Existing ancestry indicates the generation covered by John Becraft who married Mary Ann Cugle is settled but it has some challenges to further investigate.

Facts:

John, the son of George Jr is b. 1770 and is believed to have died after the birth of his daughter Margaret who was born 1847 and before the 1850 census where Mary Ann shows up with the children and is head.

Mary Ann is born 1805, and dies after 1880. Census records 1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880 all show her as head or alone.

There is a marriage record in Frederick, Maryland, that shows John Becraft married Mary Ann Cugle on 15 Nov 1822.

The other John that may have play in this dilemma is John, b. 1740, son of George Sr.

Along with the marriage of John and Mary, we have two marriages of Becraft girls to Nimrod and William Harrison. Nimrod married Mary Ann Becraft 1823 and William married Catherine Becraft 1822.

Census Records between 1790 and 1840 have all been attributed to John showing his family with Mary Ann. These records are attached in Family Search’s ancestry tree to this John. Should they be?

The Theory

I am going to propose that we have two families that have been combined into one.

John SR Becraft, b. 1770 is the father.

John JR Becraft, b. somewhere around 1790 is the actual husband of Mary Ann Cugle and adds a generation here.

John SR is possibly the father of John JR, Mary Ann, and Catherine.

John, son of George Sr is missing Census records and not mixed with the added John JR in the line.

Analysis

To analyze, we’ve added a John II, or John JR and a second wife for John SR with a contemporary birth date.

We have the following Census records:

The 1810 census from the Delaware Lower Hundred is a strong fit for John Sr, with either his Wife X or Sister ?, both Mary Ann and Catherine, and John Jr is missing, but is accounted for in the second census from 1810 and him being married to an earlier wife (before Mary Ann Cugle). We have 2 males under 10 and 1 female under 10 that are not accounted for in John Sr or John Jr. Sister ? would be 20 or older and not likely to be the female 10-15.

The 1820 census shows 4 females under 10 that are not accounted for in either a John Sr or John Jr scenario. We do have a possible solid family with the Sister ?, Mary Ann and Catherine along with John Sr. No other census exists for 1820 to explain where John Jr and his possible family with an earlier wife.

The 1830 census shows 3 females 5 – 9 that one is possibly Jane, daughter of John and Mary Ann, with 2 unaccounted and no reasonable gap for them to insert into.

The 1840 census shows 2 females 5 – 9 that have no known girls in either John Sr or John Jr.’s family groups. There is however, an interesting gap between George R, b. 1830 and James C, b. 1836 that fits for possible girls that died young.

The 1840 census also has a female 20 – 29 that has no match on either family group.

Elimination of John Becraft, son of George Sr.

This John appears to have avoided any census for the period. Only 1810 has 2 John’s and might be one for this John, especially since he is associated with Anne Arundel, Maryland.

The 1810 Census is not a match as the family of John would be missing a male under 16 and a female.

The 1810 Census, Delaware Lower Hundred, is missing the mother (we know she lived to 1831) and oldest son. The other members could fit.

The 1810 Anne Arundel, Maryland, fits for all the children, but we know the father lived to 1829 and mother lived to 1831.

The 1820 census has enough misses that it isn’t a good fit.

The 1830 and 1840 censuses were irrelevant as both John and Nancy were dead by then.

Conclusion

The evidence appears to support the following:

John Sr and John Jr appear to be supported.

John Jr appears to have had an earlier marriage.

John Sr appears to be the best fit for Mary Ann and Catherine, both of whom married Harrisons.

There are a large number of children throughout that appear to have died young.

Further research needs to be done.

1. 1. determine if we can find an earlier marriage for John Jr.

1. 1. It would be helpful to examine the registers where all the existing family groups were created from to see if there are additional un-linked children in those.

1. 1. Are there any other census records that might be hidden because of spelling or name oddities that would confirm this model.

1. 1. Dig into the Harrison side, were William and Nimrod brothers or related in some way? Is there possibly Harrison collaborative evidence that might add clarity on this challenge?

Thoughts, email us. We would love to hear from you and what you think of this analysis.