As I have mentioned before, Mom's half first cousin recently tested. While I was waiting for his results from 23andme to show matches, I uploaded his raw data to Gedmatch. A few days later I was surprised to see his third highest match, 138 cM autosomal and 54.1 cM on the X chromosome with an estimated difference in generations on gedmatch of 3.4.
I emailed the match and requested a tree. Before receiving it though he had already confirmed he was of Hungarian lineage, which I also knew was the nationality of both of SH's grandparents. Unfortunately though, all SH knew was his grandfather was John Pado and his grandmother was Agnes Odor. From ancestry.com I knew what year Agnes arrived, and that on her death certificate her father's name was listed as John Odor.
Her immigration arrival gave also where she was from in Hungary, Gyovar.
I already knew that any connection we found in the tree's would have to come not only from SH's maternal side, but from either a connection to the mother of John Pado, the mother of Agnes Odor, or the mother of John Pado, because an X chromosome match ruled out anyone who was not an X donator. I also verified that the name Janos was the Hungarian equivalent for John. Since I was unable to find, and still cannot find, the immigration record for certain of John (Janos) Joseph Pado, I looked at what I did know, the village of Gyovar.
When I received the tree of SH's match, I looked it over. Bingo, he had in his tree the Kaposi family who intermarried with the Horvath family in his tree as his Great Grandparents and they were from Gyovar. Since the Great Grandparents were the right generation for the estimated match, I then went to ancestry.com and searched for Pados in Hungarian Baptism Records. I found Janos Pados whose wife was Rozalia Kaposi in several in the village of Gyovar.
My next step was to see if Anna Kaposi and Rozalia Kaposi were sisters, and indeed I found that Vendelin Kaposi and Julianna Holtain had baptism records for Anna Kaposi and Rozalia Kaposi in Gyovar, and that they were of the right age to match the baptisms of each girls children. Thus SH's great grandmother Rozalia Kaposi was the sister of his match's great grandmother, making them 3rd cousins, and giving SH and his sister a little bit more of their immigrant ancestor's history.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Ancient DNA and me
Over on Gedmatch you can compare your autosomal DNA raw data with ancient DNA. More about the types of ancient DNA and some other nifty tools you can use can be found here.
So I tested all five of my profiles at gedmatch. Not one snp matched, even on the lowest setting on comparison directly. You get a graph on the other function there, but all it looks like to me is a whole bunch of orange lines. So I decided to use the ancient calculator that Feliz Immanuel wrote and test our DNA that way.
Here are the results. I arranged them sort of higher to lower matching. The number is the percent of DNA that matches.
So I tested all five of my profiles at gedmatch. Not one snp matched, even on the lowest setting on comparison directly. You get a graph on the other function there, but all it looks like to me is a whole bunch of orange lines. So I decided to use the ancient calculator that Feliz Immanuel wrote and test our DNA that way.
Here are the results. I arranged them sort of higher to lower matching. The number is the percent of DNA that matches.
| Ancient DNA | ME | JM | SH | DAD | MOM |
| Ne 1 | 20.09 | 21.46 | 21.04 | 20.16 | 21.34 |
| usht ishm | 16.64 | 17.04 | 17.09 | 16.99 | 17.93 |
| loschbour | 16.92 | 16.32 | 17.36 | 17.5 | 15.34 |
| linearbandkeramik | 20.35 | 20.04 | 20.07 | 21.16 | 19.69 |
| clovis | 12.59 | 13.52 | 11.3 | 12 | 14.03 |
| br2 | 22.65 | 21.62 | 20.94 | 21.73 | 23.29 |
| kostenki14 | 5.7 | 5.35 | 4.83 | 5.12 | 5.34 |
| motala 12 | 6.12 | 5.66 | 5.26 | 6.16 | 5.31 |
| australian aboriginal | 1.01 | 1.1 | 2.24 | 0.85 | 1.29 |
| br1 | 1.44 | 1.8 | 2.05 | 1.75 | 2.25 |
| co1 | 2.6 | 2.42 | 3.17 | 3.31 | 3.07 |
| hinxton4 | 1.03 | 1.23 | 1.6 | 1.28 | 1.11 |
| IR 1 | 3.34 | 2.98 | 2.79 | 4.4 | 3.37 |
| KO1 | 3.24 | 3.27 | 4 | 3.44 | 3.18 |
| LaBranaarintero | 3.9 | 3.26 | 4.75 | 3.57 | 3.41 |
| Malta | 2.47 | 2.03 | 2.16 | 2.23 | 1.89 |
| NE 5 | 1.89 | 2.05 | 2.6 | 2.38 | 2.13 |
| NE 6 | 2.48 | 2.32 | 2.99 | 3.48 | 2.67 |
| NE 7 | 2.38 | 2.64 | 2.71 | 2.39 | 2.54 |
| Paleoeskimo | 2.58 | 1.85 | 1.62 | 2.85 | 2.22 |
| gokhem2 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.76 | 1.46 | 0.88 |
| hinxton 1 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.3 | 0.28 | 0.12 |
| hinxton 2 | 0.19 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.71 |
| hinxton 3 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.64 |
| hinxton 5 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.48 | 0.28 | 0.47 |
| vi33.16 neanderthal | 0 | 0.12 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.04 |
| vi33.25 neanderthal | 0.05 | 0 | 0.11 | 0 | 0.05 |
| vi33.26 neanderthal | 0 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0 | 0.15 |
I would love to know if there are any averages for the above tests, and also if the above samples test higher with one than another in comparison.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Disappointment with Ancestry Admixture or Composition Results
Since many members of my groups on facebook research possible Native American ancestry, it is not unusual for me to see posts about how disappointed they are that there is not any, or very minuscule, amounts of Native American showing up on their admixture or composition results.
To be honest, there are times I honestly think that they got the results they were supposed to, however, there is a very good reason that someone does not have the results they think they should. It is called recombination and it is how our genes are passed down.
To illustrate this fact, I am going to use examples from my mom, her cousin SH and her nephew JM with genealogically proven third cousins once removed. Genetically speaking a third cousin has the estimated DNA of 0.781 percent or 53 cM, a third cousin once removed has the estimated amount of DNA around 0.391 percent or 26.56 cM shared, and a fourth cousin (for JM) should share about 0.195 percent or 13.28 cM of DNA.
Mom has matches with two sisters and one daughter on her Hager side. The sisters are 3rd cousins to my mother and SH and the daughter is a 3rd cousin once removed. (for JM that means third cousin once removed and fourth cousin).There is another Hager descendant also of the same degree they match as well.
Mom matches one sister at 145 cM, the other at 130 cM, both third cousins, the daughter at 65 cM and the last at 9.9 cM both third cousins once removed.
SH matches one sister at 40 cM, the other at 74 cM, the daughter at 39 cM and the last at 5.2 cM
JM matches the one sister at 29 cM, the other at 0 cM, both third cousins once removed, andthe daughter at 22 cM and the last at 7.7 cM, both fourth cousins.
Another example is a genealogically documented third cousin once removed on the Collins family.
Mom matches him at 38 cM, SH at 134 cM and JM not at all.
So let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the native DNA was represented by one of these ancestral common ancestors DNA. As you can tell by the numbers, the amount passed on varies significantly, even though the genealogical distance is the same for SH and my Mom. In the case of JM, when he has no shared DNA it means he didn't receive any of that genetic material. If this portion of the DNA represented the person who was passing on the Native DNA it would mean yep, he's not going to show a percentage even close to that of his biological Aunt.
It's obvious that there is some kind of sticky DNA going on in some of my mom's family, she is sharing 1.7-1.9 percent of DNA with her Hager cousins, but only 0.5 percent with her Collins one, and on the flip side, her first cousin is sharing .0.5-0.9 percent with his Hager cousins and 1.8 percent with his Collins cousin.In both cases, the lower percentage is more the average, so the larger matches while possible, are not typical.
Ancestry composition is passed the same way as this DNA, it is a recombination draw of the lottery in what gets passed on to each generation. So how is it my Mom actually shows a percentage of Native DNA close to her actual degree of blood based on genealogy and the Dawes? Luck for the most part, when you stop and think that her last full blood ancestors on the Trahern only side were born in the 1770's, with mixed bloods intermarrying until her great great grandfather married a full blood. Even at that, Mom's great grandmother could only be 11/16 Native American (her father was 3/8 and her mother full).
Based on the Dawes where she claimed only 1/2, mom's Choctaw DNA should be 1/16 or 6.25 percent, if you include the reported actual, it would be11/128 or 8.6 percent . Her 23 and me results show her at 8 percent, and gedmatch admixtures average 8-10 percent based on the program.
Even though her great grandfather and her grandfather are by family history Native American, their contribution would be so minuscule that it's not even worth computing.
So if your disappointed with your admixture results, you really need to look at some of your close family and test them. First cousins, and even siblings do not always share an equal amount of DNA from all their contributors.
To be honest, there are times I honestly think that they got the results they were supposed to, however, there is a very good reason that someone does not have the results they think they should. It is called recombination and it is how our genes are passed down.
To illustrate this fact, I am going to use examples from my mom, her cousin SH and her nephew JM with genealogically proven third cousins once removed. Genetically speaking a third cousin has the estimated DNA of 0.781 percent or 53 cM, a third cousin once removed has the estimated amount of DNA around 0.391 percent or 26.56 cM shared, and a fourth cousin (for JM) should share about 0.195 percent or 13.28 cM of DNA.
Mom has matches with two sisters and one daughter on her Hager side. The sisters are 3rd cousins to my mother and SH and the daughter is a 3rd cousin once removed. (for JM that means third cousin once removed and fourth cousin).There is another Hager descendant also of the same degree they match as well.
Mom matches one sister at 145 cM, the other at 130 cM, both third cousins, the daughter at 65 cM and the last at 9.9 cM both third cousins once removed.
SH matches one sister at 40 cM, the other at 74 cM, the daughter at 39 cM and the last at 5.2 cM
JM matches the one sister at 29 cM, the other at 0 cM, both third cousins once removed, andthe daughter at 22 cM and the last at 7.7 cM, both fourth cousins.
Another example is a genealogically documented third cousin once removed on the Collins family.
Mom matches him at 38 cM, SH at 134 cM and JM not at all.
So let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the native DNA was represented by one of these ancestral common ancestors DNA. As you can tell by the numbers, the amount passed on varies significantly, even though the genealogical distance is the same for SH and my Mom. In the case of JM, when he has no shared DNA it means he didn't receive any of that genetic material. If this portion of the DNA represented the person who was passing on the Native DNA it would mean yep, he's not going to show a percentage even close to that of his biological Aunt.
It's obvious that there is some kind of sticky DNA going on in some of my mom's family, she is sharing 1.7-1.9 percent of DNA with her Hager cousins, but only 0.5 percent with her Collins one, and on the flip side, her first cousin is sharing .0.5-0.9 percent with his Hager cousins and 1.8 percent with his Collins cousin.In both cases, the lower percentage is more the average, so the larger matches while possible, are not typical.
Ancestry composition is passed the same way as this DNA, it is a recombination draw of the lottery in what gets passed on to each generation. So how is it my Mom actually shows a percentage of Native DNA close to her actual degree of blood based on genealogy and the Dawes? Luck for the most part, when you stop and think that her last full blood ancestors on the Trahern only side were born in the 1770's, with mixed bloods intermarrying until her great great grandfather married a full blood. Even at that, Mom's great grandmother could only be 11/16 Native American (her father was 3/8 and her mother full).
Based on the Dawes where she claimed only 1/2, mom's Choctaw DNA should be 1/16 or 6.25 percent, if you include the reported actual, it would be11/128 or 8.6 percent . Her 23 and me results show her at 8 percent, and gedmatch admixtures average 8-10 percent based on the program.
Even though her great grandfather and her grandfather are by family history Native American, their contribution would be so minuscule that it's not even worth computing.
So if your disappointed with your admixture results, you really need to look at some of your close family and test them. First cousins, and even siblings do not always share an equal amount of DNA from all their contributors.
Monday, January 26, 2015
Blood is thicker than water, part 2
So, if testing my mother's half cousin, and her paternal relatives will assist me in finding her matches and answering questions on her tree, is there any benefit to testing on my father's?
Yes. Already 11 McCurdy cousins have tested. As you will see below, this has allowed me to determine 61.5 percent of my father's McCurdy DNA. So who would be beneficial to test?
For everyone, we are in great hopes that a great granddaughter of Elijah McCurdy will test. If so, that may help us identify other McCurdy matches outside our own family other than the one we have found.
Dad's grandmother had a half brother whose daughter is still living. Not only is this a half first cousin once removed, her grandmother was my father's grandfather's cousin, meaning she's doubly related to Dad, and on the two least represented branches of his maternal tree, the Pyburn and the Hardy family.
We have several Hardy cousins to possibly test if they agree. They are anywhere from 3-4th cousins, and hopefully we can find a willing male who carries the Y DNA haplogroup.
The Brunson and Franklin side has been seriously lacking in confirmed matches, despite the large percentage of mutually shared DNA Dad has that's mentioned below. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone close enough on those branches to even approach about testing.
Below is a summary of the results of research with Dad's DNA at this point and time.
Yes. Already 11 McCurdy cousins have tested. As you will see below, this has allowed me to determine 61.5 percent of my father's McCurdy DNA. So who would be beneficial to test?
For everyone, we are in great hopes that a great granddaughter of Elijah McCurdy will test. If so, that may help us identify other McCurdy matches outside our own family other than the one we have found.
Dad's grandmother had a half brother whose daughter is still living. Not only is this a half first cousin once removed, her grandmother was my father's grandfather's cousin, meaning she's doubly related to Dad, and on the two least represented branches of his maternal tree, the Pyburn and the Hardy family.
We have several Hardy cousins to possibly test if they agree. They are anywhere from 3-4th cousins, and hopefully we can find a willing male who carries the Y DNA haplogroup.
The Brunson and Franklin side has been seriously lacking in confirmed matches, despite the large percentage of mutually shared DNA Dad has that's mentioned below. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone close enough on those branches to even approach about testing.
Below is a summary of the results of research with Dad's DNA at this point and time.
Paternal DNA 3718 cM of which a total
of 478.4 cM or 12.9 percent has been identified.
Combined match with two sets of most
recent common ancestor (MRCA)
John L Barnes and Eleanor Baker and
Jacob Barnett and Amanda Thomas 359 cM or 9.7 percent of the DNA
from both sets of families as below, in addition to below matches.
50 percent or 1859 cM consisting of
Barnes, Baker, Owens, and Copeland families
MRCA John Sanders Barnes and Sarah
Owens 34.6 cM or 0.9 percent
MRCA Willoughby Baker and Rachel
Copeland 69.2 cM or 1.9 percent
50 percent or 1859 cM consisting of
Brunson, Franklin, Thomas, and Merrill families
MRCA Jacob Merrill/Holland Merrill 62
cM or 1.7 percent
MRCA Isaac Brunson and Margaret Oldys
6.4 or 0.1 percent
Brunson unconfirmed MRCA 10.4 cM or
0.28 percent
Maternal DNA 3718 cM of which a total
321.1 cM or 8.6 percent has been identified.
50 percent or 1859 cM consisting of
McCurdy, Sunday, Beck, Pyburn and Chitty families
MRCA James Chitty and Mary Brown 35.9
cM or 0.97 percent
MRCA Elijah McCurdy and Barbara Sunday
109.3 cM or 2.9 percent
MRCA William M McCurdy and Amanda Beck
67.2 cM or 1.8 percent
MRCA William M. McCurdy or Elijah
McCurdy/Barbara Sunday 33.7 cM or 0.9 percent
MRCA John Sunday or Elijah McCurdy 13
cM or 0.3 percent
MRCA McCurdy immigrant 10.4 cM or 0.27
percent
MRCA John Sunday 11.9 cM or 0.32
percent
MRCA Barbara Sunday (x chromosome) 39.7
cM or 1.1 percent (representing 21.8 percent of X chromosome DNA)
Note, possible some of Elijah McCurdy
and Barbara Sunday matches may be matching the Beck family and not
the McCurdy (100.3 cM match with this person, some confirmed with
other matches).
In this branch, ¼ (464 cM) each
should be McCurdy, Beck, Chitty and Pyburn. Note, only Chitty DNA has
been identified other than McCurdy. A total of 285.2 cM (61.5 percent) has been identified as McCurdy/Sunday branch, not including
the X chromosome matches.
50 percent or 1859 cM consisting of
Hardy, Nelson, and Johnson families
no matches confirmed
Blood is thicker than water
To further my use of DNA and assist in my genealogy I recently tested my mother's half first cousin, SH and her nephew JM. Both are lineal Y DNA descendants of the earliest known ancestor Steely Hager. The 23andme haplogroup is from the 2010 tree, but using the 23andme to ysnp program and then the ISOGG tree add on, I was able to confirm that both have R1b1a2a1a1c2b haplogroup on the 2015 tree, enumerated by FTDNA as R-L48/S162 in the U106 subclade.
Unfortunately, I have not found one Hager from North Carolina lineage who is in a YDNA project to see if they even have the same haplogroup. Because 23andme tests with snp's, the haplogroup is accurate, though useless to compare with the Y STR tested for the YDNA surname projects, I was hoping to find someone with the same haplogroup to look into the genealogy to confirm a connection. Hopefully one will pop up some time in the future.
That said, the advantage of testing my mother's half first cousin is they only have a mutual grandfather in common. That means the 572 cM they share in common represents for each of them 15.4 percent of the approximate 25 percent of DNA each would have inherited (61.6 percent). This has been greatly beneficial for identifying matches as either Paternal or Maternal along those segments, and not only that, but further delineating them to only one grandparent's branch is definitely easier to trace a genealogical tree.
I am hoping to further identify segments by testing my mother's second cousin, at least one of her father's first cousins, and similar relatives on my father's side. By testing a first cousin once removed or a second cousin that narrows the matches to just one pair of ancestors. By selecting individuals who share 3-6.25 percent DNA in common on average, you are potentially discovering 6-12.5 percent of one parents DNA contribution. (Keep in mind, the tables that give the average shared DNA give percentages for your entire DNA, but when testing a relative on one side, the result is actually double that in context of that particular parents match.).
So how successful have I been in the first 6 months of research on my mother's DNA matches? I decided to take a look, and here is what I found.
Unfortunately, I have not found one Hager from North Carolina lineage who is in a YDNA project to see if they even have the same haplogroup. Because 23andme tests with snp's, the haplogroup is accurate, though useless to compare with the Y STR tested for the YDNA surname projects, I was hoping to find someone with the same haplogroup to look into the genealogy to confirm a connection. Hopefully one will pop up some time in the future.
That said, the advantage of testing my mother's half first cousin is they only have a mutual grandfather in common. That means the 572 cM they share in common represents for each of them 15.4 percent of the approximate 25 percent of DNA each would have inherited (61.6 percent). This has been greatly beneficial for identifying matches as either Paternal or Maternal along those segments, and not only that, but further delineating them to only one grandparent's branch is definitely easier to trace a genealogical tree.
I am hoping to further identify segments by testing my mother's second cousin, at least one of her father's first cousins, and similar relatives on my father's side. By testing a first cousin once removed or a second cousin that narrows the matches to just one pair of ancestors. By selecting individuals who share 3-6.25 percent DNA in common on average, you are potentially discovering 6-12.5 percent of one parents DNA contribution. (Keep in mind, the tables that give the average shared DNA give percentages for your entire DNA, but when testing a relative on one side, the result is actually double that in context of that particular parents match.).
So how successful have I been in the first 6 months of research on my mother's DNA matches? I decided to take a look, and here is what I found.
Paternal DNA (roughly 3719 cM total)
23.1 percent identified
50 percent or approximately 1859 cM of
which a total of 5.7 percent has been identified beyond a mutual
grandfather. 572 cM (15.4 percent) identified for all of this branch
in common with a mutual grandfather.
Hager to include Barnett, Bagwell,
Whitley, Adams, Collins, Mangum
Most recent common ancestor (MRCA)
William “Dan” Hager/Eda Martha Burnett 174 cM or 4.7 percent
MRCA Daniel Collins/Talitha Adams 1
percent or 38.3 cM
Connection to Barnett (identification
of MRCA not made yet) 1.9 percent or 71 cM
25 percent or approximately 929 cM total identified 272 cM or 7.3 percent
Adams to include Rogers. No
identifiable Adams matches because of his unknown parentage.
Additional matches to the wives whose surnames are not verified are
included, though the exact connection has not been determined yet.
MRCA Henry/Mahala Rogers 170.7 cM or
4.6 percent
MRCA Dauswell/unknown wife 27.9 cMor
0.75 percent
MRCA Susannah rumored Shue (X
chromosome match) 27.2 cM or 0.73 percent
Identified as a match to Rogers (27.1
cM) included above and probable Adams (47 cM) from an adoptee. Since his exact connection is the unknown portion represents an additional 1.2 percent
25 percent or approximately 929 cM Trahern, Riddle, Hall and Choctaw lineage.
Only three matches with no verifiable
connections at this point totaling 24 cM or 0.6 percent with known
Choctaw descent and no other possible common ancestors.
Maternal DNA
Approximately 3718 cM in total of which
310 cM or 8.3 percent has been identified.
50 percent or approximately 1859 cM
Hinds and their early colonial ancestors and the Paxtons of unknown
lineage
MRCA Francis M. Hinds/Emma Paxton 46 cM
or 1.2 percent
MRCA John Corliss/ Mary Wilford 66 cM
or 1.8 percent
50 percent or approximately 1859 cM
Timmins, Brampton, Spicer and other English, non American lineages.
MRCA George Henry Timmins and Sarah
Brampton 198 cM or 5.3 percent
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Mayhew Mission, Choctaw nation female students
The following is transcribed from images obtained by Jeff Fortney.
Account of Beneficiaries who have been
members of the female school at Mayhew
|
Name |
Age |
Ped |
Time entered
|
Mos of Res |
Notes |
|
Anna Maria Tappan |
10 |
Full |
May 1822 |
38 |
Could read, write and sew handsomely, is married |
|
Mary Reed |
11 |
Do |
Dec 1822 |
13 |
Read in testament, is home |
|
Isabelle Porter |
7 |
Do |
May 1822 |
33 |
Is home, could read well in testament |
|
Susannah P. Brashears |
11 |
Do |
Jan 3, 1823 |
15 |
Could read, is married |
|
Priscilla Townsley |
9 |
Do |
Apr 4, 1823 |
11 |
Read only in spelling ? |
|
Anna Homer |
16 |
Do |
Nov 6, 1824 |
29 |
Can read Choctaw & English write attended some to Geo?
Perform various kinds of labor set a good example for the school
is very uniform in her behavior and is much devoted to the ? Of
the redemer. |
|
Vina Folsom |
13 |
|
Feb 14, 1823 |
19 |
Read in testament, is married to Isaac Watson |
|
Eliza Nelson |
9 |
|
Do , 1823 |
35-1 |
At Mayhew is married to N. Cochnear, left April 22 to reside
with her friends Can read Eng & Choctaw write attended some to
Geo H. behaves with propriety and is considerably devoted |
|
Sophia Nelson |
8 |
|
Do, 1823 |
35-1 |
At Mayhew ? she cause of her redeemer, left at same time, reads
well in English and Choctaw, amiable and much beloved, lives with
her grandmother |
|
Elcy James |
11 |
½ |
Mar 18, 1823 |
10 |
Is married and lost what she had learned |
|
Visa Kincade |
8 |
½ |
1823 |
11 |
With her grandmother, could read in Tes. is desirous to return
but is opposed by her friends |
|
Abigail Folsom |
8 |
½ |
Apr 4, 1823 left March 3, 1829 |
36-14 |
At Mayhew. Left to reside with her mother, attends school now
at Yoknickchy lives with Mr. Byington, reads and writes well in
English & Choctaw |
|
? Folsom |
5 |
|
Apr 12, 1823 |
28 |
Was a promising student, died in August 1826 |
|
? Beams |
8 |
|
Apr 26, 1823 |
32 |
At home reads well |
|
|
|
|
2nd entry May 1, 1828 |
|
Left March 3, 1829, started in Geography |
|
Susan Anderson |
5 |
½ |
Sept 5, 1823 |
11 |
At home read only in spelling |
|
Susannah Nail |
8 |
|
Oct 6, 1823 |
25 |
One of the most promising scholars, died in Oct 1827 death
caused by her clothes taking fire |
|
Margaret Hall |
22 |
|
Nov 21, 1823 |
6 |
With her relations, has been employed one year to take care of
smaller girls at school has conducted with propriety |
|
Lucinda Riddle |
17 |
|
Nov 21, 1823 |
11 |
Very promising, was married Died March 1827 |
|
Judith Walker |
13 |
|
Nov 21, 1823 |
12 |
With her father, read and wrote, good scholar, amiable |
|
Hannah F. Bradshaw |
14 |
Full |
Jan 3, 1824 |
15 |
Promising girl, read in tes. Is married |
|
Tennessee Folsom |
17 |
|
Feb 19, 1824 |
4 |
Read and wrote decently, made mens clothes, is married |
|
Emily Folsom |
13 |
|
Feb 19, 1824 |
27 |
Could read and write attended some to Geo. Cut and made men's
clothes. Neat and industrious. Behaved with propriety. Is married |
|
Priscilla Townsley |
6 |
Full |
Apr 1, 1824 |
11 |
With her mother, read only in spelling lessons |
|
Nella Folsom |
3 |
|
Apr 12, 1824 |
18.9 |
With her mother, read in words of 3 syllables |
|
|
|
|
2nd Apr 22, 1828 |
|
Left March 3, 1829 and is with her friends, could read in
testament |
|
Ishlahoya ? |
4 |
|
Apr 15, 1824 |
10 |
At home |
|
? rah F. Richardson |
8 |
Full |
May 3, 1824 |
23 |
At home |
|
Lovisa Nail |
16 |
|
Mar 16, 1824 |
4 |
Married to Israel Folsom |
|
Mary Nail |
15 |
|
Mar 16, 1824 |
12 |
Married |
|
Alzira Nail |
14 |
|
Mar 16, 1824 |
10 |
Read in tes. Has lived with her mother |
|
Artimitia Wade |
5 |
|
Oct 26, 1824 |
16 |
At home commenced easy reading ? |
|
|
|
|
2nd March 20, 1829 |
9 |
Could read the testament in English and Choctaw |
|
Alahoka |
6 |
Full |
Nov 3, 1824 |
8 |
At home |
|
Anna Homer |
16 |
Full |
Nov 6, 1824 |
24 |
At home, married to Sam Folsom |
|
Betsy James |
13 |
|
Nov 6, 1824 |
8 |
At home |
|
Mary Jones |
20 |
|
Nov 15, 1824 |
5 |
Married |
|
Gincy Hall |
5 |
|
Nov 15, 1824 2nd Jan 13, 1830 |
5 14 |
At home could read English and Choctaw and compose and write
letters |
|
Selina McDonald |
3 |
|
Dec 24, 1824 2nd Jan 13, 1830 |
14 6 |
Commenced easy reading. Left on . at home |
|
Rhoda Pitchlynn |
13 |
|
May 19, 1825 |
4 |
Read in testament and is with her father Married 1829 |
|
Mary Pitchlynn |
14 |
|
May 19, 1825 |
4 |
Read tolerably well and wrote. Is with her father, married 1829 |
|
Charlotte Wall |
|
|
May 1, 1825 2nd Oct 1, 1828 |
10 16 |
At home |
|
Elzira Folsom |
5 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
16 28 |
At Mayhew Left school to go over Mississippi could read and write and had some knowledge of geography |
|
Eliza Colbert |
5 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
16 27 |
At Mayhew Left to go over river Fall of 1831, could read well in both languages, write letters and had studied geography |
|
Patsy Folsom |
6 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
17 |
At home, read in Test. |
|
Vina Magee |
5 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
18 36 |
At Mayhew was a member of school until about January 8th 1832 |
|
Kezia Wade |
15 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
8 |
At home |
|
Orilla Folsom |
8 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
17 |
At home read in English and Chatha |
|
Miriam Hancock |
7 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
35 |
At Mayhew |
|
Anna Magee |
7 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 |
18 18 |
Mayhew dismissed from school |
|
Eliza Hohuma |
12 |
Full |
Oct 31, 1826 |
3 |
At home |
|
Alzira Pickens |
7 |
|
Oct 7, 1826 2nd Oct 1829 |
9 6 |
Commenced easy reading at home, died in 1831 on way to the new Choctaw Country |
|
Gincy Folsom |
4 |
|
Oct 10, 1826 |
9 |
Mayhew |
|
Amy Folsom |
4 |
|
Oct 13, 1826 |
9 27 |
Mayhew Left to go to the new country |
|
Visa Hancock |
6 |
|
Oct 14, 1826 |
9 |
Mayhew |
|
Sina Nail |
6 |
|
Oct 2, 1826 |
9 |
Mayhew Was a member of school until it closed |
|
Susanna Liles
|
15 |
|
Oct 27, 1827 |
|
With Mr. Macumber at home |
|
Rachel McGilbra |
10 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 |
|
Dismissed from school |
|
Hotima Christeen Baker |
12 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 |
|
Mayhew (note with below) they learned to read and write and are
now married |
|
Oklima |
14 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 |
|
Mayhew, note with above.. they learned to read and write and
are now married |
|
Mary Hancock |
6 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 left July 1, 1828 |
9 |
Mayhew, was taken from school by father, read in test. |
|
Winne Wilson |
6 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 |
|
Mayhew |
|
Polly Beams |
6 |
|
Oct 17, 1827 |
|
Mayhew |
|
Margaret Campbell |
5 |
|
Feb 12, 1828 |
|
Mayhew |
The ages of each scholar was given as
it appeared to be at time of entrance.
56 have been members of the school
since it's commencement May 1822 until the close of term July
(cutoff). Seven new members admitted this term.
32 were ignorant of the English
language
13 learned to read English well
15 read tolerably well in the testament
15 read Chatha and English
16 wrote composition
15 others commenced writing
17 studied Geo.
11 were married. 3 deaths
a number of them also worked decently
in mens clothes and most of them sewed with _ also knits.
Average no.
six members of the mission family not
included.
Next table has no dates
|
Name |
Notes |
|
? A. Dukes |
Reads Chakta and English, has some knowledge of geography, and
writes letters |
|
Julia Teasy |
Could read both languages and write a little, she professes
religion |
|
Alzira Beams |
Could read in testament |
|
Gincy Beams |
Read in testament |
|
Lucinda Victor |
Could read the testment in both languages |
|
Typhena Wall |
Read in testament |
|
Sally McIntosh |
Reads in words of two syllables |
|
Louisiana Folsom |
Read words of two syllables |
|
Charlotte Magee |
|
|
Lavina Wall |
|
|
Polly Wilson |
|
|
Lydia Goodall |
|
|
Betsy Thompson |
These five little girls but just commenced an education |
|
Elister May |
|
|
Else Folsom |
|
|
Selina Folsom |
|
|
Mary Walton |
These four girls read tolerably well in testament |
|
Lucy James |
Could read and write was amiable, was united with the church a
little before she left Mayhew |
Wilson vs. Wall and wife a landmark courtcase for Native American rights
Although I found the Alabama supreme court case several years ago, it didn't occur to me to look into the familysearch.org collection of Sumter court cases until yesterday, where I found over 150 microfilmed pages involving a landmark court case involving the children of William Hall in Sumter County, Alabama.
Originally filed in 1849, Thomas Wall and his wife Catherine Hall, William Moncrief and his wife Margaret Hall, James Trahern and his wife Sarah Hall, David Folsom and his wife Jane Hall, and Joseph Hall filed a suit in Chancery court for their portion of the land received and sold by their father William Hall in 1836. A similar case was also brought by the children of Alexander Brashears, Sr. namely Alexander Brashears, Derrill Brashears, Samuel E. Brashears, Dennis Brashears, Joseph Siliski and his wife Harriet Brashears, John Jones and his wife Sophia Brashears, James Jones and his wife Mary Jane Brashears, Asa Daniels and his wife Rachel Brashears, John Boykin and his wife Henrietta Brashears, and Gilbert Ansley and his wife Lettie Brashears.
In both cases, the only children who filed were those alive before the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. The case of the children of Alexander Brashears frauduently claimed he died interstate by 1849 (he died in 1868), and is incomplete, the testimonies of the men sued and a decree are missing in that case. In both cases responses in support of the complainants by William Fluker, Sampson Moncrief and John C McGrew are absent. In 1851, the case of Alexander Brashears and others added the names of Susan Lanier, Ann Brashears and Clarissa Vaighter or Vaugter to their support, but those answers are also missing.
The case pivoted on the wording of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek's 14th article, that to each head of a household one section of land where he then resided, for each child over 10 a half a section adjoining said land and for each child under 10 a quarter section adjoining said land was to be issued to the claimants under the fourteenth article. The children of William Hall alleged that their father had the land in trust for them, and that they were owed their portion of the land entailed to them by the treaty. William Hall sold his land in 1836. Under the fourteenth article he was entitled to a section or 640 acres of land for himself, and 3 1/2 sections (960 acres) for Catherine, Jane and Silas Hall, and 4 1/4 sections (420 acres) for Sarah, Margaret, Joseph and Eliza Ann Hall, the children born before 1830.
The total land in question entailed 2120 acres of land in Sumter County, Alabama along the Tombigee River, with the 5 remaining children asking for their share of 1380 acres of land. The respondents, or defendants were Samuel Wilson, William Bates, John W. Smith, Patrick May, William Meador and E. Haupt. Each responded by their attorneys Lyon and Price with almost identical answers, except to the improvements they each claimed to have made on their land.
Basically their argument was that they had no knowledge of the children of William Hall, or if the complainants were his children, that William Hall did not remain 5 years as specified in the treaty before removing to the Choctaw Nation, that the government issued the patent to William Hall and not to his children. They all also stated that they were aware of the fact that William Hall had a "wife or what would be a wife under the Choctaws" and several children, that he was a head of a family and received the land under the treaty. and that the children surely enjoyed the profits of the sale of the land by William Hall.
The judge returned a decree in favor of the children of William Hall, citing that it was impossible for a child to choose to remain so the language under the 14th article in that instance involved the head of household only, and the five year stay could not be applied to the children. That the language of the 14th article clearly stated the land was for each child thus implying a trust, and the head of household was obligated to that trust. That the purchasers of the land had no argument that they didn't know of this provision, as they knew the land in question came from the treaty, and it was their responsibility to be aware of the provisions as it was the law involved in the case, they could not claim ignorance of the fact, because they did not do due diligence in informing themselves.
As pivotal as the case was, it was a hollow victory. The land to be sold for the heirs amounted to only 240 acres, not the 1380 for which they should have been entitled. The main defender Samuel Wilson's land was the land in question, and the judge decreed he had the right to recoup his improvements. David Blackshear, Patrick May, A. M. McDowell, John C. Wilson and Wm McKee, all farmers, and some of them involved in the Brashears case gave testimony for the defendants on the value of his improvements totaling over $19,000 dollars. The value of the rent (only a dollar a cleared acre) and interest from 1836-1849 amounted to only $2500 and the men all claimed that the land had no value for rent from 1849-1854. Attorneys for the children of William Hall answered basically that was ridiculous. And it was, the evaluations were all done by men who like Samuel Wilson had the same risk of loss of land if other claims followed suit. Rather than the cost of the improvements, they charged the value, and it is certainly questionable that the children of William Hall should have to pay for negro houses, and overseer's house. A decree was then issued that the improvements were equal to the value of rent and interest and that the recommendation was to sell the 240 acres of land and divide the money between the complainants in 1857.
Samuel Wilson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama which upheld the decree with the final decision dated 1861. By 1861 Jane Hall and her husband David Folsom and Joseph Hall had all died. How much money the remaining children received is unknown.
The value in the Alexander Brashears case isn't the information about the case, but rather what we learn about the children of Alexander Brashears Senior. Harriet Brashears was the widow of William Juzan and married J. B. Cooper in 1838 in Mobile, Alabama, and in 1847 married Joseph Siliskie (spelled Scelskie in record) also in Mobile. Emigration records and the annuity roll of 1855, done in 1856 show that Gilbert Ansley and his wife Lettie, Sophia Brashears Jones, now the widow of Sampson Moncrief, and Alexander Brashears were in the new Choctaw Nation. Asa Daniels, his wife and a child are shown as emigrants in 1847, but I have been unable to trace them further. Online genealogies show that James Jones and his wife (Sarah Ann and not the Mary Jane listed in the documents) end up in Kansas. Samuel E. Brashears enlisted in the army in 1848 and 1851 and served in the ordinance department of Mount Vernon. He appears on the 1855 state census in Mobile with a wife, but nothing else is known. Derrill Brashears, I have found nothing on, but he is named for Derrill Payne.
Originally filed in 1849, Thomas Wall and his wife Catherine Hall, William Moncrief and his wife Margaret Hall, James Trahern and his wife Sarah Hall, David Folsom and his wife Jane Hall, and Joseph Hall filed a suit in Chancery court for their portion of the land received and sold by their father William Hall in 1836. A similar case was also brought by the children of Alexander Brashears, Sr. namely Alexander Brashears, Derrill Brashears, Samuel E. Brashears, Dennis Brashears, Joseph Siliski and his wife Harriet Brashears, John Jones and his wife Sophia Brashears, James Jones and his wife Mary Jane Brashears, Asa Daniels and his wife Rachel Brashears, John Boykin and his wife Henrietta Brashears, and Gilbert Ansley and his wife Lettie Brashears.
In both cases, the only children who filed were those alive before the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. The case of the children of Alexander Brashears frauduently claimed he died interstate by 1849 (he died in 1868), and is incomplete, the testimonies of the men sued and a decree are missing in that case. In both cases responses in support of the complainants by William Fluker, Sampson Moncrief and John C McGrew are absent. In 1851, the case of Alexander Brashears and others added the names of Susan Lanier, Ann Brashears and Clarissa Vaighter or Vaugter to their support, but those answers are also missing.
The case pivoted on the wording of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek's 14th article, that to each head of a household one section of land where he then resided, for each child over 10 a half a section adjoining said land and for each child under 10 a quarter section adjoining said land was to be issued to the claimants under the fourteenth article. The children of William Hall alleged that their father had the land in trust for them, and that they were owed their portion of the land entailed to them by the treaty. William Hall sold his land in 1836. Under the fourteenth article he was entitled to a section or 640 acres of land for himself, and 3 1/2 sections (960 acres) for Catherine, Jane and Silas Hall, and 4 1/4 sections (420 acres) for Sarah, Margaret, Joseph and Eliza Ann Hall, the children born before 1830.
The total land in question entailed 2120 acres of land in Sumter County, Alabama along the Tombigee River, with the 5 remaining children asking for their share of 1380 acres of land. The respondents, or defendants were Samuel Wilson, William Bates, John W. Smith, Patrick May, William Meador and E. Haupt. Each responded by their attorneys Lyon and Price with almost identical answers, except to the improvements they each claimed to have made on their land.
Basically their argument was that they had no knowledge of the children of William Hall, or if the complainants were his children, that William Hall did not remain 5 years as specified in the treaty before removing to the Choctaw Nation, that the government issued the patent to William Hall and not to his children. They all also stated that they were aware of the fact that William Hall had a "wife or what would be a wife under the Choctaws" and several children, that he was a head of a family and received the land under the treaty. and that the children surely enjoyed the profits of the sale of the land by William Hall.
The judge returned a decree in favor of the children of William Hall, citing that it was impossible for a child to choose to remain so the language under the 14th article in that instance involved the head of household only, and the five year stay could not be applied to the children. That the language of the 14th article clearly stated the land was for each child thus implying a trust, and the head of household was obligated to that trust. That the purchasers of the land had no argument that they didn't know of this provision, as they knew the land in question came from the treaty, and it was their responsibility to be aware of the provisions as it was the law involved in the case, they could not claim ignorance of the fact, because they did not do due diligence in informing themselves.
As pivotal as the case was, it was a hollow victory. The land to be sold for the heirs amounted to only 240 acres, not the 1380 for which they should have been entitled. The main defender Samuel Wilson's land was the land in question, and the judge decreed he had the right to recoup his improvements. David Blackshear, Patrick May, A. M. McDowell, John C. Wilson and Wm McKee, all farmers, and some of them involved in the Brashears case gave testimony for the defendants on the value of his improvements totaling over $19,000 dollars. The value of the rent (only a dollar a cleared acre) and interest from 1836-1849 amounted to only $2500 and the men all claimed that the land had no value for rent from 1849-1854. Attorneys for the children of William Hall answered basically that was ridiculous. And it was, the evaluations were all done by men who like Samuel Wilson had the same risk of loss of land if other claims followed suit. Rather than the cost of the improvements, they charged the value, and it is certainly questionable that the children of William Hall should have to pay for negro houses, and overseer's house. A decree was then issued that the improvements were equal to the value of rent and interest and that the recommendation was to sell the 240 acres of land and divide the money between the complainants in 1857.
Samuel Wilson then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama which upheld the decree with the final decision dated 1861. By 1861 Jane Hall and her husband David Folsom and Joseph Hall had all died. How much money the remaining children received is unknown.
The value in the Alexander Brashears case isn't the information about the case, but rather what we learn about the children of Alexander Brashears Senior. Harriet Brashears was the widow of William Juzan and married J. B. Cooper in 1838 in Mobile, Alabama, and in 1847 married Joseph Siliskie (spelled Scelskie in record) also in Mobile. Emigration records and the annuity roll of 1855, done in 1856 show that Gilbert Ansley and his wife Lettie, Sophia Brashears Jones, now the widow of Sampson Moncrief, and Alexander Brashears were in the new Choctaw Nation. Asa Daniels, his wife and a child are shown as emigrants in 1847, but I have been unable to trace them further. Online genealogies show that James Jones and his wife (Sarah Ann and not the Mary Jane listed in the documents) end up in Kansas. Samuel E. Brashears enlisted in the army in 1848 and 1851 and served in the ordinance department of Mount Vernon. He appears on the 1855 state census in Mobile with a wife, but nothing else is known. Derrill Brashears, I have found nothing on, but he is named for Derrill Payne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)