I took a little tour of Scottish birth records, for our six, James, William, Hugh, John, Thomas, and Nathaniel. Actually the more I looked into Thomas and Nathaniel, the more I doubted their involvement. Nathaniel had an interesting line; if his father William had four or five kids that would be good, but it looked doubtful. He may indeed have emigrated to PA/OH but his main connection to John was the claim that Mary Margaret Helen Muir was their mother - while that may be true, the other things about him were somewhat tenuous. With Thomas there was a Thomas in Cecil County MD but someone said his family had been there for a while, so he wouldn't then be a brother or even half brother of our four.
That leaves James, William, Hugh, and John, and there were several William-Wallace-Mary Margaret or Helen combinations, families living around interesting places.
One family lived in Auchinleck, Ayr. Cool, huh? This family had two Johns and a James, and also a Jane. The problem with having two Johns - one was 1754, the next 1763, is that it was probably the second who lived, and 1763 was too late to get passage in 1774 and marry that same year. Maybe the. first one lived? '54 we could work with, but then the 1763 would be an imposter. Also we'd still have to find a William and a Hugh. Still possible, though.
One family lived in Cambusnethen. That's not far from Cairnhill, but not really in Ayr (though I'm not sure). The Cambusnethen family had a William, Thomas, and a John. Once again there were two Johns, a 1747 and a 1754. In this case the second one would work; he'd be 20 at passage. Perfect! Their mother was Margaret Aiken, though. A stretch from Mary Margaret Helen Muir, or even from "Mary" as it is alleged his wife was.
There were possibilities in Coylton, Craigie, and Riccarton, all with good geography. See if you say their father is William Wallace and their mother could be Mary, Margaret, Helen or any combination of the above, you have a lot of choices. What we want is a James, William, Hugh, and John who coould all get impatient by 1770 & bail together. A Thomas or Nathaniel thrown in there would be icing on the cake so to speak.
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 3, 2025
reconciling possibilities
What I think happened is this. Genealogists such as myself took what they knew - that John was born in Craige, etc., and made assumptions. Perhaps they knew that his father was William Wallace (1711) of Cairnhill; perhaps he was. William was according to some sources married to Mary Coke. So you have his father and mother, and go from there; The trail leads up through William's father to Cairnhill, where the Wallaces were a large clan.
But part of the family lore is that they were from Ayrshire. Ayrshire it turns out is rural, near the sea, surrounding the town of Ayr. Now the family lore also includes the story of the boys and the pig, and I'll be the first to admit this could be changed by time or even by impressions, or somebody made an assumption based on how easy it was for them to get over to Northern Ireland. Who knows? I thought I'd set about trying to find out whether it was possible they were from Ayrshire.
It turns out that there were William Wallaces who married Marys all over the place, and dozens in Ayrshire, though mostly not at the right time. It is possible John and/or his brothers were from one of these Ayrshire William Wallace/Mary combinations, and were put into William and Mary Coke's tree based on assumptions or just based on what could be found at the time.
What set me onto a wider search was this: someone said the Wallace clan of Cairnhill was known to be involved in the slave trade. Sure enough, some of those cousins were involved in a plantation in Jamaica and some even died there. This didn't sound like the Wallaces I knew, but then again, they were about eight generations up, and they were cousins; it didn't seem to involve our William (1710), or his father or even his father. Their large estate, Cairnhill, was just east of Glasgow; they had in some cases eleven, or thirteen kids in a family; they had to keep the money coming in etc. etc. I would actually rather think of my ancestors as rural Ayrshire kids who just hopped on a random boat. But who knows, I'll face the truth however it pans out.
The next step obviously is to map out all the William Wallace/Mary combinations that it could be, and gather clues from the boys' lives to help us lead to which family to place them in. There are six boys altogether who seem to have ended up in America. They had connection to each other, in accounts of their own family, and geographically. In other words, because Thomas and Hugh lived in Cecil County Maryland, and John came there when he finally emigrated with his family, we can guess that Thomas and Hugh are of this family and were probably the reason John chose Cecil County. The problem is that the Hugh could be any one of a dozen Hughs who came from Scotland - both Cairnhill and Ayrshire - and same with Thomas. The trail is interesting but definitely not conclusive. Not yet anyway.
But I have to watch out that I'm not biased toward what I want to find. When I found a William and Mary Margaret Helen Muir (allegedly the mother of Nathaniel and John, but also possibly to others), I was really happy that I'd found the true mother. But people are just as likely to misassign these boys to her as they are to any other Mary. There was a William and Mary Muir in the records. There may have even been one in Ayrshire. But I'm going to stop doing what other Americans might: just assume that Ayrshire, Glasgow, Cairnhill, they're all the same. They aren't. Thewe boys go in one family (or maybe a step situation) but not six different ones.
This leads me to the birth records and marriage records of rural Ayrshire and Glasgow etc. All I can say is that there are plenty of William and Marys out there. It's a world of William and Marys. Two of them, these boys looked back and said, those were our parents. I'll find which two, I hope.
But part of the family lore is that they were from Ayrshire. Ayrshire it turns out is rural, near the sea, surrounding the town of Ayr. Now the family lore also includes the story of the boys and the pig, and I'll be the first to admit this could be changed by time or even by impressions, or somebody made an assumption based on how easy it was for them to get over to Northern Ireland. Who knows? I thought I'd set about trying to find out whether it was possible they were from Ayrshire.
It turns out that there were William Wallaces who married Marys all over the place, and dozens in Ayrshire, though mostly not at the right time. It is possible John and/or his brothers were from one of these Ayrshire William Wallace/Mary combinations, and were put into William and Mary Coke's tree based on assumptions or just based on what could be found at the time.
What set me onto a wider search was this: someone said the Wallace clan of Cairnhill was known to be involved in the slave trade. Sure enough, some of those cousins were involved in a plantation in Jamaica and some even died there. This didn't sound like the Wallaces I knew, but then again, they were about eight generations up, and they were cousins; it didn't seem to involve our William (1710), or his father or even his father. Their large estate, Cairnhill, was just east of Glasgow; they had in some cases eleven, or thirteen kids in a family; they had to keep the money coming in etc. etc. I would actually rather think of my ancestors as rural Ayrshire kids who just hopped on a random boat. But who knows, I'll face the truth however it pans out.
The next step obviously is to map out all the William Wallace/Mary combinations that it could be, and gather clues from the boys' lives to help us lead to which family to place them in. There are six boys altogether who seem to have ended up in America. They had connection to each other, in accounts of their own family, and geographically. In other words, because Thomas and Hugh lived in Cecil County Maryland, and John came there when he finally emigrated with his family, we can guess that Thomas and Hugh are of this family and were probably the reason John chose Cecil County. The problem is that the Hugh could be any one of a dozen Hughs who came from Scotland - both Cairnhill and Ayrshire - and same with Thomas. The trail is interesting but definitely not conclusive. Not yet anyway.
But I have to watch out that I'm not biased toward what I want to find. When I found a William and Mary Margaret Helen Muir (allegedly the mother of Nathaniel and John, but also possibly to others), I was really happy that I'd found the true mother. But people are just as likely to misassign these boys to her as they are to any other Mary. There was a William and Mary Muir in the records. There may have even been one in Ayrshire. But I'm going to stop doing what other Americans might: just assume that Ayrshire, Glasgow, Cairnhill, they're all the same. They aren't. Thewe boys go in one family (or maybe a step situation) but not six different ones.
This leads me to the birth records and marriage records of rural Ayrshire and Glasgow etc. All I can say is that there are plenty of William and Marys out there. It's a world of William and Marys. Two of them, these boys looked back and said, those were our parents. I'll find which two, I hope.
Monday, June 2, 2025
James Wallace 1739-1788
I just started looking into this guy, an older (possibly half-) brother, who may not have been on that original 1770 passage because he was married and possibly living in Northern Ireland, or perhaps Scotland. There are many versions of who his parents were, and I couldn't get to the bottom of how or when he traveled, or how he died.
If you look carefully at that death date he very well could have fought in the Revolution, as one person suggested, but I found no evidence for that. He had one daughter but she had descendants who cared enough to make a profile. He died in York County PA, which could be war-related or not. He seemed to leave his descendants there too. But look at those dates - he was only 49 when he died.
There were some odd suggestions about his parentage. One was that Mary Coke and Mary Muir were the same people, so his mother was Mary Coke Muir. Hugh's mom, the same. Several people put him with Hugh as if you had this full brother and then some half-brothers. Very possible.
One of the fathers suggested for him was William Hugh Wallace (1717), who has come up before - but while I was there I just followed him jp until I found that he had as the father the same guy our William (1711) had, which meant they were the same people? wrong dates? THere were lots of cousins in there, lots of Williams. James' grandad had maybe thirteen; William had maybe ten; no surprise that there were a few other Williams around.
If he died in 1778 at the age of 49, he left a wife and daughter in York, but they were ok. It was not the wide extended family implied by the description but they would at least be recognized relatives in the Wallace line, also in Pennsylvania. I'm no closer to finding who the mothers were. It seems a lot of that is lost in the vagueness of Scottish marriage records.
If you look carefully at that death date he very well could have fought in the Revolution, as one person suggested, but I found no evidence for that. He had one daughter but she had descendants who cared enough to make a profile. He died in York County PA, which could be war-related or not. He seemed to leave his descendants there too. But look at those dates - he was only 49 when he died.
There were some odd suggestions about his parentage. One was that Mary Coke and Mary Muir were the same people, so his mother was Mary Coke Muir. Hugh's mom, the same. Several people put him with Hugh as if you had this full brother and then some half-brothers. Very possible.
One of the fathers suggested for him was William Hugh Wallace (1717), who has come up before - but while I was there I just followed him jp until I found that he had as the father the same guy our William (1711) had, which meant they were the same people? wrong dates? THere were lots of cousins in there, lots of Williams. James' grandad had maybe thirteen; William had maybe ten; no surprise that there were a few other Williams around.
If he died in 1778 at the age of 49, he left a wife and daughter in York, but they were ok. It was not the wide extended family implied by the description but they would at least be recognized relatives in the Wallace line, also in Pennsylvania. I'm no closer to finding who the mothers were. It seems a lot of that is lost in the vagueness of Scottish marriage records.
In search of Hugh
As a general report I've been mulling over the four boys who allegedly came over in 1770, and learning more about them so I can be more sure of what families they belonged to. I am not absolutely sure we have the right ones.
Six came over before it was all over - James, William, Hugh, John, Thomas and Nathaniel. Charles reported that it was James, William, Hugh & John who came together in 1770, but he was talking about his grandparents' generation and may have gotten it wrong; it was likely that in his family they were well in touch with James, Hugh, John & William, and not the other two, so he got that wrong in reporting. Some have questioned whether there were four at all.
The situation on their mothers is also murky, and that is interesting because it means we may not be of the Wallaces or Cairnhill. We could be of some William Wallace who was hanging around Glasgow in 1750, married to any of several women including Mary Margaret Helen Muir. Jane Carshall, Mary Coke, and Jean Campbell are also names that come up. But here, can I find any evidence in any of the boys' lives to help me figure out which it could be? The only way is to dig and find out.
Hugh is a good example of how messed up dredging information can be. There are lots of Hughs out there - b. 1741, 1740, even 1750 - all of them seemed to die in 1823. One Hugh lived in Cecil County Maryland for a while - that one has to be ours! - another was a Revolutionary War soldier, and was buried at New Castle. We want that one too! One reason we want to claim that one is that Robert, a young lad, may have lost his father and it would make sense if he stayed with his uncle in New Castle when he met his bride, a New Castle girl. Make that one ours! But everyone claims that Hugh. He ends up on every tree because his fame puts him at the top of every google search.
James is the best candidate for older half-brother, who wasn't actually on that 1770 voyage. The reason is that he had already married and set up a family in Northern Ireland. It was likely that the pig-stealers were looking for him when they fled Scotland. He did bring the family to York. He did stay in touch with the family. But maybe he wasn't in New York in 1770.
The search goes on.
Six came over before it was all over - James, William, Hugh, John, Thomas and Nathaniel. Charles reported that it was James, William, Hugh & John who came together in 1770, but he was talking about his grandparents' generation and may have gotten it wrong; it was likely that in his family they were well in touch with James, Hugh, John & William, and not the other two, so he got that wrong in reporting. Some have questioned whether there were four at all.
The situation on their mothers is also murky, and that is interesting because it means we may not be of the Wallaces or Cairnhill. We could be of some William Wallace who was hanging around Glasgow in 1750, married to any of several women including Mary Margaret Helen Muir. Jane Carshall, Mary Coke, and Jean Campbell are also names that come up. But here, can I find any evidence in any of the boys' lives to help me figure out which it could be? The only way is to dig and find out.
Hugh is a good example of how messed up dredging information can be. There are lots of Hughs out there - b. 1741, 1740, even 1750 - all of them seemed to die in 1823. One Hugh lived in Cecil County Maryland for a while - that one has to be ours! - another was a Revolutionary War soldier, and was buried at New Castle. We want that one too! One reason we want to claim that one is that Robert, a young lad, may have lost his father and it would make sense if he stayed with his uncle in New Castle when he met his bride, a New Castle girl. Make that one ours! But everyone claims that Hugh. He ends up on every tree because his fame puts him at the top of every google search.
James is the best candidate for older half-brother, who wasn't actually on that 1770 voyage. The reason is that he had already married and set up a family in Northern Ireland. It was likely that the pig-stealers were looking for him when they fled Scotland. He did bring the family to York. He did stay in touch with the family. But maybe he wasn't in New York in 1770.
The search goes on.
Sunday, June 1, 2025
More thoughts on placing John
In a kind of hazy overview-kind of mood, I am remembering that a lot of times the Wallace boys are reported with different mothers, or different birth dates, or something like that. There is no way to know, tuning into Ancestry in May 2025, what has been repeated most often simply because it was there, yet often it's not right, and just repeated because someone else accepted it. Being in the position of that someone else, I now find myself wondering whether to repeat information, just because I found it, or instead do a deep dive and see if I can't find the truth through deeper clues. Maybe someday AI will do all this for me. Probably the last thing I can do before AI takes over is to get at the truth and get it up there in some form or another, so that AI and anyone using it will at least see one variant that they can then choose or not.
I am now convinced that six Wallace boys found their way over here somoetime between 1770 and 1820, with probably the four mentioned by the BCHS (James, William, Hugh, and John) coming together but John at least going back for a while before bringing his entire family in 1797. Believe that story if possible, I say, until you can see how someone might have mixed it up. I am finding what they said to be mostly true, with James ending up in York, PA, William up in New York, Hugh in South Carolina (but then returning to PA) - why not believe what they say about John? There's also Nathaniel and Thomas connected to the family, who came over at some time or another.
Most people have put them with William Wallace and Mary Coke, about whom very little is written. One person put Nathaniel and John with Mary Margaret Helen Muir as mother, which could be possible. I'm not ruling out a second marriage or step relationships, half brothers etc. But to me the whole thing opens up the possibility that alll of them were placed in the wrong family, that, with all the William Wallaces around, someone just stuck them with this one (Mary Coke's WW 1711) because he was there and was prominent. He was, after all, a Cairnhill Wallace, and the boys were born in Glasgow or Ayr. It's not solid enough proof for me though. I want to see clues that all six came from that family.
Of course I would like to see them connected to the Muirs. But most of all, I just want the truth about who my Scottish ancestors are. The reasons they came over are easier to find.
I am now convinced that six Wallace boys found their way over here somoetime between 1770 and 1820, with probably the four mentioned by the BCHS (James, William, Hugh, and John) coming together but John at least going back for a while before bringing his entire family in 1797. Believe that story if possible, I say, until you can see how someone might have mixed it up. I am finding what they said to be mostly true, with James ending up in York, PA, William up in New York, Hugh in South Carolina (but then returning to PA) - why not believe what they say about John? There's also Nathaniel and Thomas connected to the family, who came over at some time or another.
Most people have put them with William Wallace and Mary Coke, about whom very little is written. One person put Nathaniel and John with Mary Margaret Helen Muir as mother, which could be possible. I'm not ruling out a second marriage or step relationships, half brothers etc. But to me the whole thing opens up the possibility that alll of them were placed in the wrong family, that, with all the William Wallaces around, someone just stuck them with this one (Mary Coke's WW 1711) because he was there and was prominent. He was, after all, a Cairnhill Wallace, and the boys were born in Glasgow or Ayr. It's not solid enough proof for me though. I want to see clues that all six came from that family.
Of course I would like to see them connected to the Muirs. But most of all, I just want the truth about who my Scottish ancestors are. The reasons they came over are easier to find.
Mary Margaret Helen Muir
Most of the tree-makers on Ancestry have assumed that John's parents were William Wallace (1711) and Mary Coke. There were a couple of others; one said that a woman named Jean Campbell had four children by William besides John and of those four one died in Jamaica and two died in India. I followed those leads for a little while before I realized this had to be a different William Wallace (1711). It very easily could have been a different William Wallace (1711) of Cairnhill. I could also accept the idea that our William could have had more than one wife. But probably not four or five, and probably not going back and forth, from one to another and then back.
One claimed that Mary Margaret Helen Muir was John's mother, and also Nathaniel's. This was interesting. We married into the Muir clan? It turns out that John Muir (1838) also, our famous one who started the Sierra Club (and shared my birthday btw) was from this same area, around Glasgow; he was born in Lanarkshire. People don't seem to know that much about his ancestors, but perhaps I haven't looked too far. In other words, trying to connect him. to Mary Margaret Helen Muir might be a bit of a chore.
Nevertheless in investigating Mary Margaret Helen Muir, I found that she was married to a William Wallace (1714) who was an entirely different person. Now was it possible that John and his closest brothers were all in this different family? Sure, but I have to be careful here. I don't want to put John in Mary Margaret's family just because I want to.
There are lots of what are essentially spurious assumptions out there. People just say, this must be the William, they grab his basic information, and they put him in the tree. That must be him! But it all gets pretty murky once you get up in Scotland in the 1740s. It would be helpful if one of the descendants, in our line or in that of one of John or Robert's brothers, actually said something about who their parents/grandparents etc. were.
The main evidence I have to work with is that the brothers seemed to come over as a group. They left William, wherever he was born and whoever he was married to, back in Scotland near Glasgow. A couple of them were established for a short time in Northern Ireland. Four allegedly came to New York before the revolution and allegedly landed in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. John went back, stayed in Northern Ireland, and brought the whole family back to Cecil County, Maryland. One of his brothers was there. His sons seemed to end up near where the. other brothers ended up. A lot of them seemed to disappear into a sea of Wallaces, but the geographical clues, plus their testimony that there were four brothers, is a good place to start.
If Mary Margaret was his mother, that would explain some things, and, at least in a very general kind of way, connect us to John Muir. I'll leave it at that for now. It's possible.
One claimed that Mary Margaret Helen Muir was John's mother, and also Nathaniel's. This was interesting. We married into the Muir clan? It turns out that John Muir (1838) also, our famous one who started the Sierra Club (and shared my birthday btw) was from this same area, around Glasgow; he was born in Lanarkshire. People don't seem to know that much about his ancestors, but perhaps I haven't looked too far. In other words, trying to connect him. to Mary Margaret Helen Muir might be a bit of a chore.
Nevertheless in investigating Mary Margaret Helen Muir, I found that she was married to a William Wallace (1714) who was an entirely different person. Now was it possible that John and his closest brothers were all in this different family? Sure, but I have to be careful here. I don't want to put John in Mary Margaret's family just because I want to.
There are lots of what are essentially spurious assumptions out there. People just say, this must be the William, they grab his basic information, and they put him in the tree. That must be him! But it all gets pretty murky once you get up in Scotland in the 1740s. It would be helpful if one of the descendants, in our line or in that of one of John or Robert's brothers, actually said something about who their parents/grandparents etc. were.
The main evidence I have to work with is that the brothers seemed to come over as a group. They left William, wherever he was born and whoever he was married to, back in Scotland near Glasgow. A couple of them were established for a short time in Northern Ireland. Four allegedly came to New York before the revolution and allegedly landed in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. John went back, stayed in Northern Ireland, and brought the whole family back to Cecil County, Maryland. One of his brothers was there. His sons seemed to end up near where the. other brothers ended up. A lot of them seemed to disappear into a sea of Wallaces, but the geographical clues, plus their testimony that there were four brothers, is a good place to start.
If Mary Margaret was his mother, that would explain some things, and, at least in a very general kind of way, connect us to John Muir. I'll leave it at that for now. It's possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Robert Wallace Genealogy Descendants of: William Wallace 1 William Wallace b. ca. 1710 m. Mary Unknown 2 John Wallace b. ca...
-
Percival Nott married Jane Wallace, who would have been a cousin I believe of our Robert Wallace, father of ten and patriarch of a clan of N...
-
Here's my uncle, Jim Wallace, who lived most of his life in the deserts around Las Vegas, Utah and arizona. In this picture he was in ...