Still reflecting on the personal account (see previous post) and its implications for my study of the four brothers. It came just in time, by the way.

First, it casts doubt on Charles' account that John actually married in Carlisle, and abandoned his oldest son William in Carlisle to be raised by his grandparents. In this account he was watching his brother William, and was around to meet both of William's new babies, but was back in Londonderry in time to have his own William, who would then be born after he married Geneva Jane, and would have Geneva Jane as a mother.

This is a relief in the sense that I have scoured Carlisle records for any sign of John marrying and having a child in that small window, 1770-1772, to no avail. There is no sign of him marrying before going back.

Second, it casts doubt on the idea of Hugh being one of the four brothers who arrived in 1770. People in Hugh's family claimed that he was born in Pennsylvania, yet some Hugh was born in Scotland to be considered one of the four brothers. Now this is a quite interesting mystery. In the years after the Revolutionary War the soldiers who were buried, like that Hugh 1742-1820, were all given special credit and noticed. People made a big deal out of his grave even though they couldn't quite read it clearly. Several lines of Wallaces claimed him including us, because we were looking for a Hugh based on family legend, and because he ended up in New Castle where Robert met his young bride Margaret Hendrickson. We would love it to be Uncle Hugh that introduced them, especially since we now suspect John and/or Geneva Jane were dead and/or gone.

That brings me to my last point, which is that this account is clearly the origin of the 1810 death date for John, and it also says that he died in Cecil Coounty. Fair enough, but there's no record. And what came of Geneva Jane? That mystery is still hanging in the air. This particular writer didn't even know her name.

Meanwhile I have been scouring Scotland for evidence 1) that there was a plausible Hugh character that could have been born there in 1742, in whatever family which I would then study to see if he had brothers (many families had a William, James, and John), or, a family with a nearby year, hopefully in Ayr, that he could have been born in. I'm not entirely convinced that all these boys came from a Cairnhill William Wallace although that seems to be the general consensus. But any combination such that a Hugh could be their cousin, even a distant one, would work. The Cairnhill Wallaces had more Hughs than most.

What about the last possibility, that he was born in Pennsylvania? If he was a relative, and ended up in New Castle, or gave them a reason to move to Cecil County, this could be because he knew the terrain, having lived here all along. In this scenario perhaps another brother or cousin, Thomas or Nathaniel, comes over on the fateful passage and history obscures it because 1) both Thomas and Nathaniel are more obscure by nature, having hidden out a bit, and/or 2) everyone loved Hugh, and knew him, and followed him to New Castle, and ultimately confused him with one of the brothers that was on the actual passage. This would have happened over time; they knew there were four; they knew James, William and John were among them; Hugh was a fourth brother or at least a cousin; eventually they put him on the passage instead of one they'd entirely forgot. In this country, it didn't take long before history had covered everyone's tracks.

Hugh did have descendants, though, and they kept pretty good track. They are more on top of it today than, say, William's descendants, though I could be wrong about that. We in the John camp are doing our best. Still no birth date, no place of birth (I'm still not entirely buying Craigie, though it's as good a guess as any), and though the 1810 date has just been given a boost in my book, there's no solid evidence for that either. Any old John Wallace grqves around Cecil County? And what happened to Geneva Jane?

One last idea. Based on records I've found, there was a Hugh around Carlisle and Cumberland County when the boys arrived in 1770. This Hugh would have been born in Pennsylvania but very likely could have been part of the family. What would be good about this theory is that it would give the boys a reason to show up in Carlisle, as opposed to any other place. I've always wondered how they could have picked Carlisle off the map and said, we'll start here, then fan out, or go back as the case may be. I think there's a good argument that that Hugh was there when they arrived, and stayed there quite a while (making the "Carlisle Wallaces?" until everyone recognized him as one of the brothers. If Nathaniel or Thomas were among them and disappeared, that would be understandable. Maybe not provable. And though almost every William back in Scotland had a son William, a James, and a John, only a few of them had Nathaniels, or Thomases. Maybe that's where the cousin thing came in. Six in total moved, I'm pretty sure.