CALL FOR ALL SMITH DESCENDANTS OF ANY GENDER TO CONSIDER DNA TESTING, ESPECIALLY THOSE DESCENDED FROM JACKSON CO, AL ca 1830-1850+
Whether you agree that these are logical questions and assessments or not that I raise, surrounding the census identification, who was who, questions regarding Nancy etc., due to the same-named, same age range James Smiths that are ripe for confusion and that there are KNOWN other confusions between the men (i.e. that KY James was a pensioner or married Hannah Parker or living next door to Brooks in 1830 etc.) AND since we are obviously missing children of even the best researched James (KY James m/ Mulkey), the best way to resolve some of these lingering questions and solve some of these mysteries is by having any and all male Smith descendants (who carry the Smith surname today) consider y-DNA testing and the males & female descendants (of any current surname) do an autosomal DNA test.
DNA testing descendants of these 3 James Smiths b/ 1761-1770, or ANY Smith, from Jackson Co, AL ca 1830-1850+ could help us establish a list of children / sibling matches, that we then could begin to pick apart and research further for additional clarifying clues.
y-DNA is passed from father to son to grandson, so would require testing a male Smith descendant who still carries the biological Smith surname. This would eliminate females, but females could test their father or uncle or brother or cousin who is a male biological Smith.
Autosomal DNA is passed from both parents to a child of any gender, so any female or male can test regardless of your maiden name or current married name. If you have or suspect these Smiths in your line, you are a candidate for autosomal testing for this purpose.
Admittedly, this DNA testing could be somewhat confusing or misleading in some cases if the trees are currently linked wrong, such as if someone from Brooks Smith b/ 1796 and y-DNA tests, as it could lead people to think that Brooks WAS the son of KY James, and that KY James was NOT father of my Patrick, but hopefully it would help with enough people testing and with the
right tools and analysis.
Ultimately, y-DNA evidence is more useful than autosomal DNA for this purpose, but we have no other confirmed sons of James m/ Mulkey, so autosomal testing could be a logical step to the y-DNA testing.
Ideally, we could find perhaps that a descendant of, say Jesse Smith (who is living near the James I think married Mulkey, is a close autosomal match to a known daughter of KY James (say of Mary who married James Bradford Wright), giving us a tentative ID of Jesse as a probable son of James m/ Mulkey, then we could y-DNA test a known male Smith descendant (who still carries the Smiths surname) of Jesse to confirm it.
We could also y-DNA test a known male Smith descendant (who still carries the Smith surname) of Brooks b/ 1796.
Currently there is no tester for that Brooks b/ 1796 line, just from Brooks b/ 1766, so we still aren't even sure that Brooks b/ 1766 is uncle to Brooks b/ 1796.
If Brooks b/ 1796 was truly the nephew of Brooks b/ 1766, then since the y-DNA is passed from father to son to grandson, both Brooks would have inherited it from the father of Brooks b/ 1766, i.e. believed to be John b/ 1742 Yorktown, York Co, VA. Thus both Brooks would be expected to match as would any other male Smith descendant (still carrying the Smith surname) of other sons of James, father of Brooks b/ 1796, sons of Brooks b/ 1766, and sons of Brooks b/ 1796.
It would be better to have people test and match or not match to this Brooks b/ 1796 directly than Brooks b/ 1766 since we cannot yet confirm even their relationship. But testing a known male Smith descendant of Brooks b/ 1796 who still carries the Smith surname would either match or not match Brooks b/ 1766, which should also clarify that as well.
Then we could see if the male descendant of Jesse (or other candidate son of James m/ Mulkey or anyone else) matches Brooks b/ 1766 and/or Brooks b. 1796.
If Jesse and Brooks b/ 1766 did not match on y-DNA, that might be good evidence that Brooks b/ 1796 was not the son of James m/ Mulkey.
If Jesse and Brooks b/ 1796 did not match on y-DNA, that would be excellent
evidence that Brooks b/ 1796 was not the son of James m/ Mulkey.
By the same token, a close autosomal match of Mary Smith m/ James Bradford Wright's descendant to my Patrick, would be good evidence Patrick was a son of James m. Mulkey.
Those are just a few examples of how the DNA evidence could help.
Currently, only FTDNA.com offers y-DNA testing and pricing can be found on their website. It's a tad more costly, starting at $169, but they sometimes have sales, such as annually around DNA day (4/25).
Three main companies, Ancestry.com, 23andme.com, and FTDNA offer autosomal DNA testing, but FTDNA and 23andme's tests are far superior to Ancestry's test as Ancestry does not give you the analysis tools you need to ensure a match matches you on a given line (vs. just ANY line).
Current prices at FTDNA, 23andme and Ancestry (absent a special sale) are $99 each. (FTDNA has many test options, only 1, I think is autosomal, the FF or Family Finder). But 23andme offers a 20% discount on a 2nd test ordered at the same time.
Ancestry has frequent sales (as low as $49), but again, they don't provide the tools you need.
I imagine that FTDNA also has periodic sales.
If money is a factor or a deterrent from testing other than at Ancestry though, a work-around is to test at Ancestry and either upload for free your raw data to Gedmatch.com (which I recommend anyway, regardless of which test you choose) and / or for a fee (currently $69), transfer your results from Ancestry or 23&me to FTDNA. (You'd ultimately be paying higher with Ancestry plus a FTDNA transfer, but if money at a given time was a factor, you would pay a cheaper price at 2 different times than a steeper price at one time).
I have autosomally tested at both Ancestry and 23andme and prefer 23andme because of their tools and features. I have not autosomally tested at FTDNA as yet (hope to in the future), but did y-DNA test my father there.
I have uploaded my kits from 23andme and Ancestry to Gedmatch, and again, I highly recommend that regardless of where you test. Not only does it provide the tools that Ancestry lacks (that the other 2 provide), but additional tools, and it also allows you to essentially "fish in all 3 ponds" with people from all 3 testing companies. (Though not everyone who tests at all 3 uploads to Gedmatch. It is also frequently down as it is free and based on donations).
Ancestry has the numbers game, but many there are new and don't know what they are doing, are non-responsive, or don't have adequate trees for comparison, and still it doesn't give you the tools you need to confirm the DNA is say Smith vs. Jones (or to see where you match).
There are many blogs and sources to answer questions on the DNA testing from the practical, to the user experience, to the technical. I'm happy to help where I can.
It may seem overwhelming at first, but isn't that hard once you know what you are looking for and looking at. And matches are always willing to help their newbie matches as it's to the benefit of both.
DNA is a great way to not only potentially break down brick walls, but also confirm your existing research!
And with a Smith surname, and with the complexities our Smiths seem to present, we need all the help we can get!
Whether you y-DNA test or autosomal test or just want to connect with other Smiths and upload your BRANCH of the massive Smith tree, you will want to join the Smith DNA project:
http://www.smithsworldwide.org/After you y-DNA test, you will be matched to those Smith descendants who match you on the most markers, much like my current grouping (where you can see my Patrick Smith m/ Mary Ann Lindsey - the only test currently associated with it, is my father who descends from David L (Lindsey?) Smith via David Lonnie Sr. then David Lonnie Jr. then through his father, Winston David Smith):
http://www.smithsworldwide.org/smtestcompareg.asp?grouping=G...From that link, you can click the icons to the left, a tree to see our branch, the pedigree symbol to see the pedigree etc. and you can see how the other kits (3 of the total 5 at the moment) have KY ties, though none others as yet known tied to Knox Co, KY specifically.
Briana S. Felch
brianafelch @ me.com