DNA and Kissin' Cousins (Double)

 I attended the virtual Rootstech this year. In one of the chat sessions the instructor referred someone with double cousins to DNA painter. I don't think that was good advice. Here's why, double cousins prior to 4th cousin will show more DNA the majority of the time than the relationship. They will seem a 0.5 to 1 generation closer, and DNA painter, doesn't address this. 

My father's father had a set of double cousins. His Uncle from his mom, married his Aunt from his Dad. Now, that isn't the only double cousins (and I mean sibling marriages, there are another type of double, where two lines intermarry, but DNA is less reliably inherited at a higher rate, it depends on the distance.) in his tree, but it's the only CLOSE one.

Let's look at a few of Dad's and my double cousin relationships. 

This cousin, is my father's double second cousin once removed. He shares 379 cM. Here is what DNA painter shows. Notice 0.61% chance.

And here is another double second cousin once removed, Dad shares 341 cM. Here is what DNA painter shows. Notice, 4% chance.

Dad has two 2nd cousins once removed from this same line that aren't of the double cousin marriage. He matches 151 cM and 146 cM with them. Here is the DNA painter for 151 cM. Notice, 2nd level of probability.

In fact, he matches 266 cM with the father of one of those matches, here is the DNA painter on that. notice, 1st level of probability.

 

 

You will notice in the last two examples, the probability matches the match at a higher degree. Now, I will admit, due to my father's family location, I often fall into the 2nd probable percentage. Simply because he often has a case where he is related to someone twice. Without triangulation though, I can't identify which DNA comes from which family.

 

Here is a final example. This matches grandparents were first cousins. The match she is matching to is the great granddaughter of  the first matches great grandfather, and the  gggrandniece of the first matches grandfather. (yes, my great great grandfather married his great niece and had children). They match 308 cM. Now there is clearly pedigree collapse. They are half 2nd cousins, and 2nd cousins once removed. Notice though, they do not come near the smallest tier of the probabilities, as the 2 double cousins do. 

Now, I have more examples, that can reliably show my 3rd cousin matches look closer but when I get to 4th cousin, it falls off. Some match higher, some match lower. Kissing cousins can be a challenge in southern trees. If you know they are a double cousin, expect a match to be higher than DNA painter, if you don't know, do the research, and look out for it as a possibility.

Choctaw Genealogy

 I finally looked at my blog comments this week, and I had several related to my Choctaw posts. A topic I really haven't broached in a while. I took the time to re-read some of my posts. Some of it material I wrote about 2001-2003. Man, I have learned a lot since that time. Some of that stuff, not accurate with what I know now, most of it is though.

It is probably the most accurate to state, that I have taken a deviation on the Choctaw to a more historical research perspective than a genealogical one. I try to read as much as I can, but I probably focus a lot of time on as many original records as I can find. And there are a lot, if you know where to look.  Finding the Quaker records (and an email) I confirmed that James L. McDonald was left with the Quakers with another boy, (whose obituary shows is James Madison, a son of Apuckshunnubbee), by Jeremiah Ward. It is not long after the death of James Madison, that Thompson McKinney writes in his memoirs, he was approached about taking in a Choctaw boy, the same James L. McDonald. I recall being fascinated by James' story, long before I found out he was a relative. In fact, the half-nephew of my ancestor. 

Reading newspapers, I found an article with a recount by Eliza Ann Flack, my ancestor's daughter, and her discussion of her mother's Uncle, Uncle Pushmataha. She also talks about a cousin who died and gives an account (hard to read) of the bone picking and cry that occurred afterward. She makes it sound like she recalls the Creek War, which I doubt, I suspect she was born in the midst of it, but it is interesting. I also have read accounts of Mushulatubbee's brother's trial and letter when he killed a white man. The death of General Hummingbird and Little Leader, among many other things.

I have read the American State papers, and the Mississippi territorial papers, deeds, and court records, and thousands upon thousands of Dawes files. Almost very history book ever written prior to 2000, and a few since, some thesis material when I could find it. I have gone page through page through the records on ancestry to read the court records that are hidden and not indexed. I researched annuity rolls, and census, and documented as much as I could. Oh, and I talked a lot to other researchers who have been doing this a lot longer than I have, most specifically my dear friend Sandra, who has spent hundreds of hours on the phone with me and shared hundreds of emails with me over the last 20 years. 

I love that there is a lot of love for genealogy now. That there is an interest in it, and younger people involved. Back when I started, I was 33, that was so much younger than everyone I ran across except one or two folks. So, glad to see younger people interested. And also grateful, that the search engines don't readily bring up some of the old forums which are full of inaccurate claims. Not so grateful that the claims have made it into a lot of trees. 

Accuracy in genealogy should always be the goal. Sometimes, we can't prove it on paper, but we can by circumstantial evidence, logic and reasoning. Such evidence generally includes, proximity, timeframe, and some kind of substantial evidence other than, an oral history, or a MCR file. There is a plethora of claims on the MCR that are true, and there are just as many that aren't. You can tell when you read them, they have no substance in their testimonies. What most people don't take the time to learn is that there were congressional testimonies over the enrollments in Mississippi, primarily, the scam ran by a group of lawyers, that went town to town, and literally signed up as many folks to enroll as they could. They also sold shares to the American public elsewhere for an expected profit when these folks enrolled and got their "money". The majority of the Mississippi Choctaw Society were their clients.

There are a lot of valid reasons why the Mississippi Choctaw were enrolled and became a tribe, and why it was limited to it's membership. It unfairly did exclude Choctaws in Mississippi who were descendants of mixed bloods in 1830, but by doing so they ensured that the fraudulent claims weren't allowed. The Choctaws in Oklahoma, they fought enrollment of the Mississippi Choctaws. That is why you can find court of claims testimonies in the Cornish Collection (I forgot to mention I read those too).

 Not that most of my comments have been about rumored Choctaws, but it seemed the best place for me to start. I can literally talk for hours about the period before 1830, so I am going to try and put some of that into a blog (maybe I will have to find a way to focus). I can talk for hours about the period after 1830 through enrollment, so I will try and talk about that. I want to someday write a book on the Choctaw that looks at the history from a genealogical perspective. Because I already know, there is a lot of history books that has overlooked that and missed a huge part of the story. Maybe I can work on some of that here.

 Researching your Native American tree, starts just like your non Native American tree. You start at you and you work backward. You gather records, you confirm, and you move back. If you are lucky, you will find (rare) a census, or an enrollment or a tribal roll. Sometimes you won't be lucky. It's not that there isn't records out there, but it can be hard. There are five derivations of the name Nahotima on the 1856 census for the Choctaw. There are I don't know how many Homomastubbee's on the 1785 Spanish Treaty. There are 3 (I think) Pushimataha on that treaty as well, and not one is Pushmataha. There are 3 Mingo Poos Coos also. See where I say about lucky. 

Yeah, it is extremely difficult when you get to a full blood to verify information. Largely because by the time you get back that far, you are literally to a point where few if any records exist. Choctaw records are sporadic, you have the 1896, 1893 (I can't find that one), 1885, and 1856 for full families. There are a few more just head of household in the NARA, and there is the Armstrong rolls. That's a whole lot of skipping. Some of the Choctaw nation county records, the court records are all in Choctaw.  Choctaws in Mississippi, have far fewer records, even with the Cooper roll. You literally have almost 70 years with no documentation for some families. 

I am not saying don't try, I am saying be realistic. You can search for years (well for any genealogy this is true) with nothing. No clue, no records, and then one day, you may stumble on the records. Never look to prove yourself right, just look for something that proves something, even if you were wrong in your assumption. Accuracy is your goal. A family tree full of errors and inaccuracies isn't rewarding, and if you do your DNA, it is a headache because you won't figure out a match because of it. Use good judgement, use logic, and if you have a theory, state a theory. Don't trust any tree on ancestry, even mine, you should verify everything you can, and you should strive for sourced documentation. 

Autosomal DNA: What do I do now?

I belong to a few groups on Facebook around DNA and genealogy. I have also dropped a few. Well call me opinionated, but I don't believe that every moderator is the only expert. 

 When I started out with my DNA tests in 2014, I read a lot of blogs. The same experts are out there, and back then the big push was triangulation. I have been told that is the "old" way and the new "way" is the Leeds method. I had to google it. Basically it takes clustering your matches into buckets and then building trees (they use the term quick and dirty tree) and identifying matches to your grandparents.

 I don't do this method strictly in the way they describe, probably because well, I was identifying matches for years without it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It does though I think bring some challenges in some situations. This blog talks about southern trees. Well, half my tree is a southern tree. And what I can tell you is that just because I have shared matches doesn't mean squat. I have to verify they aren't related through a way completely unconnected to me. Even when they would fit in the same "bucket". Because I don't have a collapsed tree, and I have minimal endogamy, but I have a family that has lived in the same area for over 200 years. And guess what, this group of families has had a lot of intermarriages over the last 200 years. I normally am related to someone more than one way, I often "share" relatives. I am not related to A whose related to B and I am related to B. 

I guess my point is, advice and videos and blogs are great, but if it isn't working for you, there may be a reason. Maybe you just don't have enough testers for that line. Maybe you aren't related to that line. Maybe you have a "southern" type tree. (I do recommend you read the blog I mentioned, she has some great tips).

 So how do I do personally determine matches and group them on Ancestry? Well, you need to understand, First, when I started this, I had a robust tree. Meaning, I had most of my family to 6th generation and beyond, and had their children done too. This makes me not your typical user. I was not trying to find a grandfather or great grandfather. I am not adopted. And so far, DNA has shown not one non-parental event (whew). Second, I didn't just test myself. I tested my parents, my grandmother's sister, my grandfather's cousin, my mother's half cousin that shares only a grandfather, my cousin, my aunt, and then I tested three distant Hardy cousins, two because they were also Pyburn's. I have 5 tests on 23andme, seven on ancestry, and have put some of them on myheritage, all of them on gedmatch and familytreedna. 

 So I started with identifying folks before I did the ancestry tests, using gedmatch and 23andme and ftdna, and genomemate pro. Which is a program that lets you database your matches. It's free, and easier than building my own spreadsheets. So I identified a lot of segments (I haven't done that in forever), and I ended up with a good size group of folks when I see them I know, I am related to them by x surname. 

 Then when I did ancestry dna, I looked at trees on the largest matches first, and identified as many of them as I could. Even when that took a bit of internet sleuthing. So the bulk of the second and third cousin matches, I identified. And if I couldn't I noted what family or side (maternal or paternal) they matched. (yeah, it's clustering, just not in a spreadsheet, and not on paper). I still do that. Then I look at all the shared matches, and flip between them seeing who they are related to (again clustering). I focus in on trees, and look for matches who share the same surname. When I find more than one with a surname (Not my own) and have a group of known matches, I build a tree, and start really looking for where it can connect. (Again, probably same as clustering). For me, inevitably it's the last line I look at that is the clue. 

Sometimes, that's as far as I get, I build the tree, and that's it, I can't figure it out. But, I have figured out a few of those that have sat for the last few years. I just needed more matches in common. Then lastly, I don't bother looking at matches down to 30 cM. Not as a starting point anyhow. I rarely go beyond 50 cM when I look at new matches, or work on old ones. Why? Because I already have a great tree, what I am looking for is "surprise" large matches, and clues to just a handful of individuals where I have had a genealogy roadblock. 

I probably spend 75% of my time just on genealogy and only 25% on DNA. That works for me. That said, I recommend anyone who is new to DNA read the Autosomal DNA Wiki from ISOGG, and when you do you will find links to blogs, and these guys, are the true experts in the field. Then I would learn about DNA painter (which helps with probabilities for matches). I can tell you, the guy who came up with the probabilities, Blaine, is a blogger, and I participated so it is a great help. And last, take advice with a grain of salt. If one method doesn't work for you, you can vary it. What I cannot express enough, is building a tree out as far as you can, and not forgetting, especially within the first four generations, building the siblings of your ancestor down too. This helps. And if you are having trouble finding someone who won't answer your email. I have some tips on that here. Don't understand what a second cousin twice removed is? I have an explanation for that (my easy way of figuring it anyhow) here.

Clues on Mary Douglas

Mary Douglas, my grandmother's great grandmother has been a mystery forever. She has birthplace given as Canada and Clinton County, NY. We have a lot of cousin's from the Paxton's who have tested now on ancestry, so I thought I would give it a look again. There has been three different "clusters" of matches within the Paxton cousins that match each other. I spent the weekend working on them. The Douglas matches all link back to either a Reuben Douglas, John Douglas or Elizabeth Douglas. All of these have lower Canada in common, Missisquoi specifically. There is a Robert Douglass there in 1825. Now most people have this Robert the same as a later Robert who is there in 1842. The second Robert is 12 years younger than the first. So I took the older children, which included a John and a Reuben (from notorial records and the 1825 census) and built a tree with that seperate, merging the John who goes to Jefferson County, and adding Elizabeth (based on the 1825 census this is probable). I also did a spreadsheet on the 1825 Douglass's. There are three different groupings. De Lery is the widow of Nathaniel Douglas Sr who died in 1821 and his two sons. Sherington is the other children of Nathaniel Douglas Sr from his first wife. Lacole is the family group of Robert Douglas.

 

The other two surnames are from the children of George Cameron and his wife, Hannah Blanchard. Because his wife is born of immigrants later than the birth of Mary Douglass, I focused on George. All we know is George is a son of an Alexander Cameron who was likely born in lower Canada. This match includes others from this line, but it is important to note, my great aunt, my mother, myself, my cousin and my daughter all share a segment intact with the mother, cousin, daughter, son of this family. Alexander Cameron, born in 1804, would be the son of a mother roughly same age as Robert Douglass' wife. The remaining matches come from the children of an Alexander Charter whose wife was Mary. Alexander Charter was in St. Martine about 30 miles away. Alexander Charter' wife would be roughly the same age as the wife of Robert Douglass. So for now, Father Theory in my tree has two unknown daughter's with the last name theory, and Mary Unknown. We will see if this leads us anywhere or not. Will keep you posted. Oh by the way, I picked George Douglass as the father of Mary. Not because I have any proof, but because she named a son George Benjamin.

The Paxton Family a Breakthrough

For what seems like forever, we did not know much on Benjamin Paxton. We knew who he said his parents were and he was born in either Birminghamshire or Oxfordshire. My great aunt's DNA has helped solve all of that. Well that and a plethora of Paxton cousins who have also tested. First I was able to figure out that Benjamin's father William had a second family and resided in King County, Ontario. His second wife's maiden name was Bryan's and that must be how Benjamin got the last name of Brown. A burial for Mary Paxton, daughter of William Paxton and Mary Adams in Quebec, and then the death of Mary Paxton wife of William in Quebec led me to that discovery. Recently I started looking into a match of 107 cM. Turns out he is my great Aunt's 3rd cousin once removed from the Paxton family. I was able to trace Benjamin Paxton to Finmere, in Oxfordshire. He was a grandson of Richard Paxton and Rachel Butler. I found a marriage for William Paxton in Hertsfordshire to a Mary Adams. The distance bothered me a lot, but there is 1. No William's in the area prior to the marriage 2. William is listed as a widowerer. I then found a marriage of William Paxton to Sarah Adams and her death in 1820 in Tingewick, Buckinghamshire. A post on a genealogy group let me know that at this time (1820) it was voidable to marry a spouses's sister. Thus the marriage at great distance (50 miles) makes more sense. So, I built a tree for Mary Adams, daughter of Thomas Adams and Elizabeth Winmell. We have thrulines now, so I believe this is the final answer on the family. The Paxton's were yeomen in Finmere for several centuries.

William Paxton: Timeline for My Brick Wall

 The Paxton family is the only family on my maternal grandmother's side that I have been struggling with for, well, 20 years. I knew that Emma Paxton was my grandmother's grandmother. Early on someone sent me her obituary and I found a few descendants of her siblings who had a family bible. From that we had her father Benjamin Paxton, (not Henry Benjamin as some have it), her mother Mary Douglas and the birth dates of her siblings. 

I also found his obituary, which said he came to the United States at age 8 and was born in Buckingham-shire. Records from the town where he enlisted listed his parents, William Paxton and Mary Brown and said he was born in Oxford-shire, around 1823. I still find no baptism record for him. His marriage to his third wife is recorded as taking place in a Methodist Episcopalian church, consistent with the Church of England. 

No matter how hard I searched for years, I just didn't get very far. We found Benjamin first in 1850 in Saint Lawrence County, listed as a cobbler with his wife Mary and first son, William H. (Henry) Paxton. In the household was a Martha Paxton who I took to be his sister. I was able to track William Paxton forward from there and all of his children, but still nothing on his parents. I am pretty sure folks have the Henry Benjamin because of the eldest son's name, but at the time of Benjamin's birth, it was rare to see middle names in any baptisms I have found among all my English ancestors.

About a year ago, I noticed some in common matches with my Paxton relatives (we have a lot of those) with my grandmother's sister and an Endersbee and a Paxton from Canada. Researching both lead me to discover that Martha Paxton, the sister in 1850 married a William Endersbee and is the ancestor of those Endersbee matches, who remained in Saint Lawrence county, New York. The Paxton came from King County, Ontario, and the 1851 and 1861 showed a William Paxton born in 1781 and 1796 (same guy with same family) in England. William's wife Catherine was Catholic and records in Quebec show the family lived there prior to locating to Ontario sometime between 1840 and 1851. The baptisms give her maiden name as Byran, but the marriage record from 1835 gives the name of Brown. The couple had four children, Mary, Eliza Ann, John P and George Paxton.

I decided to forgo the Brown for Benjamin's mother, but still had little luck. There aren't all that many William Paxton's born between  1781-1796, but there are fewer maybe 4 or 5 born in Buckingham or Oxford. I found one I like (and still do, despite the one tree I found that had that William) born in 1786 in Maid Moreton, the son of a John Paxton and Sarah. The reason I feel this one is the most likely, is that literally none of the others seem feasible as they are traceable in their village and county after the emigration of my William, where the Maid Moreton isn't there. Also the entire family were cobbler's, and given the time, I think this may be how Benjamin was trained in his train. It is my best theory, but it is by no means sure. I have spent a bit of time tracing these descendants out, but there aren't all that many and we have had no DNA matches to confirm it.

 I found an 1833 burial in the same church in Quebec for a Mary Paxton. Today I found in the same church in 1832 a burial for Mary Paxton, age 12, the daughter of William Paxton emigrant and Mary Adams. Both records are in the same church, a Church of England denomination in Quebec, as the marriage record found in 1835. Looking for marriage records, I find one William Paxton in England marrying a Mary Adams, in St. Paul's Weldon in Hertfordshire in 1821.  It is a little distant from where the Paxton's were supposed to live, but it does seem like this might be our family. Also, the sons of John Paxton did move away to practice their trade. Nowhere do I find baptisms for any of the three children, Mary, Benjamin or Martha Paxton. All of them were supposed to be born in England prior to emigrating to England around 1832. The religious history in the records (Canadian census, church records, and marriages) does not suggest they were non-conformists. There aren't any in there either anyhow.

By 1851, William moved to King, Ontario where he remained until his death in 1869. His sons and daughters from his second wife marry from there and some move to the states while other's remain in the same county in Canada. Canadian records just aren't at the same level as England or the States, so I haven't found much else to go on. I have not found any ship information for transportation which should be in 1832 to Canada based on what Benjamin Paxton said and the records in Canada. 

We have a similar brick wall for Mary Douglas. She is matching a Paxton from Saint Lawrence in 1850 who was born in 1794 in Canada, but he is a dead end. She also has several matching suggesting she is related to the Douglas family of Vermont who move to Clinton County. Some of their family did go on to Quebec, so that may be the connection. It does appear that she is either Canadian or American and not English.

America, a History of Two Countries, Not Just One

 2020, what a year. I was thinking how history will record this year, and really the last decade in American history. The politics, the divide in political ideology of our people. And then I got to thinking about the history I have learned in the 20 plus years of genealogy. How different some of what I have learned is from the narrative I was taught in high school or college. I was researching some Scottish and Irish history too because it relates to one of my families, and then again, I thought. My family history, and I think many American's is not a history of one country but two. And there is quite a bit of that narrative I did not necessarily learn accurately either. So will some far off descendant or relative learn our narrative the way we may see it today, or under a different lens?

In 1641 a rebellion in Ireland caused the death of a son of a Robert McCurdy. The rebellion also involved  Archibald Stewart in Ballintoy, Ireland. This rebellion is one of many skirmishes between Catholics and Protestants that occurred in Ireland for centuries. Archibald Stewart, a grandson of Ninian Stewart of the Island of Bute, was a steward of the Earl of Antrim. Antrim is home to many of the highlanders we Americans know as the Scots Irish, and the place we can trace our family history back to. It is these descendants of Ninian Stewart that are rumored to be the McCurdy connection to the royal house of Stewart of Scotland. (Contrary to the rumors, Margaret Stewart, the alleged connection is not descended from James Stewart the King of Scotland, but is connected rather to Robert the Bruce if the connection can ever be confirmed).

Meanwhile in what would become the United States of America, three Brownson siblings settled in Connecticut. The Brownsons community would become the Puritans we learned about in school. One branch, now under the name of Brunson would move to the Santee river in South Carolina. Joined by a settlement of Huguenots, the St. Mark's Parish Church would represent almost a century of the family history. All of the Brunson's in the south descend from this branch.

Nearby in Massachusetts and Vermont, settlers from the Wheelers, Hinds, Bent, Whittemore and many other families would also settle. My mother's maternal grandfather's family descends from many of these early settlers. As American's we were taught that the impetus for the journey to America was religious freedom. Ironically, that wasn't exactly the impediment that the new colonists faced.

Non-conformists, sometimes called dissenters, were prohibited from holding office until 1828, but the ability to practice the religion had been resolved long before the first shots of the American Revolution. I think rather, truth be told, it was other freedoms that drove colonists to the new country. In America, they could hold land, even if the cost of transport was indentured servitude. The poverty of the villages and a society based on land ownership of an entitled class system likely had as much or more to do with the desire to come to the wilds of America. 

My mother's maternal grandmother's family were late arrivals to America. As a consequence, it is more difficult to trace their lines back as far. Because, for the most part, common laborers are hard to find in records prior to 1700. The only reason we know anything about the Brownson's is that an archeological survey was done on the village they came from. Now, there are areas within America we also can't trace as well. Descendants of North Carolina, South Carolina, early Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia are often faced with a gap in records. Many due to Sherman's march across the south which burned those records, though to be honest, fire has cost us valuable documents regardless of the cause in many areas of the country. Particularly Alabama, which has 80% of it's counties having burned records in it's past.

There is one family line we can perhaps trace further back, the Dudley's of the midlands, descending from an illegitimate daughter of Edward Sutton, the 5th Baron of Dudley who died in 1642. By all accounts, the connection of Martha Dudley to Edward Sutton, through her grandmother Catherine Sutton, a daughter of Edward Dudley and his mistress, appears to be legitimate. The Dudley's can be traced back to a John Dudley born in 1413 who was a gentleman of Tipton, but it is her maternal line, that can be traced back to royalty of England. 

Unlike the McCurdy's whose claim to royal connections is fraught with barriers and obstacles, this is the one connection that appears to be legitimate. I have addressed these issues in a previous blog, but will expand on the connections again soon. Edward Sutton, the 5th Baron of Dudley's royal connections come through his paternal grandmother's family. His paternal grandmother's grandmother, Eleanor de Holland is a descendant of Edward Longshanks and his wife Margaret of France. She is also a descendant of Louis, King of France, Henry II, King of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry III, King of England and Llewyln the great. Though he is also descended from other aristocratic families, it is the descendants of Joyce Cherleton that gives his family line these connections. 

Ironically, the Lords and Earls of Dudley would own the very ironworks that their descendants would one day work as common laborers who toiled in the dangerous work of the villages of Staffordshire. Descendants who would die in workhouses and lie buried in unmarked graves. I never understood the appeal of linking oneself to royalty but many find it worthwhile. Though to be honest, it does make it a bit easier to find a trail if you have that connection. 

While my grandmother's paternal family were early colonists in American, her maternal family were early non-conformist in the villages of the midlands. My grandfather's American ancestor's cannot be traced nearly as far, but the Trahern's were among the first Methodist Episcopalians in Maryland and Virginia, though they appear to have had strong connections to the Quakers if they did not start out as such. Though religion does seem to take a prominant place in this blog, it is I think the context of understanding the motivations and path religion has had in the history of not just our country, but of England and my ancestors. 

I think that to understand a bit of the early foundations of the United States, takes an understanding of English history of the same time. King James II, his son Charles, Cornwall. This is the history that drove many of the Scottish to Ireland, and then to the United States, but it also impacted our non-Scottish ancestors as well.