Person:John Moore (8)

The Parentage of John Moore

The one thing that we know about John Moore is that he married Rachel Conklin in early 1732. There has been a lot of assertions about the parentage of John and virtually no evidence presented. Unfortunately, the most common assertions appear to be wrong.

[On a technical note, the generation numbering I have employed uses Thomas¹ to identify Thomas Moore, who married Martha Youngs and was progenitor of the Southold Moores. One could argue, as some literature appears to, that Thomas came over to New England with his widowed mother, and married here, suggesting the mother was generation number 1. Since I am focused on the Southold Moores, it seems to make more sense to follow Charles B. Moore in his Index, and start the numbering with Thomas himself. In this document, the older Nathaniel who d. 1698 is Nathaniel², and the younger Nathaniel named in the 1704 deed is Nathaniel³.]

Source:Moore, Charles B. Town of Southold, Long Island, Personal Index Prior to 1698, and Index of 1698, p. 104, says of John Moore (#466): "Perhaps son of Jonathan³ [son of Family:Jonathan Moore and Martha Herbert (1)] or Nathaniel³. One M. Rachel Conklin in 1732, D. 1768, and she D. 1780; c. John, jun."

John as son of Nathaniel²

The source originally cited on this page, Source:Mather, Frederic G. Refugees of 1776 from Long Island to Connecticut, p. 468-9, attempts to give some background on the Moore family. Incredibly, it claims that Source:Suffolk, New York, United States. Early Long Island Wills of Suffolk County, 1691-1703, p. 158, says Nathaniel, the proposed father of John, d. 3 Jun 1733. Ironically, all I find on this page is the will of the Nathaniel² who d. 1698, with no commentary, and the will itself shows no son named John. There is nothing about the year 1733 on this page (the title of the book indicating it only goes through 1703). Despite the absence of John in his will, Mather says this Nathaniel² had a son John, and that Nathaniel's son John himself had a son John (i.e., Thomas->Nathaniel->John->John) who m. Rachel Conkling, additionally referring to Mallmann's "Shelter Island" and Griffin's "Journal".

Source:Mallmann, Jacob Edward. Historical Papers on Shelter Island and Its Presbyterian Church, with Genealogical Tables, p. 300, gives a list of children of John Conkling and Sarah Horton and says "Rachel, b. ---, m. Jan. 13, 1731-2, John Moore". A note adds "Rachel may have had two husbands, the first being Ebenezer Loper, m. Jan 13. 1726-7." This source makes no attempt to identify the parents of John Moore, so doesn't really apply. (Even if it did, it doesn't given the basis for any of the asserted facts, and some of the facts seem confused or poorly researched. For example, the John Conklin who married Sarah Horton did so on 2 Dec 1657 (as Sarah (Horton) Salmon), not 1680, and did not name a daughter Rachel in his will. The John Conklin who named a daughter Rachel in his will was their son, and married Sarah Scudder, not Sarah Horton [see Source:American Genealogist (D.L. Jacobus), several installments in vol. 21 and 22 on "John Concklyne of Southold and Huntington" by Conklin Mann]. Further, since the contemporary record of her marriage to John Moore names her as "Rachil Conklyn", an earlier marriage to Ebenezer Soper probably belongs to a different Rachel Conklin. Actually, the parentage of Rachel is as confused as that of John Moore. See a discussion of this on Family talk:John Moore and Rachel Conkling (1).)

Source:Griffin, Augustus. Griffin's Journal, p. 215, published in 1857, claims that a John Moore of Rocky Point m. Mehitable Havens. [This would make him the son of John Moore and Rachel Conklin.] It then claims he was the son of John who was the son of Nathaniel² who was the son of Thomas¹ who d. 1691 [Thomas¹ d. 1691, and his son Nathaniel² d. 1698]. No evidence is given for this line of descendency.

Hence this chain of references to secondary sources seems to lead nowhere but to unsupported assertions. Given that we have one primary piece of evidence, the 1698 will of Nathaniel², and that that will doesn't mention a son John, it seems safe to conclude that the John who married Rachel Conklin is not the son of the Nathaniel² of 1698, despite numerous secondary sources to the contrary.

John as the son of Nathaniel³

Besides the Nathaniel² who died in 1698, the other Nathaniels are his son Nathaniel³ and his nephew Nathaniel³ (son of brother Thomas² Jr.) The son was living with his sister Hannah and her husband John Terry (i.e., unmarried) in the 1698 census per instructions in his father's will to put him out to learn a trade, and died in 1699, and so obviously was not the father of the John Moore who married Rachel Conklin. The nephew Nathaniel³ is named in a deed of 1704 where his father gives him land. This may indicate that he was setting his son up so that he would be able to marry and support a family. If so, he is of the right age to be the father of John Moore who married in 1731-2. The problem is that we know virtually nothing about this Nathaniel³, including whether he even married. Source:Moore, Charles B. Town of Southold, Long Island, Personal Index Prior to 1698, and Index of 1698, p. 101, describes him [#450] as the son of Thomas, m. ----, "probably" father of the John who married Rachel Conklin. The only document listed for this Nathaniel³ is the 1704 deed already mentioned. [Though not listed by Moore, there is also a 1710 deed where he sells one of the two parcels he received in the 1704 deed (Source:Southold, Suffolk, New York, United States. Southold Town Records, 1651-1787, vol. 2, p. 391, 266). It adds nothing to this discussion.]

There is a series of sources that also identify the John who married Rachel Conklin as the son of the younger Nathaniel³ Moore, such as an article in Source:Central Virginia Heritage, Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 1. (Most of these sources seem to cite a book Moore by Arthur Clayton Moore, a self-published family genealogy published in 1982.) This Central Virginia Heritage article traces a Moore line of Virgina back through New Jersey to "John Jackson Moore" who is the son of this same younger Nathaniel Moore and an alleged wife Sarah Jackson. This "John Jackson Moore" is supposed to have been born about 1691, had a first wife named Mary ---, with son "John Jackson Moore Jr." who married Sarah Platt sometime before 1745. The father supposedly married Rachel Conklin as his second wife.

Unfortunately, this scenario seems to get off to the wrong foot by pairing the younger Nathaniel³ Moore with Sarah Jackson. Nathaniel³'s page has a detailed discussion of why it is nigh on impossible that this would be true. And ruling out Sarah Jackson doesn't exactly lend credibility to a story naming its hero "John Jackson Moore". Then Nathaniel³ Moore is probably too young to father a child in 1691, since his father called him his youngest son, which would put his birth about 1680. Finally, John Moore and Rachel Conklin are said to have had a different son John of their own, the one who married Mehitable Havens, which would mean that John Moore would have had to have had a son John by each of his two wives. And there was very little use of middle names until the Revolutionary War, so this anachronistic emphasis on "John Jackson Moore" come across as phony.

Further Discussion of Nathaniel²

Sarah Jackson remains a likely candidate as the disputed wife of the older Nathaniel² Moore. And having a child in 1691 is a good fit in that family. However, this approach stalls on the lack of mention of son John in Nathaniel²'s will. One could adjust the above story by speculating that John was born to the older Nathaniel² and Sarah (Jackson) Moore posthumously, but no such evidence has been presented, so that seems pretty far-fetched.

However, according to a website titled "Errata and Discoveries - Southold, LI" by Norris Taylor, there is a John shown living in the household with widow Sarah Moore in 1698 census, which is probably what leads to the persistent inclusion of John in this family even though no John is named in the will. This website says that John is probably the child of Thomas² just as, it appears, were some of the other children listed in that household (Nathaniel, Thomas and possibly Martha). (See a fuller explanation at another website by the same author. It is very reasonable and interesting exploration of the names of the census. Ironically, while it is believed that Sarah's son Nathaniel was living with her married daughter, there is still a Nathaniel listed in her household. I disagree with speculation that Thomas² and his wife aren't listed in the census because they died, since Thomas appears to be the one who executed the 1704 deed mentioned elsewhere (and others), but perhaps they had gone on a journey, leaving their children in the care of their aunt Sarah?) Thomas does not seem to be placed in Nathaniel's family based on this evidence, so why just John? If the John living in Sarah's household was the son of Thomas², he would be old enough to be the father of the John Moore who married Rachel Conklin. (However, even though some WeRelate contributor has created the pages showing John as a son of Thomas, the Southold Index only says "perhaps", and unlike the other sons, there is no deed from Thomas to a son John.)

Other Candidates

There is apparently another John Moore who married in 1696 an Elizabeth Cheek (see, for example, Source:United States. American Marriage Records before 1699, p. 46, and others). This appears to be a distinct individual from the apparently unmarried John who is listed in widow Sarah's house in 1698. The John who married Elizabeth Cheek is sometimes identified as the son of Nathaniel² who d. 1698, but again, the lack of mention in Nathaniel's will is problematical. This John is a candidate father of the John who married Rachel Conklin, but who is he?

Although Charles B Moore says John is either the son of Nathaniel³ or Jonathan³, he does not list John in the entry for Jonathan³, not even in a qualified way. This Jonathan married Margaret Graves, died in 1716, and his two "probable" sons Jonathan⁴ and Benjamin⁴ removed to Orange County. The indefiniteness about the children suggests there is no will for Jonathan³, and certainly there is no sign that Moore had any evidence that John was his son. He probably was simply listing those candidates who had not be ruled out.

Benjamin Moore³ (son of Benjamin² who was son of Thomas¹) m. Abigail and had a daughter Rachel Moore who m. 1732 Thomas Conklin. Because it was common that siblings would marry into the same families, he might seem like a candidate parent for the John who married Rachel Conklin. However, he is not shown having a son John. Further, since his wife's 1740 will is said to name the children (Benjamin, Nathan, Israel, Abigail, Micah, Hannah Cleveland, Rachel Conklin, per [1]), he seems to be ruled out.

Conclusion

Obviously, without the constraint of providing evidence, people have proposed many possible arrangements. But since there is no real evidence, in the end, we can't really say anything. --Jrich 00:11, 25 February 2011 (EST)

1. ↑ Assuming John was of legal age (21) when married he would have been born in 1710 or before.