ViewsWatchersBrowse |
Family tree▼ (edit)
m. 11 Aug 1805
Facts and Events
[edit] BiographyJohn Morrow is first seen marrying Mary Sutton on 11 Aug 1805 in Logan County. (See below for parents). Based on historical ties to Thomas m. Janet McCarter (see below), he was believed to have been born in South Carolina, but his children uniformly say both were born in Kentucky in the 1880 census (noting that would be very early, as Kentucky was first settled less than a decade earlier). His children born between 1808 and 1816 were born in Tenessee. On that basis he might be the young family with two children under 10 in Nashville in 1810. The sons born 1821-1827 report births in Alabama, and John is found in 1830 in Fayette County and 1840 in Walker County. They settled near Mary's parents Jacob and Nancy Sutton, who were in Lawrence County, Alabama in 1823 [2]. In 1840, Mary is listed as head of household in Walker County, next door to her brother John, even though there is a male in the household the right age to be John. In 1850, she is listed with her son Hugh. John died before 27 Oct 1841, when Mary Morrow placed a notice in the Tuscaloosa Flag of the Union newspaper regarding the estate of John Morrow of Walker Co, AL.[3] [edit] Research Notes and DNA Findings
What broke the camel's back was research into Group 5 results that demonstrated a very strong paper link between tester lines in Kentucky and Thomas--in short, Thomas owned significant land in Logan County, and he doled out that land to his children in a series of land transactions (specifically identifying each of them as children); his son Moses in turn did the same. Estate records of both men exist as well identifying their children. Additional records also identified this letter from 1938, identifying Thomas's father as Samuel Morrow of Long Cane, SC. The DNA of two separate testers descended from two sons of John matches both each other and the other brothers descended from David. While it's theoretically possible their father was another John, their migration pattern matches the Sutton family tied to this John. Accordingly, the working theory at present is that John's father was one of David's sons. This remains subject to change, as the DNA results from both lines were never upgraded beyond 25 markers and the participants are now deceased.
References
|