The fall leaves are turning color and the weather is getting cooler. This means it's time to end the summer gardening, canning, camping, and ATVing and get back to my searching. I've been looking at my George M. Scott again lately, and I am just so frustrated with my search.
Here is what I know so far.
- George M. Scott was born on November 15, 1828 in Indiana. 1850 Census puts his age at 22 which confirms an approximate birth year of 1828 in Indiana. I am still unable to find him in the 1860 and 1870 census (part of my frustration), though I can find him in the 1856 Lucas, Union County, Iowa State Census which puts his age at 28, therefore confirming once again his birth in 1828. The next census is the 1880 where he reports an age of 51 which puts his approximate birth year at 1829, still in line with November of 1828. The Nebraska State Census of 1885 puts his age at 56 for a birth year of 1829. The only record that gives an actual birth date is on Find a Grave, which puts it as November 15, 1828, which is the date etched on his headstone.
- Marriage to Aner Jane Sackett on 9 October 1847 in Franklin, Indian. This is confirmed by the Indian, Marriages, 1810-2001 index and the Indiana, Select Marriages, 1780-1992.
- They had the following children, which are confirmed through multiple records, including the above-mentioned census records. But for the sake of this article and my search for George's ancestry I will not list all the documents used to establish the following children:
- Emily Letita Scott (my 3x great grandmother) 1848-1948
- Alexander Scott born 1851
- Mary Elizabeth Scott born 1854
- John Wesley Scott 1864-1953
- James Madison Scott 1870-1944
I do suspect that there may be other children because of the large gaps between the children, especially the ten year gap between Mary and John.
Now the question has been and still is after nearly seventeen years of searching, "who are the parents of George M. Scott?"
My mother has done a DNA test, and through her DNA I've been able to break down other brick walls, but this one wall persists. I am able to see some DNA connections that have Scott surnames in their trees, but many of them connect to my mother in other ways that lead me to believe that the Scott surname in their tree is no relation to her because their percentage of DNA match correlates with their known relationship. Those that do connect through the right side of the family and are confirmed to be related to my mother through George either end with George, or I now find a John Houston Scott 1805-1891 listed as George's father.
My next frustration is this John Houston Scott. I want to believe that he is the father of my George Scott because then I can stop banging my head against the wall and move on with my research. But I have some serious reservations with all the research that connects John Houston Scott to my George Scott. This first and foremost problem is that most people in the partial list below have not even done their own research. Instead almost every tree on this list has another tree as their (in most cases, only) source of information. I've crossed out the names because I'm not trying to single anyone out. Most of the people I encounter these days don't know any better. Instead of bashing anyone, I would like to take this opportunity to educate those who are looking for George Scott what the problems are that I see and why I do not think he fits into the John Houston Scott family. I will also admit that I could be totally off in left field, so I welcome the person that can show me evidence that I am wrong and that John Houston Scott is the father of my George.
Let's analyze the first problem of parentage. From the image below you will see that George M. Scott was born in 1828 and is listed as the son of John Houston Scott and Sarah Jane Jackman. On the left you will see the marriage date for Sarah Jane Jackman to John Scott is on 3 Jan 1833. Now I'm not say that would have never happened, but those of us doing this long enough know that scenario is very highly unlikely. If John Houston Scott is the father of my George then it's very likely that John had a marriage prior to Sarah and therefor George has a different mother than the rest, and that would also explain the gap between George and Margaret.
The next problem is the significant gap between George and Margaret of six years. Again, this could be contributed to the fact that Sarah is likely not George's mother. It's also worth noting the Sarah gave birth to a child from Margaret on every one to two years, which is why the six year gap catches my attention.
The other problem is that not a single document, even in the trees like the one above that I see trying to confirm the research with documents, has there been one that ties George to John H. Scott.
Now here is the first piece of promise. In the image below I put my timeline of George side by side with the time line of John Scott (from the one tree that does have actual documents of the family) and I see something promising. John H. Scott married Sarah Jackman in 1833 in Franklin, Indian, and just 14 years later in 1847 George married Aner Sackett in Franklin, Indiana. This puts them in the same places, though not necessarily at the same time.
However, when I scroll down on John's timeline and bring the years in line with each other I do see that John and Sarah were believed to be in Franklin, Indiana in 1847 when their daughter Virginia Caroline Scott was born. If this is true, it would put them in the same county at the same time. But then again Virginia being born in Franklin County, Indiana may be an anomaly because she is the only child born there. All the other's are born in Rush County, Indiana and of course none of them are corroborated with documents of their birth.
Further, in reading the notes of Jim Scott 1916-2002 on his research of the Scotts, according to him John and Sarah had eleven children, but everyone that adds those eleven children to their tree and then adds George, makes twelve.
Bottom line is that a lot more work needs to be done on John and Sarah. Documentation is key and there is not enough here for me to comfortably say that someone finally found the parents of my George Scott. I will continue to search for the parents of my George, but I truly believe it is NOT John Houston Scott.
If you have more information on John H. Scott and George M. Scott I welcome your feedback. Please feel free to leave in the comments below.
