Billy,

I'm trying to remain calm (but it's hard!)... You may be on to something. I follow your logic, and it makes sense to me. If Mary Bailey were a daughter of Jane Long and sister to John N. Long (as possibly implied in the 1860 Winston, MS census), it would make sense that the girls would have gone to a her as relative. They certainly did not go to John's brother Henry W. Long, and I have yet to find convincing evidence that they went to any of Lucinda's siblings. John and Lucinda were married in 1867, and I have estimated Lucinda's death between 1889 - 1896. The birth dates of Lummie Long (1873) and Mary Long (1883) are within the correct time frames to be Lucinda's daughters.

The name Mary is also very exciting to me. I have a copy of a lawsuit from 1917-1918 that lists many of the surviving heirs of Pleas Whitten (Lucinda's father). Among the heirs listed is a Mrs. Mary Crosby; there is no relationship indicated. I know everyone listed in the lawsuit except this Mary Crosby, and I have often wondered if perhaps this lady might be one of Lucinda's orphaned daughters. A list of the heirs is given on my web page at this address:
http://www.geocities.com/look4whittens/pleaschildren.html
Does the name Mary Crosby ring any bells with you?

Billy, I can't express enough how excited this new lead has made me! I agree that you and I don't have any proof of a relationship, but John R. Bailey would have been a first cousin to John Long's daughters, assuming that Mary Bailey was John Long's sister. The circumstantial evidence is certainly compelling.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Mary K. Johnson
http://www.geocities.com/look4whittens/