Milestone 5000

double helix band

In our personal lives, we have milestones.  Some milestones we work towards and others happen, whether we do anything or not – like birthdays.

Some birthdays are considered milestone birthdays – like – when I was a kid – 16 – because it brought with it the freedom of driving.

On the night of April 19, 2015, sometime in the darkest hours of overnight (at least here in the US,) the www.DNA-explained.com blog reached a blogging milestone of sorts – 5000 subscribers.  And those are just the folks I know about.  Blogging management software tells us how many subscribers via e-mail, Facebook and Twitter we have, but it doesn’t tell us how many people are following us by RSS feeds.  I know there are quite a few, because one of the very first requests I received when I began the www.DNA-explained.com blog in July of 2012 was to set up the RSS feed subscription ability.

We also can’t tell how many times our article has been shared, reposted, tweeted and retweeted.

Bloggers using the WordPress platform have software that tells us how many page hits we receive, per day or per article, broken down in various ways.  Many people who subscribe via e-mail read the articles in their e-mail, so they don’t actually visit the page itself.  A normal day sees www.DNA-explained.com get about 10,000 page hits, so that’s in addition to e-mail subscribers.  A really popular or controversial article sends that off the charts.

The great irony is that when I started the blog, I wondered if even 100 people would be interested.  My real reason for creating the blog was so that I would have a public location to write about topics that I felt needed answers.  Additionally, I manage several projects at Family Tree DNA, and I wanted a way to provide information to project members about items such as sales and new features without having to send group e-mails to each project.  Why?  The Cumberland Gap projects have about 10,000 members between the Y and mtDNA groups, and sending that many messages with your e-mail address listed as the sender is a really good way to get your e-mail address blacklisted as a spammer. Blogging solves that problem, because I write it once and anyone who is interested can subscribe – and anyone who isn’t interested, isn’t bothered.

I started by taking the most common questions I received and writing the answer – one time – in the format of an article so that I can forever refer people to that article for the answer.  So you might say I started blogging in self-defense:)

From the beginning, I set up topic categories so that searching would be more effective.  (The blog is fully searchable.)  Categories are anything that might be a key word, like DNA types (Y, mitochondrial, autosomal), company names, or topics one might be searching for, like Native American, haplogroups or admixture.

What do you think the most viewed categories might be?

  • Autosomal
  • Family Tree DNA
  • Y DNA
  • 23andMe
  • Mitochondrial DNA
  • Admixture
  • Haplogroups
  • Native American

What are the most popular articles, over the entire timespan of the life of the blog?

Proving Native American Ancestry

Ethnicity Results – True or Not?

What is a Haplogroup?

Of course, these articles are older as well, so they have had more time to accumulate views.

I can tell you unequivocally that the article I refer people to the most to answer the question, “What kind of DNA test should I take?” is:

4 Kinds of DNA for Genetic Genealogy

I try to vary the types of articles from general interest to education to technical.  Previously, I wrote and published research articles in JOGG, but now I can publish just as effectively on my own blog, and write for a non-academic audience.

One of the really surprising things, to me, has been the popularity of my 52 Ancestors series.  I almost didn’t do this series.  I really didn’t think people would be terribly excited about reading about MY ancestors, even if they would also be ancestors to a few other people.  I was wrong.  People love stories.

I have written this series in my own voice – documenting the good, the bad and the ugly, warts and all – including the mistakes I’ve made, and I think I’ve made them all at least once.  Hopefully it will help someone else avoid those pitfalls.  I can’t begin to tell you how grateful I am for the many helpful suggestions I’ve received as a result of these articles.  Genealogists are overwhelmingly fantastic, sharing, people.

Every article in the series also ties to DNA, in some fashion.  How I’ve used it, how it could be used if I could find a proper test candidate, or why it can’t be used.  Case studies make great examples.  Twice now, I’ve had people reply and have found a suitable DNA candidate to represent an ancestral line.  So yes, these articles also serve as “cousin bait.”

I want to thank all 5000 of you e-mail subscribers plus the unknown number of RSS subscribers and everyone who reads this blog forwarded, reposted, retweeted or reblogged.  I hope you all enjoy reading the articles as much as I enjoy writing them.

Please feel free to share these articles with others so that we can continue to educate people about genetic genealogy.  There are still far more people out there that haven’t tested, than have.  Together, we can illustrate how genetic genealogy is a game changer – and hopefully whittle that number of genealogists who haven’t tested to zero.

Overly optimistic?  Possibly.  But hey, you have to have goals or you can’t achieve milestones!

______________________________________________________________

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

John Combs (1705-1762), Slave Owner, 52 Ancestors #68

John Combs is my most distant proven ancestor in the Combs line.  His daughter Luremia, married Moses Estes about 1762 in Amelia County, VA.

According to John Combs’ deposition given in 1745, he was about 40 years old, so he was born about 1705, probably in Virginia, but we don’t know for sure.  If he was born in Virginia, his father likely did not own property, because there is no Combs, or anything similar, on the list of 1704 Virginia Tax Rent Rolls of land owners.

Furthermore, I believe John had a brother, one George Combs, who was also born about that same time according to a different lawsuit.  Bless those chancery suits.

Most of what we know about John Combs came in bits and pieces and fits and starts and I’ve had to piece it together like a big jigsaw puzzle with no picture and a few strategic pieces missing.

It has been speculated that our John Combs, was the son of another John Combs, of Richmond, who was born about 1662, probably in Old Rappahannock County, VA and died in 1716/1717 in Richmond Co., VA., appointing John Anderson the executor of his will.  John Anderson is later found as a near neighbor to our John Combs in Prince George, then Amelia, County, VA.

However, John Combes of Richmond who died in 1716 does not mention a son John, nor a son George in his will.  It’s not terribly unusual for the eldest son to be omitted from a will, especially if he already has the family land, but for two sons to be omitted?

The 1715 Essex County, VA Rent Rolls include both Edmund Booker and John Combs of Richmond.  Mason Combs was the son of John of Richmond.  He, along with Edmond and Richard Booker later removed to Amelia County where they are found adjacent to land of our John Combs.  Even if our John is not the son of John of Richmond, he may well be related.  John of Richmond is the son of Archdale Combs, who also had a son, William and also possibly sons Charles, Abraham and Phillip.  Bottom line…we don’t know who our John’s father is.

John Combs in Amelia County

The first actual record we find of our John Combs is a land patent in 1732 on Flatt Creek in the part of Prince George County that would become Amelia in 1734.

Land Grant – John Combs, 400 acres (N.L) Prince George Co. on low side of Flatt Creek adjacent Edward Booker and Farguson’s lines, page 486, 40 shillings.  Sept. 28, 1732

We find John, for the rest of his life associated continuously with the Booker, Farguson, Elam, Cobbs, Jefferson and Anderson families and sure enough, his early neighbors on his Flatt Creek land were:

  • Edward Booker (1727 and 1732 grants)
  • John Anderson (1728 grant)
  • Benjamin Ward (1728 grant)
  • Samuel Cobbs (1732 grant)
  • John Farguson (1732 grant)
  • John Elam (1735 grant)
  • Field Jefferson (1733 grant)

This is the original home of Col. Edward Booker, now restored and functioning as a bed and breakfast, located at 11441 Grub Hill Church Road in Amelia County, photo compliments of Google Maps street view.

Combs Booker plantation

Field Jefferson, the Uncle of President Thomas Jefferson, owned land between Flatt Creek and Knibbs (Nibbs) Creek adjoining Col. Samuel Cobbs.

Finding the Booker land was a great help in locating the area where John Combs lived.  On the map below, the red balloon is the Edward Booker home.  To the far right, you can see where Flatt and Nibbs Creeks intersect.  Flatt Creek is the creek at the top, and Nibbs the one on either side of the Booker’s house.

Combs booker map

Highway 630, shown both above and below, running between the creeks, is Eggleston Road.  We know that the Eggleston land and the Booker land both abutted John Combs land, so John’s land was very likely in-between Eggleston Road and Booker’s plantation.

Combs booker map 2

Here’s a satellite image of the area.  You can clearly see the cleared areas where farming would have occurred.

Combs booker satellite

Joseph Eggleston built the plantation, “Eggleston,” shown below,  on the upper side of Knibbs Creek about 1750.  It’s very likely that John Combs stood in this very building.  He may even have helped his neighbor to build it.  Eggleston still exists today and is on the National Register of Historic places and Virginia Historic Landmarks.

Combs Eggleston plantation

The location of “Egglestetton” is shown in the application for the National Register of Historic Places, below.

Combs Eggleston plantation topo

You can see the Eggleston plantation today, at 16530 Eggleston Road, in perspective to the Booker plantation, below.  My guess would be that Combs land was the land directly between the two, or to the right, touching both.  The Eggleston plantation sits on only 16 acres today, so you can extrapolate the sizes of the original land grants based on the size of that plot.

Combs Eggleston to church

So, John lived someplace in this area, likely here.  Four hundred acres would be approximately the amount of land shown below between the bottom of the picture and the three roads.

Combs about 400 acres

In the 1742 court notes, we find the following entry:

1742, April 16 – Robert Forguson appointed surveyor from Combs bridge over Flatt Creek into the courthouse, John, Robert and William Forguson, John Combs and Richard Boram to do the same.

Looking at the Amelia County map, there are only two roads in this area with bridges across Flatt Creek that would allow George’s land to be located between Flatt and Nibbs Creeks, adjacent to Eggleston’s and also to Booker.  On the map below, the Eggleston plantation is marked as well as the church Cemetery.

Either the bridge over N Lodore Road or Grub Hill Church Road has to be the Combs bridge.  The N Lodore Road bridge does not go into Amelia Courthouse, but the Grub Hill Church Road does.  This is the only candidate to be John Combs road and bridge.

At court, in January 1747, John Booker requests that the road near his house on way to Richard Booker’s mill be stopped and the old road near John Comb’s be kept open and he agrees to build a bridge over the run near Comb’s house and keep it in repair.

In 1751, the court ordered Samuel Cobbs, Gent, the surveryor of the road which leads from the church to Ferguson’s bridge and his tithes to work on the same together with the tithes at Anderson’s quarter, Robert Ferguson’s Sr’s tithes, William Southal’s tithes, James Ferguson’s tithes and William Ferguson’s tithes…in order to make a causeway on the upper side of said bridge.  Given the map below, I wonder if the Grub Hill Church Road bridges over Flatt Creek was John Combs and the Lodore Road bridge was the Farguson’s.

Combs 2 Flatt Creek bridges

If the Grub Hill Church Road (609) bridge is John Comb’s bridge, then the land between the church and that bridge must have been John’s too.  Here’s a satellite view of this land between the intersection of N. Lodore Road (636) and John’s bridge on Flatt Creek.

Combs bridge2

Through the magic of Google Maps street view, we can “drive down” that road today and take a look, just the way John Combs would have done.  This is Grub Hill Church Road moving northeast towards  Flatt Creek.  You can see that this would be very desirable farmland, very nearly flat.

Combs - John farmland

In the distance you can see the tree line where Flatt Creek runs.

Combs - John's bridge

Here is John Combs bridge today.  I was extremely lucky to be able to use the road orders plus the remaining historical buildings and the church to piece together enough information to determine where John Combs land was located.  Now, of course, I want to visit.

In 1766, John’s son George Combs and his wife Phebe sell the 50 acres on the lower side of Flatt Creek to William Eggleston, saying it joins Joseph Eggeleston and William Eggleston’s lines, the land formerly belonging to John Booker.  He mentions it is also bounded by John Ferguson, which may turn out to be a really important clue.

John Combs’ Life and Times

Given that John Combs was born about 1705, he was likely married about 1730, just about the time he obtained the land grant.  His wife and the mother of his children, whose name is unknown, is very likely among the families that lived close by, but which family?

For a very long time I believed that she was a Booker, but I have tracked each of the Booker children and there is no unaccounted for child that is a candidate.  Of course, there is always the possibility of missing children, but that is less likely with wealthier families than poor ones.  More to lose.

John Combs is found serving jury duty in Amelia County beginning in 1736, a typical task for landowners.

In 1737, a George March/Marsh Combs appears in Amelia County records.  In 1737, one George Combs was tithed by John Combs, which means he was over the age of 16.  Is this John’s brother, George Combs, or is this someone else? March/Marsh may well be a clue to someone’s maiden name.

In 1755 a chancery suit tells us what George Combs, believed to be John’s brother, was doing in 1740.  We know that Field Jefferson was a near neighbor of John Combs.  This also provides insight into life in Amelia County in 1740.

Amelia Co. Chancery 1755-005 – Combs vs Jefferson (LVA roll 232-492)

January in the year of MCDCCXL (1740) in agreement was made and entered into by and between Field Jefferson whom your orator George Combs has made defendants to this bill and your orator, touching your orator’s becoming an overseer for the said Field Jefferson.  In which agreement it was properly stipulated by…for in consideration of a share of corn and tobacco should forthwith…ownership of the said defendants plantation in the county together with 5 working slaves thereon belonging to the said defendant in order to raise a crop of corn and tobacco.  By virtue of which…and agreement your entered on the said plantation as an overseer accordingly…during the space of two years and about ten months.  That your orator raised considerable crops of corn and tobacco with the said 5 slaves on said plantation for the first 2 years for which the defendant duly accounted and that in the third year he had raised and housed among other things a very large crop of tobacco which he had mostly in bulk and shipped of near a hogshead of the same under mike? And which he fully intended to finish or compleat according to the tenor of the said agreement that about 6 weeks before Christmas in the said third year, the said defendant without any application of previous notice to your orator sent for and ordered his said 5 slaves off the said plantation from under the care of your orator his said crop of tobacco being then in the above condition and unfinished and sent a tenant (one Benjamin Hawkins) to live upon and take possession of the said plantation which the said Hawkins accordingly did and there up your orator being deprived of the assistance of the said 5 slaves and ousted of the said plantation by the said defendant was forced to leave his said crop of tobacco upon the said plantation unfinished.  That your orator however well hoped and believed that the defendant would finish and take a just estimate and amount of his said crop of tobacco and duly pay and satisfy unto your orator his jut share and proportion of the same when he should be thereunto required.  But now so it is may please your worships that the said def and although often in a friendly manner thereto requested by your orator doth altogether refuse to account with your orator ? his shares of the said crop or in any manner satisfying him for the same.  All which actions and doing of the said def are contrary to the natural equity and good conscience and tend to the manifestation injury apprehension? and impoverishment of your orator. In tender consideration whereof and for that your orator is without remedy and in the premises? Of the strict rules of law he having no proof of the quantity of his said crop of tobacco and his evidence to the said agreement being either dead or beyond the seas and in part remote or unknown by the orator and for as much as he can only…as the defendant to set forth upon his oath and declare whether the agreement aforementioned was not entered into by and between himself and the said orator and whether he did not take the said five slaves and at what time from your orator as above set forth, his said crop being unfinished and whether he did not at the same time put a tenant, the said Hawkins, in possession of the said plantation and thereby oust your orator of his employment on the same.  What was the quantity of the tobacco your orator had made ? and left behind him on said plantation?  Whether your orator hath not often in a friendly manner requested the said def to settle with him for his share of the crop and whether he hath ever made him any just satisfaction for rendering him ? and that the def may fully and particularly answer all of the matters.

A note further down on the paper says “ and this complainant doth ? that his share of the aforesaid crop of tobacco for the year aforesaid amounts to 1/6th part to 7000 pounds of tobacco which this defendant prays may be ? to him.”

Next document

For not appearing to answer the bill of complaint of George Combs exhibited against him by the rule of court.

Ordered Field Jefferson on the 4th Thursday of December next

Next document

Feb Court 1755 George Combs vs Field Jefferson Plaintiff – The court this day heard and finds against the said def Field Jefferson to pay to the said George Combs 1176 pounds of tobacco being one sixth part of the tobacco mentioned in the bill.

John Combs’ daughter, Luremia was born about 1740 or 1742, given that she was married to Moses Estes about 1762, their oldest child George being born in February 1763.  I’ve always wondered why this child was named George and not John.  If they did have a John Estes, he died, although their grandson through George would be John R. Estes.  George Estes never knew his grandfather, John Combs, because John died the year before George was born.  I wonder if John Combs ever knew any of his grandchildren.

In 1745, John Combs gives a deposition in another chancery suit, Blake vs Tabb, wherein John states that he is about 40 years old, that he “assisted Frederick Blake away with his food? whom he removed from Capt. Tabbs plantation whereon he was overseer in cold weather and it snowed that night and snow was on the ground next morning. John “+” Combs (his mark) Sept 19th 1745.”

Based on the rest of the case, Blake was the overseer, not John Combs. The punctuation or lack thereof in these old cases is sometimes distressing.  We also now know that John Combs is not literate and cannot sign his name.  This does not suggest a wealthy or “gentlemanly” upbringing.

In November, 1747, John is appointed surveyor of the road where he lives in place of Edward Booker, Jr.  At that same court session, George Combs sues Robert Ferguson, Jr.

John continues to be in the court records on juries and such until 1750.

In 1749, John tithed 6 people, which could have been a combination of both white and black people.  We know that John owned slaves at this time, because in November, 1749, York, a negro boy belonging to John Combs was judged to be age 9 at court.

We originally believed that all of John’s children were born before November of 1750 when he married a second time to Frances Elam, who may have been a widow herself.   However, now there is doubt.  Don’t you just love genealogy, disproving what you think you knew!

September 11, 1750 (Amelia Marriages C:1) John Combs and Frances Elam. Sur. John Booker. Witness to bond, Samuel Cobbs and William May Cock.

In 1751 John Combs purchased another 50 acres on Flatt Creek from John Booker that was adjacent his own land.

In 1751 and 1752, John is listed in the estate account of Frederick Blake and appraised the estate of Michael Nowland, along with attending the estate sale.

In 1752 John Combs’ negro girl Sue is adjudged to be 12 years old. (AC-COB3:72)

This suggests that Sue may not have been born to John as an owner, because if she were, he would not have had to have the court judge her age unless it was simply to confirm what he said.  Slave’s ages were judged at court in order for them to be tithed, or taxed, when they reached a certain age.

In seventeenth and eighteenth-century Virginia, the term “tithable” referred to a person who paid (or for whom someone else paid) one of the taxes imposed by the General Assembly for the support of civil government in the colony. In colonial Virginia, a poll tax or capitation tax was assessed on free white males, African American and Native American slaves (both male and female), all age sixteen or older. Owners and masters paid the taxes levied on their slaves and servants, including indentured servants.  In 1680, the age that “negro children” were tithable was dropped to 12, “Christian servants” were taxed at age 14 and Indian women the same as negro women brought into the state of Virginia.  White women weren’t tithable, but women of color, both black and Indian, enslaved, bonded or free, were.

John Combes continues to be in the court record through 1754 when he purchased 303 acres in Lunenburg County from James Mathews of Lunenburg.  Although the deed does not identify this land, later processioning records do.  You can read more about this land in the article about Luremia Combs.

In 1754, George Combs was summoned at a witness for Field Jefferson against Benjamin Hawkins, 4 days attendance at court, coming and returning 28 miles.  This is very likely a chancery suit covered in this article and George is probably coming from Charlotte County.  The Fargusons are also summoned for this same case, also as witnesses for Field Jefferson.

In September 1754, the court orders John Combs to appraise the estate of Lucy Clark who is the sister of Edward Booker.  Generally there were three appraisers, someone from the wife’s family, someone representing the largest debtor and someone unrelated and disinterested.

In 1755, George Wainwright brings suit against John Combs for debt, and wins.

On February 26, 1756 the court ordered that John Combs clear the Road from Flatt Creek to the courthouse and that the male laboring tithables of Colonel Harrison be added to those already under his direction. (AC-COB4:32)

Four months later, on June 24, 1756 in the court record we find a presentment of the Grand Jury against John Combs for not keeping the road whereof he is surveyor in repair. (AC-COB4:73)

Given that John bought land in Lunenburg in 1754, but continues to appear in the Amelia County records in 1755 and 1756, he may well have not actually moved.  I find it hard to believe the court would order someone who didn’t live there to clear the road.

In 1758, during the French and Indian War, the House of Burgesses passed an act for the defense of the frontier.  A list of men from Amelia County in included, but John Combs is not among them.  At age 53, he may have been considered too old.

In 1762, John Combs died at about age 57 – clearly not an old man, and apparently with some children still at home.  He died intestate, without a will, so his death was likely unexpected.

28 May 1762. Inventory and Account of estate of John Combs. Administratrix: Frances (X) Combs. Returned & recorded May 27, 1762. Witnesses: Wm. Eggleston, John Booker, Edward Booker. Value: 259/5/1-1/2. Slaves: Negro boy Ned and Negro man Harry. (Will Book 2X:18 Amelia County, Virginia. Gibson Jefferson McConnaughey)

  • 15 pigs
  • Four basins
  • Four dishes
  • 11 plates
  • 15 spoons
  • 1 skimer
  • 10 forks and six knives
  • 3 trays
  • 4 bottles
  • 1 butter pot
  • 1 iron
  • 2 slays
  • Loom and harness
  • 2 sack bags
  • 4 pails
  • 4 reep hooks
  • Iron pots and hooks
  • 1 flesh fork and skimmer
  • 1 mans saddle
  • 3 wheels
  • 3 washing tubs
  • 1 grindstone
  • 39 pieces of bacon
  • 7 joles of bacon
  • Some soap and barrel
  • 1 barrel
  • 1 ? pot
  • 10 pounds fat
  • 3 old sifters
  • 1 gum 1 box
  • Part of sides of leather
  • 2 sides, bed cord
  • 1 old blanket
  • Cart and wheels
  • 1 gun
  • Parcel of old iron
  • 2 drawing knives
  • 3 augers
  • 2 adz
  • 1 iron
  • 1 hammer
  • 3 files, 3 chisels, 1 gouge, 1 hand saw, 1 stock and bit, rule and ? of compasses, 3 gimblets, 1 old lock, 1 pair of fleams, 1 all, 1 parcel of brimstone – from 3 files to here is listed together
  • 4 axes
  • Hatchet
  • 4 iron wedges
  • 1 iron sadle
  • 5 hilling hoes
  • 1 gurbbing hoe
  • 1 band hoe
  • 4 harrow hoes
  • 4 plow? Hoes
  • 2 old brass kettles
  • 20 barrels corn
  • 14.5 barrels wheat
  • 9 old casks
  • 6 bushels oats
  • 1 box
  • 1 white horse
  • 1 bayhorse
  • 1 gray horse
  • 1 gray mare
  • 3 bells
  • Parcel of Harness
  • 1 bed rug blanket
  • 2 sheets and bed cord, piller and matt
  • 1 bed bolster piller
  • 3 chest locks
  • 1 basket and a parcel fo flax
  • 1 trunk
  • 3 pair cards
  • 1 box and some spun cotton
  • 1 basket and cotton
  • 1 jug
  • 1 bag and wool
  • 5 chairs and 1 table
  • 7 books
  • 3 yards linen
  • 1 looking glass
  • 1 bed run blanket, pair sheets, bolster piller , cowhide bedsted and cord (one parcel of goods)
  • 1 chest
  • Two bowls, 1 mug, 1 salt seller, pepper box and shears, 2 pair scissors (one parcel goods)
  • 1 candlestock
  • 2 flat irons
  • 1 sword bayonet cartouch box
  • 1 negro boy named Ned
  • 1 negro man named Harry
  • 1 table cloths and 1 bag
  • 1 yearling
  • 1 cart and wheels
  • Parcel of fowls
  • Plow hoe
  • Harness
  • Two cow hides
  • Two slays and harness
  • Candlestick
  • 5 books
  • One pair money scales
  • Razor straps
  • 2 cups
  • 2 galley pots
  • Four vials on pepper box
  • 5 chairs
  • Hone warping bars and boxes and meal tub
  • One bedsted and one chest and oaks
  • One cradle
  • Parcel shoe leather
  • Parcel carols
  • Parcel corn
  • Parcel pork and tub lard
  • Parcel tallow and one table
  • One hh?
  • Parcel beef and one pigeon
  • One tub and two hoes
  • 5 knives and forks
  • 1 frying pan
  • 1 side leather and one horse skin

William Eggleston
John Booker
Edward Booker

Signed by Frances Combs, admin, her mark
Ordered recorded May 27, 1762

Amelia County Tax lists exist for the next few years and give us a perspective on the Combs family.

1762 – Combs

  • Frances tithes – Thomas Tabb’s List, Raleigh Parish [between Flatt Crk & Appomattox River]
  • George – Ditto
  • Philip – John Winn & Hampton Wade’s List, [middle & lower end?] Nottoway Parish

1763 – Combs

  • Frances tithes – Capt Edmd Booker’s List, Raleigh Parish, the upper side of Flat Creek
  • George – Ditto
  • Philip – Thomas Bowrey’s List, the lower part of Nottoway Parish

Given that John’s estate was filed in Amelia County, and his widow is clearly living there, it’s unlikely that John ever moved to his Lunenburg land.

Fortunately, two chancery cases filed provide us with a lot more information about John’s family, including the names of his children:

  • George was not yet 21 when his father died in 1762, so George was born after 1741. By 1766, when George sold the additional 50 acres in Amelia County that his father had purchased, he had married as his wife Phoebe relinquished her dower. George and Phoebe Combs would move to Halifax County, VA.
  • Martha was married to either James Bowls or Bowlins, so she was likely born before 1742 or earlier.
  • Lurany, wife of Moses Estes, probably born about 1740-1742.
  • Mary Combs
  • Clarissa Combs
  • John Combs. The only other tidbit about John is that there one document in Amelia County in 1778, but we have no idea if it’s the same John Combs.
  • Samuel Combs

Estis et us vs Combs – Amelia Co. Va. Chancery Causes 1764 001 (LVA Reel 234-247)

Humbly complaining Moses Estes and Luranna his wife, James Bowlen and Martha his wife, Samuel, George, Mary, Clarissa and John Combs that one John Combs, your orators father, being in his lifetime seized and possessed of a considerable estate and on the (blank) day departed this life intestate. Soon after the deceased on the motion of Frances Combs, the widow and relict of the said John admin. of all singular the goods and chattels rights and credits which were of the said John Combs at the time of his death. And that said Frances then took into her possession all the estate, that by a certain act of assembly made in the year of our Lord 1705? And in the 4th year of the reign of her ?. The orators have appealed to the said Frances Combs for their proportional part aforesaid but the said Frances refuses unless she may be ordered by the court. Your orators show that they are in some distress in being detained form their rights above contrary to equity… beg for consideration…ask that she be compelled to deliver (writing very faint).

Next document is a summons

Summon Frances Combs, admin of John Combs decd, Samuel, Mary, Clarissa and John Combs children of he said John Combs decd to appear… to answer a bill in chancery filed by Moses Estis and Loranna his wife.

Next document

Amelia court held July 22, 1762

Moses Estes Lorana his wife vs Frances Combs wife of John Combs decd

This cause heard and answered this day and ordered that John Booker, William Eggleston and John Cooke do assign to the def her dower in the lands and slaves of one third part of the estate of her late husband John Combs and that they divide the residue of the estate of the said John Combs among the complainant, children of the said John in equal proportions and assign unto each of them his or her share according to law.

Next document

Agreeable to the order here unto annexed we the subscribers have laid off and do assign unto the said Frances Combs widow of John Combs decd her dower in the lands and slaves one third part of the personal estate of said John Combs decd and have also divided the residue of the estate of the said John Combs decd in equal portions among the children of the said John Combs decd and do lay off and assign each their part in manner following viz’

To Frances Combs for her dower in the lands of the said John one hundred and fifety acres beginning in William Eggleston line on the upper side of the same Combs plantation thence down the said Eggleston´s line to his corner at the branch and from thence along Joseph Eggeleston´s line to a new dividing line and then with the said line to the beginning in William Eggleston´s line which includes the houses and plantation whereon the said Frances Combs now lives and for the said Frances dower in the slaves of the said John decd assign unto her one negro fellow named Harry and we do further assign unto the said Frances for her third part of the personal estate the sum of 52 pounds ten shillings 9 pence three farthings.

To Moses Eastis and Lurany his wife for his part of the personal estate of the said John Coombs decd the sum of 14 pounds and 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing.

To James Bowls [could be a slightly different name] and Martha his wife for his part of the personal estate of the said John Combs decd also the sum of 14 pounds 17 and 7 pence farthing.

To George Combs for his part of the personal estate of the said John Combs decd the sum of 14 pounds 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing and being his part equal with the other children.

We also assign and allot unto Samuel Combs, Mary Combs, Clarissa Combs, John Combs each of them the sum of 14 pounds and 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing current money for their part of the personal estate of the said John Combs, decd given under our hand this 25th day of ? 1762.

In a second suit, Moses Estes filed suit against his brother-in-law, George Combs, regarding the ownership of the slave named Ned.  In this suit, we confirm that John Combs did have 6 children living when he died (although 7 are listed in the suit above) and that he had not disposed of any of his property before his death.  We then hear the story of Ned.  Poor Ned – I wonder whatever happened to him.

Eastes et al vs Combs – Amelia Co VA chancery 1769-001 (LVA Reel 235-247)

Your orator Moses Estes and ? blank Eastes that in the year 17 [blank] and George Combs of this county seized and possessed of a certain negro named [blank] and on the day aforesaid departed this life without making any deposition thereof leaving at that time blank children and on this day your orator being one and after the decease of the said Combs one George Combs being the heir at law of the deceased claiming the same possessed himself accordingly without any regard to your orators and the other children then living and since has utterly refused to make any distribution thereof not withstanding your oratrices ? from said equity she is entitled to her dividend part that being the ? upon an equal distribution all while acting and doing of the said George Combs is contrary to equity and good conscience and tend to the manifest injury and appression of your oratrices. Your orator cannot compel him the said George Combs to make an equal distribution thereof without the assistance of a court of equity where they are properly reliable to the end therefore that the said George Combs my upon his corporal oath make his answer to all the matters of things hereinto contained as to whether blank Combs father of the def was not seized and possessed of a certain negro slave named [blank] at the time of his death an if he was what has since become of him. Whether the said George Combs is not now in the possession of him and how doth he claim the same. Whether the decd did not have 6 children your oratrice being one of them. Whether the said [blank] Combs did not depart this life without disposing of any part of his estate and if any what part your orator and oratrice pray that the said negro slave in the bill set forth may be so disposed of as for them to get their equal and distribution part thereof and that they may have such further and other relief as shall be agreeable to the court.

Next document

Aug 1763 – George Combs summoned (in the third year of the rein of George the third ) to answer the bill of chancery filed by Moses Estes

Next document

The defendant George Combs by enotes? Taken not allowing confessing or acknowledging all or any of the matters and things in the said complaintants bill. He says that John Combs died and in his lifetime in the parish of Raleigh in the Co. of Amelia being then possessed of the said slave Ned in the said plaintiff´s bill mentioned as of his own proper slave made an actual gift of the said slave Ned to this def. being then an infant under the age of 21 years whereby the absolute right and interest in the said slave became vested in this def and that he this def by virtue of such gift became possessed and is now possessed of the slave as of his own proper slave and therefore this def doth plead the said gift….the def father John Combs died intestate leaving this def his eldest son and heir at law then an infant under 21 years of age and that this def is now under twenty two years of age. His father left several other children now living and lastly this def.

Next document

Order to examine “George Combs, an aged person” in relation to this case. Aug 1765

Next document

George Combs of Charlotte County aged about 60 years being sworn…says that some time about ten years ago John Combs the father of George Combs the def in the dedimus mentioned by the one certain John Baldwin one negro boy named Ned and this deponent sayeth the first time he see the said John Combs after he had bought the said negro he heard the said John say he had bought him for his son George and that he should have him and he further heard the aid John Combs say that several people had been asking him why he chosed to give all to George and nothing to his daughters when this deponent sayeth that the said John informed him that this intent w[a]s that his son George should have all his land and negroes and that the rest of his estate should be equally divided among his daughters. George “+” Combs (his mark) taken October 6 1765

Next Document

Ordered to take depositions July 1766

Next document – Deposition of James Ferguson taken November 26, 1766

James Farguson aged about 46 years being first sworn…says that he was in the company some years past with John Combs decd at John Baldwins and [t]hat the said Baldwin asked the said Combs if he knew of anybody that wanted to buy a negro when Combs asked what sort of a negro Baldwin said he would show him and brought to him a small boy named Ned when this deponent asked the said Combs what service such a small boy as this would be to him, when the said Combs answered “None at al but that it might be of service to his son George”, this deponent further sayeth the next time he went to the said Combs, the said Combs had bought the above said negro boy Ned and the said Combs says to this deponent “I have got my boy how do you like him?” when this deponent “I have no calion? to like him, how do you like him?” when the said Combs said “my boy likes him” and calling the negro boy Ned and then calling George saying “come here my son” and taking each of them by the hand said “here a negro for you my son” and taking the negro boys hand and putting it into his son George´s hand says “I give you this negro boy here before your uncle Jamey and Aunt Patty” which was then delivered to him.

James Fergusson signature

Next Document

Deposition of John Feerguson aged about 61 years old

Being sworn…says that he heard John Combs in his lifetime say at several times that he had given negro Ned unto his son George and that once he said the he would send his son to court one of my daughters and that he had given him one negro and would make something of him if he lived. John Fergusson

Nov 26, 1766

Deposition of Parriott Poindle [Prindle] aged about 47…that he has heard John Combs in his lifetime at several times say that he had bought a negro Ned for his son George and that he shall have him at his death for he had worked for to help to pay for him and he shall have him. Parriott “P” Prindle (his mark)

Next document

William Eggleston aged about 35 being sworn…says he was an appraiser for the estate of John Combs decd and that there was a young negro fellow named Ned appraised of the estate of the said John Combs and that no person laid any claim on property on the said negro at [t]he appraisement as he knowed of and he was appointed by the court to lay off the widow of the said John Combs her third of his estate and that [t]he above said negro Ned was then judged to be the estate of the said John Combs decd and that she had her third of the same. William Eggleston (signature)

Nov 26 1766

Next document

Deposition of Edward Booker aged about 35 says he was an appraiser of the estate of John Combs decd and that there was a young negro fellow named Ned appraised of the estate of the said John Combs and that no person laid any claim or property in the said negro at the appraisement as he knows of. Edward Booker (signature)

Nov. 26, 1766

The testimony of George Combs causes me to wonder if all of John’s children were by his first wife as was originally believed.  Piecing this event together, it appears that Ned was bought by John for George about 1755, a full 5 years after John married Frances Elam.  At that time, George said that people asked why he gave everything to George and not his daughters.  Not his “other children,” but specifically his daughters.  However, in the chancery suit after John’s death in 1762, his two eldest daughters were married, so they were clearly born before his 1750 marriage, but three sons are mentioned – George, Samuel and John.  If all of this is correct, then John and Samuel would have been less than 10 years old when his father died.  It’s odd that no guardianship papers were found.

The repeated useage of the name George, as in John Comb’s brother, John Comb’s oldest son and then Luremia’s oldest (but not necessarily first) son suggests that George is a family named in this Combs line.

The Fargusons

From this suit, we find our one and only clue as to a relationship between John Combs and any other people.

We know that James Farguson was age 46, so born about 1720, and was married to Patty, which could have been a nickname for something else, in about 1755 when the purchase of Ned occurred, according to George Combs the elder, probably the brother of John Combs.

If James Farguson and Patty were the aunt and uncle of George (the younger), that means that either James or Patty were the siblings of John Combs or his first wife, whose name we don’t know.

Since the surname is not Combs, we know that James Farguson is not the brother of John Combs, unless he is a half-brother.

There is a James Farguson who continues to be involved with George Combs after he moved to Halifax County.  We find those records in 1772 and 1783.

I decided to do a quick runthrough on the Farguson family to see what I could find…and I’m telling you, the Combs men, meaning both George and John, fought way too much with the Farguson’s NOT to be related.

I surely wonder if James Farguson’s wife, Patty, is a Combs.  That would explain both John and George’s constant interaction with this family. John Combs first wife could also have been a Farguson.

The Farguson family certainly is interesting.  When you look at the six families who obtained the land grants in the 1730s and in essence, cast their lots together, whether intentionally or otherwise, one would presume that they are about the same economic and social level.  Not so.  The Booker family was quite wealthy.  We find them sitting as judges at court and Edmund Booker represented Amelia County in the House of Burgesses.

John Combs seems to have been a relatively respectable “normal” man for that place and time.  This means he owned land, served on jurys, helped to maintain the roads, and yes, he owned a few slaves.  He was not a large plantation owner but owned a respectable size farm.  He was “middle class” for his day.

The Fargusons, on the other hand, were, well, the wild children of the neighborhood.  Every neighborhood has one of those families, and the Farguson’s seem to be the group that was constantly in some kind of trouble.  Usually not terrible, although there is one notorious exception to that – but ever-present and chronic.

Uncle Jamie, or James Farguson was sued so many times for debt, assault and trespassing that I stopped keeping count.  He was also presented to court several times for “profane swearing.”  I don’t know what he did, but at least once he was sent to prison directly from court for his “ill behavior” during the court session. It might be worth mentioning that at this time in history, there was a lot of drinking that went along with court sessions.

James was sentenced to jail several times too, but generally it was only until he paid his fine.  However, in at least one case, he spent at least 20 days in jail because he refused to pay.

1740 – George Combs sues James Farguson

1742, April 16 – Robert Forguson appointed surveyor from Combs bridge over Flatt Creek into the courthouse, John, Robert and William Forguson, John Combs and Richard Boram to do the same.

1743, July 25 – Court Order Book 1, Lodwick Ferguson committed on suspicion of felony.  Prisoner brought to bar and milemus read.  The following testimony given under oath.

(Note that I have omitted many depositions from this case and included only the ones that reconstruct the Farguson family, but you can read additional Farguson Amelia County entries at this link.

Thomas Whitworth said he had in a small trunk belonging to his daughter, about 35 pounds, chiefly consisting of gold pieces, which were as he believes, double doubloons, and said money was stolen from the trunk and that he has strong reason to believe that Lodwick Fergerson stole the same.

doubloons

James Fergerson, brother of said Lodwick, came to his house and asked him to go to Lodwick’s father, which he did, and said Fergerson with sons John and Robert wanted to compound with him and offered to enter into bond payable to Whitworth for payment of what money he had lost if he would discharge the prisoner and say he had gotten his money.

Thomas Whitworth, Jr., said…that Lodwick had been committed to the prison for an examination.  Fergerson offered to compound with him on behalf of his father, telling him he could make up about 22 pounds of the money and he would have bond and security for the rest, for he would rather do anything than be hanged.

John Harrison said when Fergerson was in prison, he, Fergerson, desired him to tell his brother John to help him, for he expected to die.  Lodwick told him that he had borrowed 8/14/0 from Samuel Martin, that old Fergerson, father of the prison John Ferguson, Robert Fergerson, brother to him and John Gillintine were to become liable to pay Whitworth the money he supposed Lodwick had stolen from him, if Whitworth stay 2 years.

Prisoner to be tried at next general court held at the capitol in Williamsburg next October.  Prisoner requests bail and court considers that prisoner must give 200 pounds and his securities 100 pounds each against his appearance at next general court.  Robert Fergerson, John Fergerson and Robert Fergerson Jr. securities.

I find no further records of Lodwick, so I wonder what happened to him.  Was he hung in Williamsburg?

1743, December – John and Elizabeth Fergerson vs Thomas Burton.  Jury sworn.  Verdict: By evidence of John Willson and James Robertson that “Thomas Burton did say he never wanted for f***ing the plaintiff’s wife when he pleased.”  (Yes, that really was the f word in the court notes.  I always wondered how long ago that was in use.)

1745 – George Combs sues Robert Farguson

1745 – James Farguson sent to prison for 20 days

1746 – George Combs vs Robert Farguson in trespass

1746 – James and Robert Farguson sued for debt together

1746 – John Farguson sued Benjamin Hawkins

1746 – John Farguson is on the same road crew as John Combs

1747 – John Farguson sued Benjamin Hawkins for slander

1748 – James Farguson for trespass

1748 – James Farguson – treason for speaking against the King and refusing to keep the peace

1749 – Robert Farguson to keep an ordinary at his house

1750 – James Farguson – profane swearing

1751 – James Farguson – profane swearing

1751 – James Farguson’s to the bridge which is on the same road as Winterham, the name of the Edward Booker plantation

1751 – James Farguson – assault and Battery – sent to jail with a fine of 10s until paid with costs

1753 – James Farguson – assault and battery

1753 – Bridge over Flatt Creek near James Farguson’s out of repair

1754, April – James Farguson ordered into prison for his ill behavior during the sitting of this court.

What the heck is “profane swearing?”  I mean, I think I know, but maybe not.

I couldn’t find Virginia’s statute, but here is Maryland’s from 1723.

“If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.”

So, I guess damn is swearing, but profane swearing would add God in front of that.  Got it.

Another researcher, using detailed tax and tithe records, found Lodwick and James both listed as tithes of Robert Farguson.

Based on all of the combined information, here is the Farguson family reconstruction as best I can tell.

  • Robert Farguson, wife Mary
  • Sons James, Robert, Lodwick and John.
  • James Farguson is the Uncle of John Combs’ son, George, so James either is a sibling or married to a sibling of John Combs or his first wife.

So, I have to wonder, what did John Combs and his wife tell their children about their irreverent uncle, James Farguson, who was always in some kind of trouble? Was he the family member that everyone uses for a bad example?

“Don’t cross your eyes like that…you’ll wind up like Uncle Dufus.”

You have to admit, life was certainly interesting, much more so than one would expect.  This is not exactly the southern plantation stereotypical lifestyle of Tara, sitting around in white dresses under parasols drinking peach brandy and sweet tea.

John’s Final Resting Place

So, after all of this, where is John buried?  Well, we simply don’t know, but let’s look at the possibilities.

First, there are a lot of early Eggleston burials in the Grub Hill Church cemetery located not far from the Eggleston property.  In fact, it’s certainly possible that this was the original Eggleston cemetery.

Combs Grub Hill Church sign

The Booker family reports that there was a family cemetery on the Booker plantation, but the current owners say there is no cemetery there now.  Likely, there were no marked graves and over the years it disappeared and either returned to nature or became farmland.  There are no Farguson burials or pre-1900 Ferguson burials, so that family may have left entirely.

Grub Hill Church, the oldest church in Amelia County, was built around 1754 and rebuilt in the 1850s and it lies in very close proximity to these plantations.

Combs Grub Hill Church cem

It’s very likely that John Combs attended this church, as it was the only church at that time and Anglican church attendance was required.  Given that, he may well be buried in this churchyard.  It is the closest cemetery to his homestead, or, he’s buried in a lost family cemetery.  The church reports that they have burials into the 1700s.  John’s first wife, mother of his children, is a candidate to be buried here as well, as is his second wife, Frances.

Combs Grub Hill Church cem 2

Slavery

As I write each one of these 52 ancestors articles, I feel like I really get to know that ancestor on a personal basis.  I try my best to learn what their life was like – how their community worked, where they went to church, and any tidbits I can find about their home life.  I try, as best I can, to see their life from the perspective of the time they lived, not from my cultural and social vantage today.  Often, the only glimpse we get inside their daily life is an estate inventory or sale – where the cumulative efforts of their life work are sold with the proceeds divided among their heirs.

After my step-father’s death, my mother had an auction before she left the farm and moved to town.  It was the equivalent of an estate sale and it was exceedingly painful to watch.

In colonial America, because our ancestors lived so long ago, there are no family stories or memories about John Combs or anyone in this timeframe to be passed down through the family.  He is my 5 times great grandfather, or 7 generations upstream from me.  Oral history stopped at about the 4th generation.  Anything we find has to be through public documents such as deeds, court notes or chancery suits.  That’s the only way we find out about rowdy cousin Jamie Farguson.  It’s also the way we find out about things like slavery.

Because slaves were treated as property, because, at that time, that’s what they were – there are often, but not always, records of transactions involving slaves.  In some cases, sales are recorded in court or deed books.  That’s not the case in Amelia County in records relevant to the Combs family.

We discover in three ways that John Combs was a slave owner.  First, two slave children that he owned, Sue and York, were presented to the court for their age to be determined.  Second, he was tithed at one point with too many people for them to have been family members – so it’s likely that at that point in time he owned 5 slaves over the age of 12 or 16.  Lastly, when he died, there were two slaves in his estate, Ned, a boy, and Harry, a man.  The chancery suits fill in a few blanks.

If we think our genealogy is difficult, try having only the first name of a slave ancestor and if you’re exceedingly lucky, an owner’s name.

John may not have owned slaves until 1749, just prior to his marriage to Frances Elam.  His son George is too young to have been tithed to him, so it’s likely that John Combs had 5 slaves that year over the age of 12.  One of them was York.  The others may have been York’s parents.  Sue may have been one of those slaves too.

We know that John bought the child, Ned, about 1755 for his son George.  I’d like to think that they were playmates, but even if they were close, the expectation that as they became older, that one would serve the other, for the rest of his life, or until sold, was clear.  It was not a friendship of equals, if it was a friendship at all.

My heart goes out to Ned.  He was called a boy in 1762 in John Combs estate, and that was several years after John had purchased Ned.  George Combs refers to Ned as a “young boy” when he was purchased.  Ned was obviously separated as a child from his parents and anyone else that might have been his family.  We don’t know the circumstances.  His parents could have been dead.  What we can probably say without fear of being wrong is that Ned was without parents or even parent-figures.  Ned was a black child in bondage, alone, except for the white child he had been given to.

Ned’s saving grace was that he did have value based on the labor it was expected he would be able to produce as an adult – and for the time being – as a playmate for George Combs.  In many cases, the fact that slaves were so valuable is what literally, saved them.  For example, indentured servants, who were only bound for a period of time, often 7 years, were sometimes literally worked to death – because they had no residual value to their masters.

Slavery, meaning bondage for life, bothers me…a lot – both in practice and in principle.  Indentured servitude does not.  It may have been rough, but people signed up for that willingly.  Slaves had no choice in the matter and no opportunity for freedom other than through the generosity of their masters or groups like the Quakers who bought slaves with the intention of freeing them.

I’m so very thankful that John Combs wasn’t involved in slave trading.  We pretty much know who those slave-trading families were.  Wealth went along with slave trading – and so did being inherently heartless.  The fact that John owned (at least) four slaves, even though not a lot by Virginia standards, bothers me.  The culture of slavery bothers me.  That fact that “everyone else was doing it” does not justify the behavior.  In fact, “everyone else” was not participating, but certainly the wealthy Virginia landowners were.  John owned a relatively small tract of land and his slaves would have been working alongside himself and his family members.  There were no overseers.  In fact, John’s brother George was an overseer for Field Jefferson – which also bothers me.  Clearly the family, as a whole, had no problem with slavery as an institution and participating in that institution.

It’s easy to make excuses, like, “If I don’t buy them, someone else will.  They’ll still be slaves anyway.  They’d be better off with me.”  While that might have been true, it still doesn’t justify slavery.  Nothing does.

I try very hard when I write these summaries of my ancestors to not judge their lives or what they did.  I try to view these people in historical context, and although slavery is a dark blot and stain on the history of our country as a whole, it is a fact of life and it was accepted as normal at the time.  It happened and it’s over.  Some even say that the slaves here and their descendants represent those who were lucky enough to live.  Before slavery offered a lucrative option for what to do with war captives in Africa, they were killed. In the colonies, the same was true of Indian wars and war captives.  Before white traders got involved as middlemen, both African and Indian slaves were captured and killed or sold, by a different tribe of their own people.

While slavery was awful, and those caught up in its tentacles were clearly victims, it wasn’t sure and certain death.  Was it better than death, for the Africans who survived the Middle Passage and went on to have descendants, and for the Indians captured as children and raised as slaves?  Probably, because without our slave ancestors, we descendants would not be alive today.  And there was always hope for a better tomorrow.

Yes, I said we.  I am mixed race – a combination of European (white), Native American from multiple lines, and African.  My white ancestry and ancestors have been much easier to find than my ancestors of color.  That’s because the black ancestors were enslaved and the Native ancestors were annihilated in a variety of ways.  Most people don’t take well to invaders taking their land and slaughtering their families.  The only alternative to death was assimilation – and my ancestors did, as quickly as possible.  It was a matter of survival.

For me, it’s particularly difficult when I read about slavery among my ancestors, because I know I have family on both ends of the stick and I feel very strongly about equality and freedom of choice.  Not only am I mixed race, having endured discrimination on both sides of that fence, especially as a child, too dark to be white but too white to be “of color,” but I am a female who grew up in an age where discrimination against women in various forms was accepted as the status quo.  It too was institutionalized, cultural and considered “normal.”  And it too was and is wrong, unjust and indefensible.

When I write these summaries of my ancestors, I’m limited by the records we can find that reflect the various stages of their life.  John Combs may not actually have been identified in his lifetime by being a slave owner, especially as compared to his neighbors with large tracts of land and lots of slaves.

For all I know he was a pious man and loved his slave family as his own family.  But we have no letters from John, no diary, no account books, nothing.  All we have is the dry court order books, tax lists and the chancery suit following his death.  And in these records, the theme of being a slave owner runs through each one.  I can’t shake it, and when I think of him, that’s really what I think of.  I wish I knew more so that I could have a better rounded picture of John Combs as a person, but I don’t.  All I really know is that he owned land and owned slaves, and that fact permeated every aspect of his life, even after his death.  It’s the elephant in the room I can’t seem to see around.  Today, it’s the aspect of his life that defines him, perhaps because there are records of slaves and there aren’t records of other things.  Regardless of why – it’s still what defines him because that is the information we have.

This certainly makes me pause to think about what will be left of my lifetime to represent me in another 250 years, assuming I have any descendants and anyone is interested.  It won’t be court orders, that’s for sure, but if they mine Facebook, they’ll discover that I take pictures of flowers in my garden, have 3 websites/blogs (will they know what a blog is?), that I have a special penchant for cats, have a fur family, including a grand-puppy, and that I’m a quilter.  Of course, it goes without saying that they’ll know I’m a genealogist too, with grandchildren.  They’ll be able to get to know me at least somewhat through my postings and my blog listings, although assuredly the blogs will be long gone so they would only be looking at the first paragraph or so posted on FaceBook and one of the photos.  They will probably be pulling their hair out, wishing that somehow, those blogs had been preserved in time.  I feel their pain!

I wonder what kinds of things we do today that won’t be considered culturally and socially acceptable in another 250 years, and how my descendants will think of me.  I’m guessing my 52 ancestors article title would be something like, “Roberta Estes, Mis-Behaved Cat Loving Genetic Genealogy Blogger, Quilter and Gardener.”  But then again, that’s from my perspective today.  Not to mention that my Facebook page omits several aspects of my life.  My 30+ year career, my college degrees, my husband and children, etc.  It’s more complete for me than the information we have about John Combs, but it’s still woefully lacking.

I’m sure there are many aspects of John Combs life that we are missing too.  John Combs might have looked at his article title, “Slave Owner,” with pride because owning land and slaves was the measure of success in Virginia in his lifetime.  Given that John started out as a man without an education, unable to even sign his name, he would likely have been very proud of his achievements – rising to the status of landowner, slave owner and juror.

John’s DNA

The one aspect of John we’ve yet to investigate is DNA.  In this case, we have a serious problem, because we only know what happened to one of his sons, George.  John’s sons, John and Samuel disappear, but they may have survived.  We don’t know.

John Combs’ son George married Phoebe, whose surname is unknown and they moved to Halifax County.  They had daughter Judith who married Jesse Dodson, Polly who married Bolling Hamblett, Larcenee who married George Shelton, Phebe who married Thomas Yates in 1788 and then moved to White County, TN, and one son, George, who married Elizabeth Yates in 1809.

To test George’s Y DNA, we would need to find a direct male descendant of his son George who married Elizabeth Yates who carries the Combs surname.  The problem is, we don’t know what happened to him.  And for all those couples who have hundreds of Ancestry trees, there isn’t one, not one, for him.

Our other possibility would be descendants of George Combs the elder, who was born 1701-1705, likely the brother of our John Combs.  He lived in Charlotte County, but we don’t know what happened to him either, or if he had sons.

Looking at the Combs DNA project, we can see that indeed, there is one person who descends from Archdale Combs, haplogroup I-M233.  Judging from the number of markers utilized, the original Combs DNA project was, unfortunately, not at Family Tree DNA.  All of the other companies have discontinued their Y DNA testing business. Based on this information, I checked at www.Ysearch.org and discovered that indeed, these testers are haplogroup I-M233.

So, if our John Combs is somehow descended from Archdale, this would be his Y DNA haplotype and haplogroup.  The problem of course is that making that determination with almost no evidence a very broad step, more like a leap of faith, an assumption with a lot of maybes and it’s a very large leap I’m not comfortable making.

Furthermore, even if our John was proven to descend from Archdale on paper, that doesn’t mean the DNA matches.  One should always, if possible, confirm by testing at least two descendants of the male ancestor in question, meaning through different sons.  Of course, in the case of our John, we can’t even find one son’s descendants, so we’re left waiting for future developments.

The next avenue I tried was to contact the Combs DNA project administrators and ask if Family Finder folks were welcome.  Many Y DNA projects don’t want to deal with autosomal matching.  Fortunately, the admin was very gracious and it says right on their project site that they welcome autosomal folks.  That’s the good news.  The bad news was that we did not match the male who tested from Archdale – assuming he has taken the FF test, which I can’t tell.

Lastly, I used Family Tree DNA’s new search function to see if I could find anyone in their data base who descends from our John, or George.  If they haven’t taken the autosomal test, this would be a great opportunity.  Unfortunately, no luck there either.

Three strikes and I’m out – for now.

I’m hopeful that someone who descends from John Combs or his brother George Combs will read this and perhaps they too will be curious.  If so, please let me know.  I have a scholarship for the first proven male Combs descendant!

Collaboration

I can’t end this article without saying something about collaborative research.

Combs researchers are very fortunate that for several years, through 2010, there was a very active research group whose work is, thankfully, preserved on the Combs-Coombs website.  I am both a contributor and a benefactor and I am very grateful for all of those who have contributed, coordinated and preserved these Combs records.  I wish all of my surnames had a site like this.

______________________________________________________________

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

Bill Paxton – Who Do You Think You Are – The Three Stones

This weeks’ episode with Bill Paxton is really outstanding.  Now, I might be biased, because as it turns out, Bill’s ancestor, Benjamin Sharp shares some historic events and locations with some of my ancestors too.

Bill started his journey in the library in Los Angeles, California, where their genealogist unrolls Bill’s pedigree chart.  I sure wish someone would give me one of those with a bow and a few new ancestors to boot!

Paxton

Compliments of TLC

These pedigree giftings really make me smile.  The recipients are always so excited to see their heritage literally open up before them.

Bill already knew quite a bit about his closest few Paxton ancestors, including that one of his ancestors was an officer in the Civil War, so Bill was looking back up the tree to the Revolutionary War era where he found 3 different men, all 4 times great grandfathers, who could well have served.  Checking the DAR data base, only the last one, Benjamin Sharp, hit pay dirt.

Bill is off to the DAR headquarters in Washington DC.  At the DAR, they produced the 1833 pension application for Benjamin Sharp, written in Warren Co., MO, documenting his Revolutionary War military service beginning in 1775.  That’s when my ears perked right up, because the application, in Benjamin’s own handwriting said that he was at Black’s Fort, and at Glade Hollow, and that he was a spy.

For anyone with Appalachian, Western VA or Eastern TN history, both of these locations grab your attention, because these lands were truly forts, on the true edge of the frontier.  Very few people were there, and the militia protected them, not from the British so much, but from Indians, most of whom were aligned with the Tories because the English promised the Indians that if they won, the pioneer encroachment on their lands would stop.  These fort locations are found today in Russell County, VA.

From there, Benjamin Sharp served in the local militia unit, probably out of Washington County, VA, that rallied to fight in the fall of 1781 at King’s Mountain, a turning point in the Revolutionary War.  At least two of my ancestors fought at King’s Mountain as well.  Today, on the top of the hill, a monument to the men who fought and gave their lives has been erected.  This battle, won by mountaineers known as the Overmountain Men and not professional soldiers has been termed the turning point of the Revolutionary War.

The British commander, Patrick Ferguson, made a grave error in issuing this challenge to the Overmountain men who he held in the greatest contempt.

“If you do not desist your opposition to the British Arms, I shall march this army over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste your country with fire and sword.”

Them’s fightin’ words.

Let’s just say that’s not exactly what happened.  Ferguson was among the men buried at King’s Mountain, and the British Army lost.  Talk about both underestimating and inflaming your opponent.

King's Mountain

Photograph by Roberta Estes

You can guess where Benjamin is off to next.  Yes, King’s Mountain is a historic park today and well worth the visit.  A couple of years ago, I walked this trail myself and I can’t even begin to tell you the raw emotions I felt during that journey.  I was fortunate to be alone on the walking path – of course that might had something to do with the fact that it was over 100 degrees.  The men who fought at King’s Mountain did so in the cold rain – in fact – it was probably the rain that saved them – because rain softens leaves and underbrush and the Ferguson, stationed on top of the hill with the Tories, didn’t realize they were surrounded until it was too late.

At King’s Mountain, Bill discovers a letter from Benjamin Sharp in the book “American Pioneer” detailing the actual battle.  Watching Bill read this letter standing on the actual battleground was quite gripping, especially knowing that Benjamin was describing, first hand, something my ancestors experienced too.

Bill wanted to know what happened to Benjamin after the Revolutionary War.  Benjamin was only 18 at that time and he had his whole life in front of him.  Bill’s next stop is the Library of Virginia in Richmond.

Bill discovers that Benjamin became a surveyor in Lee County, Virginia’s westernmost county which borders on the Cumberland Gap.  Many of the men who served in the Revolution on the frontier did settle in this area.  On the Lee County tax list of 1804, shown in the episode, I saw two names I recognized.

Benjamin Sharp moved on though, with the movement westward to Missouri.  They didn’t say how or why Benjamin moved, but I’m betting it might have been where Revolutionary War bounty land was granted.  Many families found themselves pushing the westward frontier due to these grants given as payment for military service.

Bill’s next and last stop is in Warren County where he finds and holds the original will of Benjamin Sharp in his hands.  Benjamin lived a very long life and his will holds, well, let’s just say some surprises.

In fact, Bill has been surprised, or maybe shocked is a better word, several times along the way…and not always in a positive light.

This episode closes with Bill visiting his ancestor’s grave, deep in the brambles in the forest on private property that used to be owned by Benjamin Sharp.  Bill leaves three small stones….but you’ll have to watch Sunday night to discover why.

This was a truly moving, heartwarming and sometimes gut-wrenching episode.

Here’s your sneak peek.

Bill Paxton’s episode airs this Sunday, April 19 at 10/9c on TLC.

Compliments of TLC

Compliments of TLC

______________________________________________________________

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

A Dozen Ancestors That Aren’t – aka – Bad NADs

Sooner or later, this happens to every genealogist.  You are “gifted” with an ancestor one way or another and either they turn out not to be your ancestor at all, or at least not by that surname.  Then, you have to saw that branch off of your own tree!  Ouch!

saw

There are lots of ways for this to happen, but this past week, we added a new way – and to me – this new avenue is even more frightening because it carries with it the perception of validation by DNA.  After all, DNA doesn’t lie, right?  Well, it doesn’t, IF it’s interpreted correctly. And that IF should be in the largest font size possible.

if

Bad New Ancestor Discovery (NAD) #1

Yep, last week, Ancestry.com released a new feature that uses only your DNA to find your ancestors called New Ancestor Discoveries.  Great idea.  Not terribly accurate – at least not yet.  Ancestry has since changed their marketing verbiage to reflect that they aren’t necessarily finding new ancestors, they are finding potential ancestors and relatives, and these are hints, not gifts of ancestors. That’s much more accurate.

If you want to, you can catch up with all of that with my blogs here, here and here, and then a final blog by Ancestry “splainin’ things.”  But how I got the new ancestor is much less important that the fact that I did receive two new ancestors, a man and a wife, and they are unquestionably incorrect.  This phenomenon is now called Bad NADs on social media – NADs being “New Ancestor Discoveries.”  Genealogists do have a sense of humor.

So let’s just suffice to say that if you receive a “new ancestor” from Ancestry, treat it as a hint.  It might be a new ancestor.  It might be someone related to one of the same lines, which is why your DNA matches.  In other words, your real ancestor might be the aunt of the woman listed as your ancestor – and you just happen to share DNA with two of her sister’s kids descendants, which is why you got put into her “circle.”

Or, these people may not be your ancestors at or even related.  How can that be, you ask?  Easy – if you match each of two people through different ancestors, and they just happen to share a common ancestor – it looks like you might share that ancestor too.  As I said, treat this NAD as a nice hint and start your research.  Don’t attach these ancestors to your tree without verification…or you may well just have to saw those Bad NADs off.

But Ancestry’s new ancestors are just the newest way to get bogus ancestors.  Let’s look at how I’ve obtained wrong ancestors, aka Bad NADs, and then had to go out and chop branches off of my own tree.  Is that ever painful – because I’ve gotten attached to all of those people on that branch, thinking they were “mine.

So I’m thinking, maybe I should have titled this article “12 Ways to Get (Rid of) Bad NADs?”  Sounds like a social disease.  No, wait….it is!  You often get it by associating with other genealogists:)

Bad NAD #2

Copying trees, or more creatively put, ancestor grafting.  Grafted NADs.

2 branch tree

I have to admit, I started to do this once or twice, but thankfully, THANKFULLY, I was just skeptical enough to copy those trees down as a separate file and they are still hanging out there on my computer waiting to be attached.  Needless to say, they never will be.  They served as great starting or reference points for further study.

And thankfully, THANKFULLY, this novice error was made in the days of Rootsweb trees and not Ancestry trees.  What is the difference, you ask?  Well, you could copy someone’s GEDCOM file from Rootsweb and then attach some part or all of it to your tree on your computer.  At Ancestry.com, it’s much MUCH easier just to copy all or part of a tree and connect it to your own tree.  Just click, click and it’s done.  Like it was never not a part of your tree.  Instant gratification graft – complete with every single one of their errors – all included in the price of your subscription.  In fact, they’ll even change YOUR information already input if you’re not careful.  Yep, will clean that right up for you.

Had it been that easy for me in the beginning, I would have had an awful mess to unravel – because many or even most of those online trees are wrong.  Skeptical about that?  Let’s run an experiment.

I searched on Ancestry and checked the first 50 entries for my immigrant ancestor, Abraham Estes 1647-1720 to see how many of them had his wife’s name listed incorrectly as Barbara Brock.

Care to guess how many?  Go ahead, guess!

All 50.  Every last one.

Ok, well maybe the second 50 aren’t so bad.

Nope, all of those too – so now we’re up to 100 out of 100 wrong trees.

All of these, without one shred of evidence, because none exists.

But wait….there’s more.

Ok, let’s look at the third set of 50.  Finally, the last entry on the third set shows his first wife listed as Barbara Burton, which is accurate, and his second wife, from whom all of his children descend, as Barbara Mn?  Well, Mn is not accurate either, whatever it means, but at least it’s not Brock and there is a question mark present.  But 149 of the first 150 were flat out wrong and wrong in exactly the same way.  The 150th one is wrong in a different way.

Ancestry lists these trees in “best first” order, so if you look at the top trees, they will be the ones with the most sources and information.  The sources for all of these surnames?  Other trees.  In other words, hearsay.  And repeating hearsay 149 times doesn’t make it any truer than it was that first time when it was 100% wrong.

All 149 people need to saw that Bad NAD Brock branch off of their tree.

Ok, so now let’s look at how Barbara became to be erroneously identified as a Brock.

Bad NAD #3

A book.  The Written NAD.  In this case, a historical novel – but it could just as well have been a poorly researched non-fiction book.  These things, once in print, take on an air of permanence, a life of their own, and authority they should never have.

In this case, there was a historical novel written in the 1980s.  In that novel, which included the Estes family, the author gifted Barbara with the Brock surname.  He also gifted another one of my ancestors, Abraham’s son, Moses’s wife, Elizabeth with the surname of Webb.  I think he found the Webb surname in an early land transaction, so he made Webb Elizabeth’s surname in the book because it “worked” with the historical record in the story.  Moses bought land from her family in the book and that became the birthplace of Moses’s wife’s surname, transplanted of course to hundreds of trees like so much kudzu.

Guess what, Elizabeth Webb is just as wrong for the same reason, and just as pervasive as Barbara Brock.  Thanks Bud, thanks so much for the Bad NADs.

In Bud’s defense, he did say it was a historical novel, but so much of his novel was based on the truth that it was easy to extrapolate, and believe me, people did.

Just the same, saw off that Webb surname

Bad NAD #4

Assuming and hypothesizing.  Yep, this one was my own doing – albeit unintentionally.  Self-Inflicted Bad NADs.

I found my female ancestor as a widow in the census with a male of about the same age that was listed as “imbecile” and speculated, with a cousin, that the man living with her could have been her brother.

Well, it wasn’t, because when I ordered her husband’s pension papers from the War of 1812, she tells us her maiden name, her father’s name, her marriage date and more.

But by then, the damage was done.  The cousin let it out into the wild and those trees were being copied and now James Claxton/Clarkson’s wife’s name is Sarah Helloms or Sarah Helloms Cook in many trees.  There is no “recall” button.  By the way, her father was Joel Cook, just for the record, and her mother was Alcy, surname unknown.

If you’ve got something else, get the saw!  You know, the only thing worse than sawing off NADs that someone else gave you is sawing off your own Bad NADs.

Bad NAD #5

Bad sources, in particular, wrong mother’s name on death certificate.  Talk about a bum steer.  So, Wild Goose Chase NADs.

This occurs far more often than you’d think.  On my great-grandfather Joseph Bolton’s death certificate, his birth location is incorrect and his mother is listed as Nancy Cristie.  Joseph’s mother was Margaret Herrell Martin before she married Joseph Bolton (Sr.) as her second marriage.  Where they got Nancy Cristie is absolutely beyond me.  And yes, we know that Margaret Herrell WAS his mother both through family, through other documents and through DNA.

I wasn’t 100% convinced until I had the DNA evidence – simply because this was such an official document.

Bolton7

Looking at this, you would think Joseph’s wife, who knew Joseph’s mother, would have gotten her name right – at least her first name.  But, if you look further into the situation, Joseph’s wife, Margaret, was herself very ill with the flu and pneumonia and she too would die within a few days.  Her death certificate says she had been sick since February 18th, so she could not have been the direct informant on Joseph’s death certificate – regardless of what it says.  Either that, or they were quizzing her on her death bed, after her husband had just died, and it’s no wonder the answer made no sense.

This isn’t the first or only time I’ve seen this type of erroneous information on legal documents.  I’d much rather see that dreaded blank space than incorrect information.  At least with a blank, you’ve not been sent off on a wild goose chase.

At least with this incorrect information, there IS a source.  Unfortunately, death certificates and obituaries are particularly bad about having accurate names. I had to have my mother’s obituary run 4 times until it was correct.  The newspaper was NOT happy with me – but I was even less happy with them.  Often, these records are all we have, unfortunately, that tie people to parents and families together.  And let’s face it, who is ever going to find the second, third or fourth copy of an obituary.

Bad NAD #6

Lax research methodology and drawing conclusions when one shouldn’t.  So, Assumed Bad NADs.

In Halifax County, VA, Moses Estes’s wife, Luremia Combs interacted constantly with George Combs and his wife, Phoebe.  Plus, Moses and Luremia named their first son George.  Moses and Luremia bought land from George and Phoebe.  Over the years, the correlation or accepted relationship between these people came to be that Luremia was the daughter of George and Phoebe.  Indeed, it certainly did look that way.  But it wasn’t.

In fact, it wasn’t until a list of heirs came to light in a lawsuit in Amelia County that we learned that indeed, John Combs with an unknown first wife was the father of Luremia, and that George was likely the son of that John, or the brother, who was also named George.  In any case, George was not the father of Luremia.

However, if you look at those first 50 trees at Ancestry, every tree that has any father for Luremia has George Combs.

Get the saw…Bad NAD George has gotta go…

Bad NAD #7

Poor, bad or incomplete transcription.  Clerical NADs.

Luremia Combs, in an early deed, is difficult to read.  If you don’t read any later documentation, it looks like that word might be Susannah.  In fact, one transcriber transcribed it as Susannah and one as Lurana.  It’s only with the benefit of knowing her name is Luremia that you can see that early document is Luremia, not Susannah.  I don’t even need to tell you how many trees say either Susannah or not knowing what else to do, people combined the two and she is now Luremia Susannah.  Sigh.

At least in this case, you have the right person, just with a different first name – well – except for those trees who have “made up” the story that Moses married sisters by the name of Susannah and Luremia.  I don’t know if you need a saw as much as you need an eraser and glue.

Bad NAD #8

Wrong spouse, also known as the Oops NAD.

A lot of spouses died, and people remarried rather quickly out of necessity.  Many children of first marriages were simply listed on the census with their step-father’s name and some used that surname, not their father’s name.  That’s just the way it was at that time.  Same situation for wives.  Just because you find your ancestor in the 1850 census, age 11 or 12, with a family that includes wife “Mary” as the wife doesn’t at all mean that Mary was the mother of all of the children.

Eventually, you may “discover” this if the Y DNA doesn’t match the “fathers” line, but it’s rare to discover this through mitochondrial DNA – although it’s technically possible.  More often, you’ll discover it accidentally, like by finding a marriage for your ancestor after his or her first children were already born.

Hmmmm….where’s the saw???

Bad NAD #9

Relying on someone else’s documentation.  This would be the Trust Me NAD.

In some cases, you just have no choice in this matter.  For example, I’m connected back through many generations through Nathaniel Brewster and Sarah Ludlow to King Edward I.  I cannot, if I had the rest of my lifetime to do it, recreate the body of research that has been done on the royal descendants.  So, I am left to judge the quality of the information available, and based on that, determine what to use.  I guarantee you, I will never in my lifetime look at anyone’s tree as a source. However, wills, deeds, leases, historical documents and books are all sources that I think I can depend on…most of the time.

Be vigilant and watchful with a healthy dose of skepticism.  Look for well documented sources – and it’s even better if they include photos of the document itself – even if you can’t necessarily read it!  Keep that saw within reach.

Bad NAD #10

Accepting family stories as gospel – aka- the Telephone Game NAD.

No, I’m not saying your grandpa lied to you.  But he might have made the story better, so you would enjoy it more.  Or his grandpa might have done that with him.  Or, someone might have quite innocently gotten the generation wrong, or the location, or, or, or….

Remember that game, Telephone, from when we were kids?

We have the perfect example of this in the Estes family.  In 1852 William Estes left Iowa for the gold fields of California.  He never came back.  That much is fact, and it’s documented in a land sale that the family “didn’t know his whereabouts.”

Everyone agrees that he died…eventually.  I mean, he’s assuredly dead now, regardless of what happened then.  One story out of that family says he died on the way to California, one says he died on the way back and one just says that they never knew what happened to him and assumed he died because he wrote his wife and told her he was selling his gold claim and coming home (which, if true, means he couldn’t have died on the way out).  One version said he was traveling with a man who said he got sick and that he was probably murdered by that man.  And these stories are from his children and grandchildren – not generations later.

But wait, what if he didn’t die right away?  What if I subtly changed the essence of the story in my telling of it, inadvertently, by saying that everyone agreed that he died.  They didn’t really – they assumed he died.  Maybe he just stayed in California, fell in love with a nice widow lady, or a spicy showgirl, remarried and had another family – letting his family in Iowa think he was dead.

Taking this story into consideration, you can see how that Indian Princess story might have happened.

Bad NAD #11

Two men, same name.  Same wife’s first name.  Same county, same time.  This is the stuff genealogy nightmares are made of.  The Twofer NAD.

Want to know how we finally told the difference between the men?  One could write, the other couldn’t.  One had a group of people who witnessed deeds and lived nearby on tax and census lists.  The other had a different group.

Yep, saw that branch off!

Bad NAD #12

And of course, there is always the nonpaternal event – where the DNA doesn’t match who it should.  I call those “undocumented adoptions.”  It’s tempting to think of these as Bad Boy (or Bad Girl) NADs, but they aren’t necessarily.  See the step-father surname discussion in NAD #8.

Regardless of how they happened, they are undocumented and they are an “adoption” of sorts. In essence, these are typically discovered when the expected Y DNA does not materialize in a particular line.  In other words, it doesn’t match the known ancestral family line.  This is exactly what happened in my Younger line.  This is also sometimes discovered utilizing autosomal DNA, especially in close family members, 2nd cousin or closer.

How people react to this, and what you do about it, in terms of further testing to determine where the disconnect happened, is entirely a personal decision that is different in every situation.

In some cases, the Y DNA of the tester does match another surname, and the connection becomes immediately obvious, like it’s the wife’s first husband’s surname.  In other cases, we never make that biological connection – but the great thing about DNA is that it’s out there fishing for you, every minute of every day.

______________________________________________________________

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

Luremia Combs (c1740-c1820) and the Revolution on Her Doorstep, 52 Ancestors #67

Luremia Combs was born about 1740, probably in Amelia County, to John Combes and his first wife whose identity is unknown.  John’s wife at the time of his death was Frances Elam who he married in Amelia County on Sept. 11, 1750.

Francis would become embattled with her step-children after John’s death, although she assuredly raised at least some of those children.  Luremia would have been about 10 or 12 when her father remarried, which means, of course, that Luremia lost her mother when she was a young child.  Based on a subsequent lawsuit, and the fact that Luremia did not name a child Frances, I would hypothesize that Luremia did not enjoy a positive relationship with Frances, at least not as an adult.

Luremia was married to Moses Estes, probably in 1762, because their first child, George, was born in Amelia County on February 3, 1763 according to his Revolutionary War pension application..

In February 1767 in Lunenburg County, VA, we find a transaction where George Combs sells land to Moses Estis for £25, 300A adjoining John Combs.  Pheby, wife of George, relinquishes her dower.

It was from this land sale that previous researchers had surmised that Moses’s wife was the daughter of George Combes and Phebe, last name unknown.

On March 30, 1768, this tract of land is processioned and described as lying between “Reedy Creek, Reedy Creek old road, Coxes road and the North Meherrin River.”

Processioning of land is when, in colonial America, you got together with your neighbors once a year and everyone walked the boundaries, agreeing between themselves where the property boundaries lie.  The results of that event, and who was present, was recorded in the church vestry book.  I’d guess this became a social event of sorts as well – including spirits to stay warm of course.  Fortunately, the processioning of this area was very specific, as are some of the deeds, which allowed me to pinpoint the location of Moses’s land.

On the map below, relevant landmarks pertaining to the Estes family in Lunenburg County are shown.

Luremia Estes Lunenburg map

X identifies the location of Moses Estes land in Lunenburg County – between the North Meherrin and Reedy Creek.  According to the local farmers, this area is where the old Meherrin Indian village stood.  They find artifacts and relics regularly.

Given that I could find this specific location, I had to visit.  My ancestral lands call to me like a moth to the flame.  And in this case, 5 of my ancestors lived here, both Moses Sr. and Moses Jr., along with their wives.  This would also have been where George Estes was born in 1763, probably on this same land when still owned by Luremia’s family.

Luremia Lunenburg Trinity Courthouse road sign

Trinity Road appears to have been the original road through that area, forms a loop, and both begins and ends at Courthouse Road, where, of course, you find the courthouse.

Luremia lunenburg courthouse

The courthouse, which does not have a town around it, is shown by the upper purple arrow, on land originally owned by Robert Estes, brother of Moses Estes Sr.

Luremia Lunenburg trinity church

The old church is also on Trinity Road, and the Estes land is just off Trinity Road.  When they lived here, they were right on the main drag, although that’s certainly not apparent today.

Luremia Lunenburg field

There is only one possible location for Moses Estes land in Lunenburg County, given the geography in question, and during my 2004 trip, I found the land.  To this day, there is only one cleared area on both sides of the road, and a very old house in the clearing.  The land is beautiful.

Luremia Lunenburg estes land

This house, above, is located on the east side of Reedy Creek Road.

Luremia Lunenburg small house

This is the older house on the west side of Reedy Creek Road on the land that Moses Estes owned in Lunenburg County.  This could well be the house where Moses lived.  A newer house is located to the rear of the property.

Luremia lunenburg estes

This photo is of both the older house and the newer home in the background.

So this area, and maybe even this house, is where Luremia set up housekeeping and welcomed her first babies into the world.  The first of those babies, George, would one day take his father’s place in the Revolutionary War so his father didn’t have to serve.  Instead, Moses gave food, fodder and other goods to the cause.

On December 2, 1768, Moses Estes of Lunenburg County sells to Francis Combes of Amelia County, for £75, the tract that Moses Estes purchased of George Combes on February 12, 1767.  Witnesses to this transaction were Moses Estes, Sr., Elizabeth Estes and Thomas Munford.

Moses’s wife, “Susanna” Estes relinquishes dower, per one source.  June Banks Evans in her Lunenburg County Deed Books transcribed and interprets her name as Lurania.

July 13, 1769 – Susanna (or Lurania), wife of Moses Estis, came into court and relinquished dower in land conveyed to Richard Jones.  Relinquishing dower meant that the wife indicated that she understood that her husband sold that property and she gave up her right to her one third interest by law, were he to die.

It was from this record that Luremia’s name was ordained to be Susannah and is still shown that way in many trees.  Some trees have merged the two and given her two names, Susanna Luremia or vice versa.  And some have given Moses two wives, Susannah Combes and Luremia Combes, and a nice story that they were sisters to go along with the two wives.  For the record, this isn’t true.

How do we know it isn’t true?  Because there is juicy gossip – in the form of a chancery suit filed in Amelia County, VA.  I just love chancery suits.  They focus on divisions of equity, not on a determination of guilt or innocence and for the most part, in Virginia, unless the courthouse has burned, the depositions, complaints and responses in the case still exist.

Amelia Co. Va. Chancery Causes 1764 – 001

Estis et us vs Combs

Agreeable to the order here unto annexed we the subscribers have laid off and do assign unto the said Frances Combs widow of John Combs decd her dower in the lands and slaves one third part of the personal estate of said John Combs decd and have also divided the residue of the estate of the said John Combs decd in equal portions among the children of the said John Combs decd and do lay off and assign each their part in manner following viz”

To Frances Combs for her dower in the lands of the said John one hundred and fifety acres beginning in William Eggleston line on the upper side of the same Combs plantation thence down the said Eggleston’s line to his corner at the branch and from thence along Joseph Eggeleston’s line to a new dividing line and then with the said line to the beginning in William Eggleston’s line which includes the houses and plantation whereon the said Frances Combs now lives and for the said Frances dower in the slaves of the said John decd assign unto her one negro fellow named Harry and we do further assign unto the said Frances for her third part of the personal estate the sum of 52 pounds ten shillings 9 pence three farthings.

To Moses Eastis and Lurany his wife for his part of the personal estate of the said John Coombs decd the sum of 14 pounds and 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing. 

To James Bowls (could be a slightly different name) and Martha his wife for his part of the personal estate of the said John Combs decd also the sum of 14 pounds 17 and 7 pence parthing.

To George Combs for his part of the personal estate of the said John Combs decd the sum of 14 pounds 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing and being his part equal with the other children.

We also assign and allot unto Samuel Combs, Mary Combs, Clarissa Combs, John Combs each of them the sum of 14 pounds and 17 shillings and 7 pence farthing current money for their part of the personal estate of the said John Combs, decd given under our hand this 25th day of ? 1762.

Next document

Amelia court held July 22, 1762

Moses Estes, Lorana his wife vs Frances Combs wife of John Combs decd

This cause heard and answered this day and ordered that John Booker, William Eggleston and John Cooke do assign to the defendant her dower in the lands and slaves of one third part of the estate of her late husband John Combs and that they divide the residue of the estate of the said John Combs among the complainant, children of the said John in equal proportions and assign unto each of them his or her share according to law.

Next document – the legal complaint.

Humble complaining Moses Estes and Luranna his wife, James Bowlen and Martha his wife, Samuel, George, Mary, Clarissa and John Combs that one John Combs, your orators father, being in his lifetime seized and possessed of a considerable estate and on the (blank) day departed this life intestate.  Soon after the deceased on the motion of Frances Combs, the widow and relict of the said John admin. of all singular the goods and chattels rights and credits which were of the said John Combs at the time of his death.  And that said Frances then took into her possession all the estate, that by a certain act of assembly made in the year of our Lord 1705? and in the 4th year of the reign of her ?.   The orators have appealed to the said Frances Combs for their proportional part aforesaid but the said Frances refuses unless she may be ordered by the court.  Your orators show that they are in some distress in being detained form their rights above contrary to equity… beg for consideration…ask that she be compelled to deliver (writing very faint).

Last document is a summons

Summon Frances Combs, admin of John Combs decd, Samuel, Mary, Clarissa and John Combs children of the said John Combs decd to appear… to answer a bill in chancery filed by Moses Estis and Loranna his wife.

The last record of the Moses Estes family in Lunenburg County is Luremia relinquishing her dower in 1769.  Maybe the family is cleaning up loose ends before they leave.  Moses is not on the Lunenburg tax list that year, but is on a list of road hands in Halifax County, although we can’t tell which Moses, father or son.

On June 20, 1771 in Halifax County, Moses Estes Jr. buys 256 acres from John and Elizabeth Owen that abuts the William Younger land.  The transaction does not say Junior, but Moses Sr. never shows this land on the tax records and Moses Jr. still owns this land after Moses Sr. dies.  Moses Jr.’s estate shows this land after his death as well.  This is the land on present day Estes Street in South Boston, VA.  This is where Luremia would spend the rest of her life – the next 40 years.

Today, Moses and Luremia’s land is the landfill, but I was able to obtain some images from the back side of land that had not yet been disturbed – thanks to the magic of Google maps street view.

Luremia estes halifax

Part of the old Estes land is now the Oak Ridge Cemetery, where it’s likely that Luremia is buried.

Luremia oak ridge

The Estes family land lay on the main road in South Boston.  The world passed by on their way north or south, on their way to the courthouse, on their way to Boyd’s or Irwin’s Ferry, the only way to cross the Dan River.  In fact, the city of South Boston was formed at and as a result of Boyd’s Ferry.  If the Estes family had anything to sell, they certainly had a captive audience, living on the main road.  Judging from the family stories, I’m betting they sold fruit brandy.

By this time, in 1771, Luremia is about 30 and probably has 3 or 4 small children.  Before their family was complete, Luremia would have about 11 living children.

For the next decade, in Halifax County, life hummed along normally.  Men worked on the roads, went to court for the drama of court day and farmed.  Women tended to the kids, preserved food, made clothes and cooked.  And everybody went to church.  It was required and you were fined for not attending.

But life as they knew it would change in 1780 with the beginning of the Revolutionary War.  Halifax County was in the wrong place, and the war came to them.

To make matters worse, Luremia’s oldest son, George, was gone – serving in that War.  He would serve one term for his father, a second one for himself, and a third as a volunteer.  This family clearly believed in independence.

In the winter of 1780, it looked like the Americans were losing in the South after a severe defeat at Camden, SC.  General Nathaniel Greene, George Washington’s right hand man, was sent to NC to see what could be salvaged.  What greeted him was bleak.  His troops were severely outnumbered and what was left of his army was starving, poorly clothed and barely equipped.

Greene managed through what have been framed as “Hurclean efforts” to rebuild the army, and then undertook a brilliant military strategy.  Knowing he was outnumbered, he divided his army in half and sent half south as a decoy.  General Daniel Morgan allowed himself to be pursued by the British, specifically Cornwallis’s Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, known as “Bloody Ban” because he massacred surrendering American soldiers.

On January 17, 1781, Morgan turned on Tarleton and engaged at the Battle of Cowpens, decisively winning the battle, taking prisoners, weapons and supplies, and headed back for North Carolina.  The race to Carolina was on, with Cornwallis’s troops furious and in hot pursuit in an event that would become known as the “Race to the Dan,” meaning the Dan River which divided NC and VA.  Greene knew if he could cross the Dan, that he could defend that position and keep Cornwallis from crossing.  So did Cornwallis – and he was behind – but determined to recover.

Morgan advanced northward through North Carolina, pushing his prisoners as fast as possible and burning bridges, boats and ferries behind him in an attempt to slow Cornwallis.  Cornwallis was so desperate that he burned his own supply train to increase the speed of his chase.  Cornwallis was close, very close, within hours of Morgan’s men, with Morgan’s unit often just barely avoiding his clutches.  Morgan fell ill and was relieved by Col. Williams.  The two halves of the Army attempted to rendezvous for strength.  They skirmished with Cornwallis, but Greene knew that to turn and fight would be a sure loss, so he continued to race for the Dan, a location that formed a natural barrier that he could take and hold.  Cornwallis surely knew that too.

Greene’s re-united army only numbered two thousand and thirty-six men, including fourteen hundred and twenty-six regulars. Col. Edward Carrington joined the command, with the report that boats had been secured, and secreted along the Dan River in Virginia, so as to be collected on a few hours’ warning. The British army was at Salem, only twenty-five miles from Guilford. This was on the tenth of February.  The next 4 days were brutal.

To guard against Cornwallis making a detour and getting between the light troops and Greene’s army, as well as to protect his own force from surprise, Williams had to send out such numerous patrols and establish such strong pickets that half of his force was always on night duty. He halted for only six hours each night; each man got only six hours rest in every forty-eight. They never set up a tent. “The heat of the fires was the only protection from rain and sometimes snow.” They started each day at three in the morning and hastened forward to gain a distance ahead of their pursuers that would give them time for breakfast.  Breakfast, dinner, and supper in one, because this was their only meal for the day. Cornwallis came on with equal speed.  Both sides knew this was a critical juncture – a turning point – and both were desperate.

Four days later, Greene reached Boyd’s Ferry in South Boston, VA.  On this map from 1884 when South Boston was actually formed, you can see Ferry street (upper left corner) still descends to the river where Boyd’s ferry was originally located.  On this map, a railroad bridge has replaced Boyd’s ferry.

Luremia Boyd's ferry

On Valentine’s Day, 1781, Greene’s troops built defensive works, and used every possible vessel to move his men and equipment, including cannons, across the Dan River at Boyd’s ferry, located at present day South Boston, and Irvine’s ferriy located just three or four miles west of Boyd’s ferry.  Boats had been gathered from Boyd’s and Dix’s ferries (In Pittsylvania County), and represented all of the boats on the river.

Cornwallis received the news in the course of the evening. The river was too high to cross without boats, and every boat for miles in either direction was on the farther shore. Greene had won the race.  Cornwallis was stuck.  An exceptional detailed and breath-holding description of this event can be found here.

Not only did Greene hold Virginia, and therefore the north, a month later he would regroup and recross the Dan to face Cornwallis again at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, and the British of course would march on to ultimate defeat at the Battle of Yorktown.  However, had the race to the Dan not been won by Greene and his men, we might well be British citizens today.

Oh, did I mention that the Estes home was between a mile and two miles from Boyd’s Ferry, on that main road, now called Main Street, where the Estes land and homestead was found?  On the south end of Main Street, the name changes and this same street is called…Ferry Street.  In fact, two of Luremia’s children would marry spouses from the Boyd family.

On the map below, you can see Estes Street, marked with the red balloon, Oak Ridge Cemetery in green, and Boyd’s Ferry is marked with the red arrow.  At that time, the main road was current day 129, also called Main Street.  As luck would have it, Moses Estes had been appointed surveyor of the road from Boyd’s ferry to the Banister River – so he was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of that dirt road – which of course meant keeping it passable.  The notes from the commanders of the army talk about how the roads turned to icy cold rivers of mud with the passing of the troops, horses, wagons and supplies.  Keep in mind that the city of South Boston, nor the town of Halifax, existed at that time.

I’d say that Moses Estes had his hands full in more ways than one.

Luremia estes land boyd's ferry

So, whichever Army won the race and crossed the Dan River, they were headed straight for the Estes land.  Hungry, maybe bent on destruction, depending on which side crossed first.  By this time, Luremia was about 40 years old and probably had most of her children.  She could easily have been pregnant or had a newborn at the time.  She surely had a houseful of children to worry about.  What was she going to do?  Would anyplace have been safe?  A war was coming, one way or another – and there was nothing to assure it wouldn’t be fought right there, on her doorstep, literally.

It’s no wonder that her husband, Moses, after the war, submitted a receipt for supplies for the troops.  They contributed 6 bushels of Indian corn, 100 sheaves of oats, 100 pounds of fodder and 11 pounds of bacon.  This makes me wonder if they quartered some of the men at their home or on their land.  I’m sure they were EXTREMELY glad to see Greene and not Cornwallis.

We know, positively, that the entire army passed right by the Estes land, because they lived on the only road north.  On February 17th, Greene’s troops crossed the Banister River, which would be just north of the town of Halifax today.  The only road from the Dan River to the Banister was straight through the Estes land.  Additional troops were called into Halifax County to help and reinforce Greene, including Virginia militia, North Carolina militia and a number of Catawba Indians.  Pleas for food, hundreds of cloth sacks for horse feed, 1000 of the best stallions and other supplies were sent out to local residents who provided Greene’s army with what they needed to continue to fight and ultimately win the war.  I envision the women of Halifax County, Luremia included, gathered together making sacks and clothes for soldiers. Luremia probably prayed that someone was taking care of her son, George, who was serving elsewhere, as she was taking care of these men.

There was other wartime activity in Halifax County as well, but nothing quite so stressful as Valentine’s Day in 1781.  I can see Luremia’s children clustered around her, the younger ones perhaps hiding behind her skirts, watching in awe as the soldiers  marched past and perhaps stopping to camp at the Estes plantation.  Little did they know they were seeing history unfold at a pivotal juncture in a conflict, the outcome of which formed the foundation of the country we live in today.

In 1786, three of Luremia’s children would marry, beginning the exodus of her children, leaving the nest for lives of their own.  Her first child to marry, Clarissa, married Francis Boyd in August, followed by both George marrying Mary Younger and Bartlett marrying Rachel Pounds on the same day in December.  In that time and place, married children often didn’t go far, like next door – unless they left the area entirely.  So at least initially, both George and Bartlett were living on the same land with Luremia and Moses, and Clarissa was certainly living close by, as the Boyd’s lived just down the road in South Boston.

The next we know of Luremia, she was paid to testify in a suit in 1791, Moody vs Armstrong.  Her name is in the court records, but we know nothing more than that.

Luremia’s husband, Moses, seems to get a bit rowdy as his name appears several times in the court records in the 1790s.  He was presented for a misdemeanor in 1791, seemed to be feuding with the Douglas family, and wound up in jail in 1796, although probably not for long.

In 1799, Moses Estes wrote his will and in it names Luremia as his wife and as his executor:

I, Moses Estes of the county of Halifax in the Commonwealth of Virginia being of perfect sense and memory and in good health thanks to God for the same but calling to mind the mortality of my body and knowing that it is appropriate for all men once to die and not knowing when that period will arrive to me have thought it necessary and expedient to make and publish my last will and testament in manner to wit:…to George Estes my oldest son I have given a horse, saddle, bed and furniture and a cow value 40 pounds, to my daughter Clarissa who intermarried with Francis Boyd – to Bartlett Estes my son one mare and saddle, a bed and furniture and a cow value 40 pounds, – to my daughter Patience who intermarried with Peter Holt one bed and furniture value 8 pounds – to my son Laban property to the value of 30 pounds, to Winston Estis my son property to the same value, 30 pounds, – it is my will that whatsoever I may die possessed of that at the death of my beloved wife Luremia Estis and not before be equally divided amongst all my children viz George, Bartlet, Patience, Laban, Winstone, Judith, Josiah, Moses and Patsey (the said Patsey now intermarried with Robert Jackson) equally and fairly counting in the sums respectively advanced as part of their shares so that in the end the share shall be equal…Luremia Estes remain in possession of my land and plantation.  Executor Luremia, son George and friend Berryman Green, signed by Moses Estes (his mark) – pronounced by Moses to be his last will and testament in the presence of Arm. Watlington Jr, John Barksdale and H. David Greene.

I have often wondered if Moses became ill in 1799, even though his will says he is in good health, because in earlier (and later) documents he could very clearly sign his name, yet his will bears his mark.

Moses didn’t die until 1813, more than a dozen years later.  Luremia would have been about 70 at that time, maybe a bit older.  Her last child would likely have married a decade or so before.

Luremia did not accept executorship of his estate, and neither did Berryman Green.  Moses’s estate would be contested and would not be settled until 1834 and then not divided for another several years.

We know Luremia was alive in both 1815 and 1816 because there were supplies set aside for her from the estate in 1815 and she was at Moses’s estate sale in 1816.

We believe Luremia was still living in 1820, because George Estes, living on the family land, has a female in that age bracket living with him.  We know she is gone by the 1830s when she is not present in any census and George is living alone.

Luremia is either buried in the Oak Ridge Cemetery, which is on the original Estes land, or she was buried in the second cemetery on the Estes land between two of the houses, and was later reburied in the Oak Ridge Cemetery on the Estes plot, shown below, when the city took the land for a landfill.  So, one way or another, all or part of her remains are, today, in the Oak Ridge Cemetery.

Luremia oak ridge unmarked graves

The Estes family graves that were moved are probably reburied in this area of unmarked graves.

Graves moved would include Moses Jr., Luremia, their son George and probably his wife, Mary Younger – in addition to any children they had that died.  And you know they probably had children that died – everyone then did.  It seems the death of children was a very sad rite of passage.

Luremia oak ridge fieldstone

This small fieldstone and clump of flowers is all that remain in this area today.  Surely those flowers were planted by someone to mark the grave of someone they loved.

Luremia oak ridge flower

How can we learn more about Luremia?

Luremia did have several daughters, and through those daughters, if they had daughters to the current generation, we could test their DNA and in doing so, find Luremia’s mitochondrial DNA.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers to all of their children, but only females pass it on.  So in the current generation, testing males is fine, but they have to descend through all females back to Luremia.

Luremia’s DNA will tell us something really important – what part of the world were her matrilineal ancestors from.  We do have Native American ancestry someplace in this family line – and it’s not from any of the lines we have already tested.  Remember, Moses and Luremia bought land that the Meherrin Indians had lived on and that the Combs family owned.  Is there a connection?  We don’t know – and I’d surely like to.

Luremia’s daughters were:

  • Patience Estes born before 1780, married Peter Holt, died before 1837, lived in Smith County, TN, and had at least one daughter, Cointhiana (or Cintha) Holt who married Johnson Moorefield.
  • Clarissa Combs Estes born in the 1760s, married Frances Boyd in Halifax County in 1786, lived in Georgia in 1837, and had daughters May Isabel Irving Boyd, Lorany Combs Boyd, Clarice Combs Boyd and Nancy Lawson Boyd.
  • Judith Estes born before 1787, married Andrew Juniel in Halifax County in 1806, died before 1837 in Henderson County, KY.  She had daughters Sally, Nancy, Luraney and Jane.
  • Patsy Martha Estes, married before 1799 to Robert Jackson (also spelled Hackson) and was married in 1837 to a Lax, children unknown.
  • Maga Estes married in 1792 in Halifax County to William Patrick Boyd, children unknown.  Not mentioned as a child in 1837 suit.  Either she was dead with no heirs, or perhaps she was not a child of Moses and Luremia.

If you descend from any of these daughters, please get in touch.  There is a DNA scholarship for the first person from this line willing to test.  You may be the key to solving one last mystery about Luremia.

______________________________________________________________

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

America Ferrera Heads to Honduras on Who Do You Think You Are

Unfortunately, TLC didn’t send the pre-screening link this week, so you don’t get my writeup.  Instead, you get theirs, and I’ll be watching right along with you.

America Ferrera TLC

Courtesy TLC

For the first time ever, Who Do You Think You Are? heads to Honduras as actress America Ferrera sets out to search for a connection to her father, whom she barely knew.

Throughout her journey, America uncovers the fascinating details of her paternal great grandfather, who was a General in the army and led numerous revolts against Honduran leaders to fight for the people’s rights.

Key details from America’s episode include:

  • With the help of historians and documentation, America discovers that her great grandfather, at the young age of 27, left a job as a tax collector to join a military campaign to help the liberal president’s party fend off a plot to overthrow them.
  • America finds that her great grandfather then led numerous successful revolts against corrupt Honduran presidents apparently in order to ensure the rights of the people. General Ferrera and his actions made such a mark that he was written about by the United States government and considered a troublemaker, eventually being exiled from Honduras.
  • Upon his return to his homeland some years later, General Ferrera declared that he wished to keep the peace – and then broke his promise as he stockpiled ammunition and prepared once again to take on the latest president and his political party.
  • Finally, America learns from an article which referred to General Ferrera as “the principal enemy of Honduran peace” that he was killed in action.
  • America finds that regardless of her ancestor’s motivations, her great grandfather was loved and considered an icon by the common people of his homeland.

Here’s a sneak peek:

http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/who-do-you-think-you-are/videos/america-ferrera/

The episode airs this Sunday, April 12 at 10/9c on TLC.

______________________________________________________________

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

Dissecting AncestryDNA Circles and New Ancestors

First of all, let me say that I like AncestryDNA Circles.  Yes there are problems and still things to work out, but all said, I think they have the potential to be beneficial – so long as they are interpreted correctly.

Much of the grumbling about Circles comes from the fact that Ancestry promised the community a “better mousetrap,” and instead, released DNA Circles.  DNA Circles is just fine for what it is, but it’s a far cry from a better mousetrap – meaning it’s not a replacement for, nor better than, a chromosome browser.  It’s like being promised a “better car” and getting a bicycle while the “gifter” is trying to convince you it’s a Mercedes bicycle and you should love it, plus you don’t need a car anyway – you only think you do.

The biggest problem with DNA Circles is that people perceive Circles to be proof, when they aren’t – partly because of how the DNA is paired with no matching segment proof (chromosome browser) available – and partly because of inaccurate trees.  That said, twice now I’ve found a really good hint through Circles, even if one did subsequently disappear.  For that very reason, I check every single day.

But hear that word – HINT.

What is a DNA Circle and How Does It Work?

Just to be sure we’re all on the same page, let’s take a quick look at what a DNA Circle is.

Circle Henry Bolton

Circles are created around a specific ancestor.  To be included in a DNA Circle, you must match at least one other person’s DNA who shows that same ancestor in their tree, plus there must be at least another person who matches your DNA or that of the person’s DNA you match, and also has the same ancestor in their tree.  So, a minimum of three people.

Now, we don’t know if these people match on the same segment, or if they also share other ancestors that might cause DNA matching, but the more people who match each other (and you) in the Circle, the better chance there is that there is a connection through that ancestor.

Let’s take a quick look at segment matching and how it’s done from Ancestry’s document titled, “Do all members of a DNA Circle have the same matching segment?”  This paper along with others is available on your DNA results page by clicking on the question marks on the right hand side beside your DNA Circles header.  So, no DNA Circles, no help information about DNA Circles.

circle papers

In the segment matching example, below, you can see that the DNA of these three people shown do share DNA segments, but they are not triangulated.  A matches with B and C on different segments, and B matches with C and A – but again, not on the same segments.  A triangulated match that proves a connection through a common ancestor requires 3 individuals to share the same DNA segment.

If these three segments below were triangulated, you would see the same segment colored in blue (for example) on the chromosomes of all 3 individuals, not just two of the three.

circle segment matching

So, what’s wrong with matching?  Not a thing.  Not one single thing.  But a match to someone is not proof of this specific common ancestor.  You could match these two people on different common ancestors, because none of the DNA is shared by all 3 individuals and matches on the same segment.

The bottom line to this is that if Ancestry were showing you only matches that were triangulated to this ancestor, you might not have any at all.  Using Circles rather than triangulation gives you many more matches and many more individuals in your Circle – and Circles where you wouldn’t have Circles otherwise – and it’s much less accurate.  It’s a group of cumulative hints that together are really compelling – but they are not proof.  Proof does not exist in the Ancestry system with the current set of tools.

Proof is triangulation of at least three people who share the same ancestor that also share exactly the same DNA on the same segment.

This however, does not mean Circles are bad – it means they need to be used with full understanding and care.

Now, this does not HAVE to be the case, because every Circle could have an option to “see only triangulated matches.”  That would be the best of both worlds.

Henry Bolton is one of my most robust Circles, so let’s look at that.  You can see that I match the DNA of 5 individuals in the Circle who also show Henry Bolton in their tree.  These are not triangulated matches, because we don’t know if any of us match on the same segments (at least not through Ancestry’s system) – but we do know THAT we match and THAT we share common paper genealogy with the same ancestor.

circle henry bolton matches2

You can see the greyed out individuals and the greyed out connection network.  These greyed out people don’t match my DNA, but they do match the DNA of at least one person that I match, and also share Henry Bolton as a common ancestor, so they too are in the Henry Bolton DNA Circle.

By clicking on one of the other Circles, you can see who they match.  So, for example, by clicking on my first match clockwise, below, you can see that they match 2 of the people that I do, plus four people that I don’t.  These matching networks, while not proof that this is how you are genetically connected to these people, do serve as great research connections.  Hopefully, at least some of them will be willing to download to GedMatch or transfer to Family Tree DNA, or both, where you can utilize a chromosome browser.

circle henry match matches2

Regarding reliability, I’m much more likely to place confidence in a robust Circle like the Henry Bolton Circle with multiple DNA matches between me and other members than the Diedamia Lyon Circle shown below.  Diedamia is one of the “ancestors” identified and assigned to me as my “new ancestor” that isn’t.

circle diedamia lyon

Keep in mind that the Diedemia new ancestor match is WITHOUT the common tree match required to create a Circle – so just utilizing the DNA.  So what this “new ancestor” Circle is telling you is that I match both of these individuals and THEY have a common ancestor between them, so I have been assigned to that same common ancestor – which is incorrect.  Diedamia Lyon is not my ancestor.  We have no idea if I share any common segments between these two matches, which would at least increase the chances that I share a common ancestor with both of these people, because Ancestry does not do segment matching, and they don’t give us any tools to do it either.

Circles are not predictable and often come like the tooth fairy, at night, so every morning I check to see if I have a new DNA Circle, a new “New Ancestor” or any new shakey leaf DNA matches.

How Did I Get My DNA Circles and Matches?

I decided I wanted to see if I can make sense of how Ancestry’s Circles and New Ancestors are actually assigned or created, based on my matches.

As you know, I did the little experiment where I recreated myself as a newbie, so I can compare my results with my regular robust tree and a mini-tree with only me and my parents.  Through that experiment, we discovered that of my 16 DNA Circles, 2 got “assigned” as new ancestors when using a bare bones tree.  In addition, the son of that ancestor was also assigned, correctly as an ancestor, even though he didn’t have a prior Circle.  Of course, there are still the two incorrect ancestors assigned in both circumstances, the robust and the mini tree scenarios.

Let’s see if we can figure out some logic behind how this actually works.

I have been keeping a spreadsheet of my shakey leaf AncestryDNA matches with whom I share an identifiable ancestor on paper.  Why?  Because both matches and Circles tend to come and go.

I’ve assembled the chart below based on my DNA matches with shakey leaves, meaning we have both a DNA match and a tree match.  The column titled “Number of DNA+Tree Matches” is the number of DNA matches to someone who also shares that ancestor in a tree.  Of course, the DNA match could be from another line entirely, but this is based on what Ancestry has provided.

“Gen from Me” means the number of generations removed from me, according to Ancestry’s calculations shown with the match.

“Circle Member Robust Tree” means that I either do or do not have a Circle for that ancestor using the robust tree.

“Assigned as New Ancestor” indicates whether this ancestor was assigned as a “New Ancestor” using only the mini-tree.

Please note that some shakey leaf matches were lost when phasing was introduced.

Let’s see how this works.

For example, in the first row, Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann had 8 DNA matches total, but lost 3 with phasing.  Currently, only 5 are shown as matches.  Henry is also shown twice as a match to just him and not Nancy Mann.  This makes sense, as he was married twice and I can clearly match Henry through a child of his first marriage.  Henry and Nancy are 5 generations removed from me and both Henry and Nancy are shown as Circles with my robust tree.  Both Henry and Nancy are also shown as “New Ancestors” in the mini-tree “recreate myself as a newbie” version.  My only other accurate “New Ancestor” is Henry’s son, Joseph Preston Bolton, who is not a Circle.

I sorted this first table by “Number of DNA+Tree Matches.”  Let’s see how that looks.  To begin with, my second highest match is George Dodson and Margaret Dagord with 7 matches, but they don’t form either a Circle or get assigned as a new ancestor.  However, I have lots of Circles with fewer matches.  Go figure.

Ancestor(s) Number of DNA+Tree Matches Gen from Me Circle Member (Robust Tree) Assigned as New Ancestor (Mini Tree) Comment
Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann 8 5 Yes, both Yes, both 3 matches gone with phasing, also shown by himself, 2 marriages
George Dodson, Margaret Dagord 7 8 No No Margaret also listed separately with 1 match
Johann Michael Miller, Suzanne Berchtol 7 8 No No
Jotham Brown 7 7 No No 3 matches gone with phasing
Joel Vannoy, Phoebe Crumley 6 4 Yes, both No
Abraham Estes and Barbara 5 9 No No
George McNiel, Sarah Coates 5 7 No No
John R. Estes, Ann Moore 4 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
Elizabeth Shepherd 4 6 No No Wife of William McNiel, not shown
John Francis Vannoy, Susannah Anderson 4 7 No No 2 matches gone with phasing
Philip Jacob Miller, Magdalena 4 7 No No
Robert Shepherd, Sarah Rash 4 7 No No
John Campbell, Jenny Dobkins 3 6 Yes, both No
Joseph Preston Bolton 3 4 No, but his parents have Circle, Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann Yes Two wives, my wife Margaret Herrell has 1 match, but she is not listed
Daniel Miller, Elizabeth Ulrich 3 6 No No
Stephen Ulrich 3 7 No No Married to Elizabeth Greib, Cripe, shown separately
Thomas Dodson, Dorothy Durham 3 8 No No
Andrew McKee 3 7 Circle disappeared No Had Circle, then gone
Fairwick Claxton, Agnes Muncy 2 5 Yes, both No
Jacob Lentz, Fredericka Moselman 2 5 Yes, both No
Nicholas Speak, Sarah Faires 2 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
Henry Bolton 2 5 Yes Yes He was twice married
Charles Dugas,  Francoise Bourgeois 2 9 No No
Cornelius Anderson,  Annetje Opdyke 2 8 No No
Francois Broussard, Catherine Richard 2 9 No No
Gershom Hall 2 7 No No Son of below
James Lee Claxton, Sarah Cook 2 6 No No Gone with phasing
Joseph Rash, Mary Warren 2 9 No No
Joseph Workman, Phoebe McMahon 2 7 No No
Thomas Dodson 2 9 No No
Francois Lafaille 2 2 Matches both gone with phasing
John Hill, Catherine Mitchell 1 6 Yes, John Hill only No
Charles Speak, Ann McKee 1 5 No No
Edward Mercer 1 7 No No
Elisha Eldredge, Dorcas Mulford 1 8 No No
Elizabeth Greib (also Cripe) 1 7 No No Wife of Stephen Ulrich, shown separately
Elizabeth Mary Angelica Daye 1 8 No No
Francois Dugas 1 8 No No
George Shepherd, Elizabeth Mary Angelique Daye 1 8 No No
Gershom Hall, Dorcas Richardson 1 8 No No Father of above
Gideon Faires, Sarah McSpadden 1 6 No No
Honore Lore, Marie Lafaille 1 5 No No
Jacob Dobkins 1 7 No No
Jacque Bonnevie, Francoise Mius 1 8 No No
James Hall, Mehitable 1 7 No No
Jan Derik Woertman, Anna Marie Andries 1 9 No No
Johann Nicholas Schaeffer, Mary Catherine Suder 1 8 No No
Lazarus Estes, Elizabeth Vannoy 1 3 No No
Margaret Dagord 1 8 No No Wife of George Dodson, also listed with him
Michael de Foret, Marie Hebert 1 9 No No
Moses Estes Sr. 1 8 No No Wife Elizabeth, LNU
Pierre Doucet, Henriette Pelletret 1 9 No No
Rachel Levina Hill 1 4 No No Wife of Antoine Hill
Raleigh Dodson, Elizabeth 1 7 No No
Suzanna Berchtol 1 8 No No
William Herrell, Mary McDowell 1 5 No No
Charles Hickerson, Mary Lytle 1 7 Circle disappeared for both No Had Circle, then gone
Francis Vannoy, Catherine Anderson 1 8 Match gone with phasing
John Vannoy 1 Match gone with phasing
Lois McNiel 1 6 Match gone with phasing

This comparison of matches to the Circles created is actually very surprising, because Circle creation seems to have very little correlation to number of DNA matches.  Circles require 2 people to match each other’s DNA, plus a third person that matches at least one of the other two – minimally.  There are very obviously behind the scenes criteria too, or I would have at least 36 Circles based on my matches to 3 or more people and 26 additional Circles if you could matches to only 2 people.  That’s a total of 62 Circles, not 16.

Of the 7 ancestral couples with 5 or more matches, which give us the potential for 14 individual Circles, only two couples, or 4 Circles exist.

The chart below is sorted by “Circle Member (Robust Tree),” so only the ancestors who are in Circles are shown.  The number of DNA matches range from 1 to 8.

Ancestor Number of DNA+Tree Matches Gen from Me Circle Member (Robust Tree) Assigned as New Ancestor (Mini Tree) Comment
Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann 8 5 Yes, both Yes, both 3 matches gone with phasing, also shown by himself, 2 marriages
Joel Vannoy, Phoebe Crumley 6 4 Yes, both No
John R. Estes, Ann Moore 4 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
John Campbell, Jenny Dobkins 3 6 Yes, both No
Joseph Preston Bolton 3 4 No, his parents have Circle, Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann Yes Two wives, my wife Margaret Herrell has 1 match, but she is not listed
Andrew McKee 3 7 Circle disappeared No Had Circle, then gone
Fairwick Claxton, Agnes Muncy 2 5 Yes, both No
Jacob Lentz, Fredericka Moselman 2 5 Yes, both No
Nicholas Speak, Sarah Faires 2 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
Henry Bolton 2 5 Yes Yes He was twice married
John Hill, Catherine Mitchell 1 6 Yes, John Hill only No
Charles Hickerson, Mary Lytle 1 7 Circle disappeared for both No Had Circles, then gone

Next, let’s take a look at the ancestors who have Circles created for them.

Surprisingly, I do have a DNA Circle based on only 1 DNA match.  The entire Circle is made up of three people.

circle john hill

I’m confused as to why this ancestor, John Hill, with one DNA match and one additional person in the Circle would have a Circle, but an ancestor like George Dodson and Margaret Dagord with 7 and 8 matches, respectively, wouldn’t.  Both of the two Circle matches also show the same wife as I do for John Hill, Catherine Mitchell, but there is no Circle for her.  Why not?

There is a line in the sand at which point Ancestry no longer creates Circles because they feel they are too far back in time to be reliable, but George Dodson/Margaret Dagord are at 8 generations, as are Henry Bolton/Nancy Mann who both have Circles, so that can’t be the problem.

Now, let’s look at who, from the matches and Circles was assigned as a “New Ancestor” when switching out my robust tree for the mini-tree.

Other than the two incorrect ancestors assigned, there were only three ancestors assigned from the more than 60 possibilities from ancestors who have 2 or more matches.  Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann both have a large number of matches, so I can clearly see why they were assigned as an ancestor.

What I’m unclearly about is how their son, Joseph Preston Bolton, was assigned as an ancestor.  He is not assigned as a Circle, or maybe that’s intentional because he’s downstream of Henry Bolton.  In any case, this a correct ancestor assignment.  I do have to wonder how Joseph Preston Bolton was assigned as a “New Ancestor” with only 3 matches and other ancestors with far more weren’t.

I thought perhaps it was because Joseph isn’t really that far upstream from me, at 4 generations, but then Joel Vannoy and Phoebe Crumley are also at 4 generations and have 6 matches and a Circle, but weren’t assigned as a “New Ancestor” using the mini-tree.  I can find no consistent theme here.

The following chart is sorted by “Assigned as New Ancestor (Mini Tree).”

Ancestor Number of DNA+Tree Matches Gen from Me Circle Member (Robust Tree) Assigned as New Ancestor (Mini Tree) Comment
Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann 8 5 Yes, both Yes, both 3 matches gone with phasing, also shown by himself, 2 marriages
Joseph Preston Bolton 3 4 No, his parents have Circle, Henry Bolton, Nancy Mann Yes Two wives, my wife Margaret Herrell has 1 match, but she is not listed
Henry Bolton 2 5 Yes Yes He was twice married
George Dodson, Margaret Dagord 7 8 No No Margaret also listed separately
Johann Michael Miller, Suzanne Berchtol 7 8 No No
Jotham Brown 7 7 No No 3 matches gone with phasing
Joel Vannoy, Phoebe Crumley 6 4 Yes, both No
Abraham Estes and Barbara 5 9 No No
George McNiel, Sarah Coates 5 7 No No
John R. Estes, Ann Moore 4 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
Elizabeth Shepherd 4 6 No No Wife of William McNiel, not shown
John Francis Vannoy, Susannah Anderson 4 7 No No 2 matches gone with phasing
Philip Jacob Miller, Magdalena 4 7 No No
Robert Shepherd, Sarah Rash 4 7 No No
John Campbell, Jenny Dobkins 3 6 Yes, both No
Daniel Miller, Elizabeth Ulrich 3 6 No No
Stephen Ulrich 3 7 No No Married to Elizabeth Greib, Cripe, shown separately
Thomas Dodson, Dorothy Durham 3 8 No No
Andrew McKee 3 7 Circle disappeared No Had Circle, then gone
Fairwick Claxton, Agnes Muncy 2 5 Yes, both No
Jacob Lentz, Fredericka Moselman 2 5 Yes, both No
Nicholas Speak, Sarah Faires 2 6 Yes, both No 1 match gone with phasing
Charles Dugas,  Francoise Bourgeois 2 9 No No
Cornelius Anderson,  Annetje Opdyke 2 8 No No
Francois Broussard, Catherine Richard 2 9 No No
Gershom Hall 2 7 No No Son of below
James Lee Claxton, Sarah Cook 2 6 No No Gone with phasing
Joseph Rash, Mary Warren 2 9 No No
Joseph Workman, Phoebe McMahon 2 7 No No
Thomas Dodson 2 9 No No
John Hill, Catherine Mitchell 1 6 Yes, John Hill only No
Charles Speak, Ann McKee 1 5 No No
Edward Mercer 1 7 No No
Elisha Eldredge, Dorcas Mulford 1 8 No No
Elizabeth Greib (also Cripe) 1 7 No No Wife of Stephen Ulrich, shown separately
Elizabeth Mary Angelica Daye 1 8 No No
Francois Dugas 1 8 No No
George Shepherd, Elizabeth Mary Angelique Daye 1 8 No No
Gershom Hall, Dorcas Richardson 1 8 No No Father of above
Gideon Faires, Sarah McSpadden 1 6 No No
Honore Lore, Marie Lafaille 1 5 No No
Jacob Dobkins 1 7 No No
Jacque Bonnevie, Francoise Mius 1 8 No No
James Hall, Mehitable 1 7 No No
Jan Derik Woertman, Anna Marie Andries 1 9 No No
Johann Nicholas Schaeffer, Mary Catherine Suder 1 8 No No
Lazarus Estes, Elizabeth Vannoy 1 3 No No
Margaret Dagord 1 8 No No Wife of George Dodson, also listed with him
Michael de Foret, Marie Hebert 1 9 No No
Moses Estes Sr. 1 8 No No Wife Elizabeth, LNU
Pierre Doucet, Henriette Pelletret 1 9 No No
Rachel Levina Hill 1 4 No No Wife of Antoine Hill
Raleigh Dodson, Elizabeth 1 7 No No
Suzanna Berchtol 1 8 No No
William Herrell, Mary McDowell 1 5 No No
Charles Hickerson, Mary Lytle 1 7 Circle disappeared for both No Had Circle, then gone
Francois Lafaille 2 2 Matches both gone with phasing
Francis Vannoy, Catherine Anderson 1 8 Match gone with phasing
John Vannoy 1 Match gone with phasing
Lois McNiel 1 6 Match gone with phasing

If you’re looking for answers to this mystery, you won’t find them here.  I don’t know.  All things considered, here is my collective wisdom on this subject.

  1. Enjoy your DNA Circles. Communicate with your matches. Ask them to download to Family Tree DNA and/or GedMatch where you have tools to work with. Watch for secondary lines through which you might match. I have found several where the DNA match is not to the ancestor in the Circle, but to a different, common line entirely. Of course, we still share the ancestor whose Circle we are in, assuming the trees are correct – it’s just that the DNA match is not from that ancestor.
  2. Understand that DNA Circles do not prove descent from that ancestor. The more people you match, the more strongly it implies a connection, but keep in mind that the DNA connection and the tree may not be connected either. Circles provide a “wider net” but also increases the potential for inaccuracy.
  3. Enjoy your “New Ancestors” but be extremely skeptical. Some of them will be ancestors. Some may be related but not ancestors. Some not only won’t be ancestors, you may not be able to figure out if or how they are related, no matter how large and robust your tree.
  4. Use all of this as a shakey leaf hint – which we all knows means that there’s something to check out – not gospel being dispensed.
  5. Make a spreadsheet to keep track of shakey leaf DNA matches, Circles and other people in the circle whose DNA you don’t match.  Just because your Circle or match is present today doesn’t mean it will be tomorrow.
  6. New Ancestors and Circles are both beta software. There is a feedback button at the top of every DNA Circle, at the far right. Please submit courteous suggestions and comments.  Oh yes, and don’t forget to mention that we need a chromosome browser:)

circle feedback

______________________________________________________________

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

Testing Ancestry’s Amazing “New Ancestor” DNA Claim

ancestry new ancestor intro

On April 2, 2015, Ancestry rolled out its new ”New Ancestor Discoveries” feature.  The graphic above is now what greets me when I sign into Ancestry.com.

I wrote about my incorrect “new ancestor,” both of them actually, the day after the rollout. Contrary to what some people thought, this was not an April Fool joke – neither their release nor my article.

The software rollout was accompanied by a press release, in which Dr. Ken Chahine is quoted, among others, about Ancestry’s “New Ancestor” feature which claims to identify new ancestors for you by utilizing only your DNA, and not matching trees.  Their already implemented DNA Circles feature uses a combination of DNA matching and common ancestors found in trees between those matches – but this new feature uses only DNA.

“It is effectively a shortcut through time – you take the test today and we tell you who your ancestors were, for example, in the 1700s. You don’t need to research records or build a family tree – AncestryDNA now transports you to the past,” said Dr. Ken Chahine, SVP and GM of AncestryDNA.

Needless to say, if this is true, it holds unparalleled promised for genetic genealogists.  After all, that’s what we all want – that elusive brick wall ancestor delivered to us – and our DNA has the potential to do just that.  In fact, for those of us brick walled in colonial America, especially in counties with no records, our DNA is the only hope we have of ever solving that mystery.

However, I find the claim that “you don’t need to research records or build a family tree” quite astounding – bordering on the incredulous.  An amazing claim for a genealogy company to make.  In fact, I reread that several times in disbelief, actually, and it has been bothering me ever since.  Ken Chahine is by no means an unintelligent man.  He’s a lawyer and a Ph.D. in biochemistry, among other things – so fully aware of the weight of his words.  I sincerely doubt, however, that he is a genealogist.

The video in this Ancestry blog by Kenny Freestone provides additional information and says that about three fourths of the “new ancestors” given to people are actually ancestors and the other one fourth are people who lived at the “same time and place as your ancestors so could be helpful as clues to point you in the right direction.”  That’s a bit of a different statement than the claim in both the e-mail and on my Ancestry DNA home page, shown below, that “we found you new ancestors.”

new ancestors hype

new ancestor e-mail 2

Ignoring Ancestry’s obvious hype, and the fact that both of my new ancestors aren’t, maybe things aren’t as bad as they appear at first glance.  I’m trying to be generous here.  Maybe if you don’t have a large, developed tree, this new feature is more helpful. Maybe it’s a fluke that I received two new ancestors and they were both unquestionably wrong.

Clearly, I realize that I’m one of the outliers – I have decades worth of experience in genealogy research and 15 years in genetic genealogy spent confirming paper genealogy.  So, I have an advantage that newcomers don’t have in that I know my ancestry back several generations and it has been proven with traditional genealogy records and confirmed with genetics through the 6th generation in most cases, and further back in some.

I’m also Ancestry’s worst nightmare – I’ve already spent my money for the test.  I know what DNA can do, what’s not being done and, along with others in my boat, am constantly clamoring for more – usually a chromosome browser, but in this case, just accurate representation.  I’m also far from alone.

Ancestry, on the other hand, fully knows that the rabid genealogists have already spent their $99 for their DNA test, so there is no incremental revenue to be had from us, aside from our subscriptions which we’re going to renew anyway.  Ancestry is focused on making DNA (and genealogy) easy and on recruiting new people.  That’s certainly not a bad thing – until it crosses the line between fact and wishful thinking.

Because of the investment in time, money and DNA that I’ve made personally over the years, I was able to very quickly discount the two “new ancestors” that Ancestry “found” for me.  Yep, Ancestry’s worst nightmare.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

But Ken Chahine’s claim really made me wonder.  What if I was a new person?  That’s clearly who Ancestry is targeting – someone who has never worked with a tree.  Ancestry wants them to test as the doorway, the entry, to genealogy.  How effective would this test be for them?  Is there a way, short of testing a second time, to find out?

Indeed, there is.  So let’s see if Ancestry really can do what Ken Chahine said.  Let’s try to prove Ken right.

We’re going to do something called regression testing.  In the technology world, this is where you already know the answer, but you set the system up to see if it can find the correct answer through the software only.  Think of new calculator software and testing to make sure when you add 2 and 2 you don’t get anything other than 4.  We’re going to use what we know about my matches, trees and DNA Circles through my normal tree and then we’re going to start over from scratch with a bare-bones tree and see what Ancestry finds.

My Proven Tree

First, let’s look at where we stand today, with my regular tree at Ancestry.  I’ve been a well-behaved genealogist and have done everything I can to help myself find connections.  I’ve entered my ancestor information and attached relevant hints, discarding others.  I have entered my full direct line tree at Ancestry, so all of my ancestors are available, with appropriate source information attached.  My tree is public.  I’m not holding out.  You notice there are no shakey leaves on my tree – that’s because I follow up on every single one of them.

ancestry claim full tree

Based on that information, here is what my DNA landscape at Ancestry looks like, utilizing my full tree, today.  I am a member of 16 DNA circles,  have 135 shared ancestor hints .

ancestry claim matches

And, oh yes, those two “new ancestors” gifted to me by Ancestry who aren’t my ancestors.

ancestry claim wrong ancestors

Of my 16 DNA Circles, several are relatively robust with 14, 15, 17 and 18 members.  These would be the best candidates for “New Ancestors” because there are so many matches.  Those four are Henry Bolton and wife Nancy Mann along with Nicholas Speaks and wife Sarah Faires.  You can see the number of members in the Circle at the bottom of each Circle below.

ancestry claim circlesancestry claim circles 2

Recreating Myself as a Newbie

In order to become a newbie again, I created a new mini-tree showing only my parents.  That’s where many people start.  I made my robust tree “private” and my new tree “public,” which means that Ancestry will not use the private tree for DNA comparisons, and will instead use the public tree.  Then I linked my DNA to my new mini-tree (under the settings gear under the DNA tab.)

ancestry claim mini tree

Given that with the robust tree, I have 16 DNA Circles and my two “new ancestors” who are not my ancestors at all, I should receive at least a subset of those circles and probably those erroneous “new ancestors” with the new mini-tree.

Ancestry told us previously that they refresh their database every 4 hours or so.  Sure enough, in just a few minutes, my circles and shakey leaf hints had all disappeared, which they should because those ancestors don’t exist in the new mini-tree.  However, my two “new ancestors” who are not my ancestors at all both remained.

So, I waited, because I’m sure that some of the Circles I was a member of with my robust tree will be shown now as “New Ancestors” with my mini-tree.

Be aware that Ancestry does have some hiccups in this beta version of the software.  It took overnight for the “switch” to the new tree to be completely effective, and in the meantime, it seemed to have been reading from both the new and old trees.  I know this because, at one point, it gave me back my 16 circles, which, of course is impossible because my mini-tree doesn’t include any ancestors other than my parents.  So, if you’re going to try this experiment, give it at least 24 hours to completely switch.

By the next day this had sorted itself out and I showed the following “New Ancestors.”

ancestry claim new ancestors

In addition to the same two “New Ancestors” who aren’t, Ancestry also gave me three correct ancestors, based on DNA alone, two of which, Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann, were DNA Circles previously, and the other new ancestor is their son.

I wonder where the other 14 Circle ancestors are and why they weren’t discovered?  Perhaps I didn’t match enough DNA or enough people, but that’s odd, because in many of the circles I DNA match far more people, as many as 7, than the two matches used to “give me” Diedamia Lyon and John Curnutte, incorrectly, as ancestors.

For a newbie who has no way to differentiate – meaning they don’t know who their ancestors are – this would be very exciting – and partially accurate.  However, there is no way to tell the difference between the accurate and inaccurate.  In fact, as a newbie, you have no way of knowing that some ARE or even might be inaccurate.  After all, Ancestry told you they are ancestors.  Why would you disbelieve them?  If someone finds that one of these ancestors is correct, they are likely to assume they are all correct, and probably vice versa.

I can’t tell you how ecstatic I was to receive two new ancestors, hoping they were brick wall ancestors, and then how horribly disappointed I was to discover that they weren’t.

Remember, for me to receive two new ancestors would mean a 30+ year brick wall would be falling that I have never been able to budge any other way.  Had these matches not been represented as “new ancestors,” I would have had an entirely different set of expectations.  Not only are they not ancestors, I can’t figure out how they are connected at all.  The best I can figure is that I match the two individuals who make up the New Ancestor “circle” on two different, unrelated, unidentified lines.  But let’s skip that for now and look at the three accurate ancestors as if I were a newbie.

Working With Results

Looking at my newbie results, Joseph Preston Bolton would be the easiest ancestor to find, as he shares a common surname with my grandmother and is her grandfather.  If I were an adoptee, of course, I wouldn’t know that, but if I know my grandmother’s surname, I would pick up on that commonality right away, as well as the locations shown in the story displayed for each new ancestor by clicking on the little leaf provided in the upper right hand corner.  Joseph’s is partially shown below.

ancestry claim joseph bolton

While the stories provided by Ancestry are all at least partially incorrect, because they are created from compiled trees – there are useful hints therein – if you know that’s how to interpret this information.  A warning, discussion or disclaimer about accuracy in the verbiage would be a nice touch – before the newbies make all of those novice mistakes and create even more incorrect trees by just accepting everything at face value.  We were all newbies once and did this – only to have to unravel it later.

The Good

The best part of this new feature is actually the new compiled “Facts” tab.

ancestry facts tab

It is a great tool to have the combined possible sources, possible facts and possible family members in one place.  I do really like this.  And Ancestry did the right thing and labeled them “possible.”  In this case, for Joseph Preston Bolton, these are from 188 combined family trees and I know beyond a doubt some of the information is wrong (like Joseph’s second wife’s Martin children from her first marriage are listed as Joseph’s children), but when I was sorting through Joseph initially, I would have loved to have had this repository of “possible facts” available in one place to sort through.

So, yes, I do think this tool could be very useful.  And I do think one day we will be able to tell people who their ancestors are, reliably, utilizing DNA alone.  But that day is not today.  So let’s say something more accurate, like “Your DNA suggests these people may be your ancestors or may be otherwise related to you.”

The Bad

My problem with this new feature isn’t what it does or doesn’t do, or even how well – it’s how it has been portrayed and the extremely inflated marketing hype that came along with it.

I applaud what Ancestry is trying to do.  I have a huge issue with how they are portraying DNA results – both directly and by inference.

It’s fine to give us “hints,” although what we really need is a chromosome browser.  But don’t give us a “hint” under the guise of something it isn’t – a new ancestor.  Call it what it is.  Don’t misset expectations.  This leads either to people who believe the hype and are wrong, seeding incorrect genealogies and trees, or people who discover they’ve been misled and then become disenchanted with both genealogy and genetic genealogy.

And Ken is right about not needing to build a family tree in order to take the test – even though that’s not exactly what he said.  However, receiving disarticulated ancestors, both correct and incorrect, means you absolutely must build a tree in order to figure out which ones actually ARE ancestors.  And then you’re disappointed to discover that some of your ancestors, aren’t, because they were represented as your “new ancestors.”  Of course, by the time you figure this out, you’ve already paid your DNA test money and you’re, hopefully, excited and motivated to find more.  I’m sure that’s the entire point, but saying that, “You don’t need to research records or build a family tree,” is a tad misleading.  Receiving 2 or 3 ancestors is not at all the same thing as knowing how you connect to them – and the only way to make that discovery is through research and by creating a tree.

So, in a way it’s better if you’re a newbie, because you’re more likely to receive a “new ancestor,” but it’s also worse because you have no tools or experience to judge whether your new ancestor actually is your ancestor – or how to connect to them.

Unfortunately, the newer or more naïve the tester, the more apt they are to accept Ancestry’s pronouncement of “new ancestor” at face value.  After all, Ancestry is a big genealogy company who deals with ancestors all of the time, and they are supposed to know what they are doing.  One would also presume they would not represent someone as an ancestor who isn’t, or who might not be, especially since Ancestry very clearly knows that some of these “new ancestors” aren’t.  I’m OK with them not being ancestors – just represent them appropriately.  “These MAY be your ancestors or you MAY be related to these people in another way,” might be a better way to present these results.

The Ugly

Playing fast and loose with the wording and over-representing what the product can do is going to give the entire industry a reputation for DNA being unreliable and testing companies as being smarmy.  Here’s an extract from a comment yesterday, “…the dna industry generally is not reliable.  So, while it may be fun to play with, none of this can be taken or should be taken seriously.”

Ouch, ouch, ouch.  While we know that’s not over-archingly true, it’s certainly the kind of commentary that Ancestry is inviting with its over-reaching and inaccurate marketing hype.  And that hurts all of us.

The Bottom Line

So I wouldn’t exactly say Ken is redeemed, but he wasn’t entirely wrong either – because by remaking myself as a newbie, I did receive three accurate ancestors along with the same two inaccurate ones.

By using my newbie results, Ken Chahine is 3/5th redeemed because 3 of my 5 new ancestors are in fact, ancestors, although we have no idea where my missing 14 ancestors who are circles with my robust tree have gone.  I have as many as 7 DNA matches to some of those circle ancestors who are absent, but only 2 DNA matches to the descendants of John Curnutte and Diedemia Lyons who are my incorrectly assigned “New Ancestors.”  So maybe Ken is really only 3/19th redeemed, depending on how you count.  Or, if you’re looking at my original results, my two “new ancestors” are still 100% wrong – so Ken is only partially redeemed if I’m a newbie with no prior info and no way to know my results are wrong.  So, I’m probably a very happy newbie camper (Wow – I got 5 new ancestors!) and a very unhappy experienced camper (I got 2 new ancestors and they are both wrong!)  Perception – it’s an amazing thing.

Regardless of how you count, If I were Ken, I’d still be going incognito to genealogy conferences where those experienced campers hang out wearing a wig and sunglasses for awhile.  Being 3/5th right about something as serious to genealogists as giving them incorrect ancestors is no saving grace, because it is still 2/5th wrong, especially when we know that given the tools we need, those of us who are so inclined could quickly eliminate the confusion.  It doesn’t have to be like this.

As a community we are beyond frustrated and exasperated, and exaggerated marketing claims are overshadowing the positive aspects of this new feature and making an already difficult situation worse.

What difficult situation, you ask?  The fact that people who don’t understand about genetic genealogy already claim that Circle membership “proves” ancestral descent (it doesn’t) and Ancestry consistently has refused to provide us with the chromosome browser tools we need to prove or disprove an ancestral connection.  Instead, we been given new ancestors who aren’t.  This is not a better mousetrap.  The only recourse we have is to beg our matches at Ancestry to download their results to either or both Family Tree DNA and www.gedmatch.com where we have tools.  That or blindly believe.

My Opinion

I hate hype, in particular untrue or misleading hype.  Out the gate, that colors my perspective of everything else and calls into question the credibility of the entity making the statements.

Setting that aside, I like the forward movement with technology and appreciate what Ancestry is trying to do.

This is indeed, the Holy Grail they are reaching for – being able to identify our ancestors based solely upon our DNA.  I said reaching for, because it’s certainly not here yet.  However, it’s not beyond reach either.  And I certainly want to encourage innovation – because, selfishly, I want to know who those elusive brick-wall ancestors are. I want new ancestors – real ones.

I am grateful for the information.  Ok, I would be grateful for the information were it accurate, or at least portrayed accurately – and it’s the portrayal that is really my issue here.

In my “real me” self, using the robust tree, I’m very irritated about receiving two incorrect ancestors, represented as my “new ancestors,” with no caveats, and no tools.  I am too wizened and seasoned to be a “trust me” kind of person.  I am not a blind believer.  I know better.  That combination of misrepresented and incorrect data is inexcusable because Ancestry knows better.  Not only that, they have the opportunity to provide the types of comparisons and tools that do represent proof, but have chosen not to.

In my “newbie” self that I recreated, I would have been excited to receive 5 new ancestors – and had no idea of what to do next – including no idea that two of them were entirely bogus.

The “real me” wants the novices to be successful – to come to love genealogy as many of us have over the decades.  To have the wonderful experiences we have had.  But to do that, they can’t be disenchanted by discovering that their ancestors gifted upon them aren’t true – after they’ve built that incorrect tree that is being copied.

The technology could be improved.  No doubt about that.  But first steps first and you have to crawl before you can walk.  I actually want to compliment the behind the scenes people for the work they have done.  Unfortunately, that effort is being overshadowed by the “in your face” marketing BS.

However, it takes no development effort to modify the way this test and results are portrayed to the consuming public.  And right now, that is what is needed most.

So, I’m happy that Ancestry is making this technology effort.  I’ll be excited when the methodology is perfected, a few years down the pike.  I’m glad to see Ancestry pushing the edge of the frontier.

I’m extremely unhappy with the combination of Ancestry’s overzealous marketing of this often incorrect new feature with the lack of the tools Ancestry clearly knows we need.

The most frustrating aspect is that the lack of tools holds our ancestors hostage just beyond our reach.  They could do so much.  Did Ancestry really think we would be appeased by Circles and “New Ancestors” that aren’t?

The Back Fence

You can see what others in the genetic genealogy community have to say about “New Ancestors,” below, and you can read the comments on my original article  and Ancestry’s blog postings as well.  Like I said, I’m far from alone.

Dr. David Dowell – Does Ancestry Think We are NOT OK?

Elizabeth Ballard – Ancestry DNA Has Now Thoroughly Lost Its Mind

Kathleen Carrow Ingram – New Ancestors You Tell Me?  No proof?  Is this an April fool trick?

Annette Kapple – New AncestryDNA Circles: You Need A Big Tree

Judy Russell – Still Waiting for the Holy Grail

John D. Reid – “New Ancestor Discoveries” through AncestryDNA and beyond

______________________________________________________________

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

George Estes (1763-1859), 3 Times Revolutionary War Veteran, 52 Ancestors #66

George Estes was born in Amelia County, Virginia to Moses Estes and Luremia Combs on February 3, 1763.  He tells us his birth date and his father’s name, among several other very interesting things, in his application for a Revolutionary War pension.

In 1832, Congress passed an act making men who served in the Revolution eligible for a pension.  Thank goodness they did, because it caused records to be created documenting the service and lives of these men that would otherwise never have existed.

George applied for his pension on September 14, 1833.  In his owns words, he tells us about his 3 tours of duty.  Yes, three separate tours of duty.

George Estes pension

George Estes pension 2

George Estes pension 3

“I entered the service in January 1781 as a substitute for my father Moses Estes and marched from Halifax County where I then lived under Captain Wall through the counties of Charlotte, Lunenburg, Dinwiddie and Petersburg to Cabin Point on the James River.”

I would think the word “marched” implies on foot.  And there is a lot of marching going on.

Cabin point

“At that place I was transferred to Capt. Long’s company of infantry and marched with him to Suffolk on the Nansemond River where I was stationed for some time under Colonel Dick and Gen. Michlenburg.  From there we marched to Portsmouth and many other places and arrived at Barrett’s Neck where I was discharged by Capt. Lewis in the month of April 1781 having served 3 months on this tour.  My discharge is lost and cannot be found but the service record is proved by Elias Palmer who was a soldier with me during the whole time.

In the month of May 1781 I was drafted to serve my own tour and marched from Halifax County in Capt. Clark’s company through Richmond to New Kent Courthouse where we joined General Mechlenburg’s Company.  I was then attached to Capt. Read’s company of cavalry and continued with him marching in various directions until our time of service for 3 months expired.  I was discharged by General Waine in the County of Charles City in the month of August 1781.  My discharge is lost and cannot be found and I do not know any person living who was in that service with me.

In the fall of 1781 I moved a family of people to the state of Tennessee staid in that country upwards of a year and in the month of October 1782 I entered the service of the United States as a volunteer and marched from the county of Washington in state of North Carolina in Capt. Cox’s company of mounted horsemen under Col. Campbell and Col. Shelby into the Cherokee Nation of Indians.  We marched in various directions in the said nation until we arrived at the shoemake town.  At that place we received information that a treaty had been reached with the indians and we were discharged.  The whole time of service on this term was 2 months and 20 days.  I was discharged by Capt. Cox about the end of December and came to Virginia where I have lived in the county of Halifax ever since.  My discharge is lost and cannot be found and no person [is] in this country that was in that service with me.

I was born in the county of Amelia on the third day of February 1763.  My age was recorded in a family bible that was in my father’s possession but I don’t know what became of it.  I lived in the county of Halifax when I entered the service in the said county when the war ended and have lived in the county ever since.  Christopher White, Thomas Conner and Peter F. Kent and many others can testify as to my character for veracity and their belief of my service as a soldier of the Revolution.  There is no clergyman living in my neighborhood.”

George (X) Estes

      (his mark)

Sept. 14, 1833

So George served three times in total, twice by obligation, when his father and his numbers came due, and once as a volunteer.  He served in place of his father.  War is difficult enough for a young man.

When George filed for his pension, he was 70 years old.  While he signed with an X in 1833, in earlier documents, he signed his name, so he was capable of writing.

George Estes signature 1

George’s signature is shown on a petition dated Dec. 10, 1785, above, for an assessment for religious teachers.  Note that his name appears very near that of William Younger who lived adjacent his father Moses Estes.  George would marry Mary Younger a year later, although a connection between the two Younger families has never been proven.

George Estes signature 2

This petition dated November 17, 1795 shows Moses and his son George Estes both of whom are opposed to the sale of the church glebe lands, in addition to the signature of their neighbor William Younger.  Note that George actually spells his own name in two different ways, Estes and Eastis.  And we wonder why we are confused today.

Documenting George’s first two tour service records in Virginia was difficult, but finding the third one was next to impossible.  Then, quite by accident, when looking for my Dodson family records, I stumbled across the documentation for George’s third tour, where he is listed as George Eastis, in the North Carolina archives, of all places.

From the Book “Tennessee Soldiers in the Revolution” by Penelope Johnson Allen, now digitized at Ancestry.com.

George Estes rev war accounts

Look at this, George is right across the page, directly from Lazarus Dodson, the man I was looking for.  Talk about serendipity.

George Estes Army account

My cousin, Debbie, wrote to the NC archives and was sent the following document that tells us that George Estes was paid in a specie certificate, a type of credit voucher, on June 12, 1783.  His name appears on the 10th line in the third column.  Ironically, Lazarus Dodson, whose name appears two entries below George’s is the father of Lazarus Dodson, whose daughter, Rutha or Ruthy, would marry George’s grandson John Y. Estes in Claiborne County, Tennessee in January 1841, 58 years after their grandfathers  served together in the Revolutionary War.  I wonder if they ever figured that out.

George Estes specie certificates

I called the North Carolina archives and asked if the original pay rosters and additional information were available.  They said they were, but they did not do “lookup work.”  A week later, I was standing at the research desk in the archives in Raleigh, with these papers in hand, and an amazed librarian kind of stuttered and stammered around when I introduced myself and told her where I came from (Michigan) and why I was there.  I think they are far more used to people “going away” when told the archives doesn’t do “lookup work” than showing up 1000 miles and a week later.  Sadly, that trip was for naught, because while they did have additional records for some soldiers, there was nothing more for George.  Don’t even ask how upset I was.

Why, I was then forced to do research on some of my NC lines since I was there in the archives with nothing else to do.  I mean…you can’t waste a trip like that!

George’s certificate was issued by the auditors, Bledsoe and Williams, and by referencing the attached documents, you can determine the location where the soldiers served. In this case, exactly as described by George Estes, he served in the Morgan District which included the Washington and Sullivan County areas which eventually became Tennessee.

George Estes army districts

By putting these three pieces of information together, George’s pay list, which includes the auditor, the auditor and their districts – we can confirm where George was when he served his third service term.

George Estes district auditors

In 1833, from Jasper Co., GA, Clarissa C. Boyd declares that her brother, George Easters, a resident of Halifax Co., VA in 1781, served 6 months in the Virginia militia. On January 15, 1784. George Estes, infantry, Continental Line, was issued a certificate for the balance of his pay.

George was placed on Virginia pension roll at $31.38 per annum, certificate 16886 issued on Oct. 12, 1833.

On April 5, 1855 in Halifax Co., George (X) Estes of said county, age 92, applies for bounty land.  He obtains the land and signs the bounty certificate over to his daughter Susannah immediately.

What do we know about what happened to George during his Revolutionary War service?

In his first term of service, serving in place of his father, Moses, George spent time at Cabin Point on the James River about which we discover the following:

By late summer 1780 with South Carolina under their control, the British were ready to push into Virginia and Maryland and deal Washington a final blow. In Virginia, Governor Thomas Jefferson had placed General Steuben in charge of the state’s defense. By January 1, 1781, the British were in Chesapeake Bay and Jefferson was calling up county militiamen to repel the impending attack. Benedict Arnold, now in charge of the British fleet, sailed up the James River and burned Richmond then moved back downriver to settle in at Portsmouth on the Chesapeake Bay.  The Halifax County Militia and was sent to Cabin Point on the James River to watch for Arnold’s next anticipated raid up the river. The militia had little to do but sit and wait and worry about the news coming in daily of Cornwallis’ raids in the Carolinas and his impending threat to Virginia.

It seems that all was not well at home in Halifax County during this time.  Boyd’s Ferry is the present city of South Boston and the Boyd’s Ferry crossing was very close to the Estes homestead, which was located just above the crossing on the main road.

In a letter to Governor Jefferson dated February 15th, 1781, camped at Boyd’s Ferry on the Dan River, Greene called for reinforcement of militia:

“We have crossed the Dan, and I am apprehensive they will cross it above us…If they should they will oblige us to cross the Stanton branch of the Roanoke…It is by no means certain, that Lord Cornwallis will not push through Virginia.”

Jefferson dispatched letters on February 17 and 18 to a long list of county Lieutenants and Baron von Steuben asking for militia to join General Greene who had “crossed the Dan at Boyd’s Ferry and was retreating before the enemy.” News of the alarming activities of Greene and Cornwallis aligned along either side of the Dan near Boyd’s Ferry must have reached the Halifax County Militiamen shortly after February 18. While they sat on the James River waiting for Arnold to make a move, Cornwallis and his army was camped at the doorstep of their homes in Halifax County.

The record is dated February 23, 1781 Cabin Point, Virginia and states:

“A list of the mens names belonging to Major Jones Battalion of Militia who have deserted. Distinguishing those who carried off their arms from those who did not. Also those who deserted from their post.”

The list of names does not include George Estes.  He had a decision to make, and he chose to remain at his post, although one could scarcely have blamed him had he returned home to protect and defend his home place and family.  Perhaps the knowledge that his father and siblings were there relieved his mind somewhat.

Now let’s turn to George’s third tour of duty from what would become eastern Tennessee, but was at that time western North Carolina..

In 1782, the Cherokee, who had sided with the British continued to raid.  John Sevier banded together a group of men in western North Carolina, now eastern Tennessee, and with Colonels Campbell and Shelby marched on the Cherokee towns.  Shoemake town, as it was called by whites, was located in upper Georgia and had previously been burned in May of 1781.  The Indians allied with the British because the British assured them that they would stop the encroachment of the Europeans into their traditional territory.  The Indians did not fare well in the Revolutionary War, nor afterwards.  This “march on the Cherokee” appears to have been one last final grandstand that gave the Cherokee the final nudge to end their part in the war.

Overhill towns map

Rather miraculously, George does not seem to have engaged in any actual battles during his 3 tours of duty.  By this late date in the war, most of the actual fighting was in North and South Carolina.

Back Home in Halifax County

George Estes street sign

After returning to Halifax County, George Estes spent most of his life on his father’s original land.  His father Moses died in 1813, but the estate was contested and not settled until 1837, long after many of Moses’s children had died as well.

That land is located in the city of South Boston at the intersection of Estes and Main Street.  The following photo is standing in the Oak Ridge cemetery, originally part of the Estes land, looking down Estes Street.  Note the blue water tower.  It’s a landmark we’ll reference later.

George Estes land

The Estes farm used to be beyond the blue tank on the left and the houses on the right. Today Estes Street is gated, not because it’s an upscale gated community, but because that land is now the landfill.  This was heartbreaking to me, until I learned that the graves had been moved.  It still makes me sad.

Below is what’s left of the Estes land taken from behind the area (yes, I was in the landfill but I cropped that portion from the photo.)  We are looking at the original Estes woods.

George Estes landfill

In the above photo, for perspective, notice the blue water tower in the upper right corner. In the photo below, you can see the ‘other end” of the now gated “Estes Street” emerging that originates near the blue water tower that can also be seen in the left upper corner of the photo.

George Estes landfill 2

The Estes family in Halifax County, Virginia tells the story of when the family moved the graves from the old Estes land shown above to the Estes plot in the Oak Ridge cemetery. This apparently happened in the early 1900s and the only graves not moved were those of two unrelated people, one being an unrelated child whose parents had no place to bury the child and the second, an “in-law” of a descendant whose family did not want them moved.

It turns out that when Moses Estes’ children fought so bitterly over his land, they also apparently established separate cemeteries. One cemetery was the “original” Estes cemetery where Ezekiel, Susannah,  Ezekiel’s mother who is George’s daughter, George and probably old Moses himself are buried. The other cemetery was located behind the houses, apparently, down Estes street. I believe that the Oak Ridge Estes plot is the original Estes cemetery, but I cannot definitively prove this through records still in existence today, although an early cemetery history states that this is the case. Oral history says that when they moved Moses’s grave, only a collar bone and a casket hinge were left. Whether this is accurate or a tall tale, we’ll never know, but indeed, whatever remains of the elder Estes clan is buried in the Oak Ridge cemetery directly across the street from the old Estes homestead and at the end of Estes Street. The rest, well, it’s under the landfill or dispersed.

Today Main Street is paved. When they removed the cobblestones to pave Main Street, they used them to construct the beautiful stone wall around the cemetery. George Estes served on many “road crews” as documented in court records and it is entirely possible that he laid these very cobblestones, shaped from the stones found on the Estes land. George was probably glad to get rid of them as they would have made plowing difficult.

The bright white monuments in the cemetery are the Estes family stones, made of marble apparently, after they were cleaned by family members about 2006. Ezekiel who died in 1885 has a stone that proclaims him “an honorable man,” but none of the earlier family members have stones. Ezekiel’s mother Susannah died in 1870 and his grandfather George died in July of 1859, an amazing 96 years of age.

Oak Ridge cem entrance

The Halifax County Estes family has a clearly remembered oral history of “Granpappy George who lived to be 108 (or 106 or 115).” Sometimes stories grow with time, and that one certainly did, but he was quite elderly when he passed and obviously legendary.

George lived far from a sedentary lifestyle. He was obviously not afraid of adventure or danger, serving three separate terms in the Revolutionary War, one as a substitute for his father and one as a volunteer. George returned home and married Mary Younger on December 19, 1786 the same day that his brother Bartlett Estes married Rachel Pounds. I wonder if they were married in a double ceremony.

estes younger marriage

Younger marcus signature

When I first started researching this couple, everyone in the family said that George Estes and Mary Younger could not have been the father of John R. Estes because they only had one child, Susannah. As a novice, I figured those researchers had a lot more information and years of experience, but as one by one, I worked through and eliminated many of the alternative parents, the options became fewer and fewer and I began to wonder how “they” knew that George only had one child. I certainly hadn’t found anything that said he had only one child. And having found only one child doesn’t mean there was only one child. In fact, I’ve become very suspicious of any record before the days of modern birth control that suggests that someone had only one or two children, unless the wife or husband died.

As it turns out, Susannah was the only child that was easily evident. And “they” didn’t know how “they” knew – trying to find the source of that information was like trying to find the elusive fountain of youth. And that was before the days of quick-click trees on Ancestry. If the researchers had looked at the few census records we do have, they would have seen a discrepancy that screamed for an explanation – multiple children living with George and Mary.

George and Mary positively had 7 children who survived to adulthood and probably at least two who didn’t, based on a combination of records, including the 1820 and 1830 census.

It seems that several of George’s children regularly pushed the envelope of the day and would have brushes with the law or, perhaps better stated, the court system and “polite society.” It’s thanks to those records that we can add color to our family portrait. I love lawsuits – well – historical lawsuits anyway. I extracted probably 75-100 years worth of court, deed and tax records from Halifax County and reassembled them, like a big puzzle, into family groups.

Of particular interest was the information from the “Younger, Marcus Chancery Suit 1842-057, Halifax Co. Va.” In the documents from that suit, I found the payments made to the various heirs of Marcus Younger, who had died in 1816. In the case of Mary Younger Estes, her heirs are listed in 1842 because she is deceased. This suit was filed almost 30 years after Marcus’s death.  Normally would never think to look that far out – but chancery suits are often quite different. It’s not at all unusual for chancery suits to reach back 2 generations, to a grandparent’s will, especially if unmarried children are involved, as was the case with Marcus’s will. When the unmarried child dies, Mary’s sister in this case, sometimes the assets revert to the other children or their heirs.

In the suit papers, it is noted that Mary Younger Estes’s children will receive one sixth of her one quarter share of the 83 acres to be sold following the death of Mary’s unmarried sister.

The children of Mary Younger Estes were listed as: John, William, Susannah, Sally wife of T. Estes, Polly wife of James Smith and a grandchild name Mark Estes. This means that Mary had 6 children either living or who had died but who have heirs. In this case, one child has died leaving one heir, Mark.

Of course, I found this list AFTER I had reassembled what I believed to be the family of Mary Younger and George Estes. You know it didn’t match up perfectly, or I wouldn’t even be mentioning it.

I had all of those children listed, but in addition, I had a Bartlett and Rebecca.

There is no son Bartlett listed in the 1842 document, but there is instead a grandchild named Mark Estes. This implies that Mark’s parent is of the Estes surname, the parent is dead and Mark is the only living child. We know through various records that daughter Susannah has a son, Mark, but this cannot be that Mark because Susannah is very clearly included as living. We also know that George’s son, Marcus, died in 1815 leaving a widow and no children. The Bartlett I have attributed as the son of Mary and George had 7 children, and none known to be Mark, although one male name is unknown.

There are several Bartletts living in this vicinity and I could have the various Bartlett’s confused. However, if daughter Rebecca died and left a son Mark, this would fit perfectly. But, if it is the same Rebecca, she is prosecuted in 1844 for living with a black man, which precludes her from being dead in 1842, so Rebecca is not the child of George Estes, but more likely George’s niece.

This family makes me pull my hair out.

Thankfully, it seems that several of George’s children have lived a bit of a colorful life, meaning they have records that remain about them having had brushes with the law or, perhaps better stated, the court system and running afoul of “polite society.” Here is what is known about the children of George Estes and Mary Younger.

  • John R. Estes whose photo we believe is shown below was probably the oldest child and was born sometime between March and June of 1787. He married Ann Moore in 1811 and was on the way to Claiborne Co., TN by 1820 where he died in 1885, like his father, nearly reaching 100 years of age. Obviously, there is a longevity gene in the Estes family. John R.’s great grandson, William George Estes lived to be 98 years of age and William George’s two daughter both lived to be just shy of 100.  There’s hope that I’ll live long enough to finish my genealogy research:)

John R. Estes restored

  • Marcus Estes was born about 1788 as well and is shown on tax lists in Halifax County from 1811-1814 when he dies, leaving a widow with the beautiful name of Quintinney. In 1815, his estate is assigned to the sheriff to administer. There is also a War of 1812 record for Marcus, but there may be no further service records since no one applied for either bounty land or a pension based on his service. He served in the same unit as his brother, John R. Estes and I have to wonder if he died during that time.
  • William Y. Estes was also born sometime in this timeframe. The census says 1785 or 1786, but the census is also often notoriously wrong. In 1815, William married Rebecca Miller and drank to the point where his wife’s father commented on his behavior in his will in a very unflattering manner, forbidding William to ever have any control over Rebecca’s inheritance. William died in Halifax County between 1860 and 1870.
  • Susannah Y. Estes was born about 1800 and never married. She had 5 illegitimate children between 1814 and 1835, 2 males and three females. She lived on the old home place and cared for her elderly father, George, until his death in 1859.
  • Polly Estes, born between 1801 and 1808 married in 1824 to James Smith. She died in Halifax County after 1880, having had 4 children. We know very little about Polly, because, she was apparently one of the few well-behaved Estes’s. You know that old saying about “well behaved women seldom make history.”  I relish my ill-behaved ancestors and their family members because that is often the only way we learn about their lives and put meat on their bones.  Below, George’s signature along with James Smith when Polly marries.

George Estes Polly marriage bond

This photo is of George’s grandchild, J. E. and wife Mary Anne Smith, the youngest child of Polly Estes Smith.

JE and Mary Ann Smith

I’m dying to know about that eye patch.

  • Sally Estes was born sometime around 1800 and married her first cousin, Thomas Estes, son of Bartlett Estes and Rachel Pounds. Marrying cousins was a common practice of the time. They removed to Tennessee shortly after their marriage.  George and Thomas both sign the marriage bond, below.

George Estes Sally marriage bond

I initially thought Rebecca Estes was George’s child because of her proximity in the census where in 1830, a Rebecca Estridge with 3 daughters is living near George Estes and Susan Estes, all living in separate households. In 1835, a Rebecca Estes is in the court notes with Robert Rickman for support of her child, and in 1844, Rebecca is “indicted for felony, report of grand jury – a white woman living together in open adultery with a negro man, James Bird, free man of color, as presented by Jacob W. Farguson and William Ingram.” I cannot find Rebecca nor James Bird after this time. If this is the same Rebecca in 1844 as in 1830 and 1835, then she cannot be the child of George Estes because in 1842, Rebecca would have been dead.

It’s very unlikely that either Bartlett or Rebecca are George’s children and we are simply missing one child who had son Mark. It is certainly possible that this Marcus was born posthumously to George’s son Marcus. Given that Marcus’s estate went entirely to debt, there would have been nothing left to leave to a child, so no guardian would have been appointed.  We’ll likely never know, but this is the most likely explanation.  There is no Mark or Marcus Estes in the 1840 or 1850 census.

Life in Halifax County with Daughter Susannah

We don’t have a lot of information about life as George knew it, but thanks to Susannah, we do have a couple of glimpses into what their life was like.

Susannah Estes never married, lived on the old homeplace and wound up with all of George’s assets which caused problems with his other children. By the time George Estes died in 1859, there was nothing left, so he had no will. He had already deeded his land to Susannah, plus anything left from his pension or his Revolutionary War service.

On February 12, 1833, George Estes grants to Susan Y. Eastes, “my daughter, all my right, title, claim and interest which I have for military services rendered during the War of the Revolution.”

Much to my shock, in early 1837, Susannah brings suit against her father forcing him to answer to the court why he, as executor, has not distributed his father, Moses’s estate.

On March 25, 1837, George Estes deeds to Susannah Y. Estes “for $100 land on both sides of road from Halifax to S. Boston on Dan River adjoining Adam Toot, John Ransom, John Jinnett, tract of land that my father Moses died seized of.” This occurs immediately after George’s father’s estate was settled.

If you look at a map of South Boston plotting the locations we know, this is a huge tract of land.

Estes land South Boston map

We know the land went as far north at present day Waddell Woods (top arrow) because Waddell spring is mentioned in deeds.  The Oak Ridge Cemetery is the green area pointed out by the second arrow from the top.  The blue water tower is across the street, to the right of that arrow.  The main road is 129 and is pointed to by the third arrow from the top, running from the Dan River (at the bottom) through the Estes land and on North.  Today, this land includes most of South Boston, then Boyd’s Ferry.

We get a glimpse of their possessions, when, in 1842, Susannah, who now owns her parents land, takes a mortgage which is void if it is paid. Apparently, the mortgage is paid, because nothing more is ever mentioned in any of the deed or court books.

“Tract of land where we now live, one three-horse wagon and gear, 1 bay mare, 1 grey horse, hogs and sheep, all of our present crop of corn and fodder, tobacco, 4 feather beds and furniture, household and kitchen furniture, plantation tools for debt of $50.16.”

In addition to the land George inherited from Moses, George continues to assist Susannah.

On April 15, 1857, George Estes deeds to Susan Y. Estes the bounty lands he is entitled to “by late acts of Congress and a part of proceeds being in the hands of Easley Holt and Co. In consideration of natural love and affection and value received…all right and interest to any balance that is remaining at my death after paying my debts with him.”

When she died on August 23, 1870, Susannah was not a poor woman and left a nontrivial estate, including land. Her personal property inventory probably included many items inherited from her father and mother:

Appraisement of property of Susan Estes:

  • cow
  • yearling
  • loom
  • potatoes
  • walnut chest
  • barrels
  • flax wheel
  • 3 pots
  • 2 skillets
  • oven
  • brass kettle
  • tea kettle
  • 4 jars
  • 4 jugs
  • 2 water buckets
  • 3 axes
  • lot tin
  • 2 pitchers and bottles
  • 1 jar vinegar
  • lot tableware
  • hoes
  • wedges
  • pot rack
  • candlesticks
  • 1 press
  • 1 desk
  • 1 looking glass
  • 7 chairs
  • 1 bed
  • bolster
  • pillar
  • 1 blanket
  • 1 counterpin and sheet
  • 1 quilt
  • 1 barrell cider
  • small chest
  • basket
  • 2 bee hives

I can’t help but wonder what the quilt looked like and who made it.  Was it from a time when she and her mother and sisters perhaps gathered around a quilting frame?

After Susan’s death, a lawsuit followed regarding a debt incurred before her death and the validity of the debt based on her mental state.  She was deemed competent.  Aside from the depositions, which were in themselves very enlightening as to Susannah’s life, and death, the list of items she purchased at the store, on account, I found very interesting as well:

The following are items appearing on the store account of “Miss Susan Estes”:

  • Coffee
  • Sugar
  • Bucket
  • Linen shirt
  • 2 linen collars
  • 5 yards calico (total 1.06)
  • 3 yard gingham
  • 1 bottle ? oil
  • 20 yards oznaburg
  • 75 yard pant goods
  • Weeding hoe
  • Shelves for buster
  • Coffee pot
  • Tin bucket
  • Sugar
  • Rice
  • Candles
  • Molasses
  • Coffee
  • Bacon
  • Molasses
  • Coffee
  • Nails
  • Shoes
  • 1 oz indigo
  • 1 # soda
  • Coffee
  • Sole leather
  • 2 oz indigo
  • Pale cotton
  • Sugar
  • Copperons?
  • Rubber tuck combs
  • 2 yd cambric
  • Flex thread
  • 6 8×10 window glass
  • Bacon
  • Seed oats
  • Bags
  • Frt and drayage
  • Paid on acct with bacon from house
  • Goods box
  • Plow point
  • Coffee
  • Fine iron
  • Goods box
  • Molasses
  • Hat for Buster
  • Pants for Buster
  • Coat for Buster
  • Vest for Buster
  • Bacon sides
  • Pole exe
  • Pale Box
  • Stamped envelope (.04)
  • Bacon sides
  • 2 doz henning??
  • Paid with Reg. 162 old casting

Obviously, Buster is a nickname for someone, but who?  Whoever, he was, he had a vest, hat, coat, pants and shelves.

In addition, Ezekiel Estes submitted a bill to the estate for $21.18 for shingling the house and Susannah’s doctor bill was $51.  She died a slow death of a heart ailment.

Mary Mildred Estes

Above, George Estes’s granddaughter, Susannah’s daughter, Mary Mildred Estes born April 3, 1828 and died Jan. 20, 1917 in Lynchburg, VA., married William Greenwood and second, Jesse Jacobs..

Susannah’s son, Ezekiel Estes, below, born in 1814 and died in 1885 in Halifax County, married Martha Barley.

Ezekiel Estes

A few years after I published this original article, Jerry, one of Ezekiel’s descendants contacted me and provided this amazing watch case that was owned by Ezekiel.

Ezekiel Estes watch case 2.jpg

Ezekiel Estes watch case

This beautiful pocket-watch case is made of Iroquoian beadwork, causing me to wonder how he obtained it, and if there is more significance than a simple watch case. Regardless, it’s beautiful and a huge thank you to Jerry for sharing so that everyone can enjoy this treasure.

The Court

George Estes himself had a few encounters with the legal system. People at that time seemed to be quite litigious, and George was involved with no fewer than 14 nonfamily cases, generally as a defendant, and went to court even more often as a witness.

Court days, which initially happened quarterly, then monthly, were quite the social event in the 1700s and 1800s in Virginia. Anyone who was anyone attended, and much business was transacted outside the courthouse and in the taverns. It was also one of the best ways to hear the news as well as see the news being made. The original reality TV!

I recall that when my daughter and I first went to Halifax County, we visited the clerk’s office asking asked about the various record books and such. My daughter had the book of court notes out, and was looking in the plaintiff’s index. We told the lady that we were looking for Estes and she said “Oh, well then, your people are in this book”, and retrieved the defendants ledger. Things haven’t changed much over the years apparently. The Estes family is legendary, or at least infamous!

George’s first court appearance was in 1786 when he was prosecuted for “profane swearing.” In one case, George and his father Moses were involved as witnesses in a lawsuit where someone signed a document they later regretted after partaking of the fruit brandy at the Estes home. The Estes family was well known for its fine orchards. The fruit brandies were kept cool in a special compartment under the foundation of the house.

In 1802, George put a mortgage on his household items which included 2 feather beds and furniture for 9 pounds, 2 shillings and 2 pence. You can tell that of their household goods, the coveted items were the feather beds.

In 1837, George gave a deposition in the chancery case of Light vs Yuonger wherein the descendants of Thomas Younger battled, for years, over the estate of Thomas Younger after his daughter Rachel Younger died. Thomas was likely the great-uncle of George’s wife, Mary Younger. While the outcome of the case actually doesn’t involve our family directly, we do find a deposition given by George in 1837 over the value of a slave named Peter who in 1812 had been disabled with elephantitis. George, age 74 at that time, signed his deposition.

George Estes 1837 deposition in Light vs Younger.jpg

Moses’s Land

Most of the court cases, not included in the 15 non-family cases mentioned above, involved years and years of appearances having to do with Moses estate settlement which was finally settled in 1837, 24 years after Moses’s death. George, the eldest son, was 74 years old when his father’s estate was settled and he immediately deeded his portion of the land to Susannah.

This family battled over land and inheritance for generations, beginning in 1813 with Moses’ death, followed by George’s children and then Susannah’s and continuing into the present generations whose parents were still involved with that land until the county took the land by eminent domain. At least one person refused to sell the land and instead has a ‘long-term lease”, although what they think they’ll do with a stinky landfill is beyond me. I suspect it was a matter of principle.

When I visited Halifax County, two elderly living cousins, Doug and Shirley, both now deceased, remembered the land from their childhood. Shirley told me that the original home burned in about 1933, complete with all of the family photos, Bibles, etc. She remembers that someone on the school bus told her that her grandparents’ house burned the night before.

Shirley explained that the original home had 8 rooms with 2 fireplaces. Photos of “all the family” hung there – but of course burned in the fire which is why none exist today, according to Shirley. The home had a cellar – which is reflected in a chancery suit where it’s mentioned that Moses Estes stored his fruit brandy in the cellar. Apparently, one night, someone drank too much and signed something they regretted at Moses’s house.  Although Moses wasn’t the signer, Shirley mentioned that the Estes men liked their alcohol a bit too much and alcoholism ran in the family.

Shirley said there were blackberries, raspberries, huge mulberry trees “three foot through,” grapes and 5 cherry trees. I suspect there were apple and peach trees too back when Moses planted his orchard.

Shirley said that there were three springs, making this property quite desirable for homesteading. The Walker spring is about half a mile away, the Waddell spring, and a small spring by the house which had a spring-house built over it to cool things like milk. They grew gourds, and there were always “dipping gourds” by the springs so anyone could get a cool drink of water.

The Estes family used to haul ice, cut from the river, hoping it would last until at least partway through the summer. One time Ezekiel Estes, Moses’s great-grandson through granddaughter Susannah was hauling ice for one Mr. Willingham using steers instead of oxen. When asked if he couldn’t make those steers go faster, Zeke said “no, cause I need them tomorrow.”

The man who bulldozed the property after the city purchased it told me there were 3 houses “back there,” all “farm type” homes. Apparently the first home built was a log cabin, probably about 1782 when the family first arrived from Amelia County, and it was later used for the young couples after they were first married.

The home that burned was described as a large 2 story home with upper and lower porches all around. Porches are important in the south.

There has been a great deal of speculation about why George provided only for his daughter Susannah. It could be because she was not married and he felt protective towards her, wanting to provide for her and his grandchildren after his passing. She was very young, 13 or 14 when she became pregnant, and it would be easy to see how he could have been especially protective of her and her children whom he had lived with for their entire lives. In essence, George raised her children as his own, especially Ezekiel who was the eldest. Ezekiel was born right about the time that George and Mary stopped having children, so Ezekiel probably just fit perfectly into the stair-steps of children.

It could also be that George gave his worldly good to Susannah because she took care of George in his old age – although that wouldn’t explain the 1830s deeds. George’s wife Mary probably died sometime between 1820 and 1830, and certainly before George started deeding to Susannah in 1833, because Mary signed no release  of dower rights.

Others have suggested that perhaps Susannah might have been an opportunist and perhaps manipulative or devious. Some have questioned the propriety of the situation. Susannah had only two male children. Her oldest, Ezekiel, has descendants who have DNA tested and they match a Moore family that lived in the area, although not the same Moore family that Susannah’s brother, John R. Estes married into.

I think it suffices to say that George, Susannah and Ezekiel were extremely close and given the social stigma attached to illegitimate birth in that era, let alone 5 illegitimate children, the family was probably increasingly subject to harsh scrutiny, discrimination, criticism and were socially marginalized. One hint may be held in George’s 1833 Revolutionary War pension application where he states there is no clergy in his neighborhood, but the oldest church in the county is but a few blocks down the street from his home, within walking distance. One can certainly understand why and how George could and would feel a great deal of affection for his grandchildren in particular, as he apparently lived with them as they grew up. There are several records that involve both George and Ezekiel who probably looked up to his grandfather as a role model.

In fact, it was Ezekiel Estes who reported the death of George Estes and said that he was 100 years and 4 months old, born in Amelia County. I hope, for George’s sake, that the family had a bang up 100 year old birthday celebration where everyone came to visit and eat that fine southern food, even if we know today they were a few years early. Or maybe George really was 100 years old in 1859 and simply misstated his birth year in 1833. Regardless, I hope they had a wonderful celebration and he had many guests who sat and visited and imbibed some of that fine Estes brandy! I wish I could hear the stories of his hundred years of life.  What a gift that would be.

Estes Cem white stones

George is reportedly buried here in the Estes section of the Oak Ridge Cemetery immediately to the right just inside the entrance.  The Estes family markers are all bright white here after being cleaned by now deceased cousin Nancy Osborne.  We don’t know exactly where Susannah, George with his wife Mary Younger and Moses with his wife Luremia Combs are buried, but rest assured that they are here among their descendants and family members.

It’s believed that George and Mary are buried in the unmarked area, below.

Estes cem vacant stop

In the following photograph, the picture is taken from behind the stones, before they were cleaned and restored, with the original Estes land showing across the street.  The Estes homestead was behind these houses which stand on part of Moses’ land that was sold off by descendants.  The original homestead is now the landfill, although some forest was preserved as a barrier between these homes and the landfill the last time I in visited in 2006 or so.  The cobblestones showing in the wall below are the original road cobblestones that George probably helped to lay.

Estes cem and wall

I would like to have a Revolutionary War marker placed for George Estes in the cemetery so that he will be honored and his grave will be marked for future generations.

George certainly lived an amazing life.  He was born in Amelia County during the French and Indian war, as his father and uncles serving in that conflict.  About 1770, the Moses Estes family migrated in mass, it seems, to Halifax County where his father and grandfather, both named Moses, established homes, albeit a few miles apart.

About the time George came of age, he volunteered to take his father’s place in the Revolutionary War.  After returning home, just a month later, his own “slot” came up, so he then served for himself.

Many Estes men were pushing the new frontier.  In fact, George moved an Estes family to Hawkins County, TN, probably offering to help in order to see a bit of the world.  He stayed for almost a year, and it was from there in October of 1782 that he enlisted as a volunteer to serve his third stint in the military in the Revolutionary War.  George obviously saw a lot and probably talked about that part of the country to his children when telling tales about his great adventure.  He’s one of the very few men I’ve ever heard of going BACK home from the frontier, and staying there.  His son, John R. Estes would eventually settle in Claiborne County, TN himself, some 30+ years later, near where his father was in what would become Eastern Tennessee.

We don’t know much about George’s religious leanings.  When he was young and first married, church attendance was required in the Anglican church.  That’s also about the time he was prosecuted for “profane swearing.”

We know that his wife, Mary Younger’s family was probably Methodist, a dissenting religion, but one that was “legal” by the 1780s.  Given that his son, John R. Estes married the minister’s daughter, in all likelihood, this family was Methodist.  Whether George was enthusiastically Methodist too, “went along” begrudgingly and slept through services in the back row or simply stayed at home, we’ll never know.  We do know, per a deposition, that George Estes was with the Reverend William Moore’s family on Christmas Day, 1811.  George’s son, John R. Estes was married to Reverend William Moore’s daughter, Ann Moore.

At least two of George’s children ran badly afoul of either the law of the social norms of the time.  Son William drank to excess and daughter Susannah had five children out of wedlock, as a pattern occurrence.  This would have made it difficult for the rest of George’s children to “marry well” because something like that paints the entire family with the same brush.

Today, it’s inconceivable to us, but at that time, people who were born “out-of-wedlock” really could only marry others of their same social status.  Interracial marriages were outlawed and the choices people had, both legally and in reality were much more limited than today.  Remember, I told you that the county clerk still knew that the Estes’s would be found in the “defendants” book???  Maybe this is part of why so many descendants left for lands where there was less judgment waiting and one could start anew, without stigma already attached from the behavior of others.

George’s wife Mary would pass away sometime between about 1820 and 1830.  George would have been between 60 and 70 years old at that time, and would live almost another 30-40 years.

After Mary’s death, it appears that Susannah took care of George.  Given that by this time, Susannah had 5 illegitimate children she had to provide for, George’s pension probably took care of Susannah as well.  I wonder how military pensions were figured at that time.  I would have thought they would all have been relatively equal for the same rank (private), and if unequal, perhaps George received something for each of his three stints in the military.  By way of contrast, his son, John R. Estes who served in the War of 1812 was collecting a pension at the same time received $8 a month as compared to George’s $31 year, which breaks down to $2.58 per month.  In the end, Susannah wound up with all of George’s assets although, clearly, his pension stopped when he died.

By the time George died, his son Marcus had passed away, possibly in the War of 1812, and there are a couple of children I lose in the records, but as far as we know, most of George’s children outlived him. Some had moved west but George still had Polly, Susannah and William Y. nearby, although William Y. seemed unable to even help himself, due to his drinking, based on numerous court records.

The good news is that because of where Moses’s land was located, and the ability to locate the Oak Ridge Cemetery today, then track through the landfill deeds and family records, we were able to find the original Estes land.

Furthermore, we know that graves were moved from the Estes cemetery, now under the landfill, to the Estes plot in the Oak Ridge Cemetery, which may have been the original Estes cemetery in the first place.

All I know is that when cousin Nancy started talking about having moved the graves and finding the collar bone of Moses Estes, I just couldn’t stop myself from thinking about DNA.  I know fully well that today, even with enough money, that the retrieval of ancient DNA for consumer purposes really isn’t a viable option.  But I also know that in another decade, with the advances in technology and the associated drop in prices, combined with what has been able to be accomplished with sequencing ancient genomes – that eventually – that collarbone would have been useful.

I know, bad genealogist, bad genealogist.  Bad, bad, bad.  I can’t help it.  It’s that nonconformant Estes side coming out!  It’s in my genes.  I can’t help it.  In fact, I know where there’s a bone we can dig up to prove it….

______________________________________________________________

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

Tony Goldwyn – Who Do You Think You Are – “She Was A Radical, The Fire Flew”

Actor, director and producer Tony Goldwyn, probably best known for his drama, Scandal, has a remarkable Hollywood pedigree. What few people may know is that on his mother’s side, he hails from a celebrated stage and screen family – his grandfather was Sidney Howard, best known for writing the screenplay for Gone With the Wind. Tony acknowledges that he knows nothing about the Howard side and anything he can learn about Howard’s ancestry would be a boon.

Compliments of TLC

Compliments of TLC

With the help of a genealogist, and an instantly appearing pedigree chart, Tony pushes past his two times great grandfather Lawrence Coe and finds his three times great grandparents Nathaniel and Mary Coe living in Albany, New York in the mid 1800’s, where Nathaniel was a politician in the state assembly.

One tool Tony made a lot of use of, that I don’t and perhaps should think of more often, is www.newspapers.com.

At the NY State Library in Albany, Tony learns that his 3 times great grandfather Nathaniel Coe proposed ‘anti-Seduction’ legislation which concerned issues surrounding pre-or extra-marital sex and prostitution.

I found this to be very interesting if initially a bit confusing.  As the historian explained, typically, when a female was “seduced,” willingly or unwillingly, she was marked as “damaged goods” and especially if she bore a child out of wedlock, not marriageable material.  In essence, the woman bore the brunt of the scandal and the male skipped off scot free.  The inferred link to prostitution was that there were few professions where a woman could support herself and a child, and by then, probably children as in plural – so the woman had few options.  So while this legislation initially sounded like it was penalizing women, it wasn’t, it was actually holding the males involved responsible for at least their part of the “immoral” behavior.  In fact, there was an entire “anti-sedition” crusade.  Who knew?

Curious about why his ancestor focused on this social issue specifically, Tony decides to head to Nathaniel’s hometown of Nunda, NY to see if the explanation for his 3x GGF’s concerns about “seduction” lie there.

In Nunda, Tony finds out that Nathaniel hosted a meeting of the Female Moral Reform Society at his home in 1837. A social historian explains that this undoubtedly indicates Nathaniel’s wife Mary’s membership in the organization. A newspaper article reveals that Mary was “a radical” activist in her community, suggesting that the two shared a passion for this cause and formed a productive, well-suited partnership.

Tony also learns that Mary and Nathaniel were revivalist Baptists, joining much of the country at that time in an Evangelical resurgence.  Baptists in particular were concerned with moral reform and the purification of society.

Wondering why a late-middle aged couple would leave New York for the frontier, Tony is surprised to learn that in 1852, Nathaniel became a U.S. Postal Agent across the country in Oregon via Presidential appointment.

Tony heads to Oregon, where he finds that as a U.S. Postal Agent, Nathaniel was responsible for laying out the infrastructure of the developing Postal Service as the U.S. expanded westward. Nathaniel, Tony learns, was on the cutting edge of modernization as a frontier agent – with all the prestige that implies.

Compliments of TLC

Compliments of TLC

You know when the archivist comes out with your boxes on a cart, that you’ve made a haul.  Sure enough, the Nathaniel Coe Collection holds original letters and documents, including a scrapbook from the Coe estate.  I am SOOO envious.

Through original letters written by Mary Coe, Tony discovers that not only did Mary make an arduous journey around the nation via ship, crossing as the Isthmus of Panama, to join her husband in Oregon, but that after arriving, his three times great grandparents had to flee their home as the Indian Wars broke out around them.

Tony is startled to learn that his ancestor may not have been as progressive as he thought. Reading a letter written by Nathaniel, Tony sees that Nathaniel believed the Indians were hell-bent on exterminating all white settlers, and that any resistance by the Indians to American “progress” and expansion westward justified removing them or exterminating them.  This unfortunate European attitude and policy was referred to as Manifest Destiny and was thinly disguised as a religious belief that God had ordained the Europeans to possess the Native lands.  Fortunately, Tony visits with a historian that presents both sides of the picture in a chapter of expansion that is none too pretty.

Finally, Tony finds an article detailing Mary & Nathaniel Coe’s importance in the region – they helped establish the still thriving city of Hood River in Oregon, after Mary had the name changed from Dog River.

At the Oregon State Archives, Tony discovers that Nathaniel left all of his property to his wife. He learns just how rare that would have been, legally, for a man with grown male heirs, and Tony considers the unique relationship that his three times great grandparents must have enjoyed.

Tony discovers that the graves of Nathaniel and Mary still exist at the aptly named Mountain View Cemetery in Hood River, and makes the pilgrimage to pay his respects to Hood River’s founding couple at their gravesite.

Compliments TLC

Compliments of TLC

Nathaniel and Mary Coe lived an impressive and very long life.  Mary, the radical, didn’t die until she was in her 90s after having crossed the country, the long way, and establishing homes in two different locations, one being an unsettled frontier.

Reflecting upon his experience Tony says that as he looks back over the landscape of his ancestors, he “can begin to see it in the genes,” meaning their strength, determination and character.  He can also see their descendants, his closer ancestors, following the same pattern of husbands and wives as equal and indispensable partners.

Who will like this episode?  Anyone with a New York background or an interest in Democrat vs Whig politics – the westward movement or the social history of that timeframe.  After the move west, the Yakima war and Native people.  Anyone with any history in the Cascade Valley, the Dalles or Hood River, Oregon or with an interest in the Westward expansion.

My ancestors never ventured that far west, so I found the information about the settlement of the west in the 1850s extremely interesting.

Here’s a sneak peek.

Tony’s segment airs Sunday, April 5 at 10/9c on TLC.

______________________________________________________________

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