IS BROOKS SMITH b/ 1796 *REALLY* NEPHEW OF BROOKS b/ 1766,
WHO IS JAMES m/ ESTHER MCDONALDS, FIRST LIVING NEAR BROOKS b/ 1766,
AND WHY I THINK NANCY MULKEY IS NOT MOTHER OF ALL JAMES' KNOWN CHILDREN:

Again, I would love to discuss with any SERIOUS researchers, who are willing to
take the time to study this themselves and with me.

IS BROOKS b/ 1796 REALLY THE NEPHEW OF BROOKS b/ 1766, AND WHO IS JAMES m/ ESTHER MCDONALDS?

While the logical assumption is this Brooks Smith b/ 1796 (of 1830-1850 Jackson Co, AL) was named for his presumed uncle Brooks Smith b/ 1766 who married Rebecca Daniels (in 1788 Washington Co, TN), that still cannot be adequately concluded at this time. It is just an assumption.

It's possible, though not necessarily probable, that even though the name Brooks Smith wasn't common, that two distinct Smith lines somewhere could have a male Smith married a female Brooks and that they aren't related at all. But I doubt that is the case. (Though stranger things have happened).

But if proximity alone is a possible, not conclusive, factor in identifications (hence the main reason that people seem to even link Brooks b/ 1796 with James m/ Mulkey), then WHO is the James Smith m/ 1791 Washington Co, TN to Esther McDonalds, where Brooks Smith b/ 1766 married Rebecca Daniels in 1788? People seem to forget about him as well.

HE is the most likely candidate for brother of Brooks Smith b/ 1766.

We have nothing as yet, from the research / descendants, to indicate that James m/ Mulkey was ever married more than once, let alone to an Esther McDonalds.
But we can't rule that out either, so let's study it.

Back in the day, most people remained at home with their parents until their first marriage, so it makes more sense that this James m/ McDonalds, who is the first James near Brooks (ca 1788-1791) is the brother of Brooks, not that James m/ Mulkey was (whom Brooks moved near ca 1805 in Knox Co, KY).

In other words, both brothers, Brooks b/ 1766 and James were most likely living at home with their father, John (b/ 1742 Yorktown, York Co, VA), in Washington Co, TN, then between 1788 and 1791, they both came to manhood and married there where they were then living with their father. And afterwards, as married men, they moved away.

Yes, Brooks later does move to Knox Co, KY where this James m/ Mulkey was then living in 1805, and this *would* seem to hint at their relationship, if not for that earlier James and his marriage, but even that too (Knox Co, KY proximity) could be circumstantial.

Knox Co, KY is only about 3 counties away from Washington Co, TN. We know there are also other unrelated Smiths there, such as a Fountain Smith. No descendants of Brooks b/ 1766 nor KY James m/ Mulkey (nor both) have ever tried to claim him as a relative. Why not?

If proximity alone was THE deciding factor, then both men should have this Fountain Smith somewhere in their tree! This Fountain Smith may well be related to one of the men somehow, but he is also good circumstantial evidence (until proven otherwise) that there are at least 2 distinct Smith families in 1805 Knox Co, KY, if not three! If Fountain Smith is good evidence since we cannot prove a relationship to him thus far of at least 2 different Smith families, then we have to consider it is also possible that Brooks Smith and James Smith (both then of Knox Co, KY) might also NOT be related as well.

Now the problem is that no one seems to know what became of James m/
Esther McDonalds after their 1791 Washington Co, TN marriage. Suppose HE is the "James A. Smith," father of Brooks in that 1830 Jackson Co, AL census? We can't yet prove it, of course, but we can't rule it out. And it would seem to make sense if we assume the earlier James is the more probable brother of Brooks and that the younger Brooks was probably named for his uncle b/ 1766.

Of course, as I have before stated, without y-DNA testing a known male Smith descendant (who still carries the Smith surname) of that Brooks b/ 1796 to see if he matches the tested descendant of Brooks b/ 1766, we can never know for sure if Brooks b/ 1796 is the nephew of Brooks b/ 1766. Unless and until then, it is an assumption only, regardless of who that James A. Smith is (the James who m/ Esther McDonalds or otherwise).

Y-DNA EVIDENCE AND CONFUSION DUE TO PROBABLE MISIDENTIFICATION OF WHICH JAMES IS WHICH IN 1830+ & THUS WHICH IS FATHER OF BROOKS:

Now, the y-DNA evidence that indicates my Patrick is not related to the Brooks b/ 1766 is interesting because even if we could find a male Smith descendant (who still carries the Smith surname) of THIS Brooks Smith b/ 1796 to DNA test, IF he has been incorrectly linked as son of James Smith m/ Mulkey, then the results would give us a "false negative" (non-match) to my Patrick Smith when James m/ Mulkey well could be my Patrick's father. (Equate this with a false negative on a pregnancy test when someone well could be pregnant - maybe the girl tested too soon or had an expired over the counter or otherwise bad test. This would be akin to linking the wrong father as Brooks' father, i.e. wrongly linking James m/ Mulkey as Brooks' father when his father is James A. Smith).

Naysayers or those who don't understand the DNA science would naturally conclude this is good evidence that Patrick isn't son of James m/ Mulkey and thus not brother Brooks. But this would be a red herring because half of that could be an accurate assessment. In other words, Patrick might not be brother of Brooks, but he COULD be son of James m/ Mulkey. The DNA science is a great tool, but it still ultimately comes back to the accuracy of the trees and the research.


NANCY MULKEY CAN EITHER BE MOTHER TO ALL CHILDREN AND DEAD (OR MISSING) BY 1830 **OR** SHE CAN BE A 2ND, YOUNGER WIFE IN 1830 & ON THE 1838 TRAIL OF TEARS, BUT NOT BOTH:

Research seems to indicate that Nancy Mulkey was the mother of ALL James' known children, namely the girls and Brooks, setting aside Elijah that is my Patrick's, and Jesse that cannot yet be proven (& setting aside my concerns about Brooks).

This means she would be mother of children born in the late 1780s and early 1790s, namely the girls (which I have no reason to doubt the accuracy).

No matter which James is which in that 1830 census and if you agree with my assessments of them or not, not ONE of those men has a woman in the home of age to be mother to those older children!

In each of the 3 James Smith households, the oldest women are of age to either be daughters (or daughter-in-laws) or at best, 2nd younger wives.

But if Nancy was alleged to have made the Trail of Tears, she has to be both
alive and presumably in that 1830 home of James as the Trail of Tears occurred in 1838.

So where is she in the 1830 Jackson Co, AL census?

Since some of James' grandchildren seem to recall Nancy Mulkey living there in AR after the Trail, which seems harder to refute, then it seems she must have been alive and made the 1838 Trail as claimed.

But then, she should be there in 1830, as she wasn't yet dead, and she hadn't
yet been separated (via the 1838 removal) from her family.

But if she is there in 1830 with her husband, then she is NOT old enough to be mother of those children, so she has to be a 2nd, younger wife.

So we should be looking for a different, first wife, mother to those children.

This, too, also makes sense, because if the children were children of a 1/4 Cherokee (James) and a full Cherokee (Mulkey), this would make the children like 5/8 Cherokee.

Yet none of their children are known to have been on the 1838 Trail themselves nor to later claim Cherokee citizenship. Why not?

Those children were already adults and if they were 5/8 Cherokee (inheriting 1/2 of James' 1/4 Cherokee (= 1/8) and 1/2 of Nancy's full (= 4/8) for a total of 5/8), there was a very good chance they looked at least part Cherokee, so why weren't they forced to remove as well?

Admittedly, I don't know all the ins / outs of the Cherokee removal, but assume if someone looked Cherokee and was known Cherokee / part Cherokee, and could not "pass as white," they would have been forced to remove as well, even with a mostly white father and a "white" name (Smith).

Since they were over 1/2 Cherokee (if Nancy was in fact their mother), odds are that at least some of them would have looked the part, if not all of them.

And though we do know some eventually moved to AR, I have not heard it claimed they were forced to remove, and they seem to have gone there after 1838 as far as I am aware. And some clearly remained in Jackson Co, AL.

Mary Polly Smith who married James Bradford Wright died after 1850 (& before his Nov. 1854 remarriage) in Jackson Co, AL. Phoebe Smith Neeley was in 1850 Monroe Co, MS. Brooks Smith, if he even WAS James m/ Mulkey's son (and I don't think he was), was in Jackson Co, AL in 1840 and until his death in 1877. Elizabeth Shepherd died in 1828, so died before the removal. and Jemima Shepherd died in 1876 in Whitley Co, KY, where she appears to have remained her adult life.

In fact, I think one grandchild, spoke about how traumatized Nancy herself was about the Removal (or some such), but not his own mother or siblings, so that would seem to indicate no others in her family were forced to remove.

One grandchild of Nancy explains why SHE or they didn't claim Cherokee Citizenship (trauma, anger, bitterness, skepticism or some such), but again, I think Nancy was a 2nd wife.

She may have even mothered some of the younger (missing, not yet identified) Smith children, but could not be old enough to be wife of the known children or else she was not in the home as early as 1830.

The only child of James that we think or know of who went to AR, was maybe Sarah b/ 1805 who married a Griffith. IF she married David Griffith, she was in 1830 Washington Co, AR and was allegedly back in 1840 in Marshall Co, AL (per descendant of James and 1994 thesis writer, David Travillion Bunton), but afterwards in Tippah Co, MS.

But Sarah Smith Griffith was b/ 1805, so she is much younger than the other known children so could actually be the one of the bunch who is Nancy's, depending on Nancy's real age and depending on which James is which in 1830.

But in 1830, James #1 (that I think is the one that married Mulkey) had his oldest female aged 30-39, so b/ 1791-1800. She could not be mother of children born in the late 1780s and early 1790s.

IF that was Nancy and she was b/ 1791, and she was mother of ONLY Sarah, and IF Sarah's birth year per later records WAS 1805, that would make Nancy about 14 when she had Sarah, which is possible. Of course, it is possible that either age range / birth estimate could be off a bit, so Nancy could have been older when Sarah was born if Sarah was born say ca 1808 instead.

In James #2's household, that I think is the Rev. War pensioner, his oldest female is aged 20-29, so b/ 1801-1810. That obviously cannot be Nancy, mother of all those children, nor could she even be mother of only Sarah b/ 1805.

In James #3's household, the one that is clearly named James A. Smith which matches the father of Brooks Smith in his own 1850 household, thus the one I think is Brooks' father, the oldest female in 1830 is 40-49, so b/ 1781-1790, so slightly older than the other 2 women in the other 2 homes. But even SHE as the oldest of all the James Smith women in 1830 would be too young to have had James m/ Mulkey's children born in the late 1780s and early 1790s!

It's of course *possible* then that this (KY) James was the brother of Brooks, b/ 1766, then he (James) m/ Esther McDonalds in TN in 1791, moved, perhaps even WITH his brother, Brooks b/ 1766 to Knox Co, KY by 1805 and then to Jackson by 1830, & somewhere along the way married Nancy Mulkey who was then the 2nd wife & stepmother to his children. But still, circumstantially, James m/ Mulkey would seem to be the best fit for the James near Joseph Neeley in 1830, and not the James A. Smith whose name matches Brooks' father in 1850.

But Brooks Smiths b/ 1766 is alleged to be son of John (b/ 1742 Yorktown, York Co, VA) who MARRIED a 1/4 Indian, but who (John's wife) was not necessarily Cherokee though. But that doesn't mean there couldn't also be two Indians (James A. Smith, father of Brooks and Cherokee James m/ Mulkey) in 1830 Jackson Co, AL.

But why does everyone seem so quick to ignore or dismiss James m/ Esther McDonalds as the most probable brother of Brooks b/ 1766?
And where did he go?
Is he the same as James A. Smith, father of Brooks, in 1830-1850 Jackson Co, AL?

If James m/ Esther IS the same as James A. Smith, probable father of Brooks b/ 1796, then much like with the Nancy scenario, Esther would seem to be dead by 1830, because he has no female old enough to have been married in 1791. So either Esther is dead by 1830 and there is no replacement wife (and the oldest female is a daughter) or James A. Smith has remarried as well.

If Nancy is mother of all those children of James m/ Mulkey as claimed, then where is she in the 1830 census?

If she IS the one in 1830, and thus a much younger 2nd wife, then who is that
first wife, mother of the James' known children?

Briana S. Felch
brianafelch @ me.com