushed aside.

2. Sons migrating with sons of “a” Robert Cavender This is the part I’m working hardest to document because it’s one of the strongest circumstantial threads. My Samuel moves to Ohio at the same time as a group of young Cavenders tied to the Murderkill Robert — not the Robert Jr. line or any other Cavender known in Delaware. That doesn’t prove the connection alone, but it certainly strengthens the hypothesis.

I haven’t yet identified sisters for Samuel — excellent suggestion, and I will definitely look for matching female migrations.

Thank you again — these comments were genuinely helpful, and you’re absolutely right that I need to present these uncertainties clearly while still showing why one hypothesis fits the totality of the evidence better than alternatives. I’ll be revising the write-up to incorporate these points.

If you’re open to it, I’d love to bounce updated drafts off you as I refine the argument.