Department of Interior, Indian Affairs, Hiring a Genealogist

Posted on August 17, 2015 by Roberta Estes

The NGS website announced this week an opening at the Department of Interior, Indian Affairs, for a genealogist in the Washington DC vicinity. Let’s hope that whoever they hire also understands, and I mean really understands, DNA testing – as they assuredly will be bombarded with questions about how DNA testing pertains to Native people and their descendants.

DNA testing has the potential to be beneficial to applicants in the process of requesting federal recognition. DNA testing and those results are now a permanent part of the genealogy landscape. Let’s hope that the new BIA genealogist knows how to utilize them properly when evaluating genealogy.

This looks like a really good career opportunity for someone. Is that someone you?

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Sallie, Sarah or Mary maybe Coates (c1740 – 1782/1787), Mystery Wives of the Reverend George McNiel, 52 Ancestors #85

Posted on August 16, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Sometimes when we get back to these end-of-line females, their genealogy facts become very tenuous, and we find that we are missing more information than we have.

Sarah Coates, at least we think that the names of Sarah and Coates or Coats go together as one person, was married to the Reverend George McNiel.

She may or may not have been his first wife, and for all we know, Sarah and Coates may not have been the same woman.- although we don’t have any reason to think otherwise, well, except for that pesky little death and taxes issue. Yes, death and taxes still “get you,” even in genealogy!

Let’s take a look at what we do have.

Joyce Dancy McNeil, now deceased, was a cousin to me on two different lines, McNeil by marriage through her husband, historian George McNeil and through the Wilkes County, NC Vannoy lines in her own genealogy. Joyce was an extremely thorough genealogist and I was so glad to find her early in my searching. Sadly, by the time I was able to visit Wilkes County in 2004, Joyce had passed on.

Joyce and George had researched the McNeil family extensively. I was confused because some researchers listed the Reverend George McNiel’s wife as Mary and some as Sarah. Joyce told me that there was a deed in Spotsylvania County, VA that George McNiel witnessed, as did a Mary McNiel. Researchers presumed that Mary was George’s wife. Indeed, she may have been, but there is no proof of that. It would be interesting by process of elimination to see who else Mary could have been at that time. Unfortunately, that deed is not included in the book “Spotsylvania County, 1721-1800, Being Transcriptions from the Original Files,” so I have been unable to verify this information.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has completely extracted the Spotsylvania County records for McNiel, and this should be done.

Unfortunately, we don’t know where they lived in Spotsylvania County.

The next information comes from a letter written by George’s grandson in 1898. In the letter, he says that George McNiel married a “Miss Coats” in Virginia. Another source, a pamphlet written in 1905 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Reverend George McNiel’s death (and setting of his headstone), says that marriage occurred in Grayson County, which wasn’t formed until 1793, long after George would have been marrying Miss Coats if she is the mother of some or all of his children who were born between about 1757 and 1782. In the 1750s, when George would have been marrying, that area, now Grayson County, would have been Augusta County.

It’s also reported that George fled into Grayson County, VA for safety in 1771 after scuffling with the Regulators and after the battle of Alamance. It was additionally stated that he lived in Moore County, settling there in 1745-1750. Again, Moore County, North Carolina wasn’t formed until in 1784 from Cumberland which was formed in 1754 from Bladen. The problem is that we have records for him in Spotsylvania County during this time. In fact, as late as 1775 he was still purchasing land in Spotsylvania County. He sold his land in Spotsylvania County in 1778, but unfortunately, his wife did not release her dower rights and sign as well. For us, that’s a significant lost opportunity.

We do know through church records that George was in Grayson County, but that was in 1800 when he was clearly traveling and ministering as a circuit riding minister.

Joyce also said there was evidence that George’s first child was born before his arrival in America. If this is true, then that child’s mother clearly did not survive until the end of George’s life. However, if her name was Mary, and she preceded “Miss Coates” who George is reported to have married in Virginia, then this may be true. The problem is, of course, that we don’t know when George married Miss Coates so we have no idea which of his children might have been by a first wife, Miss Coates, or yet another wife.

The first child we have any record of is Mary, born in 1757, but how that birth date was attributed to Mary, I have no idea since there seems to be very little information about her. In the book, Genealogy of the McNiel Clan written by the Johnson Hayes, published in 1934, Mary is shown as being born in 1771 and as having married in 1803 to Henry Miller, but no birth date or other information for Mary is given.

What I do know is that our first record of George McNiel is in Spotsylvania County, in 1757, so we know he was here in the colonies by that time. Whether he was married upon arrival, or if his first child was born before arrival or in transit, we don’t know. Daughter Mary was reported to have died in 1850, but I can’t find her in the census.

There is reason to think George may have had three wives, or, I hate to even suggest this out loud, because I do NOT want to start a rumor, but George could have had 4 wives. Let’s look at the evidence and hints.

In 1782, in Wilkes County, there was a bill of sale between John Stubblefield and Jacob Nichols that was witnessed by George and Sally McNiel.

Miss Coates first name may have been Sarah, known as Sally.

On the Wilkes County 1787 tax list, there were categories for a number of things, including the number of white females. That number was 0 for George, as it was three years later, in the 1790 federal census. George’s first wife, whatever her name, had died after the birth of her last child in 1782 but before 1787 and George was single for at least three years, from 1787-1790. He obviously remarried sometime between 1790 and June 1805 when he died, because he had a wife, Sarah, living at the time of his death.

In 1808, William McNiel was administering the estate of both George McNiel and his wife, Sarah McNiel.

So, what do we have here?

A possible wife before coming to the US, who could be the Mary who witnessed a Spotsylvania County deed that reportedly exists but that I can’t find.
A marriage, possibly in Grayson County, to one Miss Coats.
A possible wife, Sally, in 1782.
No wife in 1787 or 1790.
A wife, Sarah, at George’s death in 1805, who died by 1808.

Clearly, in my case, the woman I’m most interested in is the one who was the mother of my ancestor, William McNiel, born about 1760. Given that this is before George is apparently preaching and traveling, I’m guessing that William’s mother would likely be Mary in Spotsylvania County, assuming Mary was William’s wife – and I’m not at all sure that is a valid assumption. It’s no wonder that so many descendants have simply given this woman the name of Mary Sarah” or “Sarah Mary” Coates and let it go at that – never mind that it’s very likely wrong on at least two if not three counts.

One thing is clear, William’s mother is not wife Sarah who died just after Reverend George died in 1805, and whose estate was being probated in 1808 – because this wife Sarah was not married to George in 1787 or 1790. In fact, George could easily have married a Sarah Coats in Grayson County after 1790 when we know he was in fact there preaching. But why, if this is the case, would that be the only wife his descendants mentioned and not the mother of his many children?

I surely wish this story didn’t have so many “could haves” and questions – but sadly, that is all that I do have or even might have.

Why didn’t any of George’s descendants think to add this tidbit of information – George’s wife, his helpmate? Even if George had only two wives, or three, or even four – it’s still remarkable enough to talk about. I find it rather unbelievable that George’s descendants could not even remember the first name of “Miss Coats.” Lastly, this woman (or women) deserves a medal, not have their names forgotten, because the wife is the one who maintained everything at home while George was out and about preaching, saving souls and founding new churches. And that wife, if she was a second or third wife, was likely raising his children from previous marriages in addition to her own.

How many children did she bear in his absence, and was she even able to obtain the assistance of a midwife? Who would have ridden for the midwife, if George was gone? While the traveling preacher tends to be venerated, in this case, at least, it’s the name-forgotten wife who stayed at home and held everything together without the assistance of her husband. She should be celebrated. She is the unsung heroine of the story. The fact that her name has been forgotten just makes the irony even greater and the story sadder.

We know that George and his then-current wife had children from around 1757 until the last child was born in February 1782 – although there is a very large gap between Mary born in 1771 and Thomas born in 1782 which could potentially alert us to the death of a wife and a remarriage. It could also be that several children died, or George was gone much of the time. It was about 1776 when Baptists began to be allowed to preach freely, which corresponds with the time in which the family legend claims he was ordained a Baptist minister.

We know that George and his wife lived on Lewis Fork Creek, right across the road from where the Elder George McNiel Cemetery is located today.

This satellite image shows the location in more detail, but the cemetery is not visible from the road and a local person would have to be a guide.

When historian George McNiel and I visited this cemetery in 2004, George told me that the Reverend George McNiel and his wife lived directly across the road from the cemetery, in a cabin behind the house that belonged to his granddaughter – which was in ruins with only the chimney standing in 2004, below.

As we walked George’s land, this misty apparition appeared in a clearing. Was George or his wife or maybe his granddaughter with us that day?

George’s wife did pass away before 1787, leaving him with this child who was still either an infant or a toddler plus 4 additional underage children, not to mention the older ones still living at home. This must have been a terribly sad day in the McNiel cabin on Lewis Fork Creek. George must have wondered what he was going to do. It’s actually amazing that he did not marry for more than 3 years. I would wager that his older married children took the younger ones to raise. He certainly couldn’t do that while visiting, circuit riding and establishing churches throughout the region. Not to mention, by 1802, George was also the register of deeds for Wilkes County.

Even though her grave is unmarked, George’s wife, mother of his children, probably Sallie, is surely laid to rest in the McNiel cemetery located on George’s land, near where George himself was laid to rest as well, some 20 years later.

Today, the cemetery is overgrown and it’s not evident from any distance that it is a cemetery. At least the cattle aren’t, or weren’t, allowed to graze in the cemetery.

As you get a little closer, you can make out the ghostly shapes of the abandoned monuments.

In addition to the Elder George McNiel, whose stone, set in 1905, a hundred years after his death, is shown above, several generations have been buried here as well, including son Thomas born in 1782 and several of Thomas’s children.

However, there is one thing we know, concretely, about George’s wife – she was a Baptist – at least eventually. We have no records of George preaching in Spotsylvania County, but records abound after 1779 – which is while George’s wife was still alive. In fact, based on the 1782 deed, her name was likely Sallie.

After all of this thrashing around in the mud is done, we actually know very little. We’re still not sure of George’s wife’s name. We’ve introduced even more questions in an already tenuous situation. No one is going to thank me for this article:)

Aside from extracting the Spotsylvania County records, which is now on my to-do list, how else could we unravel this riddle?

DNA

Finding people who descend through all female lines to DNA test is sometimes difficult due to all of the generational name changes. However, it has been successfully done in other lines, so it’s not impossible

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers to all of their children, but only passed on by the females. So, anyone who descends from the wife of George McNiel through all females will carry her mitochondrial DNA. In the current generation, the descendant can be either a male or female.

If we were able to test mitochondrial descendants of the daughters of George McNiel, we could verify that they were all born to the same mother.

Unfortunately, my first problem is that I have no information about the eldest daughter, born in 1757, no information about the children of Elizabeth McNiel and what information I do have about Polly is that she had 4 sons who would not have passed on her mitochondrial DNA. Not looking good so far, but maybe there is more information to be had, currently unknown – and maybe it will be the descendant families that provide the info. Fingers crossed.

Mary Hillary McNiel born 1757 – no further information and it is unknown if this information is accurate or if this person even existed. If so, Hillary could be a family surname.
John McNiel born 1759 married Fanny Cleveland.
William McNiel born 1760/1761 died circa 1832 in Claiborne Co., TN, married Elizabeth Shepherd (my line).
James McNiel born circa 1763 died August 1834, married Mary “Polly” Shepherd.
Benjamin McNiel born 1765 married Elizabeth Lips.
Joseph McNiel born 1767 died circa 1855 married Hannah Wilson and Elizabeth Powell.
Elizabeth McNiel born about 1767 (per an 1857 deposition where she says she is 90 years old when applying for her husband’s Revolutionary War pension and bounty land in Watauga Co., NC,) married in 1785 to Robert Bingham in Wilkes County, NC. Children unknown.
Mary “Polly” McNiel born 1771 married Henry Miller in1803 in Wilkes County. Four known sons.
Thomas McNiel born February 1782, died 1865, married Miss Parsons.

George McNiel was a minister. I can’t believe that his Bible hasn’t turned up in the descendants someplace, complete with a list of wives and children. You KNOW he had at least one Bible, and probably multiples. Maybe he wore them out!

Grandchildren

No pictures of George McNiel’s children exist, but there are two photos of his grandchildren.

The Reverend James McNiel, below, born in 1816, was the son of Joseph McNiel and Hannah Wilson. Joseph was the son of Rev. George McNiel and whichever wife, probably Sallie, he was married to in 1767 when Joseph was born.

A second grandson is also memorialized by a photograph.

George W. McNiel, Sr. was born in 1825 and died in 1914. He is buried in the Elder George McNiel Cemetery and was the son of Thomas McNiel, born in 1782 and a Parsons woman. His father, Thomas was born in February 1782, the son of Reverend George McNiel and probably the Sallie who had died by 1787.

A third grandson, Elijah McNeill, son of James McNeill is shown below, courtesy of his descendant, William McNeill.

Was George, above, holding a Bible, maybe his grandfather’s Bible? What other book would be important enough to include in a “formal” dress up picture?

Did any of these grandsons look anything like either the Reverend George McNiel or his wife, whatever her name?

My ancestor, William McNiel, was born about 1760, so he is most likely to share a mother with James McNiel born in 1763 or Joseph McNiel born in 1767 than with Thomas born in 1782 – although all three of these men could clearly have shared the same mother.

We don’t have the answers to all, or even many of these questions today, but maybe, just maybe, someday we will.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

The Archives of Who Do You Think You Are

Posted on August 15, 2015 by Roberta Estes

This Sunday Evening on TLC, “Who Do You Think You Are?” digs into its archives and features highlights throughout the seasons including triumphs and tragedies, delightful discoveries and sobering moments. This special episode also unveils outtakes and never-before-seen footage from the vault.

In some cases, this is footage we see in the screeners, but never makes it to the final version. I personally think some of this is more interesting than what does sometimes make it to the production version…but you didn’t hear that from me…didn’t come out of my mouth:)

They explore what motivates celebrities to delve into their roots, including those who want to investigate why they never knew certain family members and uncover the origins of rifts that have torn families apart. Here’s what WDYTYA has to say about Sunday’s archives special edition.

Walking in your ancestors’ footsteps can make a journey especially powerful. We revisit moments with Jason Sudeikis, as he goes deep underground in a coal mine and learns how his great-grandfather died in an explosion; Cynthia Nixon, who stands in the same prison in which her 3X great-grandmother was incarcerated and learns her ancestor became pregnant while serving time; and Rosie O’Donnell, who experiences the horrible living conditions her destitute great-great-grandparents and their children endured in 1850’s Ireland.

Next, we highlight one of the most powerful tools available in ancestry research: the census.

One of the biggest rewards in researching your roots can be finding heroes. Some of our stars have been lucky enough to find great men and women in the family who did the right thing, no matter the consequences. In this section, we review Zooey Deschanel reading a first hand account of how her 4X great-grandmother helped fugitive slaves escape via the underground railroad; and in never-before-seen footage, we watch Julie Chen learn that her great-grandmother was kidnapped and killed by bandits, which motivated her grandfather to establish a school to educate citizens in order to reduce crime.

The only thing more interesting than finding a hero in your past is finding a villain. Our celebrities have come across all manner of scoundrels, scamps, and lowlifes. Here, we see Sean Hayes discovering that his great-great grandfather sued his children in court for assaulting him in a variety of ways, and we follow Sarah Jessica Parker as she investigates whether her 10X great-grandmother was a witch-hunter – or one of the innocents accused – during the Salem Witch Trials.

Next, we put the spotlight on online newspaper databases and microfilm collections at the library, which can be a treasure trove of salacious details.

As we go deeper into the best of “Who Do,” we turn our attention to one of the most painful things anyone can face in a family’s past: slavery. Our celebrities have confronted this horrifying part of American history from both sides of the issue. In this section, Blair Underwood finds that his 4x great-grandfather, a freed slave, owned slaves himself; but Blair discovers that he had to buy his own family members to keep them together. Emmitt Smith is disturbed to hear that his 4x great-grandmother Mariah was possibly a child of rape whose father was the family’s white slave owner, making him Emmitt’s own 5x great-grandfather. Finally, Reba McEntire finds that her slave-trading ancestor bought a fourteen-month-old baby.

War has ravaged family histories since the beginning of time, and our celebrities’ ancestors have been affected by battle in way they could never have imagined. Here, we revisit Rob Lowe searching for proof that his 5x great-grandfather fought as a Patriot in the Revolutionary War – but instead finds he served as a Hessian, fighting against George Washington; Spike Lee discovering that in an ironic twist, his 3x great-grandfather, a slave, was forced make guns for the Confederates during the Civil War; and Lisa Kudrow learning of the horrifying atrocities of which her Jewish great-grandmother was a victim during World War II.

Making a connection to history’s big names is the brass ring of genealogy. Some of our stars have been lucky enough to have ancestors who crossed paths with greatness: Josh Groban finds that his 8x great-grandfather was recognized by Sir Isaac Newton, and Jim Parsons uncovers his 6x great-grandfather’s profession: architect to King Louis XV. And in rare cases, some of our celebrities discover direct royal lineage. Brooke Shields touches her ancestor Henry IV’s heart in a jar, and marvels at her connection to him. And in never-before-seen footage, Valerie Bertinelli is astonished to see an elaborate family tree which illustrates her lineage reaches back through Edward I, William the Conqueror, and theoretically on up through Jesus and God.

Next, we highlight remarkable moments throughout the years of our celebrities discovering information on their journeys that is so surprising, it reduces these great speakers to a single word: “Wow.”

Call it coincidence or fate, we’ve witnessed incredible moments of synchronicity. In this section, we revisit Emmitt Smith realizing that an important piece of information about his ancestor lies within deed book number #22, which was Emmitt’s number throughout his football career; Gwyneth Paltrow finding a parallel with her great-great-grandfather, who was a master in Kaballah, which Gwyneth studies; Josh Groban uncovering information that his ancestor taught music and sang; and Spike Lee discovering that his great-great-grandfather’s name was Mars, which was the name his grandmother suggested when he told her he was stumped on what to call his iconic character from “She’s Gotta Have It.”

Some of the most entertaining moments on “Who Do” happen behind the scenes. Here, we feature our favorite outtakes.

The journey through a family’s past is a treasure hunt, and no find is more exciting than something your ancestor held in his or her own hands. Jason Sudeikis and Christina Applegate reveal how old photos in particular bring you face to face with your past; Bill Paxton is awestruck seeing a personal account written by his relative; and America Ferrera breaks down in tears as she sees pictures of her long lost father as a young man for the first time.

Anyone who goes on a quest to know their ancestors emerges a little bit changed. Here, some of our stars express how going on their journeys – and what they’ve learned – has changed their perspectives and lives. Some of them even reunite with long-lost relatives, finding roots in places far from home. We watch as Lisa Kudrow and Blair Underwood come face to face with newly discovered family, and Rita Wilson has an emotional first-time introduction to her 96-year-old uncle.

Throughout the years, this series has helped celebrities solve mysteries and uncover truths they never dreamed possible – in some cases changing everything about who they think they are.

In my own case, after watching the Valerie Bertinelli episode, I whined that I was envious that Valerie had found what is known as a gateway ancestor, one who connects solidly to a royal line. Once connected, you can tie into already completed genealogy – so finding that gateway ancestor is the clue. Just a few days later, I realized that I too had a gateway ancestor, I had just never recognized them as such. Plus, I discovered that Valerie and I are distant cousins – not that Valerie knows or cares. But how inspiring and what fun for me. That discovery launched me on a brand new journey! It always pays to pay attention and keep digging. You just never know who you’re going to dig up.

King Edward I of England

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

The Logic and Birth of a Bad NAD (New Ancestor Discovery)

Posted on August 12, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Ancestry gave me another bad NAD today, or a New Ancestor Discovery, who is absolutely, positively, unquestionably, not my ancestor. But this time, they did me the huge favor of assigning someone that was immediately familiar to me, and I can share with you the “logic” of how this erroneous connection happened. You can then use this same process to work on unraveling your own New Ancestor Discoveries – now that you know what to look for.

Let me first say that genetic genealogy based on inferences has the ability to give you hints you would not otherwise have, like with DNA Circles and NADs, but these inferences that Ancestry arrives at by a process they call “network theory” can also lead you badly astray – like the logic that says your ancestor’s sister’s husband is your ancestor. Of course, I am assuming here that you are not double descended – and I know positively that I’m not. I went through the proof process with the first bad NAD that Ancestry gave me, although I never figured out the logic of how I was assigned that original Bad NAD couple, who is now gone.

Blaine Bettinger recently explained Ancestry’s network theory quite well in his blog, “Creating DNA Circles – Exploring the Use of Genetic Networks in Genetic Genealogy”.

Ancestry has consistently refused to provide us with the triangulation tools we need, via a chromosome browser, and we are left to do the best we can with genetic networks and other inference methods. Triangulation confirms descent from a common ancestor, while network theory connects people who are related to each other, suggesting common ancestors – like my new bad NAD.

My new bad NAD is Robert Shiflet, the husband of Sarah Clarkson/Claxton, the sister of my ancestor Samuel Claxton. Both Samuel and Sarah share parents, Fairwick Claxton and Agnes Muncy. However, Robert Shiflet is not related to me by blood, but of course, his children are – through his wife.

This chart, below, shows how all of the people we’ll be discussing in the bad NAD group descend from common ancestors, Fairwick Claxton/Clarkson and Agnes Muncy. You can see that three groups descend from Sarah Clarkson and Robert Shiflet through son Fairwick Shiflet and daughters Elizabeth and Rhoda. I descend through Samuel Clarkson, brother to Sarah.

Here’s Robert Shiflet, my newly arrived bad NAD, at Ancestry.

By clicking on the New Ancestor, you can see how I connect to the people that Ancestry has used to determine that Robert Shiflet may be my ancestor.

The NAD circle is made up of three family groups, where several closely related individuals have tested, so they are counted as “one” and not as separate matches.

There are two individuals in each of the three family groups.

All of these people descend from Sarah Clarkson/Claxton and Robert Shiflet. Ironically, Sarah, who is not listed as a NAD, is the daughter of my ancestor.

In fact, as irony would have it, two of these same groups ARE in the Fairwick Clarkson/Claxton DNA Circle and along with me, these are the only two other members of that circle that I match.

So, if you’re judging from the number of connections only, the NAD circle, with 3 groups totaling six people looks stronger than my Fairwick Clarkson Circle with only 2 groups totaling 4 people. I checked each tree of each individual within the Shiflet Circle and have summarized the results below.

Participant	Family Group	Sarah Listed?	Fairwick Listed	Fairwick Circle
CT	Martha Patsy	Yes, as Sarah “Sallie” Clarkson	Yes, Fairwick Claxton	Group is in circle
Charlene	Martha Patsy	Yes, as Sarha Clarkson Shiflet	No	Group is in circle
DL	DL	Yes, as Sarah A. Claxton	No	No
JL	DL	Yes, as Sarah A. Claxton	No	No
DB	Barbara	Yes, as Sarah “Sallie” Clarkson	Yes, as Fairwick Claxton	Group is in circle
DJ	Barbara	Yes, Sarah H. Clarkson	Yes, as Fairwick Clarkson	Group is in circle

Please note that in this case, the spelling of Sarah’s name was quite different. It was spelled Clarkson, Claxton and in one tree, she was listed as Sarah Clarkson Shiflet, with Shiflet as her surname. Her first name was misspelled in one tree. This could be why Sarah was not listed as a NAD along with Robert, whose name was consistently spelled the same way.

Still, because two of these family groups are members of the Fairwick Claxton/Clarkson Circle, one would think that it would be immediately evident that since we DO share an upstream ancestor, when utilizing our trees, that the husband of my ancestor’s sister is not my ancestor – but I am related to his descendants by virtue of his wife’s parents – so of course I match the DNA of his descendants. That does NOT mean I descend from him.

The linchpin that may have triggered Ancestry to create a NAD may have been that I match one set (family group) of Robert Shiflet’s descendants that aren’t in the Fairwick group. The reason the DL group is not in Fairwick’s circle, if you look at the trees, is because the DL group does not list any parent for Sarah – so they can’t be in Fairwick’s circle because Fairwick isn’t listed in their tree. It would make a lot more sense for Ancestry to give the DL group Fairwick as a NAD than to give me Robert Shiflet as a NAD.

So, take all NADs with an extremely large grain of salt – in fact – the whole shaker would be appropriate here or maybe something the size of rock salt.

Keeping Score

So far, the NAD score, out of 5 that have been assigned to me, 3 are proven to be incorrect. Two, the Larimers, the jury is still out – well, sortof.

The jury isn’t entirely out on the Larimer’s actually, because when I look at the group of people in the Larimer NAD circle, I discovered all 5 people who I match on my Andrew McKee line. Hmmm….

These people ALSO connect to John and Jane Larimer – on a completely separate line from Andrew McKee. In another group, I find another ancestral surname where I connect with the entire group. So, I’m guessing that it’s circumstantial that all of these people descend from John and Jane Larimer – and that John and Jane have nothing to do with me just because I match their descendants through two of my other known lines. I don’t actually match anyone else in that group – although a lot of them match each other. As it turns out, all of this “network theory” matching is a red herring this time – because of intermixed multiple family lines.

Can I prove positively that I don’t share any ancestor upstream with John and Jean Larimer? Nope, I can’t, but given the trend that I do see, it looks like the NAD was based on other family connections that circumstantially are connected to the Larimers as well. And I can tell you, from what I do know about my genealogy, that I don’t descend from Jean and John Larimer. There is no vacancy in my tree that fits their ages, so they are not my ancestors.

So, I guess that really makes the score:

Ancestry – 0
Bad NADs – 5

The sad part is that it also makes my score 0 – and leaves me begging for the chromosome browser that we so desperately need and would eliminate all of this tail-chasing. A chromosome browser wouldn’t leave us guessing about whether the Larimer segments were the same segments as the McKee segments. We would know positively whether they were or not – no guessing, tail chasing or network theory needed.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – Tips and Tricks for Contact Success

Posted on August 11, 2015 by Roberta Estes

In the first part of this two part series, Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – What Now?, we talked about the different kinds of things you can do when you receive your autosomal DNA test results from either Family Tree DNA, Ancestry or 23andMe. There are, in general, 4 types of goals that people have when they test their autosomal DNA – if they have any specific goals:

I want to meet people I’m related to.
I want to confirm my genealogy is correct.
I want to find new ancestors.
I want to map my chromosomes to my ancestors.

Regardless of which of these goals you had when you tested, or have since developed, now that you know what is possible – most of the options are going to require you to do something – often contacting your matches.

One thing that doesn’t happen is that your new genealogy is not delivered to you gift wrapped and all you have to do is open the box, untie the bow around the scroll, and roll it down the hallway. That only happens on the genealogy TV shows:)

Because of the different ways the various vendors have implemented their DNA matching software, there are different reasons why you might want to contact your matches.

23andMe

At 23andMe, you cannot send messages to your matches or share your matching DNA segments unless you obtain permission from each match to first communicate with them and then to share matching DNA segments, which can be one or two separate permissions. 23andMe has an internal messaging system that facilitates you sending a permission request to your matches. Personalized messages work best. If permission is granted, you can then begin a dialogue about common ancestors and how you might match that person.

Family Tree DNA

At Family Tree DNA, you are provided with the e-mail address of everyone that you match within each person’s privacy selections. Participants can upload their GEDCOM files, create family trees and enter a list of ancestral surnames. You can search by current or ancestral surname. The most common reason to contact someone you match at Family Tree DNA is if you are a match to them and they have not uploaded or created a family tree.

Ancestry

Ancestry also uses an internal messaging system. The most common reason to contact a DNA match at Ancestry is if you match someone, and especially if you share a shakey leaf hint with them, meaning you have a common ancestor in your trees – but your match’s tree is private and you can’t see who that common ancestor might be.

GedMatch

If you upload your results to www.gedmatch.com, a free (donation based) site, you can then match your results to people who tested at all 3 companies – if they also have uploaded their results. People provide their e-mails when uploading and configuring their accounts at GedMatch. People who use GedMatch are often the most excited and “into” autosomal DNA matching and therefore, the most likely to contact matches.

Regardless of where you are matching, it’s important to make that first communication attempt count. At 23andMe, if your match declines contact, you can’t communicate with them. If they don’t reply, you can delete that first contact attempt and try again, but your attempts are limited – so you really do have to make them count.

Here are some helpful hints and approaches that do and don’t work well. Your goal is to obtain a helpful response, so you want to position yourself in the best possible light to get that response.

A faux pas may kill your chances, so let’s start out with what not to do, and why, then we’ll look at how to make your communications a winner!

Don’t!

Don’t send group e-mails to everyone you match saying, “Hi, we all match. Can you tell me how?” Guess what? You won’t get many or any replies and you’ll have irritated all of your matches in one fell swoop. This is considered DNA spamming. Think about what you are writing before you press that send button.
Don’t say things like this to people: “Hi, I’m guessing (or hoping) that you’ve mapped your (or your cousin’s) chromosomes and you can just tell me how we are related.” When I told this person I have not mapped my cousin’s chromosomes – they had the bad judgment to ask me when I might get around to it.
Don’t provide just a few surnames and ask if they are related. Most of your matches will be more than 2 or 3 generations back in the tree, so the answer is likely going to be “no,” or no answer at all.
Don’t offer to send them an ancestry invite. That means they have to sort through your entire tree to find a match, AND Ancestry will attach your tree to their list forever. Give the e-mail recipient something to work with in the e-mail itself. Don’t make your problem their problem or they won’t reply. The more work they have to do to reply, the less chance they will.
Don’t send multiple e-mails with dribs and drabs of information in each one. If you have something to share, put it together logically and concisely in an e-mail and send one.
Don’t assume that someone of a different ethnicity isn’t related to you.
Don’t assume a particular surname is indicative of a person’s entire genealogical background.
Don’t convey an entitlement attitude. Remember, you are asking them to take a few minutes of their time to help you.
Don’t assume that all of your matches are from the US, or that English is their primary language – so use full state names and locations. The good news is that more and more people are testing from around the world.
Don’t send messages in all caps.
Don’t send messages with misspellings, incorrect grammar or abbreviated texting language. Translated, this means your phone or i-pad with autocorrect is probably not a good idea.
Don’t send the entire request in the title of the message. Yes, people do this.
Don’t send a message with a title like “hi there.” It’s likely to go to the spam folder or be over looked or ignored. Instead, title each message with the name of the test, the testing company and whose DNA you are writing about. In other words, something like this: “Autosomal DNA Match at Family Tree DNA to John Doe”
Don’t just send the “canned” request message at 23andMe. Send a personal note. If you have an online tree, include that link. If you notice you have ancestors from the same part of the world, or country, tell them. If you match their DNA, tell them. Some people send match requests because they notice a common surname. In other words, try to find some common ground to start a conversation.
Don’t dash off a hurried, half-baked, partially complete message. It shows and will be reflected in the responses you do, and don’t, receive.
Don’t expect others to do your work for you. Recently, I received a match contact and when I asked the sender for the name of the person they matched, they told me they couldn’t remember, they had sent out a “mass mailing,” and asked me to check my kits and see if there were matches to them. Seriously? They also didn’t tell me the testing company name, nor the test type. Three e-mails later, I still don’t know the name of the person they matched. Guess what. Delete! Make it easy for your matches to help you and don’t waste their time by only providing partial information.

Do!

Read your matches profiles if they have provided one. It shows you took the time to read what they provided, and may give you some common ground out the door. “I see we both have ancestors from the Netherlands,” is a good icebreaker, for example.
Address the e-mail to the person using their name if it’s available. In other words, begin, “Hi Joe” not just “Hi.” Do not assume a gender. Names can be deceiving. My name is not deceiving, Roberta, but I can’t tell you how many e-mails I receive to Robert or “Mr. Estes.” This tells me they didn’t pay attention.
Do use capital letters and punctuation. Otherwise, you’re telling the person on the receiving end they aren’t important enough to bother with – and they will likely treat your request in kind.
Enter information about yourself in your profile at the vendors, including your country of origin.
Upload a photo of yourself into your profile at the vendor so that people can see you. This makes you seem more like a real person and they may look at you for family resemblance. Probably shouldn’t upload a photo that might be controversial or off-putting if your goal is to maximize response.
Link your tree to your DNA results (Ancestry) or upload a Gedcom file (Family Tree DNA.) 23andMe is more challenging since their collaboration with My Heritage which is a subscription service. Most people simply put a link to their public tree someplace in their profile information at 23andMe.
Provide your name and kit number or other identifying information in all correspondence – including the first e-mail.
Include kit numbers (GedMatch) and/or names (Family Tree DNA) that you’re matching. Many people manage multiple kits for family members and if they have to go and look for you in their kits’ matches, they won’t. Don’t make the recipient have to guess at any part of the equation. Say something like this, “Hi, I match John Smith’s autosomal DNA test at Family Tree DNA and you are his e-mail contact…”
Tell them where you tested and where you are matching them. “Hi, I tested at Ancestry and downloaded by kit to GedMatch where I’m kit number A100007. I’m matching kit F9141, Jane Doe, where you are listed as the contact.” Be sure to get the name of the testing company right. Today, someone told me the test was through “Family Search,” who, of course, does not do DNA testing.
If you are matching on a Y or mitochondrial DNA test, tell them at what level you’re matching. Otherwise, they have to search through each level to find you. On mitochondrial DNA, if you and they both tested to the full sequence level, but you’re only matching on the HVR1 level, it’s not nearly as compelling or interesting as if you match at the full sequence level with no mutations difference. So, tell them, “I’m a match to John Doe at Family Tree DNA at the full mitochondrial level, with no mutations difference. Maybe we can find our common ancestor. My direct mitochondrial line is….”
If you are matching at GedMatch and you lowered the match threshold from the default, tell them. Better yet, don’t lower the threshold, at least not for initial comparisons.
Make replying to your query as easy as possible. You stand a much better chance of getting a reply. The more work you make them do, the less chance you’ll get a reply.
Include your full name and e-mail address if you are using Ancestry’s or 23andMe’s message systems.
Get your facts straight. I recently received an e-mail from someone who told me that we matched on 21% of our DNA and one segment. I knew that was impossible because 21% is in the half sibling range and if you’re a half sibling – you will match on a whole lot more than one segment. If you don’t pay attention and get your facts straight, it’s less likely that the person you are contacting will take you seriously.
Accept contact requests if you tested at 23andMe and receive a contact or sharing request, and be sure to share genomes so that you can see how you match and use their comparison tools like their Family Inheritance: Advanced.
Include a very brief, maybe two sentence summary about yourself in contact requests. Something like. “It appears we may match on my father’s side which is primarily from Appalachia, which means they were Scotch-Irish and British before that” or “My maternal heritage is from Scandinavia, so the names may not look familiar to you. My mother’s family is from the area near Stockholm.” Do not tell them your life story or ramble. You’ll lose them.
Send a pedigree chart (preferably with an index) in pdf format if you’re using e-mail or a link to a tree. I have a pedigree chart for my mother’s side and my father’s side. I can tell which side they match because my mother has tested as well. One of the best tools I have ever received with a query is shown below. It was sent as a spreadsheet, which made it incredibly easy for me to sort, but wouldn’t work for everyone. It could be sent as a pdf file as well, and is very easy to scan for surnames and locations. I immediately liked this person and absolutely knew they were serious and we stood a chance of making a genealogy connection. (Click on the image to make larger in a separate window.)

Take the time to learn about autosomal DNA, matching and what it means. Aside from the many articles on this blog which you can find by using the key search word “autosomal,” here are four additional resources for you:

Genetic Genealogy: The Basics and Beyond by Emily Aulicino
NextGen Genealogy: The DNA Connection by David Dowell
DNA Adoption’s classes
Beginners Guide to Genetic Genealogy by Kelly Wheaton

If you’re adopted or searching for an unknown parents or grandparent, visit www.dnaadoption.com.
If you have a blog or genealogy webpage, include that information, maybe below your signature.
If you’re serious about maximizing your opportunities for success with genetic genealogy, you’ll want to test at all 3 companies, Family Tree DNA (Y, mtDNA and autosomal), Ancestry and 23andMe. Family Tree DNA facilitates reduced cost file transfers from Ancestry and from 23andMe if you tested before Dec. 2013 (when 23andMe changed their chip.) They all have their strong and weak points – but the bottom line is that you’ll want to fish in all three ponds. You’ll also want to download your results from one of those companies, preferably Family Tree DNA or Ancestry, to www.gedmatch.com, a site that facilitates comparison of data from the various companies and provides some great tools. GedMatch is a contribution site, so don’t forget to donate. Some of their Tier 1 tools require a minimal subscription of $10 a month, which is well worth it if you are serious. Ask your matches if they have downloaded their data to GedMatch and provide your kit number there.
Be courteous and gracious. Say please and thank you. You’d be amazed how many people say neither.
Share this article with eager newbies who need a little direction. Most newbies aren’t going to find this article before shooting off that e-mail in their initial excitement to an entire group of matches. By helping them to better focus their efforts, you’ll be helping yourself too. Most newbies have no idea what they’ve just gotten themselves into!

Acknowledgements: Thanks to contributors in the ISOGG Facebook group for helping to flesh out these tips for success.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Mary Harrold (c 1750-1826), “Fly Me Back to Sweet Old Ireland,” 52 Ancestors #84

Posted on August 9, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Mary is one of those ancestors whose life, what we know if it, is told mostly through the lives of those around her – specifically, her husband and children. We don’t know who Mary’s parents were and were it not for one court note in particular, even her name would only be found in legend. In this case, the legend of her name and the name Mary in the court notes match.

Mary was the wife of John Harrold. She was born sometime around 1750, probably someplace in Virginia, and she died in 1826 in Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Based on a combination of the birth year of her son, John, based on census records and his tombstone, we know that Mary had at least one child by 1782, which puts her birth year at 1762 or earlier.

A potential record that mentions one Mary and John O’Harrell in Botetourt County suggests she may have had two children older than John.

The Botetourt County court record on March 11, 1779 tells us the following:

“The court doth allow Mary O’harrell, wife of John O’harrell, a soldier in the Continental Army, 30 pounds for the support of herself and two small children.”

Based on records of soldiers who served, there was no John O’Harrell and there was only one John Harrold or any similar surname who served from Botetourt County. That would be Mary’s husband John – so it’s likely that the John and Mary mentioned in 1779 are our John and Mary.

We know from John’s service record that he was discharged in June of 1779 after serving for 3 years, so his service began in June of 1776.

If Mary has two small children, we can presume they have been married at least 5 years, so that would mean they were married before 1774. If the two children were born before he left in 1776, then they were likely married by 1771 or so, pushing Mary’s birth year back to about 1750 or slightly thereafter. John is believed to have been born about 1750 based on these same records, so her birth about the same time makes sense.

If this is the case, then Mary has become nearly destitute by March of 1779 and had to rely on the county for money. This may well imply that either her family was not from Botetourt County or they were gone, or destitute as well.

If this is our Mary, we don’t know who these two children are. There is no document that gives us a list of her children, and the ones we do know are based on a variety of circumstances, not the least of which is that John Harrold is the only Harrold male in Wilkes County after he appears there around 1800 – so emerging children of that surname would be his.

We find John Herrald on the 1790 census for Iredell County, NC, but his wife’s age is only given as a hash mark in the “free white females” category. By 1790, they had 3 males under 16, 1 male over 16 (John) and 4 females. Six children means they have been married about 12 years, more or less, so by 1778 or earlier. Given that John was gone for 3 years, followed by another 18 month stint in the army, they were probably married 4 years or so earlier than the 2 years multiplication by child suggests, so by 1774 or so.

Given that John’s discharge in 1779 says he is going home to Botetourt County, we can probably presume that is where they lived before the war, and likely where both families were from.

The challenge is that John’s Y DNA doesn’t match the other Harrold (by any spelling) families in Botetourt County.

So, given that we have all of our proverbial ducks in a row, we know the following:

1750ish – Mary born

1774 – Mary married by this date, possibly as early as 1771, possibly in Botetourt County, VA

June 1776 – Mary’s husband leaves for the War from Botetourt County

March 1779 – Mary obtains assistance from the county for herself and 2 children.

June 1779 – John is discharged after 3 years service and returns home.

1780 – John enlists for a second term in the Revolutionary War in August, leaving Mary at home with 2 small children and probably pregnant for another child.

1782 – John is discharged in February, returning home to Botetourt County just in time for spring planting. Mary must be extremely relieved.

1782 or 1783 – son John Jr. is born in Virginia.

About 1784 – Mary has daughter Sallie.

1785 – John and by inference Mary are on the Iredell County, NC tax list.

About 1785 – Mary has daughter Elizabeth.

About 1785 – Mary has son Alexander.

1790 – Mary and John are living in Iredell County, NC according to the census and have 6 children.

About 1790 – Mary has son William.

About 1790 – Mary has daughter Charlotte.

1794 – Mary and John have probably moved to Wilkes County, because John is mentioned in the court notes regarding a transaction with one Robert Powers involving 75 pounds of indigo. This was not registered in court until 1804, so they might not yet have lived in Wilkes in 1794.

1796 – John files in Wilkes court against one Thomas Adams against whom he obtained an execution order in Iredell County. They do live in Wilkes County by now.

1797-1799 – Mary’s son, John, married about this time.

1800 – Mary and John are enumerated in Wilkes County in the census under the surname Harral.

We know that in 1790, John and Mary have 6 children, 3 boys and 3 girls, the boys being under 16.

In 1800, their children are reported as:

1 male under 10 (William born about 1790)
1 male 10-15 (Alexander born about 1785)
2 female 16-25 (Charlotte, Elizabeth and/or Sallie)

We show three females in 1790 and I have three daughters listed, but only two are shown here and none are known to have married until after 1800. So, there is a discrepancy.

In 1790, their son, John Jr., is living next door and is listed as age 16-25, putting John’s birth between 1775 and 1784, which is consistent with the information we already have. He has a wife and one female child, suggesting they have been married between 1 and 3 years.

Both John and Mary are over the age of 45, which means they were both born before 1755. Given that Mry’s youngest child, William, was born about 1790, Mary could have been born slightly before 1750. Women often bore their last children at the age of 42 or 43.

1801 – John patents land on Harrold Mountain

1803 – Daughter Elizabeth married Reuben Carter whose land abuts that of John Harrold, at least until Reuben loses his land.

1805 – Mary’s daughter Sallie marries Jessie Turner before 1805 and they leave for Breathit County, KY.

1806 – Mary’s daughter, Charlotte, married Koonrod Dick. They were in Simpson Co., KY before 1825.

1809 – Mary’s son, William and Mary McDowell, daughter of their neighbor, are married by Jacob McGrady, the Baptist preacher.

1810 – Son William departs for Claiborne County, TN. This is likely the last time Mary sees her son, although she lives another 16 years. She probably never meets any of her grandchildren by William.

It must have pained Mary greatly to see her children marrying and leaving Wilkes County, one by one.

1810 – The 1810 census shows John Harrold, with one male living with him, age 16-26, plus his wife. Both John and Mary are shown as over age 45.

1812 – Mary’s son, Alexander marries about this time and shortly thereafter, leaves for Breathit County, KY. This is likely the last time Mary sees Alexander. She likely never sees any of Alexander’s children either.

The 1820 census reflects John and Mary’s age the same way. Now John and Mary are living entirely alone, all of the children gone and married. They are living beside John Herrald Jr. who has 9 people in his family and one slave. These grandchildren, Mary probably sees daily!

John Sr. dies in 1825 and Mary follows in 1826. We know Mary’s name, positively, because of an allowance made to her in January 1826 from John’s estate, which was probated in October of 1825. However, by October 1826, just a year after John’s death, Mary’s estate sale was held – so she died sometime between January and October of 1826.

I hired a historian to retrieve John and Mary’s estate inventory and sale information, both, from the North Carolina archives in Raleigh, with absolutely no luck. I know they existed at one time because they are referenced in the court notes complete with book and page number – however – Wilkes County says they no longer have any of those records and they are at the archives in Raleigh, and Raleigh says they never received those books from Wilkes. And then there are those persistent rumors that the staff decades ago in Wilkes County decided to have a bonfire with the old records that no one would need anymore. This just kills me, because Mary and John’s estate inventory would give us the most personal glimpse of their actual lives that we could get from the vantage point of where we sit today, 190 years removed – unless there is an unknown family journal or Bible hanging around someplace. And I’m not holding my breath for that.

One of my close friends and I were discussing a week or so ago how much our descendants would be able to tell about us personally if they were building the scaffolding of our lives from only public records. She and I concluded that while they would find the “big pieces” so to speak, like birth, marriage, death, children’s births, and moving – they would never know anything about us personally. Meaning what we are like. No one would know that I love color, for example, whether it be in summer flowers or quilts. That I hate to cook, love dark chocolate, and do quite a bit of charity work. They would have no idea of my profession, my career, my education level, my degrees or my political or religious leanings. All of those things that make me uniquely me would be absent. However, if they had an inventory listing from my estate sale, there would at least be clues. I so wish we had Mary’s estate listing.

Mary is credited with saying that when she died, she wanted to be put up on the bluff on top of Harrold Mountain so that she could fly back to sweet old Ireland.

Since she doesn’t have a marker, perhaps they did. Harrold Mountain bluff is shown above.

Mary is likely buried beside John Harrold, her husband, on Harrold Mountain. Furthermore, we know about where that is, and she is either buried under the chicken house with John (above), or she is buried with son John in the Harrold/Brown Cemetery.

Perhaps old John is buried with John Jr. in the same cemetery, shown on the map below on Harrold Mountain.

Given that both sons William and Alexander leave Wilkes County, it makes sense that John Jr. would obtain William’s land upon his death. It looks very much like he did, in part because John is buried on the land Old John owned. So, it’s entirely possible that John Jr. lies in the same cemetery with both of his parents. In that time and place, that’s quite unusual – often generations didn’t stay in the same place long enough for multiple generations to live, grow old and pass on.

I’ve tried to reconcile the census documents with John and Mary’s children, reconstructed from the records we do have:

Name/Birth	1779	1790 census	1800 census	Other
	2 children in court record	3 boys under 16, 3 girls	1 m<101 m 10-152 f 16-25
Child born before 1779 per court record				Possibly James in 1805 record
Child born before 1779 per court record
John/1782-83		Age 8	Living next door	Birth year of 1783 on tombstone
Alexander/c 1785		Age 5	Age 15	1850 census says he was born in NC in 1785
William/c1790		Newborn 1790	Age 10	In 1855 deposition, William says he is 65 years old, in 1850 census, says he is born in NC
Elizabeth/c1785		Age 5	Age 15	Married in 1803
Charlotte/c1790		Newborn or born after census	Doesn’t work based estimated birth year of 1790 and 1800 census	Married in 1806.
Sarah/c1784		6	16	Married before 1805

Note that a James appears once in an 1805 Wilkes County record, but never appears again. If this James is John’s son, then he would have had to be one of the two oldest children AND living on his own or not in John’s household by 1790. Unlikely, but not impossible

These birth years are all estimates, with the exception of John whose birth year is on his tombstone and in the 1850 census, and William who gives his age in a deposition and in the census as well. Other birth years are estimated by marriage date which is estimated by the age of the oldest child when not available in official records. Long way around, I know.

The bottom line is that Mary and John are one child short in 1800, but for all we know, one of the daughters was living elsewhere.

Mitochondrial DNA

To the best of my knowledge, no one who descends directly from Mary through all females has yet DNA tested. These people would carry Mary’s mitochondrial DNA.

Mary reportedly had three daughters. However, there is some discrepancy in the 1800 census when only two daughters are shown. Of course, one could have been slightly older, one could have been visiting or living with a relative – we don’t know.

However, if people who descend from either 2 or 3 daughters test, and their mitochondrial DNA which would be descended directly from Mary match each other, then we now they share a common ancestor. There is always the possibility as well that Mary was not John’s only wife. There could have been 2 different Mary’s as well – the one in 1779, assuming that is the right family, and the one who died in 1826. There is no oral history of anything like this, but it’s always a possibility.

Secondly, we could tell a lot about Mary – meaning her haplogroup and where her closest matches are found in the world. In other words, we could probably confirm that Mary was indeed Irish!

If you descend from Mary Harrell through all females to the current generation, where either males or females will work, please let me know. There is a DNA testing scholarship waiting for you!

Mary’s female children are as follows:

1. Sarah or Sallie Herrell, born about 1784 and married Jesse Turner about 1805 in Wilkes County. They moved to Breathit County, KY and had daughters:

- Susannah born about 1806 – nothing more known
- Elizabeth “Mama Bets” born February 1813 and married her first cousin, Thomas T. Herrell. They had daughters Sarah born in 1841, Elizabeth born in 1845, Nancy born about 1846, America born in 1850 and Jemima born in 1852.

2. Charlotte Herrell born about 1790, married in 1806 in Wilkes County, NC to Koonrod Peter Dick. They moved to Simpson County, KY and had daughter Mary Dick. They probably had other children as well, but I have found no records.

3. Elizabeth Herrell born about 1785 married Reuben Carter in 1803 in Wilkes County. They moved on to Maury County TN and then, reportedly, to Crawford County, MO. Nothing is known about their children.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Alfre Woodard – Who Do You Think You Are – “Born in Chains”

Posted on August 8, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Alfre Woodard with Dr. Mark Schultz. Courtesy of TLC.

Award-winning actress Alfre Woodard knows a lot about her mother’s family, but her father’s Woodard line is a mystery. Her grandfather, Alex Woodard, died when her father was three, and the family history died with him. All she’s heard is that his family came to Oklahoma from Texas, but she’s curious about their earlier origins.

To start her journey, Alfre digs into census records, locating her infant grandfather with his parents (Alfre’s great-grandparents) Alex Woodard, 39, born in Georgia, and Lizzie, his wife. Alfre calculates that her great-grandfather Alex was born about 1841 in Georgia, and suspects he may have been enslaved there – and that “Woodard” was his slave name. Alfre heads off to Georgia see if she can trace her great-grandfather Alex Woodard’s trail.

In Georgia, Alfre pours over white Woodard estate records to see if she can locate her ancestor. Alfre finds her great-grandfather Alex listed as “Alec,” at about age 10, and appraised at $400. The records reveal that Alec’s owner, John Woodard, has died and all of his property – including his eleven slaves – is being inventoried to divide among his heirs.

The information does not specify Alec’s biological family, but he’s consistently listed with several children. Enslaved people were often sold away from their biological families, so they developed strong kinship networks with slaves who worked and lived with them.

Alfre sees that Alec, also written as Elec in some records, is given to a William Woodard, but members of Alec’s kinship network are sold to different owners. The expert promises to look into what happened to Alec once William Woodard claimed him.

The next morning, Alfre drives out to the Woodard land to see where her great-grandfather lived and labored as a slave. As she turns onto the road bordering the land, she notices the road sign: Woodard Road! Alfre pours a libation on the land her ancestor worked to pay her respects.

Alfre reconvenes with the expert, and discovers that Alec moved to Jackson Parish, Louisiana with his slave owner William Woodard by 1860.

Alfre follows her great-grandfather to Louisiana. The historian explains Alec would’ve been emancipated after the Civil War in 1865. Alfre’s journey through her ancestor’s life as a slave is over, so now she wants to know how he established himself as a free man. The expert explains that 1867 marked the first time black men could vote, but restrictive Southern laws required they pay a “poll tax” to do so. Poll tax rolls reveal that Alec is registered to vote and over the years he ascends from having no property to owning 240 acres of land in Jackson Parish! He’s firmly part of the middle class at a time when any amount of land was significant to a former slave living in Louisiana. Owning land was the ultimate goal for every freedman, but only about 25% of them achieved it. Alfre’s great-grandfather has accomplished an extraordinary feat.

But something is amiss; Alfre then discovers that just a year later, Alec is now paying taxes on only 80 acres, and likely lost some of his land in an economic collapse.

Next, Alfre examines an 1898 land deed from Alec Woodard and his wife Elizabeth, to Aaron Stell. Alfre sees that after Alec purchased land in Texas, he sold his Louisiana land to this man Aaron Stell for just $35 – but why so cheap? Alec is selling the property with his wife Elizabeth (Alfre’s great-grandmother) and in fact, Aaron Stell was Elizabeth’s brother. Alec is doing well enough in Texas that he’s giving his brother-in-law the “family discount” on his Louisiana land.

Alfre drives out to the rural, thickly wooded plot formerly owned by her great-grandfather in Jackson Parish. Alfre walks the land and reflects on all she has learned about her impressive great-grandfather Alec Woodard and his resilience that has been passed down through generations.

On her great-grandfather’s former land, Alfre meets an 80-year-old African American woman who lives on that corner. Roye says that Stells have lived here as far as anyone can remember, and she’s a Stell by marriage. So Alfre and Roye are kin! Roye tells Alfre about growing up on the old farm – picking cotton in the early morning darkness, climbing the pecan trees, and playing among the cows and horses. She says that generations of her family have been proud to own that land, and she hopes it always stays in the family.

For an interesting episode about the Civil War era in the deep south and to share Alfre’s and her ancestor’s journey, watch the episode on Sunday, August 9^th on TLC.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – What Now?

Posted on August 7, 2015 by Roberta Estes

When I first started this blog, my goal was to provide explanations and examples of genetic genealogy topics so that there would be fewer questions and easier answers.

That sounded like a great idea, but the reality of the situation is that the consumer market for autosomal DNA testing has exploded – meaning more and more consumers with more and more questions. Compounding that situation, the consumers who purchase these tests today, especially on impulse, and mostly I’m referring to Ancestry.com here, often have absolutely no idea what to expect or even what they want except that Ancestry will find their ancestors for them. That’s because that’s what Ancestry tells them in their advertising.

So, in the big picture, the questions and inquiries that experienced people are currently receiving are becoming less specific and more general and often exhibit a lack of understanding of what DNA testing can do. It’s frustrating to parties on both sides of the fence, but I’m glad people are asking because it means they are interested and willing to learn.

Rather than approach this topic from a technical perspective of how to work with autosomal DNA, I’d like to talk about what can be done with autosomal DNA testing from a newbie perspective. The person who just got their results back and are saying to themselves, “OK, now what can I do with this?”

However, there is lots “how to” information in this article for everyone if you click on the links. If nothing else, this gives you a tool to send to those overly excited newbies who are starry eyed but have no clue how to proceed. Remember, you were once new too!

This is part 1 of a two part series. The second part will focus on how to make contact with your matches successfully. But now, let’s pretend it’s day 1 and you just got your autosomal test results back.

Why Did You Test?

The first question to ask yourself is why did you test in the first place? If your answer is “because Ancestry had a sale,” that’s fine, but then you’ll need to read all four options to know what you can do with autosomal DNA.

1. I want to meet other people I’m related to.

Ok, but the first thing here you’re going to have to define is the word “related.” You are likely related to everyone on your match list. I said likely, because there may be some people there whose DNA simply matches yours by chance. For the most part, and especially for those people who are your closest matches, you’re related somehow. The challenge, of course, is to figure out how – meaning through which ancestor. This is the genealogy jigsaw puzzle of you!

All three of the major vendors, Family Tree DNA, Ancestry and 23andMe show you your closest matches first on your match list.

Do you want to meet your DNA cousins only if you can identify a common ancestor? Do you want to work with them on genealogy? The answers to these questions will help sort through the rest of what to do and how.

If your goal is to contact your matches, then Family Tree DNA is the easiest, as they provide you with the e-mail addresses of your matches by clicking on the little envelope for each match on your match page, shown above.

Ancestry is second easiest, but forces you to use their internal message system which often doesn’t deliver the messages. (Do not send more than 30 in one day or Ancestry will blacklist your messages and block your communications, thinking you are a spammer.)

23andMe is the most difficult as you have to request permission to communicate with each match and also to share DNA and if your match authorizes communication, then you can communicate through 23andMe’s message system. Sound cumbersome? It is and the response rate is low.

Confirming Genealogy

Let’s look at another reason for testing.

2. I want to confirm my genealogy is correct – meaning that my great-grandfather really is my great-grandfather and so forth on up the line.

Well, you’re in luck, especially if some of your cousins, known or otherwise, have tested. Confirming your genealogy is easier done in closer generations than more distant ones and the more cousins from various lines that have tested, the better. That’s because you will share more of your DNA with relatives when you have a close common ancestor.

Autosomal DNA is divided approximately in half in each generation, when the child receives half of their DNA from each parent – so the closer your cousin, the more likely you are to share more DNA with them. The more DNA you share, the more likely you are to be able to identify which ancestor it comes from. And if a match matches you and your proven cousin both on the same segment, that identifies positively which line that match comes from. That three way matching is called triangulation.

Let’s talk about the word “confirm.” Herein lies a challenge, because DNA does have the absolute ability to confirm ancestors, as noted above. DNA also has the ability to give you hints that go towards a “preponderance of evidence.” DNA, can also lead you astray if you draw erroneous conclusions – and one vendor provides a tool (or tools) that encourages overstepping conclusions. Let’s look at each circumstance.

Proof Positive through Triangulation

Just what it says – absolutely unquestionable proof that a particular ancestor is your ancestor. If you match two other people who also descend from your common ancestors, Joe and Jane Doe, on the same segment of DNA, that is confirmation that you share that ancestor and that segment of your DNA is considered proven to that ancestral line. This requires two things. First, that your DNA matches on the same segment AND that you have identified the same ancestors, Joe and Jane Doe, genealogically in your trees.

Now, you probably can’t tell which side of the couple, Jane or Joe, the DNA is from unless you also match two people on just Jane’s side of the family or just Joe’s on that same segment.

One caveat here – counting you and your parent as two of the three people doesn’t work because you and your parents are too close in the tree. By three people, that would preferably be three people who descend from that couple through three different children.

Here’s an example.

It would also ideally be more than three people, but three is the minimum to form a triangulation group. In the real world, these matches might not start and end of the same segments as in the example above, but the overlapping portion should be significant

The example above is proof positive, because the three people descend from the same ancestor, through different children, and match on the same chromosome in the same locations.

This technique is called triangulation.

Now for the bad news – you can’t do this at Ancestry.com, because they don’t provide you with any of the segment information in the last 5 columns. Ancestry has no chromosome browser, which is the tool that shows you where on your DNA you match your cousins.

Family Tree DNA’s chromosome display tool that is part of their chromosome browser is shown below.

On the example above, you can see that Barbara Jean Long, the black background person on the chromosome graphic, is being compared to her two first cousins, the blue and orange on the chromosome graphic.

You can download the information from Family Tree DNA or 23andMe in spreadsheet format, or you can display the information graphically, like in the example above. You can see the “stacked” locations where both the cousins match the black background person they are being compared to. You can also see that there are some locations where only one of the cousins matches the background person, like on chromosome 20. And of course, some locations where neither cousin matches the background person, like on chromosome 21.

If you download that data, the information gives you the locations where the people being compared match the person they are being compared against.

The chart above is the download of part of chromosome 1 for Barbara, Cheryl and Donald, siblings who are Barbara’s first cousins.

The areas where the 3 people overlap, or triangulate, are colored in green on the spreadsheet, while the rows entirely in pink or blue do not triangulate – meaning Barbara matches either one cousin or the other, but not both. Keep in mind that this example only proves their common ancestral couple, which in this case are common grandparents – but the technique is the same no matter which common ancestor you are trying to prove.

This bring us to our next topic, that of close relatives.

Close Relative Matches

I previously said that you can’t use you and a close relative to prove a distant ancestor. But that’s not necessarily true when the relationship you are trying to prove is closer in time. The chart below shows the relationships of the example above.

In the case shown above, two first cousins who are siblings, Cheryl and Don, are being compared to their common first cousin, Barbara. Their fathers were siblings and their common ancestors were their grandparents. This is not 6 generations up a tree where matching is iffy. You can be expected to match closely with your first cousins where you may not match with more distant cousins, because you simply didn’t inherit any of the same DNA from your distant common ancestor. You should be sharing about 12.5% of your DNA with first cousins, and if you have first cousins that you’re not matching, that might signal that an undocumented adoption has occurred in one line or the other.

In a case like this, if you and a first cousin match, that suffices to prove a close connection. If you don’t match, it suffices to raise questions. A lot of questions. Big ugly questions. The next thing to do is to see if any other known cousins have tested and who they match – or don’t match.

For example, if Barbara Ferverda was not the child of John Ferverda, she would not match either Cheryl nor Don, and we’d know there was a problem. If Cheryl and Don match other Ferverda or Miller relatives and Barbara didn’t, then we’d know the genetic break in the line was on Barbara’s side and not on Cheryl/Don’s side.

This same technique is also how we know which “side” matches are on. If an unknown match matches both Barbara and Cheryl, for example, it’s a good bet that their common ancestor is someplace in the Miller/Ferverda line. If they also match another Miller on the same segment, then the common ancestor has been narrowed to the Miller side of the Miller/Ferverda couple.

Unfortunately, not all DNA results are as definitive or easy to prove as these. Let’s look at some of the more “squishy” results.

Preponderance of Evidence through Aggregated Data

In regular genealogy, there are a range of proofs. There is direct evidence that someone is the child of an ancestor. That would be a will, for example, that names a daughter and her husband and maybe even tells where they moved to. This would be your lucky day!

Think of that will as equivalent to triangulated proof of a common ancestor. There is just no arguing with the evidence.

If you’re not that lucky, you have to piece the shreds of indirect evidence together to make a story. In the genealogy world, this is called preponderance of evidence, and I am always, always much less comfortable with this type of evidence than I am with solid proof.

There are various flavors of pieces of evidence in the DNA world. Sometimes we have hints of relationships without proof.

The most common is when you have matches with a group of people who share the same surname, but you can’t get back far enough to find a common ancestor. Is this a probable match? Yes? Guaranteed? No. Have I seen them fall apart and the actual match be on another entirely unrelated line? Yes. See why I call these squishy?

Ancestry takes this one step further with their DNA Circles. For a DNA Circle to be created, you must match DNA with someone in the Circle AND everyone in the Circle must match DNA with someone else in the Circle AND everyone in the Circle must have a common ancestor in their tree. Circles begin with a minimum of three people. Generally, the more people who match AND have the same ancestor, the stronger the likelihood that you would be able to confirmation the common ancestor of the group as your ancestor too – if you had a chromosome browser type of tool. Still, Circles alone are not and never will be, proof. Circles are great hints and along with other research, can confirm genealogical research. For example, my paper genealogy says I descend from Henry Bolton, and I find myself in Henry Bolton’s tree, matching several other Bolton descendants through Henry’s other children. Those multiple connections pretty well confirms the paper trail is accurate and no undocumented adoptions have occurred in my line.

Now, the bad news….Circles is predicated upon matching of trees. If there is a common misconception out there that is replicated in these trees, then people who match will be shown in a Circle predicated on bad information. And, there is no way to know. However, people interpret the existence of a DNA Circle as proof positive and that it confirms the tree. Membership in a DNA Circle is absolutely NOT proof of any kind, let alone proof positive – except that your DNA matches the people who you are connected to by lines and their DNA matches the people they are connected to by lines. You can see my connections in orange below, and the background connections in light grey.

This is an example of my Henry Bolton Circle. I match 5 different people’s DNA (the orange lines) who also show Henry Bolton as their ancestor. This does NOT mean the match is on the same segment, so it is NOT triangulated. This is a grouping of data where multiple people match each other, not a genetic triangulation group where everyone matches on the same segment. In fact there are cases that I have found where the person I match in a circle is through a different line entirely, so in that case, the presumption of which common ancestor our common DNA is from is incorrect.

I want to be very clear, there is nothing wrong with DNA Circles, so far as they go. The consumer needs to understand what Circles are really saying – and what they can’t and don’t say. DNA Circles are another important tool in our arsenal. We just have to be careful not to assume, or presume, more than is there. Presuming that we match someone in the Circle because we share Henry Bolton’s DNA may in fact be inaccurate. We may match on a completely unrelated line – but because we do match and share a common ancestor in our tree – we both find ourselves in the Henry Bolton Circle.

Are you reading those squishy words? Presume – it’s related to the word assume…right??? And keep in mind that Circles are created based in part on those wonderfully accurate Ancestry trees. Are you feeling good about this preponderance of evidence yet?

However, in my case, I’ve done due diligence with the genealogy and I have all of my proof ducks in a row. The fact that I do match so many Bolton descendants confirms my work, along with the fact that at the other vendors and at GedMatch, I have triangulated my matches and proven the Bolton DNA. So, this circle is valid but the only proof I have is not found at Ancestry or because I’m a Circle member, but by triangulation and aggregated data using other vendor’s tools.

This next screen shot is of an exact triangulated match using GedMatch’s triangulation tool. Each line shows me matching two cousins, along with the start and stop segments. This just happens to be the Ferverda example. So, I match six people, all on the same segment, all with a known common ancestor. This is proof positive. Not all “matching” is nearly so definitive.

Sometimes the matches aren’t so neat and tidy. That’s when we move to using aggregated data.

Aggregated Data – What’s That?

Aggregated data is a term I’ve come up with because there isn’t any term to fit in today’s genetic genealogy vocabulary. In essence, aggregated data is when a group of people (who may or may not know who their common ancestor is) match on common segments of data, but not necessarily on the same segments, or not all of the same segments. When you have an entire group of these people, they form a stair step “right shift” kind of graph.

The interesting part of this is that by utilizing aggregated data and looking not only at who we match, but who our matches match that share a common ancestor, we can gain insight and hints. Finding a common ancestor is of course a huge benefit in this type of situation because then you’ve identified at least a DNA “line” for the entire group.

If we were to utilize the triangulation tools at Gedmatch and look at my closest triangulated matches, they would look something like this, where the segments that I match with each person (or in this case, two people) shift some to the right. What you are seeing is the start and stop match locations, with graphing. Therefore, I match all of these people that have a common ancestor.

Each match overlaps the one above and below to come extent – and often by a lot. These are known as triangulation groups (TG).

However, the top match and the bottom match do not overlap, so they don’t triangulate with each other. They are still valid triangulated matches to me and you can expect to see this kind of matching when using aggregated data.

Understand that when you see your triangulation groups at GedMatch, your mother’s side and your father’s side will be intermixed. In this case, I know the common ancestor and I know many of these testers, so I’m positive that this is a valid grouping (plus, they all match my Mom too – the best test of all.)

Here’s another example only showing three matches. All three are triangulated to me through the same ancestor, but the locations of the top and bottom matches don’t overlap with each other. Both overlap the one in the middle in part.

New Ancestor Discoveries – Not Evidence at All

Let’s look at the third reason for DNA testing.

3. I want to find new ancestors.

Discovering brand new ancestors is a bit tougher.

There are two ways to discover new ancestors. The first is through triangulation combined with traditional genealogy. I have done this, but in these cases, I did have a clue as to what I was looking for. In other words, the new ancestor I discovered was actually confirming a wife’s surname or identifying the parents of an ancestor from several potential candidate couples.

The second way to potentially discover a new ancestor is Ancestry’s New Ancestor Discoveries, NADs, which is really a somewhat misleading name. What Ancestry has determined is that you match a group of people who share a common ancestor – and Ancestry’s leap of faith is that you share that ancestor do too. While that may not be correct, what IS very relevant is that you do match this group of people who DO share a common lineage and there is an important hint there for you someplace! But don’t just accept Ancestry’s discovery as your new ancestor – because there is a good chance it isn’t. Let’s take a look.

Ancestral Lines Through Triangulation

Let’s go back to the John Doe example.

Let’s take the worst case scenario. You’re an adopted and have no information. But you match an entire group of people in a triangulated group who DO know the identity of their common ancestor.

Does this mean that John Doe is your ancestor? No. John Doe could be your ancestor, or he could be the brother of your ancestor, or the uncle of your ancestor. What this does tell you is that either John Doe is your ancestor, some of John Doe’s ancestors are your ancestors, or you are extremely unlucky and you are matching this entire group by chance. The larger the segment, the less likely your match will be by chance. Over 10 cM you’re pretty safe on an individual match and I think you’re safe with triangulated groups well below 10 cM.

Ancestry’s New Ancestor Discoveries

You can make this same type of discovery at Ancestry, but it’s not nearly as easy as Ancestry implies in their ads and you have no segment data to work with, just their match, shown below.

“Just take the test and we’ll find your ancestors,” the ad says. Well, yes and no and “it depends.”

Ancestry went out on a limb a few months ago, right about April Fools Day, and frankly, they fell off the end of the branch by claiming that New Ancestor Discoveries are your missing ancestors found. While that is clearly an overly optimistic marketing statement, the concept of matching you with people you match who all share a common ancestor is sound – it was the implementation and hyper-marketing that was flawed.

The premise here is that if you match people in a Circle that have a common ancestor, that you too might, please note the word might, share that ancestor – even if that person is not in your tree. In other words, even if you don’t know who they are. Just like the John Doe triangulation example above.

Here is my connection to the Larimer DNA Circle, even though I don’t know of a Larimer ancestor.

Now, the problem is that you might be related to an ancestor on one side upstream several generations, but it’s manifesting itself as a match to that particular couple because several people of that couple’s descendants have tested. I’ve shown an example of how this might work below.

In this example, you can see that your true common ancestor is unknown to both groups of people, but it’s not Mary Johnson and John Jones, or in my case, not John and Jane Larimer.

However, three descendants of Mary Johnson and John Jones tested, and you match all three. If you also showed Mary Johnson and John Jones in your tree, then you’d be in a Circle with them at Ancestry. However, since Mary Johnson and John Jones are NOT your ancestors, they are not in your tree. Since you match three of their descendants, Ancestry concludes that indeed, Mary Johnson and John Jones must also be your ancestors.

While NADs are inaccurate about half the time, the fact that you do share DNA with the people in this group is important, because someplace, upstream, it’s likely that you share a common ancestor. It’s also possible that you match these three people through unconnected ancestors upstream and it’s a fluke that they all three also descend from this couple. And yes, that does happen, especially when all of the people involved have ancestors from the same region.

The first day that Ancestry rolled the New Ancestor Discoveries, I was assigned a couple that could not possibly be my ancestors. I called them Bad NADs.

In my experience, there are more erroneous NADs out there than good ones. I knew my original one was bad, as I had proof positive because I have triangulated my other lines. Then, one day, my bad NAD was gone and now, a few weeks later, I have another assigned NAD couple that I have not been able to prove or disprove – the Larimers. Truthfully, after the bad NAD fiasco, I haven’t spent a lot of time or effort because without tools, there is no place to go with this unless the people I match will download their results to GedMatch. I’m hoping that a new tool to be released soon will help.

Here’s how NADs could be useful. Let’s say that my Larimer matches download to GedMatch and I discover that they also match a triangulated group from my McDowell line. Well, guess what – my Michael’s McDowell’s wife is unknown. Might she be a Larimer? Michael’s mother is also unknown. Might she be a Larimer? It gives me a line and a place to begin to work, especially if they share any common geography with my ancestors.

Even if the NADs aren’t my direct ancestors, this is still useful information, because somehow, I probably do connect to these people, even though my hands are somewhat tied. However, labeling them New Ancestor Discoveries encourages people to jump to highly incorrect conclusions. This isn’t even in the preponderance of evidence category, let alone proof. It’s information that you can potentially use with other DNA tools (at GedMatch) and old fashioned genealogy to work on proving a connection to this line. Nothing more.

So what is the net-net of this? Circles can count in the preponderance of evidence, especially in conjunction with other evidence, but NADs don’t. Neither are proof. If we were able to work with the segment data and compare it, we might very well be able to determine more, but Ancestry does not provide a chromosome browser, so we can’t.

Ancestor Chromosome Mapping

4. I want to map my chromosomes to my ancestors so that I know which of my DNA I inherited from each ancestor.

If this is your DNA testing goal, you certainly did not start by testing with Ancestry.com, because they don’t have any tools to help you do this. This tends to be a goal that people develop after they really understand what autosomal DNA testing can do for them. In order to map your genome, you have to have access to segment information and you have to triangulate, or prove, the segments to each ancestor. So count Ancestry out unless you can talk your matches into downloading their raw data files to either GedMatch or Family Tree DNA. You’ll be testing with both Family Tree DNA and 23andMe and downloading your match information to a spreadsheet and utilizing the tools at www.gedmatch.com and www.dnagedcom.com.

Just so you get an idea of how much fun this can be, here’s my genome mapped to ancestors a few months ago. I have more mapped now, but haven’t redone my map utilizing Kitty Cooper’s Tools.

Tips and Tricks for Contact Success

Regardless of which of these goals you had when you tested, or have since developed, now that you know what you can do – most of the options are going to require you to do something – often contacting your matches.

So join me in a few days for part two of Autosomal DNA Testing 101 – Tips and Tricks for Contact Success.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

African DNA in the British Isles

Posted on August 4, 2015 by Roberta Estes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interesting_Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Olaudah_Equiano, a slave, written and published in England in 1789

While the Slave Owner registers from 1834 in England and the recent project to index and study their contents has raised consciousness about slavery and how intertwined slavery was through Caribbean sugar production to all of the British Isles – DNA is telling a story too. While the slave owner registers speak to the ownership of slaves in the Caribbean by Britains, those weren’t the only slaves.

I have done several DNA Reports in past decade for people who received unexpected results. By unexpected results, I’m referring to clearly African haplogroups in Europe, primarily the British Isles, found in people who are just as clearly “white” today – and whose ancestors have been considered as such for generations. Furthermore, their autosomal DNA generally shows no trace or occasionally shows minute amounts of their African heritage, yet it is clearly there as proven by Y and mitochondrial DNA.

When these people are found in the US and their ancestors have been here for generations, especially in a slave-owning area, my first thought is always that perhaps the genealogy is in error – or that there was an undocumented adoption that would never show in genealogical records. But when the people are not in the US and their ancestors have never lived outside of Europe and are well-documented, the results are impossible to explain away or rationalize in that fashion.

I’m also not referring to haplogroup E-M215, old E1b1b or E-M35, old E1b1b1, which is known to be North African, or Berber, found in the Mediterranean basin. This haplogroup is found sparsely in England, likely due to the Roman legions who arrived and stayed or at least left some of their Y DNA behind. Steven Bird wrote the paper about this titled “Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement of Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Origin.”

I’m talking about haplogroups that are unquestionably sub-Saharan African in origin, such as Y DNA E-M2, old E1b1a now E-V38, and often, mitochondrial haplogroups such as L1, L2 and L3 – meaning that they originated with women, not men.

This begs the question of how those haplogroups came to be embedded in the British population long enough ago that there is no record that the people who carried them were not white. In other words, the person who brought that haplogroup to the British Isles arrived long ago, many generations.

I have always found this a bit confounding, because while England was indeed heavily intertwined in the slave trade, England never had the space or need to employ slaves in the way that they were engaged on large plantations in the Caribbean or in the Southern US. Furthermore, England had its own surplus of people they were trying to send elsewhere, which was one of the benefits of colonization. You could send your undesirables to populate your colonies. For example, those pesky recusant Catholics who refused to convert settled in Maryland. Many people convicted of small crimes, such as my Joseph Rash for stealing 2 bags of malt, were transported to the colonies, in his case, Virginia.

We know that there were some Africans in Elizabethan England, although those records are almost incidental, few and far between. Africans have been in England since the 12^th century, but it wasn’t until slaving began in earnest that their numbers increased. At this point, blacks in England were mostly novelties and were often owned by captains of slave ships and occasionally sold on the quay of coastal cities like Bristol.

Although not widespread, slavery was practiced in England until 1772, when the Somerset case effectively determined that chattel slavery was not supported by English law. This legally freed all slaves in England, if not in actual practice. Slaves in England at that time were mostly domestic servants and flocked to be baptized in the hope it would ensure their freedom. The good news is that those baptisms created records.

Buried in the details of the Somerset case and arguments are an important tidbits.

James Somerset, a slave, was purchased in Massachusetts and brought to England by his master, Charles Stewart. James escaped, was captured and was going to be shipped to the Caribbean by Stewart and sold as a plantation slave. However, while in England, James had been converted to Christianity and his three god-parents upon his baptism filed suit claiming that while he may have been a slave when brought to England, that English law did not support slavery and he was therefore not a slave in England and could not be shipped against his will to the Caribbean to be sold. This was not a humanitarian case, per se, but a case about law and legal details.

Somerset’s advocates argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law made by Parliament recognized the existence of slavery and slavery was therefore unlawful. The advocates also argued that English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person’s consent. When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart, the owner, put forth their case, they argued that property was paramount and that it would be dangerous to free all the black people in England, who numbered at the time approximately 15,000.

That’s the information I was looking for. There were 15,000 African or African descended slaves in England in 1772. Given that most were domestic servants, the females would have been subject to whatever their owner wanted to impose upon them, including sexual advances. Let’s face it, there were a lot more English men available in England than African men, so it’s very likely that the children of enslaved women would have been fathered by white men whether by consensual or nonconsensual means.

Their half white children would also have been enslaved, at least until 1772, and if they also bore children from an English male, their offspring would have been 25% African and 75% English. Within another generation, they would have looked “white” and their African heritage would have been forgotten – at least until their descendants eight or ten generations later took a mitochondrial or Y DNA test and turned up with confusing African results.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

William McNiel (c1760-c1817), Battle of Brandywine Survivor, 52 Ancestors #83

Posted on August 2, 2015 by Roberta Estes

Before we talk about William McNiel, let’s talk about the name McNiel, McNeil or however it’s actually spelled. The family story says that it was originally McNeil in Scotland, but that there were three brothers (yes, the three brothers story) and they argued on the way over to the colonies about religion. Our Reverend George McNiel changed his name from McNeil to McNiel so that his name would not be the same as his brothers. This sounds doubtful, because one Thomas McNiel is found in Spotsylvania County and is believed to be George’s brother. Had the three brothers gone their own way after a dispute serious enough to merit name changing upon landing on the colonial shore of Virginia, you wouldn’t think they would both choose to settle in the same county.

There are other versions of the name story in other lines of the family.

The family story goes on to say that Rev. George McNiel was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in Scotland but here in the US, converted to the Baptist faith and was ordained in that church in 1776. We have not one shred of evidence confirming any of this, and it’s not for lack of trying. The Reverend George is not mentioned in any of the Virginia Baptist or Presbyterian Church records that I’ve been able to find, and they do exist. I first find George mentioned as having preached at a Baptist church in Grayson County, VA, and then in Wilkes and surrounding counties. Note that Grayson was not formed until 1793 from Wythe which was formed in 1790 from Montgomery which was formed in 1777 from Fincastle which was formed in 1772 from Botetourt which was formed in 1770 from Augusta which was formed in 1738 from Orange County.

One story says that Rev. George met his wife, Miss Coates and married her in Grayson County, VA, but if that is accurate, given that they married pre-1760, then how did George’s son William get back to Spotsylvania County to serve in the Revolutionary war in 1777? Migration was east to west, not west to east. And Grayson County wasn’t formed until 30 years after they married, although someone could have been referring to a location that was located in Grayson County at the time they were speaking.

So, if the rumor about Miss Coates and Grayson County is true, and they married before William was born, then it would have had to have been in Augusta County prior to 1760, and there is absolutely no record of George McNiel, by any spelling, in Augusta County.

George may have converted to the Baptist faith about this time, and Miss Coates may not have been George’s first wife… We know George was eventually a Baptist preacher…of that we are sure. His name appears as helping form the Beaver Creek Church in 1779 and in various church and association records until his death. His grandson tells of him fighting the regulators in 1771 at Alamance Creek, after which he fled into Grayson County for safety for a short time, before returning to Wilkes County. However, much of the rest of the story doesn’t add up with the records we do have available.

William McNiel was born about 1760/61 or possibly earlier in Virginia, probably Spotsylvania Co. but we don’t really know for sure. One researcher gives his birth as Oct. 28, 1757 which could be true, but he doesn’t provide any source. It is about the right time.

We do know that William’s father, the Reverend George McNiel was in Spotsylvania County as early as 1754, according to court records where an apprentice was bound to him, so it’s likely that William was born in Spotsylvania County, especially since he served from there in the Revolutionary War some two decades later.

The Revolutionary War

The first hint we had the William McNiel served in the Revolutionary War was contained in a letter written in 1898 by George W. McNiel, Sr., son of Thomas McNiel who was a brother to our William McNiel. In the letter, which was about the Reverend George McNiel, he states, “His son, William McNeil, volunteered in the war of Revolution, and his son, Joseph McNeil said he would volunteer and go with William, but he was not old enough.” He goes on to say, about William, that he “moved to the State of Tennessee, Clayborn County.”

That confirms unquestionably that we are talking about the same William.

William McNiel’s records from the National Archives tell us the following:

William McNiel/McNeal/McNeil, born in 1760 in Spotsylvania County, served with Captain Thomas Posey’s Company, 7th Virginia Regiment (Company Pay Roll and Company Muster Rolls are dated 1777 and spell his last name McNiel, McNeal, and McNeil), commanded by Col. Alexander McClennahan. His papers say that he is being paid from June 77 through Nov. 1777 and that he is in a rifle regiment. He is paid 6 and 2/3 dollars for one month’s pay. On his November 1777 pay voucher, it says on the bottom that he enlisted in the Light Horse service the last of November, so he may have actually served longer in a different unit. This does tell us one thing…he had a horse.

On September 11, 1777, William McNiel participated in his first battle of the Revolutionary war at the Battle of Brandywine, PA. Brandywine would become the largest Revolutionary war battle fought in the Northern Campaign. The battlefield is shown below.

“BrandywineFieldToday” by AlbertHerring at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

William fought for his life in this field.

The Virginia line was located on the right flank with 2 brigades from the Pennsylvania militia line. The Virginia line was to prevent a possible British flanking maneuver from both the North and South. The Virginians were unable to prevent the British from performing the flanking maneuver and were soon forced to retreat to a church on the battlefield named Birmingham Meeting House, shown below, in 1974.

At the Birmingham Meeting House, the Virginians put up their greatest stance against the British on a hill nicknamed Battle Hill. The British assaulted the Virginians at Battle Hill five times before the Virginians were forced to retreat.

“Brandywine Osborne’s Hill View” by Djmaschek – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

These Virginians had refused to give up an inch without a fight. After the battle the wounded were taken to Bennetts farm located 10 miles from Brandywine. William McNeil helped escort some of the wounded to Bennetts farm after the battle.

“Germantown” by Christian Schussele – Public Domain. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

William’s next battle was at the Battle of Germantown, depicted above, on October 4, 1777, less than a month after the Battle of Brandywine. At Germantown, the Continental army forced the British to barricade themselves into a mansion called Chew House, shown below.

“Cliveden-Chew-Front1” by Djmaschek – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Americans began firing their cannons. The Cannon fire was so loud that blood began to pour from the cannoners’ ears. The Continental soldiers were winning the battle until General Adam Stephens showed up in a drunken stupor and accidently began firing on the Continental line.

This was William McNeil’s last battle. He was probably very glad to go home. Any romantic veneer that warfare holds for an inexperienced young man was assuredly gone by now.

Moving to Wilkes County, NC

The Reverend George McNiel had moved to Wilkes Co. NC by 1778 and William likely accompanied George, given that William was as yet unmarried. George may have been traveling back and forth between Spotsylvania County and Wilkes County because there is a deed witnessed in Spotsylvania County in 1786 by George McNiel for John Shepherd. George’s son, William McNiel had married John Shepherd’s niece, Elizabeth Shepherd in 1781/1782 in Wilkes Co. NC. I’d wager that the Reverend George McNiel was the marrying minister.

The Robert Shepherd Bible states that the Shepherd family moved from Spotsylvania County to Wilkes County in December of 1777. It’s likely that William and the Reverend George McNiel both moved about this same time, perhaps with several families forming a wagon train for help and protection along the way. Maybe it was during this move that William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd began to court.

In 1783, William’s father, The Reverend George McNiel, was one of several families that established the church at Deep Ford Hill in Wilkes County on land owned by John Shepherd, adjoining the land of his brother Robert Shepherd, father of Elizabeth Shepherd, by then the wife of William McNiel.

William McNiel and his wife Elizabeth Shepherd were assuredly a part of this church as well as whatever organization unofficially preceded the official church formation. Neither the church, about where the gas stations sits today, nor the cemetery, where the trailer sits today in the photo below, still exist.

In Wilkes County Deed Book A1, Page 186 – In April of 1785, William McNiel witnessed a deed with Francis Kerby and Stephen Shepherd for a land sale between Owen Hall and John Shepherd Sr.

William McNiel first appears in Wilkes County tax records in 1786, he is living three houses away from his father, George McNiel. William owns no land until 1792, according to tax lists, by which time William has been married for about a decade.

In 1792-1793 he owns 60 acres, but then we don’t find William again on the Wilkes County tax list until 1797 when he owns 530 acres and he and his family are living beside Nathaniel Vannoy. William McNiel’s daughter, Lois, would marry Elijah Vannoy, Nathaniel’s nephew, around 1807.

It looks like William begins to accrue land about 1778, but he pays no taxes on land until 1792, so what happened to this land is a mystery. Perhaps he bought and sold it on speculation.

Land Entry Book, Wilkes County, NC 1778-1781, Page 337 – Sept 7, 1778 – Alexander Gilreath enters 100 acres on the north side of New River including Walls improvement. Alexander Gilreath marked out: Wm. Macniel written in.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol II, January 1785-November 1786 – October 24, 1787 – William NcNall serves on a jury. This entry is quite interesting, because at that time, one had to own land to serve on a jury, but the land and tax records don’t reflect that. Maybe William McNall is not the same person as William McNiel.

Wilkes County Deed Book D, Page 115 – on February 16, 1790, William McNiel witnesses a deed with Nathaniel Judd and William McQueary from James Sartain and Robert Shepherd for 70 acres on both sides of the south fork of Reddies River. Robert Shepherd is William McNiel’s father-in-law.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol III, April 23, 1792 – Ordered John Robins, Jr, Robert Sheppard, William McNiel, John Sheppart Sr, Rowland Judd Esq, Rowland Judd, Nathaniel Judd, Asel Cross, Stephen Sheppard, John McQuary Sr, John McQuary, James McNiel, David Owen Sr, John Judd, John Trye appointed a jury to view road from Deep Ford on Redes River to Elijah Denneys over said River.

In 1792, William McNiel serves on a jury and is assigned with Francis Vannoy, James McNeil, Robert Sheppard and others to view the road round Samuel Carter’s Mill pond where water overflows on Redies River.

Wilkes County Will Book 1, February 4, 1793 – William McNiel along with John Sheppard Jr. and Stephen Shepherd witnessed a power of attorney from James Brown from the state of Georgia to Robert Shepherd to convey unto John Forester 200 acres of land and 100 ac whereon Fielding Forester and Benjamin Bruce now live.

Wilkes County, Deed Book D, Page 360 – February 17, 1794 William McNiel along with William Colvard and Samuel Robinett witnessed the sale of land between Rowland Judd and James Shepherd, 150 acres above the mouth of Mill Creek.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – In November, 1795, William McNeil, Esq., swears an oath relative to a deed from Thomas Robins to John Forester. Note that now William is referred to as Esquire, a title of rank, respect or office.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On February 4, 1796, William McNiel along with James McNiel, Robert Sheppard, Francis Vannoy, John Sheppard and others is assigned to view the road from oldfields on New River to the Puncheon Camp on the ridge.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On August 2, 1796, William McNeil overseer on the road from Punchen Camp Creek to Oldfields on New River.

Wilkes County Court Minutes Vol IV – On January 31 ,1797, William McNiel serves on a jury.

Wilkes County Court Minutes, January 25, 1797 – Ordered that William McNeil be appointed Collector Capt. Judd’s District instead Samuel Burdine. That William would be appointed tax collector indicates he is well-respected and trusted.

In 1799 Ashe Co. NC was formed from part of Wilkes and we find William living in that area.

In 1799, William McNeil obtains land grant, and this grant suggests that he has other grants or has purchased other land and his new grant abuts that land. The New River runs on the north side of the mountains in what is now Ashe County.

Page 734 – June 17, 1799 – NC Grant No 1877 to William McNeil for 73 acres on the South fork of the New River with his other lines.

Abstracts of Wilkes County Land Grant Files – File 1586.5 William McNiel received grant #1877 dated June 7, 1799 for 73 acres of land on the north side of the south fork of New River at his other line. This is based on warrant/entry number 506 dated Sept 2, 1794. The grant itself is recorded in book #104, page 21. Chain carriers were James McNiel and Thomas Caloway.

Page 754 – June 7, 1799 – NC Grant # 1878 to William McNeil 100 acres on the north side of the South Fork of New River, conditional line between James Calloway and McNeil. Notice this grant is consecutively numbered after his first grant.

Abstracts of Wilkes County Land Grant Files – File 1587.5 – William McNiel received grant no #1878 dated June 7, 1799 for 100 acres of land on the north side of the south fork of New River adjoining James Calloway. Based on warrant/entry number 505 dated Sept. 3, 1794. Grant is recorded in book 104, page 21. James McNiel and Thomas Calloway chain carriers.

I don’t know exactly where this land was, but I do have a suspicion.

The New River is in what is now Ashe County, which was formed in 1799. The Shepherd family lived all along what is the north fork of Lewis Creek which reaches almost the entire way to the top of the mountains where the Blue Ridge Parkway is today. Calloway Gap is the way through the mountains to descend into the South Fork of the New River on the other side. The map below shows present day Ashe County with Wilkes directly below. The Purlear area on 16 is the area where the Shepherd’s lived and where the Deep Ford Hill and Church was located.

The map below shows the South Fork of the New River at the top arrow, Calloway Gap at the middle arrow, and the uppermost part of the North Fork of Lewis Creek at the bottom arrow. These locations really aren’t terribly far apart – well – if you’re a crow.

Ironically, I have driven this section of the Blue Ridge Parkway, but it was years before I realized the connections I had here. At that time, the connection that drew me back year after year was purely in my heart.

Wilkes County Deed Book F1 – Page 189 – October 13, 1803 – From George Lawreance to William McNiel of Ashe County, NC for $400, 320 acres on the south fork of Lewis Fork…top ridge…Beech Hill. Signed by George Lawrence and witnessed by Joseph McNiel, Thomas McNiel and George McNiel.

Page 131 – October 8, 1804 – From William McNiel to Isaiah Case for $400, 320 acres on the south fork of Lewis Fork, signed by William and witnessed by Andrew Vannoy and Joel Vannoy.

In 1805, William McNiel lost his father. Reverend George died on June 7, 1805. He was likely buried the next day in what is known as the McNiel Burying Ground in Parsonville, NC – on his land on Lewis Creek. William would have been about 45 years old. William was lucky to have his father as long as he did, but that doesn’t make the pain of his death any less.

William McNiel serves as the administrator of his father’s estate, as shown in the Wilkes County Will Book 2 Abstracts, entry 245. At the August court term in 1808, William submits the inventory of the estate of George McNiel and wife, 1 negro man at 35 pounds VA money and 1 negro girl at 40 pounds VA money – signed William NcNiel administrator. I’m unclear as to the meaning of “and wife” and have asked a historian at the archives in Raleigh to check this original record.

In February 1810, William moved back to Wilkes County from neighboring Ashe County and purchased 150 acres on the North Fork of Lewis Creek, probably not far from where the Reverend George McNiel had lived.

Wilkes Deed book G and H, Page 178 – February 3, 1810 – From James Steward and William McNiel of Ashe County NC for $200, 150 acres on the waters of the North Fork of Lewis Fork, it being the place where William Yates now lives. Signed by James Steward and witnessed by Alexander Brown and Thomas Brown.

The last record in Wilkes County of William is the land record where he sells the land “where he lives” to his daughter Lois, and son-in-law, Elijah Vannoy. There is a persistent rumor that Elijah and Lois had eloped. If that is true, then apparently things had been smoothed over by 1810 – or William was resigned to their marriage since it was a done deal and they had children by then.

Wilkes Deed book G and H, Page 175 – December 31, 1810 between William McNeel and Elijah Vannoy for $250, 150 acres on Boller Creek, a fork of Lewis Fork, place where William McNeel now lives. Witness John Forrester and John Forrester Jr. Signed by William McNeel.

Taking a look at a current map today, there is a Boiling Springs Road that runs along a branch that dumps into Lewis Fork – so I’m betting this is where William’s land was located.

Crossroads

William is facing a crossroads. His father has died. We believe his mother died in the late 1780s, so there is nothing to hold him in Wilkes County now. Furthermore, his own children are marrying as well. Sarah has probably married Joel Fairchild, Lois has married Elijah Vannoy, George has married Nancy Baker.

If William is ever going to move west and settle elsewhere, he has to be doing that pretty soon, or forever lose the opportunity. I have to ask myself, what would possibly cause a man who is comfortably established at about age 50, a landowner, to up and sell everything to move to the undeveloped frontier to find himself chopping original growth trees down on rough mountainsides – 30 years after he did it the first time.

Was this the pioneer equivalent of a mid-life crisis? Instead of a new girlfriend and a corvette, you strike out to homestead new land and chop trees to prove your strength and youthful vigor???

Or was it because his children could not afford land in Wilkes County, so the entire family went where land was more affordable? Was leading the way William’s way of preventing his family from being split as his children would assuredly leave for parts unknown, one by one, being scattered to the wind? Did he hear his three married children discussing moving westward to settle and decide that he could either lead or get left behind?

One thing is for sure, a large group of Wilkes County families wound up in the same five or 6 mile radius (area of about 6 (NS) x 16 (EW) miles) of northern Claiborne County on both Little Mulberry Creek and Blackwater between Wallen Mountain and Newman’s Ridge about this same timeframe – so it must have been a much discussed destination location.

On To Claiborne County, Tennessee

By about 1811 or so, William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel would leave Wilkes and Ashe County forever, moving to Claiborne County, Tennessee. Elizabeth, now age 44 or 45 would have her last child about the time they set out on their journey. The McNeil book by Hayes says that William’s children were all born in Wilkes with the possible exception of William, their 10th child.

All of their married children and spouses accompanied them as well. No child left behind.

There is a very interesting story about how this caravan of settlers got to Tennessee. Elijah Vannoy’s daughter said they traveled by flatboat and the journey took two years. This story is told in detail in the Elijah and Joel Vannoy stories, as Joel Vannoy, Elizabeth and William’s grandson, was reportedly born during this journey to Lois McNiel and Elijah Vannoy.

By 1816, the family was definitely living in the Claiborne/Lee Co. area of Tennessee, purchasing land on the North side of Powell Mountain near Mulberry Gap and then later, in the Pleasant View area. In his only transaction in the new neighborhood, William witnesses a land sale to his son George.

In 1816 Levi Carner sells to George McNiel a tract of land lying on the N side of Powell Mountain near Mulberry Gap containing 69 acres for $525. Signed in the presence of William McNiel, James Anderson and Burrell G. Sullivant.

In 1817, Levi Keanus sells land to Neal McNeal on Mulberry Creek adjacent Josiah Ramsey. Joel Fiarchild, William McNiel and John NcNeal all sign as witnesses. However, in 1823 when this deed was registered, the sale was proven by the oath of Joel Fairchild.

In 1819 George McNiell to John Stokely part of land where McNiel now lives lying in Claiborne on Mulberry which was sold to John McKean, 5 acres to include storehouse.

There is no 1820 Claiborne census and William is not shown in the 1830 census. Elizabeth is shown in 1830 but not in 1840. Were William or Elizabeth, his widow, alive, they would have surly filed for a Revolutionary War pension based on William’s service when pensions became available by an act of Congress on June 7, 1832.

I’m fairly certain William was gone by May of 1823 when William Inglebarger sells land to Neal McNeal and the transaction is signed by his mother, Elizabeth, his uncle, John McNeil and Joel Fairchild. None of the witnesses can write and all signed with an X.

By 1834, the McNiel family, William’s children, were selling their land on Mulberry Creek and was buying land on Little Sycamore Creek, about 17 miles away.

Elijah Vannoy and Lois McNiel’s son, Joel Vannoy would follow to Little Sycamore some years later, in the 1860s. Eventually, the Vannoy and McNiel families would comprise a big part of the Little Sycamore population.

In 1834, Nancy Hill, widow and her children sold the lands of James Hill decd to Neal McNiel, land lying on the waters of Little Sycamore Creek of the Clinch River.

In 1830 John Carmack conveyed the lands on the waters of Little Sycamore to John McNeil.

In 1848 Neal S. McNiel sells to John McNiel Sr. the land in Claiborne County District 8 containing by estimation 820 acres – William Houston’s corner of one of his Joab Hill tracts and near Peter Peck’s corner to the old James Hill line to a stake in John Bartlett’s line. Witness RC McNiel.

Obviously Neal had accumulated quite a bit of land.

Since we don’t know when William died, we also can’t pinpoint where he was buried. William is very likely buried on his son Neil’s land or the Elijah Vannoy land in Hancock County. The Vannoy and McNiel families lived adjacent in what is how Hancock County and in the 1830 census, Elizabeth, William’s widow is living on her son Neil McNiel’s land.

Touring the Neighborhood

In the article about Elizabeth Shepherd, we found the land in Hancock County (formerly Claiborne) where Neal McNiel was living in the 1830s when his mother, Elizabeth, William McNiel’s widow, was living adjacent to him, according to the census. We know that William was gone by then. Our last whisper of William McNiel in Claiborne County was in September of 1817 when he witnessed a deed for his sons. If William died then, he left Elizabeth with son William Jr., probably just a toddler, and children from that age to adulthood. Her survival at that time probably depended heavily on her adult children and

There are so many questions that remain. For a man who was quite involved in real estate and owned land in Wilkes County, why did he purchase none in Claiborne? His sons did. Did he give his sons or his children money and decide simply to live on their land until his death? Was he ill or injured?

This location in Turner Hollow is where Niel McNiel’s land was located, and William’s son-in-law, Elijah Vannoy owned land located at the red balloon. It’s a good bet that William lived with one or the other, or someplace in-between.

Recently, my cousin Dolores was kind enough to take pictures of the land in this area when she visited on a genealogy adventure. Thank you so much cousin Dolores.

To help understand what you are looking at the next few photos, let’s first look at the map of the landowners in the area. The dot on the map above in Turner Hollow is the land shown on the map below.

Cousin Dolores took the following photo from Eli Davis’s land looking toward Wallen’s ridge, meaning that she was most likely looking right at and across Niel McNiel’s land.

This next photo is Back Valley Road near Fortner, which is shown on the following map.

This location would have been on Niel McNiel’s land

So if William didn’t live on this land, he certainly saw it regularly and it probably looked much the same then as it does now.

I wonder if old William can see us today viewing the same vistas that he looked at as he looked over these fields.

Did he look at these mountains and think about Wilkes County?

I want to drink in what he saw and I’d so like for him to tell me about these fields and lands himself.

The hills in this area are more rolling than the land in Wilkes County. This could have been part of the allure of moving.

Nothing more American than barns – although William’s barn, if he had one, would have been much smaller.

William is assuredly buried here someplace, but where? There is a Davis family cemetery on the Eli Davis land.

What a beautiful place to spend your life, not to mention resting eternally. He is assuredly buried someplace on these lands.

I don’t know, but I suspect that William died about 1817. He stopped witnessing things and being involved in any way. He had a long history of public service in Wilkes County and there is no reason to think that would change unless his health changed. Secondly, his daughter Lois named a son born about 1816 William Vannoy. William may not have gotten to spend much time living in Claiborne, now Hancock, County at all.

William’s Children

Many of William’s children carried on the tradition of local involvement and public service.

Sarah or Sallie McNiel, named after Elizabeth’s mother and possibly William’s mother as well, was born about 1784 and married Joel Fairchild in Wilkes County. They moved to Claiborne County where Sallie died on January 2, 1861 and is buried in the Fairchild Cemetery in Hancock County. She had 5 children.
George McNiel, named after William’s father, was born on September 21, 1786 in Wilkes County and died in 1870 in Claiborne County, TN and is buried in the McNiel Cemetery, probably on his own land. He married Nancy Baker in Wilkes County in 1809, having 11 children, and married Matilda Yeary in 1845, having two more children. Where he lived when he died is unknown but the land he purchased in 1816 was near Mulberry Gap on Powell Mountain.
Lois McNiel born about 1786 and married Elijah Vannoy about 1807 in Wilkes County. Lois died in the 1830s in Claiborne, now Hancock, County, TN. She had 10 children.
Neil McNiel was born about 1792 in Wilkes County and died in 1839 in Claiborne County, TN. He is likely buried on his own land, but whether he is buried in Hancock County or in Claiborne in the Little Sycamore Community is uncertain. Neil married Elly Ramsey, daughter of Josiah Ramsey, pioneer settler of the Ramsey family and neighbor. They had only three known children, although there were likely more. Elly is likely buried in the old Josiah Ramsey cemetery, and Niel could be buried there beside her.
Mary was born about 1792 in Wilkes County. She married Robert Campbell in 1817 in Claiborne County and died in 1881 in Bradley County, TN. I show only one child for her, Anderson, but I have a very difficult time believing she didn’t have additional children.
Nancy McNiel born in 1794 in Wilkes County married Alexander Campbell in 1815 in Claiborne County and is shown with only 3 male children. She died in 1839 in Hancock County.
John McNiel was born July 1, 1803 in Ashe County, NC and died in 1882/1883 in Claiborne County. In 1824 he married Elizabeth Campbell, sister to the spouses of two of his siblings. They had 8 children.

Elizabeth McNiel, named after her mother, born between 1800 and 1810 married Andrew McClary. The 1840 census shows them with 2 daughters, but I can’t find the family in 1850.
Jesse McNiel born about 1806 in Ashe County, died in 1890 in Claiborne County and married Bettie Campbell in June 1837. I have no information about their children. In the 1850 census, Jesse is living with his brother. I don’t find him in the 1860 census.
William McNiel, named after his father, was born about 1812, although where is uncertain. He could have been born in Claiborne County. In 1839 he married Nancy Gilbert and in 1849, he married Nancy Carter. I have no record of children for William and I do not find him in the 1850 census, although in 1860 we do find him in Hancock County with 3 children and he lists his birth location as Tennessee.

Some of William’s children were merchants in the small town of Sneedville, as told in various local history books.

At Greasy Rock, later known as Sneedville, Hancock Co., a store was opened in front the of the dwelling of Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell facing Main St. by Robert and Alexander Campbell and William and John McNeil with William McNeil as manager. John McNeil eventually settled on Little Sycamore in Claiborne County where he was engaged in farming.

Little Sycamore Baptist Church in Claiborne County was built on land donated by John McNiel in 1840. John NcNiel was trustee and the leading man in the organization and in the affairs of the church until his death in 1882. The original church was built of logs and the plaster on the walls was mixed with cow hair to hold it together. The hair came from John McNiel’s tannery nearby. Members would come to church in the daylight, but would return home in the dark by the light of pine torches.

The church was used during the Civil War as a hospital for wounded Confederate soldiers. Local people came to help tend the wounded. Those who died were buried in the cemetery above the church, but some were removed and taken to their homes after the war. I would not be the least bit surprised if John weren’t buried in that same cemetery

William’s son, John, seemed to have taken after his father in a number of ways – not the least of which was in the establishment of a Baptist church.

DNA

I was very fortunate that a McNiel cousin was willing to DNA test several years ago. To date, there is still only one known cousin who has tested. Ironic given that the Reverend George McNiel had many children and descendants.

However, that known cousin has several matches that are quite interesting and prove that other McNiel families, by other spellings, in other places are indeed from the same original family line.

Thomas McNeil married in 1750 Rombout, NY
Hugh Neel b 1750 Ireland
William McNeill b 1851 Blackbraes, Stirlingshire (a mining location in the central lowlands of Scotland)
Shamus O’Neal b 1775 County Mayo
Aystin McGreal b 1780 County Mayo
Maurice McNeely from County Antrim, Northern Ireland
Roger McNally from County Monaghan, Ireland (border between Northern Ireland and Ireland)

There are really two things I’d like to solve utilizing DNA.

First, was Thomas McNiel in Spotsylvania County the brother of Reverend George McNiel? Maybe better stated, do they share a common paternal ancestor? Clearly Y DNA testing cannot prove that Thomas was George’s brother, but it can certainly prove that he wasn’t. Thomas is believed to have migrated to Caswell County, NC where he died before December of 1781. He had sons, John, Thomas and Benjamin. Several years ago, I was corresponding with a lady who descended from this line and there were males at that time.

I would very much like to confirm Thomas as a probable brother to George, or put that speculation to rest forever.

Looking at my cousin’s Y matches, I don’t see any evidence that Thomas’s line has tested nor do I see any matches to that line on his Family Finder results.

I then checked the Family Finder results of other McNiel descendants – and found no matches to the Thomas of NC either. However, there’s nothing to indicate his line has ever tested.

I checked Y search, and no McNiel’s are found by any surname spelling who descend from Thomas.

I checked the MacNeil Y DNA project to see if someone listed Thomas, and so far, nothing, although there are several who list no “most distant ancestor” information, and Thomas could be one of those lines.

I decided to do a search at Family Tree DNA, utilizing their new search function, on Thomas McNiel who married Ann Tolbert to see if anyone has a tree uploaded on Family Tree DNA who descends from this man – and there are at least two – although we can’t tell is this is a Y, mitochondrial or autosomal test. I sure wish there was a way to contact these people, but as of today, there isn’t, nor is there a way to determine if you match these people aside from going through each and every tree that has a McNiel listed in the matches list under ancestral surnames.

Secondly, I very much want to match a McNiel who knows where their family was from in the British Isles – and I don’t mean a large city. What I’m looking for is the ancestral village.

When I look at my cousins matches, he has Y DNA matches with several O’neals, some Neils and Neills, a couple McNeills, one McNellis, one McNece, one McNally, one McNeely and a McGreal from County Mayo – but no specific location in County Mayo is listed.

County Mayo is in the western part of Ireland and is not in the English plantation area which is today, Northern Ireland.

Then, we also find County Antrim in Northern Ireland, County Monaghan in Ireland, bordering Northern Ireland and then Stirlingshire in Scotland. Certainly nothing definitive.

If you look at my McNiel cousin’s 67 marker European matches, you’ll see the following map.

This northern Ireland location is very suggestive of an ancestral location for our McNiel line, but the Mc part of McNiel suggest perhaps Scots-Irish, as does the northern Ireland grouping of matches. Northern Ireland was the Ulster Plantation region.

We’ve made progress over the years, but we’re just not quite there yet.

Hope springs eternal.

I guess one might say that the paternal McNiel ancestors “got around,” leaving their DNA scattered across Ireland and Scotland and the name spelled just closely enough to be confusing – and intriguing! Nothing like a good family mystery to peak your curiosity!

Of course, with this line being descended from Niall of the 9 Hostages, it’s possible that some of these various lines simply adopted the surname based on their ancestral heritage and are not actually descended from a common ancestor since the advent of surnames. Generally, when people of the same surname match, the assumption is that the common ancestor is since the adoption of surnames…otherwise the surnames wouldn’t match. In this case, with the widespread fame of Niall of the 9 Hostages, I don’t think the common surname can be assumed to mean that the common ancestor occurred after the adoption of surnames. Leave it up to my family to cast doubt where others find certainty!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers