That's excellent, Susan, thank you for posting all those details.
Dixon LINES on the 1860 census is really a LINES.The household above his is that of Thomas LEDBETTER which shows clear examples of the census-taker's handwriting for T and L -- similar but distinct.(He was born in North Carolina, his wife in Virginia, and his children in Tennessee, so even if he were a TYNES it would be from a different family.) On the other hand, John "TINES" on the 1870 census is cleary TINES.
John TINES appears on the 1830 census in Fairfield District, South Carolina, with his wife and two daughters (Sophia and Sarah) but no sons.For that reason I've come to doubt my earlier idea that Wiley TYNES was his son, as Wiley was born in 1826 (according to the Tynes/Galloway Bible and every census that Wiley appears on) and should have been there.But Wiley may have been a cousin of some sort.
Given that John first appears in Fairfield District, he is probably a descendant of Samuel TYNES who lived in that area -- probably a grandson, although he could be a son by a very late marriage.But that's just a guess, based on purely geographical evidence.I'm not certain that I have a complete list of TYNESes of Samuel's generation.John (and a couple of other strays, like Timothy of Alabama and Letitia of Texas) might be from some unknown brother or cousin.
By the way, James W. HARDY moved with his children and his brother Wiley's chilren to Cleburne County, Arkansas, sometime before the 1910 census.He was the proprietor of a boarding house in the town of Higden.He died in 1915.Wiley's daughters Dora and Ethel moved back to Paragould, Greene County, Arkansas, at some point, where they both died as spinsters.I don't know what happened to the rest of this family.