We all have them! Those stubborn ancestors that refuse to come out of hiding. No matter how much coaxing we do! Well, I think it's time to bring them out of the shadows - put their redacted story out there - another piece of the puzzle could be lurking just around the (cyber) corner, in someone's basement, or closet, or sitting in a box on a bookshelf ...... You never, ever know where that loose chink will manifest, the one that allows you to push out one brick, then the next. Food for thought. So without further ado....
Brick Wall Ancestor | #9 Martha McBride part 2
In
Part 1 I gave you some background on Martha and proposed
Wild Theory #1, the
Theory of James, that she is the daughter of James McBride Jr and Martha Hill.
Here I will offer
Wild Theory #2 and propose she is the daughter of Archibald McBride Jr and (maybe) Jane Newkirk. Thus the
Theory of Archibald. Even less evidence exists to support this theory! And, I'm taking the long way around. Bear with me.
Let's look at
Archibald. We know there was one Archibald living in
Mamakating, Ulster Co, New York in
1790 (
3 males under 16, 2 males 16 and over, 4 females any age). Digging deeper unearthed the discovery of a
will of one Jane McBride of the town of Montgomery, dated June 26th
1795. The will lists four children. Sons James (
wild theory #1! - put a pin in that!) of Wallkill and
Archibald of
Mamakating, a daughter (deceased) Mary, wife of Francis Burns and another daughter Mrs William Douglas (
hey, thanks for that!) The will names grandsons Archibald and William (
sons of James) and John Douglas (son of unnamed daughter) and "the grandchildren of my son Archibald" (
again, thanks for that!) and the "five grandchildren of my daughter Mary Burns, deceased", also granddaughter Elizabeth Burns.
Lots of grandchildren. (FAN research anyone?)
What struck me as curious was that the boys, for the most part were listed by name but the "grandchildren" of son Archibald could possibly mean his children were very young at the time of the writing of the will and that there were perhaps sons
and daughters. Still, not much help.
The will also made mention of a note that Jane had in her possession that was outstanding against Archibald dated July 19th 1786. Curious.
Digging into land records uncovered a
land sale between Jane McBride of Montgomery and her son
Archibald, of
Mamakating, dated July 20th
1786. Huh. Must be what the note was for! Further land record digging unearthed this
land purchase made "
the 30th day of June in the first year of the reign of our sovereign Lord George the Third by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King defender of the faith and the year of our Lord Christ one thousand seven hundred sixty one" Between Samuel White and Jane McBride, relict and widow of Archibald McBride .... two thousand two hundred and nine acres of land ..... seven hundred and thirty six acres of land .... one thousand and fifty five acres of land! A total of four thousand acres of land in Ulster County, Province of New York.
The widow Jane purchased a great deal of land in 1761!
What I found interesting, the land was adjacent to land owned by Jane and Alice Colden and by Thomas Noxon and by George Murry. All players in another story, one that might intertwine with this one yet.(*)
Connecting the dots from these documents it appears that Jane McBride and Archibald McBride were the parents of Archibald, James, Mary and Mrs Wm Douglas. Disproving the common assumption that James was the son of a James. Maybe there never was a James Sr? Maybe James was Archibald's middle name? If there is proof, I have yet to find it.
So how does Martha fit into all of this?
Not sure. Yet. (
I think we need a diagram for this!)
There are a great number of 'coincidences' because of a very limited population at this time in history.
Let's go back to that 4000 acre land purchase.
Martha married James Faulkner. James Faulkner's father was Samuel Faulkner. (*)Samuel Faulkner owned land adjacent to Jane and Alice Colden, Thomas Noxon and George Murry. It is suspected that George Murry was James Faulkner's grandfather. The land straddled the border of modern day Orange and Sullivan Counties, sitting in both Mamakating and Wallkill. In fact Samuel and his wife are buried in unincorporated Mamakating. IF Martha was the daughter of Archibald McBride she would have grown up on the farm next to Samuel Faulkner and his son (her future husband) James.
A stretch, I agree. A good example of those coincidences. (
You might want to take notes)
And there is NO census evidence for Martha anywhere in 1800.
Then there's the DNA.
DNA points to Archibald McBride as the prime candidate based on the research tree of our DNA match. However the newfound information that Archibald and Jane McBride are the parents of BOTH Archibald Jr and James is a greater cause of confusion! (
That would suggest our MRCA is Archibald Sr, still not proving which son is Martha's father.) The author of the Bull book, who posed the 'James Sr', theory did not back his statement up with evidence or any type of citation. In fact, the
book that was referenced as the source does not contain any sources or citations either, kinda like a Public Ancestry Tree!
Perplexed? Me too! (
Where is that diagram?! The one that explains everything?)
Martha
could be in the Archibald McBride household in 1790 - the census reports 4 females (
of any age) and we know three of them (
from church records): Jane, his wife; Jane, his daughter; and Agnes, his daughter. That leaves one daughter unaccounted for. (
And no, it would not be the mother Jane, she was residing in Montgomery not Mamakating, per all of her legal documents)
So my second (
wild) theory, the
Theory of Archibald posits Martha belongs in the Archibald McBride household. The DNA evidences leads to this conclusion, but remains fuzzy if James and Archibald are brothers. Martha could fit into the 1790 census of Archibald's household. Again, the question is where is the family in 1800? Did both Archibald and Jane die? Are the children living in a relative's home, or with an older sibling?
More fuzzy information. More possibility of errors. No real conclusions, just two theories, similar and frustrating. Time to back-burner this project and let it simmer, perhaps more evidence will turn up?
Oh, Martha; Martha, Martha, Martha .....
- - - - - - - -
Then this happened .....
Well, hold your horses! Look what the gods of land records presented me with today!
A glorious
land division document dated 1799, the year after James McBride died, dividing his land among his four minor children ...... Archibald I McBride, William McBride (
both of the Jane McBride Will from the top of this post!) Jane McBride and John McBride (
born after the will was written). No Martha!
NO MARTHA!!! Martha would have been about 10 in 1799, a minor child. Martha was
not the daughter of James. Wild Theory #1 is incorrect.
That leaves Archibald.
********
up next ..... charts and graphs!!! (Or at least a genealogy, stay tuned)
©2018 Anne Faulkner - AncestorArchaeology.net, All Rights Reserved
