You are welcome.
Actually the documentation is right before you. If William H Pendarvis and James W Pendarvis were telling the truth when they claimed to be born in SC, and they were born Pendarvises, they then have to be cousins.It is the degree of kinship that I imagine you are questioning.There was only one Pendarvis family in SC.They were all related.You are, perhaps, putting them (and me) through a little more scutiny than they deserve in regard to their claims to the census taker.If James W Pendarvis' grandson claims that the two separate Mobile families shared kinship, and you seem to have accepted that on his memory, then another part of the puzzle is solved. Again I state, that when taken as a whole, there is little place other than James and William, sons of Joseph, son of Brand, son of Joseph, son of John, and son of Joseph the 1671 immigrant into Charleston that the Mobile Pendarvises could come.That in itself is a little proof.Naturally a bible record, or court document that stated the lineage more specifically would help.It is just those sort of records that has eliminated many of the other possibilities, particularly for the Bedon-Pendarvises, the descendants of Parthenia's son James, most of Thomas'line, Joshua of Colleton Co., SC, William of Tennessee, Joseph of Wayne Co., GA, George of Duvall Co., FL, Richard Lambright Pendarvis, etc.
We South Carolina Pendarvises can offer you the last moments of the lives that the Pendarvises that went West experienced here in South Carolina.I can't think of a pioneer born before about 1815 in the 1850/1860 censuses that didn't claim to have come originally from SC.As such, when you use the process of elination, which is in itself a genealogical tool, and you apply what you know about the other living Pendarvises, such as the names of their other children (for instance, a Pendarvis man has a son named James, but that James is living elsewhere with a different family simultaneously to the other, then that Pendarvis man is most likely not the father of your James), then the Mobile Pendarvises' ancestor becomes clearer.
If you have some information that refutes William Henry Pendarvis' descent from James Pendarvis of Barnwell/Bamberg/Orangeburg please post it.His descendants are missing if not the original Mobile Pendarvises.That early James was in Alabama in 1817, his brother was in Mississppi in the same year.That James Pendarvis of Alabama's only near male Pendarvis relatives were the ones in Mississippi (children of his brother William).His nearest male Pendarvis neighbors (those from his community in SC, and descended from his great uncle William) when he lived in SC were also in Mississippi and one branch in Tennessee by that time.My guess is that you have less trouble excepting William Henry's ancestry as being descended from that James, but feel unsatisfied with that proposed for James W.You should certainly continue to search.The more documentation the better.If there is a particular reference that you need, please ask.My hypothesis, as a hypothesis, does meet genealogical standards, which include the process of elimination and the usage of names, proximity, etc.I would like to help you elimnate other contenders, but need your help.We could help each other.