Nathaniel Wallace (1745-1820)

Through some digging I have found some interesting information about Nathaniel, probable older brother of John.

I am working on the theory that both are sons of Mary Margaret Helen Muir Wallace, who married a William Wallace (1711) at some point that I haven't identified conclusively. Several people have attributed John and Nathaniel to her which could only mean that they are repeating each other's claims.

There are many Mary Muirs and many William Wallaces that they could have married. The William Wallace I am most interested in had a father Nathaniel (1692), who himself had a father Chancellor John Wallace (1659-1726) who seemed to go to America in that time, which would be very early. He was born in Lanarkshire (Glasgow) but died in Pennsylvania, in 1726, and it's unclear whether his wife was there, or any relatives, after he was gone. He would have been William (1711)'s grandfather, Nathaniel's great grandfather.

Nathaniel himself was born in 1745, in Glasgow, to Helen Muir and William Wallace, but there was a Nathaniel who lived in Somerset township, Washington County, PA, in 1797, and one who willed everything to a John Wallace, in Columbiana County (right near Beaver Falls) Ohio in 1820. This could be our John Wallace, who was in Cecil County Maryland in 1800, but disappeared from there shortly after that, and though some have given death dates of 1808 and 1810, I have seen no proof of this.

Back to Nathaniel. His great grandfather and possible relatives could have given him a reason to land in Washington County as opposed to thousands of other places, and that's what I'm looking for - why this whole group of brothers would somehow land around western Pennsylvania when it was in its early days and not the easiest place to live. We find Nathaniels in western Maryland (Allegany) also, so there are several Nathaniels (not to mention Johns) but I think I have a possible link here that would explain a lot.

Back in Scotland the line up from William (1711) through Nathaniel to Chancellor John (whoever that was) is clearly different from the line directly to the Wallaces of Cairnhill, so prolific, so powerful, so interrelated. Well sure there were lots of William Wallace (1711)s around. You can't blame someone for picking one and then saying, well I guess we are Wallaces of Cairnhill. But we may not be, or, if we are, much less directly.