Source:Moore, Arthur Clayton. Moore

Watchers
Browse
Source Moore
Author Moore, Arthur Clayton
Coverage
Place Albemarle, Virginia, United States
Essex, New Jersey, United States
Surname Moore
Subject Family tree
Publication information
Type Book
Publisher Arthur C. Moore
Date issued 1982
Place issued Hudson, Ohio
Citation
Moore, Arthur Clayton. Moore. (Hudson, Ohio: Arthur C. Moore, 1982).

A Good Effort Finished Poorly

Moore is a hard name to research. What this means, is that once people stumble across this hard to find work, which gives lots of answers for one particular branch, they tend to accept it unquestioningly. Which is a mistake. The author of this book did some good work slogging through wills and such in Virginia to trace the children of Benjamin Moore of Augusta County. Unfortunately, all the information about Benjamin's antecedents does not show the same diligence and may, in fact, be wrong.

The ancestor of the author is John Jackson Moore, b. 1783 in New Jersey, s/o Benjamin and Martha Moore of Augusta County. This is known from his death certificate and confirmed by various wills and marriage records. "This name of John Jackson Moore has been a recurring one in our family." So the author starts looking for John Jackson Moores as possible ancestors of Benjamin, assuming that the son John was named after an ancestor, apparently not realizing that middle names were rare before the Revolutionary War, making it extremely likely that his John Jackson Moore was the first.

A "John Jackson More Jr." of Essex County (Paterson, NJ) is found whose will mentions a son Benjamin, and we know from John Jackson Moore's death certificate that he was born in New Jersey. Further one of Benjamin's daughters, Elizabeth Lines/Lyons, ends up living in Essex County. This is the critical link. It could be true. But is seems more likely that it is a rush to judgment.

There is no discussion of the evidence against this scenario in the book, suggesting once the author found an answer that fit his assumption, either because of exhaustion, or the usual rush to fill in the blanks, he simply stopped looking. Source:Littell, John. Family Records, or, Genealogies of the First Settlers of Passaic Valley (and Vicinity) Above Chatham mentions this John Moore of Patterson and notes that his granddaughter Rachel (d/o son John) married her cousin William Moore (s/o son Benjamin). This William Moore who married Rachel d. 1844, so was alive when Benjamin of Virginia wrote his will, but no son William is mentioned there. This suggests the Benjamin who was son of John Moore of Paterson was not the Benjamin who moved to Augusta County, Virginia. Further, neither the will ("John More"), nor any other document mentioning this John of Paterson give him a middle name. Only the author. The fixation on the middle name is casting doubts on the author's objectivity.

The author then finds "Early Long Island genealogies by Bunker", and basically takes in the entire tree from there even though it is full of self-contradiction and unverifiable assertions. Why? Because it shows the connection of a Moore family and a Jackson family. But this source matches Sarah Jackson with the wrong Nathaniel Moore (see a discussion on Person:Nathaniel Moore (1) - note that this error plainly manifests itself in this book, as on p. 34 he says Nathaniel Moore married about 1690 to Sarah Jackson, yet on p. 35 he says that Robert Jackson's will of 1683 mentions daughter Sarah the daughter of Nathaniel Moore, i.e., 7 years before their marriage). Sarah actually married the elder Nathaniel Moore and the will of this elder Nathaniel (see Person:Nathaniel Moore (2)) shows they had no son John. Meanwhile the younger one is left with no known marriage, much less a son. So the whole proposed origin of the name "John Jackson Moore" has no basis to start with. (Bottom of page 35: "I have no doubt in my mind" that the first John Jackson Moore was named after Sarah (Jackson) Moore's brother, Col. John Jackson). There are other issues that indicate that the author didn't look too hard for contradicting evidence, such as John Moore and Rachel Conklin having a son John when the father John supposedly already had a son "John Jackson Moore, Jr." by his first marriage. Typical, understandable confusion when there are many like-named individuals having a common surname like Moore, but exactly why a genealogy on this family needs to be based on primary evidence (which this section of the line is not).

A query put to the editor of the New Jersey Historical Society brought the answer that the origins of John Moore of Paterson are unknown. If he is even the father of Benjamin. --Jrich 11:46, 20 January 2012 (EST)