Menu
- Home
- Search▼
- List▼
- Add▼
- My Relate▼
- Admin▼
ViewsWatchers |
[add comment] [edit] Son or brother of James Cunningham? [2 February 2025]The evidence presented suggests that Hugh was the son of James and Margaret, who were killed in 1763, as the page was originally set up. Why change him to be a brother? Margaret could have been born as early as 1700, which would support Hugh being born as early as 1718, making the dates work.--DataAnalyst 14:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC) There are 3 different bios that state three pioneer brothers "James, Hugh and John" settled in Augusta. We should not dismiss these bios or Hugh's true age [or James' true age] because Hugh is mentioned to receive 1 shilling in James' 1760 will. [James could have very well named his brother as an heir to receive 1 shilling knowing Hugh would be an elder helping aide his family if anything happened to him]. People make Hugh a "son" of James because Hugh is mentioned in James' 1760 will however James does NOT call Hugh his son - a mention in a will does not make him a son and we should NOT read more into the will than what it says. In his 1760 will https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9P7-S9SJ-Q?view=fullText&groupId=M9NC-B3J James names each and every one of his children "my son Moses" "my son Jacob" "my daughter Elizabeth" "my daughter Ann" etc. Hugh is mentioned in the 1760 will to receive 1 shilling but James does not state "my son Hugh". We should NOT read what isn't there. There was Indian Depredation occurring on the frontier and certainly James knew he too could lose his life after the death of his sons in 1759, so James wrote his will in 1760 and in his will James named each and every one of his children as children. Hugh was NOT named a son in the will.
This line is frequently consolidated due to the the repeating naming pattern the Scot-Irish used, naming the first born after their father, which resulted in numerous men named James in the second generation. James & Margaret had two sons Jacob & Isaac, with sons of their own, that predeceased James' 1760 will and thus James names the oldest grandsons as heirs in lieu of his deceased sons. There are many online trees that list James' grandsons as his sons simply because they are named in his 1760 will but James very explicitly identifies his grandsons as "James, son of my son Jacob" and "John, son of my son Isaac". Both Jacob & Isaac were killed in the 1759 raid and both Jacob & Isaac had children thus James named the oldest son of each as an heir in his 1760 will however NUMEROUS online trees make every person named in James' will his son - and this is how Jacob's son James "becomes" the son of James & Margaret, or James' brother Hugh "becomes" the son of James & Margaret in hundreds of online trees. James very explicitly tells us in his 1760 will who his sons are, who his daughters are and who his grandsons are. The most accurate depiction of James & Margaret's children can be found on page 480 in "A History of Rockbridge County, Virginia" by Oren Morton https://archive.org/details/historyofrockbri00mortrich/page/480/mode/2up?q=cunningham but even in this mention, Oren Morton names James & John [the grandsons] as sons of James & Margaret - this is probably how the error originated and why it snowballed onto so many online trees. If one READS James' 1760 will, one will see who James identified. There are zero primary sources naming Hugh Cunningham born c1715 as a son.
James & Margaret had the following children identified from Primary Sources: i. Jacob (1732-1759) ii. Isaac (1735-1759) iii. Elizabeth (1737-) iv. John (1740-1759) v. Mary (1741-1767) iv. Anne (1742-) vii. Moses (1743-) People want to add a son Hugh born c1727 in the above list but that means Hugh fathered his children at age 14.... that doesn't look right so they omit Hugh's older children?! If they change Hugh's DOB to c1715-1720 [to be old enough to marry c1740] they then have to alter James' date of birth to 1690-1700 to make him old enough to father Hugh born c1715-1720 and that means James fathered Hugh c1715 and then didn't have children again until 1732 which is unrealistic. If Hugh was born later, 1739-1745, Hugh would have been named a minor "or infant" in James' 1760 will as son Moses born c1743 was named infant [because he was under 21 when James wrote his will in 1760]. So Hugh was much older than people purport. Hugh was NOT named a son of James in James' 1760 will so neither should we name him a son of James & Margaret. Hugh did not name James & Margaret as his parents in his petition so neither should we. Hugh had children c1740 so Hugh was born c1715-1720 [one bio says 1708 but without sources]. James born c1705-1710 could not have fathered Hugh when James was 10-15 years old. So people change James' DOB 1685-1690 but that means James didn't father children until after he was 30 years old, had Hugh c1715-1720, then didn't have children again until 1732 and that is unrealistic... people are making up dates but eliminating an entire generation. People then create Find A Grave memorials [with no headstone or proof of interment] and alter Hugh's date of birth, or James' date of birth, to "make it fit" that Hugh was a son of James. Others write books and state Hugh was a son of James but offer no Primary Source documentation of how they made James' brother his son... they just read into James' will & Hugh's petition what they "believe". In her book, Betty Cunningham Newman states that Hugh was a son of James instead of a brother, and that "James and his son Hugh were in the military expedition in 1742", but it is impossible for James born c1705-1710 to have a son old enough to be in the Augusta Militia in 1742 [his oldest son was only 10 years old in 1742].
Show me one Primary Source that makes Hugh a son and not one of 3 Pioneer Brothers as listed here and I will change it: Bio from "Old Oxford and Her Families" by George West Diehl: "James who married Margaret is one of the 3 brothers that settled on the forks of the James. Hugh and John are the other two. Hugh had a son, Jonathan, to whom he deeded the "Big Spring" farm. It was the scene of the 1763 massacre. "
"When Joseph Tees, founder of Waynesboro, followed the old Indian trail toward the Allegheny Mountains, he and his sons William and Charles paused in a breathtaking valley opening at the foot of a long western ridge. Meandering in a shallow S-curve along a bold creek, the valley contained enough flat land to invite settlement. Later Francis McCown received a patent of 928 acres on Tees Creek. In 1746, he sold parcels to Hugh Martin, Robert Erwin and Samuel Norwood. Other early settlers at the foot of North Mountain were the Gilmores, McKees, Hamiltons and Logans. Three Cunningham brothers arrived with their families – Hugh, James and John. The eldest, Hugh, bought a tract from Benjamin Borden in 1748 near John Carr’s. He called it Big Spring after the numerous springs that gathered into a pond and created an ideal cabin site. In 1762, he sold the land to his son, Jonathan, who had married Mary McKee."
"James came to America with his brothers Hugh b 1708 and John (the oldest). "
Baptism records of Hugh's children reveal their dates of birth and the fact that Hugh was born 1715-1720. People that change Hugh's DOB to 1727-1730 "to make him fit to be a son of James" means Hugh fathered his children at 10-15 years old [so since changing Hugh's dob to 1727 doesn't "fit" having children in 1741, they just omit his children "to make it fit"].
Please don't make Hugh born c1715 a son of James born c1705-1710 without Primary Sources--TinaBopper 18:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I wish there was a comprehensive list of those killed in the 1759 raid and the 1763 raid. Many people were named as slain but those same people we later alive in deeds and court records so it is hard to determine who died, who lived, and which John/James/Roseanna is buried in the McKee cemetery https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2172632/mckee-cemetery In the early 1990s, Angela M. Ruley created the Rockbridge Virginia Genealogical Society and once had a Rootsweb site detailing the burials in the McKee Cemetery, based on an undated survey by Bob Driver and Miss Margaret Seebert which was provided by New Monmouth Presbyterian Church's Rev. Wray Sherman [one would think a cemetery census provided by the church should be rock-solid]. Rootsweb was bought-out by Ancestry and all those Rootsweb sites were pulled down by Ancestry [sad seeing all that data and research disappear]. People have since tried to recreate the burials in the McKee cemetery, using Find A Grave, to create memorials and "create" bios that consolidate two generations into one [and don't reveal sources]. FAG is now linked to Ancestry "as a hint" so all the online researchers see the "created" Find A Grave memorial as a "hint" on Ancestry and people just attach James/John/Margaret to any and every James/John/Margaret [and the errors just snowball]. I "assume" the father of the 3 Pioneer Brothers James, John & Hugh [birth order unknown] was James Cunnyngham c1685-1763: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/147216543/james-cunnyngham -- and it was this James that Hugh was referring to as his parents being killed -- unless the Hugh of the petition is a son of James & Margaret and a different, younger, Hugh is writing the petition but I find ZERO records of a second Hugh in the region... none! Thus, without a Primary Source that reveals a second, younger, Hugh all we can do is "assume" it is the elder Hugh [brother of James] that wrote the petition and it was the elder "James Cunnyngham" that Hugh was referring to. Researchers give this elder "James Cunnyngham" the wife Margaret Graves but with zero Primary Sources of how they derived her first name or her last name. My research is from the 1990s and I am just now entering all my "paper" documentation to my online tree on ancestry [because I don't want my boxes and boxes of research notes to die with me] thus my research predates most of those "created" Find A Grave bios that I read and wonder, 'where on earth did these folks get their data/sources from when they created these memorials/bio' People have "created" a second Fina A Grave memorial https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/43789020/james-cunningham for the Patriarch of the 3 Pioneer Brothers [no headstone or proof of interment] and consolidate two generations in this bio.
[first off, Mattie was a nickname for Martha and Peggy was a nickname for Margaret in colonial days so something isn't right with the first line in this bio]
[This could refer to "James Cunnyngham" the wife Margaret Graves or James Cunningham and Margaret MNU [or is her name Martha since there is a nickname "Mattie" in the original church cemetery census? or is the entire memorial/bio faulty?]
[James' will does NOT name Hugh a son... this is this person inserting their "interpretation" of the will -and- James and John are definitely named GRANDSONS in James' 1760 will so this lead me to believe the entire memorial/bio should be thrown out as somebody did not do any research when creating it... but since FAG is now linked to ancestry, all the online trees reflect this nonsense]
[James does list a daughter Mary but the Mary, wife of Malcom Allen, was a generation older and is too old to a daughter of James & Margaret MNU -- I believe her to be a sister to James & Margaret MNU instead; a sister to the 3 Pioneer Brothers and daughter to "James Cunnyngham" the wife Margaret Graves]
It's a mess to try and sort out which James/John/William belongs to which branch because many authors of books have consolidated the lines. For instance, Joseph Waddell [in his Annals of Augusta] mentions the 3 Pioneer Brothers John, James and Hugh on page 262 https://archive.org/details/annalsofaugustac00wadd/page/262/mode/2up?q=hugh+cunningham This text names John, James & Hugh... Waddell discusses the land purchase between John Cunningham and Robert Weir [correct John; current day Rockbridge County VA] then later adds a lineage of an incorrect John Cunningham of Thorney Branch [current day Rockingham County] that was material donated to Waddell for his book:
NOTE: The John Cunningham of Thorney Branch [father of Patrick] was not the same John of Kerrs Creek.... Waddell tells us it is "donated material" but he is consolidating two different John Cunningham lines into one line so this is why I verify all details "found in books" with Primary Sources. In another "History of" book -- Oren's "History of Pendleton WV" https://archive.org/details/historyofpendlet00mort/page/192/mode/2up?q=hugh+cunningham Oren gives the three WALNUT BOTTOM pioneer brothers but intermingles James of Kerrs Creek with the Walnut Bottom Cunningham line. The James of Walnut bottom lived in Randolph County, VA and is a distinct and separate James from the James Cunningham of Kerrs Creek. Morton has a tendency to consolidate all Cunninghams into one or two families when they are really separate/various lines [they may be related further back in PA/DE but I have not yet found the connection]. It was Oren Morton in his "History of Rockbridge" that named grandsons James and John as "sons of James" when James' 1760 will very explicitly states "James, son of my son Jacob" and "John, son of my son Isaac"... even with this explicit detail, Oren names grandsons James & John as sons of James and people just copy and paste the same erroneous data. People see it in a book and believe, 'it must be factual because it is here in this book'.... Print has POWER! I will not add anything that I do not have proof of without a notation that it is speculation... but it is hard for me to sit by and see lines destroyed because people are basing their genealogy on faulty Find a Grave bios or "history of" books. Our ancestors deserve better than that. Love, Tina--TinaBopper 21:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC) |
