This is a call for feedback, information, sources on any and all Smiths with ties to Jackson Co, AL ca 1830-1850+ or so.

There are 3 James Smiths b/ 1761-1770 in the 1830 Jackson Co, AL census who have been seriously crossed by many researchers (including in the past, by myself), and I have spent much time UNCROSSING them to the extent that I am able (some smaller questions still remain) and looking at all the ORIGINAL evidence as well as notes from various sources and researchers / descendants.

Not only do I think I can CLARIFY many of these issues and hopefully correct many trees on some points, but I also have NEW questions, hard questions, that either seem to have been missed entirely, dismissed as not relevant, or as concerning a different James.

I can also add to that completely NEW evidence, mostly circumstantial, some somewhat more firm (i.e. census, but clarify who is who), and some perhaps a little stronger evidence.

But it is long and complex and possibly even confusing, as well as multi-layered, so you either must be willing to put up with my long-winded, detailed posts (or messages) and be willing to do the work to actually study these issues without simply taking my word as I would like people's EDUCATED and INFORMED feedback and inputs to what I present, not just claiming to debunk it because so and so tree or person says otherwise. I mean a good critical analysis of the data, whether it agrees with me or not, or only partially agrees with me.

So, I would love to discuss with any SERIOUS researchers of ANY of these Smith lines of Jackson Co, AL (ca 1830-1850+), not limited to only one of the James Smiths or Brooks Smiths in question.

It looks complex on the surface, but it's not that difficult once you start looking at the evidence and my questions and I will provide sources, links, notes, and point you in the right direction to help you look at it critically to the extent that I am able. (If I fail to post them originally, ask and I will provide them until this board is set to read only sometime in early to mid Sept).

Most of these issues and questions are going to ultimately come back to WHO WAS WHO in 1830, at least for the 3 main James Smiths b/ 1761-1770, and as a result, that also leads into who was who in 1840 and 1850 and who can be linked to what named children. These proper identifications are going to be KEY no matter which James Smith (or which Smith period) line you descend or think you descend from.

And as the best researched James of the 3, thus far, is James m/ Nancy Mulkey, much of this is going to come back to him in particular.

This will necessarily be long and several related posts, but so as to avoid losing
people, I will try to provide some general headers of the topic at hand to aid in reading.

Since the 3 men are all named James (two named simply James, one named
James A. Smith) and they "look" similar "on paper" (i.e. before the 1850 census), all b/ 1761-1770 and living in 1830 Jackson Co, AL, I will generally differentiate between them as something like:
1) KY James m/ Nancy Mulkey, 2) Rev War or Pensioner James is the one who is alleged to have married Hannah Parker (but I now know that wife belongs to a man who never stepped foot into Alabama), and 3) the 3rd James, the one most often missed entirely in 1830, is James A. Smith, who is the father of Brooks Smith.

JAMES SMITH m/ NANCY MULKEY'S CHILDREN:

There are various lists of James and Nancy's children out there on various trees and sources etc. and I have no reason at this time to doubt most of the girls and most, if not all these girls, DO have Knox Co, KY ties where James (m/ Mulkey) lived before, which seem to be good evidence. Most of those have been researched to a great degree and traced by David Travillion Bunton in his 1994 thesis / book on his Shepherds of AR.

Other alleged children can be either debunked or at best, have not been proven beyond very slim circumstantial evidence only.

Elijah b/ ca 1805-1810 is often listed as son of James m/ Mulkey, but I can confidently say he is not. Elijah b/ ca 1806 m/ Elizer (Eliza) Nancy Cornett Chitty is son of my Patrick Smith. Both Patrick and Elijah Smith first appear in the 1830 Jackson Co, AL census. They cannot be found prior to 1830.

Elijah can be confirmed as son of my Patrick because ca 1837 or 1839 (date is hard to read), Patrick and wife Mary Ann Lindsey turned over Mary's inheritance from her father David Lindsey to Elijah.

There are 1 or 2 area records linking Patrick ca 1837 or so to the Talladega Co AL area, but by the 1840 census, both Patrick and Elijah Smith had clearly moved to Coosa Co, AL.

Jesse Smith, b/ ca 1805 has also been linked as son of James m/ Mulkey, but as far as I am aware, he has not been proven a son. I think he has only been linked due to his proximity in the 1830 census, but that is at best circumstantial. Granted, circumstantially, that is a good clue, but is not conclusive.

Even still, there is an Ellison Smith b/ ca 1805 nearby as well, and whether James m/ Mulkey is Jesse's father or not, Ellison is likely Jesse's brother. Both Jesse and Ellison appear to have moved by 1840 to the same area of Madison Co, AL.

If anyone has sources other than proximity to James in the 1830 census linking this Jesse as son, please share that information as I have not seen any reliable sources on that.

BROOKS SMITH'S QUESTIONABLE PATERNITY BASED ON PROBABLE MISIDENTIFICATIONS IN THE 1830 CENSUS:

I do NOT believe this Brooks b/ 1796 is James m/ Mulkey's son at all.
I am almost positive of it, but cannot yet prove it to my satisfaction.

He is far more complex to debunk though & this mainly concerns which James, of 3, all b/ 1761-1770, is WHO in 1830, and then which 2 remain there in 1840
and then which 1 is left in 1850, then (1850) in the home of Brooks.

Since the 1830 and 1840 census do not list all residents of the home and only give age ranges, all 3 men themselves look similar based on the data, and two have nearly identical family members, so this is RIPE for misidentification of the men and for making wrong assumptions and conclusions about which is which.

I think the 3 men have been wrongly identified leading to the subsequent misidentifications in 1840 and 1850 and the linking of the wrong James as
father of Brooks.

I cannot say I have 100% figured it out myself, but I feel pretty confident in my identifications of them, but am open to logical, educated rebuttals and arguments telling me otherwise.

WHO'S WHO: 3 JAMES SMITHS b/ 1761-1770, IN 1830 JACKSON CO, AL CENSUS:

The first enumerated "James Smith," of a larger household, is near Joseph Neeley, this KY James m/ Mulkey's known son in law. (Neeley married Fereba Smith). There are also Wrights nearby and James' daughter, Mary Polly Smith married James Bradford Wright. I think THIS is James Smith m/ Nancy Mulkey.

James m/ Mulkey *could* possibly "fit" as the 2nd listed James since he also is near some Wrights, but even the James Wright that is believed to be this James m/ Mulkey's son in law, James Bradford Wright, is some 15 pages away! (Both Brooks Smith and my Patrick Smith are much closer to James Bradford Wright than James is).

Even still, as daughters typically cared for their elderly parents, it would make more sense for KY James m/ Mulkey to live near a daughter than a son. But in light of other circumstantial evidence, I still think this 1st enumerated James is the better "fit" for James m/ Mulkey.

The 2nd enumerated "James Smith," also of a larger household, has as his closest identifiable neighbor, one John Lindsey. This John Lindsey was the witness to the pension application of the Rev War James Smith, so this is great circumstantial evidence for him.

This Rev War James is often alleged to be husband of Hannah Parker, but I have found recent evidence, DAR evidence, to make me believe she was NOT his wife. Nonetheless, she is often associated with the pensioner, so that is a useful distinction between the 3 same-named men.

This pensioner WAS the James who was living closest to Brooks Smith and my Patrick Smith, however, proximity alone is still circumstantial and he is still some 15 pages away or so from Brooks Smith, and then a few more from Patrick.

Both Patrick and Brooks Smith are further away from him still than John Lindsey (who was within 2 pages). And though John Lindsey happens to be the brother in law of my Patrick, even John is living further from Patrick, his own relative, than John is living from James.

But this Rev War James is the only one of the 3 James that we can CONFIDENTLY link to Madison Co, AL before 1830, because he states he lived there in his pension app, though he doesn't give the date he lived there.

We know a James Smith lived there in the 1809 Madison Co, AL MS Territory census and therefore, can assume it is the pensioner since his pension app confirms his ties there.

This pensioner James has often been *assumed* as the father of my Patrick, again simply due to the proximity near Patrick's known father in law, David Lindsey, there in 1809.

But Patrick is nowhere to be found and is suspected back in TN or Knox Co, KY*, if son of James m/ Mulkey, which I am thinking is the case. (There is other evidence leading to that assumption that he is son of James m/ Mulkey as well).

John Lindsey, being a witness to this pensioner's application, then would not be surprising, despite no family ties between them, because not only was he a neighbor in Jackson Co, AL in 1830, but he was also a friend and neighbor as early as 1809!! They were friends and neighbors for some 22 years at least!

But even if you wanted to make the case that this pensioner James' proximity to John Lindsey in 1830 was just as good as evidence of a relationship of this pensioner to either / both Brooks or Patrick, you have to take that circumstantial evidence (of proximity in 1830) with ALL the other circumstantial evidence as well.

With which identifications / pieces can all be true and with which can only SOME pieces be true?

This Brooks is typically thought to be son of KY James m/ Mulkey and thus nephew to Brooks b/ 1766 m/ Rebecca Daniels. But y-DNA testing of my Smith father recently determined that we, via my Patrick Smith, are NOT related to Brooks Smith b/ 1766. (There have yet been no known y-DNA testers under Brooks b/ 1796 nor either of the James b/ 1761-1770 in 1830 Jackson Co, AL).

So IF Brooks b/ 1796 is Brooks' b/ 1766 nephew, then Brooks b/ 1796 cannot be related to my Patrick at all. Yet this pensioner James is living near both Brooks and Patrick, both of which cannot be his sons. And Brooks is actually living closer to James than Patrick is.

You might think this argues the case for Patrick being son of pensioner James (one early theory) and Brooks still as son of James m/ Mulkey, or even that Brooks must be son of the Pensioner, and Patrick son of James m/ Mulkey.

But there's 2 HUGE problems with that theory as well.

One, people miss or ignore the 3rd James in that census, the one with the smaller household who is named in 1830 as "James A. Smith."

James A. Smith in 1830 (i.e. the one I don't think is either the one that married Mulkey NOR the pensioner) matches the "James A. Smith," age 88 b/ VA in Brooks' 1850 household. The SAME name, down to the middle initial "A." is used in 1830 & 1850! This shows consistency and is pretty good evidence that is hard to refute.

That would seem to imply that despite this James A. being ignored by researchers (or the evidence and researchers being confused) and despite his being nowhere near Brooks in 1830, that he is Brooks' probable father!

Even if one could argue that James A. Smith was NOT Brooks' father, how does one explain the same name between 1830 and 1850? Do we have another coincidence now of 2 James A. Smiths (in 1830), both b/ between 1761-1770, only one going by the initial in 1830?

It's possible that since we have 3 James Smiths (a common enough name), all born between 1761-1770 (simply an age range) we could have 2 named James A. Smith, but it is improbable. It's strange enough that we have 3 James Smiths in the same age range in Jackson Co, AL at that early date as it is, but it would be even stranger if 2 men, in no way related (because y-DNA seems to indicate they aren't) also carrying the same middle initial.

But even if it was possible, we also cannot KNOW that is true. And we simply cannot CREATE evidence where it does not exist. In other words, we cannot ASSUME that James m/ Mulkey ALSO had the middle initial A. unless we can prove it. Even if you think he COULD be the father of Brooks, thus the one in 1850, and that my evaluations are wrong, we still cannot PROVE that was KY James m/ Mulkey. We can only prove that the father of Brooks was named James A. Smith. But he may well NOT be James m/ Mulkey.

We only have evidence of ONE "James A. Smith" at any given time (1830 and 1850) and he seems to be father of Brooks because of the 1850 census. We cannot ignore that the name matches from 1830 & 1850. And if you are inclined to believe my other identifications (James #1 near Neeley is James m/ Mulkey, and James #2 near John Lindsey his witness is the pensioner), then this James A. Smith MUST be the father of Brooks Smith.

We already know that the 2nd James (pensioner) cannot be father of both Patrick and Brooks, if father of either. And I suspect he is father of neither.

Even ignoring the circumstantial clues of who is living nearby (as those are not conclusive), there are 3 James Smiths b/ 1761-1770, so there is a 33% chance of being right and 66% chance of being wrong in any ONE identification (i.e. that this one is James m. Mulkey or that one is father of Brooks) since the 1830 (& 1840) census does not name all household members.

But the circumstantial clues CAN help us get closer. But we need to find the clues that seem to match on all accounts, or at least most of them, not just one or two accounts.

In other words, as the 2nd James is living near a Patrick and Brooks as well as Wrights, he COULD fit as James m/ Mulkey, but what of the James that is nearest Joseph Neeley? It would make more sense for pensioner James to live near his good friend and witness, John Lindsey, than near another James' son in law, i.e. Joseph Neely. So it makes more sense that the first James near Neeley is James m/ Mulkey and the 2nd James is the pensioner, near his friend and witness, John Lindsey.

Since Pensioner James cannot be father of both Patrick and Brooks, since IF Brooks is nephew of Brooks b/ 1766 who has had a descendant y-DNA test uner him seems to imply that, and since that pensioner James is the one living closest to both, then what of the possibility then that pensioner James could be father of my Patrick or Brooks, leaving one as son of James m/ Mulkey.

y-DNA evidence on who I DO match, David Editon Smith, a son of a Cherokee named "Cherokee Jim" Smith seems to indicate my Patrick Smith is probably at least part Cherokee. (I cannot yet confirm Patrick's exact relationship to David, but he could fit as a brother).

By the same token, researchers of the Brooks b/ 1766 line, again assuming that Brooks b/ 1796 is actually his nephew, which we do not yet know (unless and until someone y-DNA tests under Brooks b/ 1796) claim that Brooks' father MARRIED a woman who was 1/4 Indian, though not specifically Cherokee.

Assuming as there is a good chance that Brooks WAS part Cherokee, either way we can presumably rule out both boys as sons of Rev War pensioner James Smith. Cherokees fought AGAINST the Patriots, FOR the British, so if they fought in the Rev. War at all, they certainly would not have received a pension. Pensioner James' receiving a pension indicates he was in no way Cherokee, and probably not even the littlest bit of known Indian at all.

Thus he can be ruled out on that basis as father of Patrick, despite their proximity, and presumably also father of Brooks (though we don't know Brooks was specifically Cherokee), at least if this Brooks b/ 1796 was, in fact, son of Brooks b/ 1766 as is believed. (Again, we cannot positively know that unless a male Smith descendant (still carrying the birth name of Smith) of Brooks b/ 1796 y-DNA tests and then matches or doesn't to Brooks b/ 1766. We are just assuming that based on the uniqueness of the name).

This again, makes the most sense with Patrick being son of James, the known Cherokee, as research indicates James was allegedly 1/4 Cherokee. (Nancy was allegedly full Cherokee, but for other reasons I will address separately, I do NOT think she is mother to all the known children). And this again, would make Brooks the logical son of the James A. Smith in 1830 and 1850 who could be part Indian, even part Cherokee, but we don't KNOW he is part Cherokee. But the name matches the known father of Brooks in 1850, so we can still assume that part is true.

FINAL RELATED THOUGHTS:

I also have a small bit of autosomal DNA that is native American, which matches my dad, so it is paternal (to me), though I can neither confirm (yet) that it is Cherokee or Smith DNA (vs some other paternal line).

Others have also linked James m/ Lovy Provence as son of KY James m/ Mulkey. I also cannot prove which father that James m/ Provence belongs to, if even a James at all, but since this James also remained in the area until he died and was buried in the cemetery where Brooks is, I suspect, among the three James Smiths, he also probably belongs to the James A. Smith, father of Brooks, who was probably married to Esther McDonalds.

Whether you agree that these are logical assessments or not, 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. confusions that KY James was a pensioner or was also married to 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 / or consider having the males or female descendants autosomal DNA test.

More on that DNA testing issue separately as well.

More also on my newest evidence on why I think James m/ Mulkey is father of my Patrick (and not Brooks), issues concerning Nancy Mulkey and why I think she is NOT mother of all James' known children, more on my DNA results, how DNA can help solve the riddle in subsequent posts under this one.

Briana S. Felch

brianafelch @ me.com