- Debunking the Mary Thear and Busell Skaggs myths - they are no longer big time-wasters for Skaggs family researchers
- Separating the history of two famous James Skaggs and their wives from each other
- Finding important DNA evidence that
- Old Peter and/or Martha were not likely to have been Indians
- Old Peter's Y-haplogroup appears to have been R1a1a; different from the descendants of Thomas Skaggs from West Virginia
- Old Peter's descendants are related to descendants of Rachel Skaggs, daughter of Ruth Bishop, The Longhunter Skaggs and Joseph Skaggs - however, the specific relationships are still uncertain
Now for the interesting part...
I'm just going to make this stuff up as I go along based on facts, evidence, family stories, rumors, hunches and gut feelings, so here goes...it's just speculation from this point on:
I'm just going to make this stuff up as I go along based on facts, evidence, family stories, rumors, hunches and gut feelings, so here goes...it's just speculation from this point on:
- I think Old Peter Skaggs was the son of John Scaggs of Kent County, Maryland and Ruth Skaggs (later Bishop), likely a second wife for John based on Bishop family legend
- Zachariah Skaggs perhaps was Old Peter's older half-brother, likely son of an unknown first wife of John Scaggs - he's not Peter's father because when Zachariah died his heir was a grandson John (son of Jeremiah, deceased), not Peter. Also, Zachariah was bondsman for his son Jeremiah's marriage but not for Peter. Why not? He wasn't Peter's father.
- Rachel Skaggs Lester was the daughter of John Scaggs and Ruth Skaggs Bishop according to Rachel's marriage bond and minister's return, therefore sister to Old Peter
- Ruth Skaggs and Rachel Skaggs were kidnapped by Indians in Virginia during Lord Dunmore's War in 1774 and they were rescued from captivity during the Virginia Militia attack on the Cherokees at Chickamauga in 1779 and brought back to Virginia. This is consistent with Bishop family legend that Ruth was captive for about four years and came back to Virginia with kids
- William Scaggs was likely Zachariah Skaggs' full brother and Old Peter's half-brother. He settled his land in 1772 and was dead by 1775, since his wife Esther conducted the land survey. William perhaps died in the Indian attack that resulted in Ruth Skaggs' captivity.
- Darky Gothrin was brought back to Virginia from Chickamauga with Ruth Skaggs Bishop either as an infant or unborn child. A birth date of 1776-80 for Darky would be consistent with her requiring consent for marriage in 1796 at an age less than 21.
- Ruth's first husband, John Scaggs, died prior to 1780 since a 1782 deed shows that Zachariah Skaggs assigned land to John Charlton in 1780 as heir-at-law to John Scaggs
- Ruth Skaggs (a widow by 1780) married John Bishop and they had a single child together, "Long Dave" Bishop born c. 1781 according to 1850 and 1860 census records
- Long Dave Bishop moved to Lawrence County, Kentucky to the same Blaine Creek area where Old Peter Skaggs lived, so the Bishops and Skaggs were likely related
- Darky Gothrin's son, Thomas O'Daniel, also moved to Lawrence County, Kentucky while Old Peter was still alive. He later moved to Missouri after Peter's death. This shows a likely relationship between Darky and Old Peter.
I know there is a lot of speculation and jumping to conclusions here but I basically connected the few proven dots with a lot of hunches and gut feelings to develop a story that explains the public record, DNA test results, the historical record and family legends. Anyone have any significant facts I'm overlooking here? Comments?
Why couldn't Peter have been son of the William Skaggs who died before 1775?
ReplyDeleteHe could have been, but not likely since Joseph Scaggs was heir-at-law to William Scaggs for 200 acres on the Little River according to the Montgomery County Order Books p. 204. This means Joseph was the eldest living son of William at the time, born c. 1765 according to census records. In order for Old Peter to be the son of Joseph, both Peter and brother Solomon would have been younger than Joseph, i.e. born after 1765. Possible, but not likely.
ReplyDeleteThe above comment should read: In order for Old Peter to be the son of William, both Peter and brother Solomon would have been younger than Joseph, i.e. born after 1765.
Delete