update

Here is my thinking based on what I now know. Most of what I know comes from Ancestry.com or Geni and most other Wallace genealogists have been where I've been and made similar conclusions.

I do consider personal accounts strongly, but I notice from the way they contradict each other sometimes that wrong ideas get passed down through the generation as family lore. In Wallace Run they felt that John had married and had a child in Carlisle, but the other family account says he waited for William's second child before he went back. As if he was helping William and his wife? That William ended up in Goshen New York with a lively family, but the question is whether John had William in Pennsylvania or back in Northern Ireland after he returned and married Geneva Jane. I'm now betting that John's oldest child William was born in Northern Ireland. That's because the trail in Carlisle is so dead.

Some relatives have said that Hugh was born in Pennsylvania. I like that theory as it explains a lot. Hugh was well established in Cumberland County and ready to fight in the Cumberland County militia when the Revolution arrived, four or five years after the boys showed up. There is some disagreement about where this particular Hugh came from; I'd like to think he was a relative of our three boys William, James, and John. It would explain why they landed in Carlisle: people go where their relatives are, to stop over, get adjusted, and decide where they wanted to end up. I think they knew Hugh and came to Carllsle because he was there already.

The trail back from the Hugh Wallace of Carlisle is very muddy. He seemed to have a father, also Hugh, in the area, but I am not sure of that. I have also found a link, I believe, to Nathaniel in that it's been claimed that at least one Nathaniel in our picture is a brother to ne of the Hughs. I haven't pinned this down. Nathaniel would be important, though, and could even be the fourth boy to arrive in 1774. Nathaniel would end up out by New Castle (Fox, Ohio) and so wold be a reason for any of the boys or their kin, like Robert, to end up in New Castle.

It would help to get the actual passage record but I haven't found it yet. 1770? When? Also, John turned around and married Geneva Jane in Port Glasgow in 1773 - what's up with that?

There are claims about John's death - that he died in 1810 in Cecil County. Plausible but I wait for other evidence. And Geneva Jane - she lived to be 100? D don't think so, but if she did, it was in Cecil County probably, with no one but her two daughters to help her get old. They seem to have stayed single, and stayed there in Maryland, for all I can tell. Trail wears thin. Can't tell what really happened to John and Geneva Jane. I doubt she lived to a hundred though.

It turns out she was a little more obscure than I thought. Both boys named some Janes and Geneva Janes down among their descendants but that doesn't tell you how long she lived or where. She could have gone back. One relative knew she was a Crawford but not that she was Geneva Jane. If they had a reunion, she wasn't the life of it.

More digging is necessary for Nathaniel. There is some contradiction in portrayal of who he was, who his parents were, etc. It is possible I think that he was a cousin too, perhaps came over with John, James and William. And he ended up in Fox, OH, not far from New Castle. When you get reasons for Robert, or Hugh, to move to New Castle, investigate them. One more cousin won't overload the system.