William POLK

Eigenschaften

Ereignisse

Ehepartner und Kinder

Notizen zu dieser Person

There is no evidence that this William Polk is the son of the IrishWilliam Polk, married to Nancy Knox. The doubtful ancestors will notbe added to this research. 12 July 2005 A DISCUSSION OF THE ANCESTRY OF WILLIAM POLK WHO MARRIED MARGARETTAYLOR, GREATGRANDPARENTS OF PRESIDENT JAMES KNOX POLK ....... MY QUEST FORTHE TRUTH By Bill Polk Kansas City, MO. Who are the parents of William Polk who married Margaret Taylor, thesaid William Polk the progenitor of the Mecklenburg Polks and thegreatgrandfather of President James K. Polk? All Polk genealogies state the basic same lineage: William Polk whom. Margaret Taylor, was the son of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens,and William Polk (Sr.) was the son of Robert (often shown as RobertBruce Polk)/Magdalen Tasker Porter. William Polk and Margaret (Taylor) Polk were my 5thgreatgrandparents,so I had a deep interest in this Polk line. This is the line ofPresident James K. Polk and I was (and am) proud to be related to apresident of the United States. My Polk family ancestral line is:William and Margaret's son John Polk; his son Benjamin Polk (Sr.);his son Benjamin Polk (Jr.); his son James Franklin Polk; his sonBenjamin Franklin Polk; his son Bill Polk (the writer of thisarticle). I have driven thousands of miles to many states and spentcountless hours over the last 19 years researching in court houses,archives, libraries, and on the Internet trying to find an answer tothe above question. Sadly, I have not found an answer. I still donot know the ancestry of William Polk. I cannot accept as correctwhat has been published as my Polk ancestral line before William Polk.The reasons for my non-acceptance of published information aredetailed in this writing. I will begin at the beginning. I started my genealogical research the summer of 1986. I knewextremely little about my Polk family; about all I knew was that mypaternal grandfather's name was James "Jim" Polk and that he, in thewords of some family members, was from "down around Dallas" and thathe lived and died in Foard Co., TX. Within a couple of years afterbeginning my Polk ancestry quest, and after having traced my Polksback to Arkansas in the 1830s, I ran into the brick wall all familyresearchers hit eventually. I could not find anything indicating whothe parents of Taylor Polk, my third greatgrandfather, were. Notfinding anything on my own line, and being very interested in allPolks by this time, I decided that I would work on Polks all over theUnited States, with my goal being to document all Polk lines inAmerica through the current census (whatever that census might be atthe time I finished my work), and I also hoped I might run acrosssomething on my own Polk family line. I was beginning this broad workon the Polks when my wife and I went on a trip to Tennessee in thelate 1980s and visited the Samuel Polk House in Columbia, TN. In thegift shop there I found a little red book, the 1984 reprint of "ThePolks of North Carolina and Tennessee," 1923-1924, by Emma Angellotti.I thought I had died and gone to genealogical heaven! I must havestartled the lady standing next to me in the gift shop with my loudexclamation when I saw the name Taylor Polk in Angellotti's book.There, in print, was not only Taylor Polk, but his father and all myancestors back to a Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker Porter in SomersetCo., MD. I thought I was done with my own line (since it was there inblack and white) and did not work all that much on it for quite sometime. Over the next several years, we travelled a lot to variousstates, doing research; I accumulated much Polk information,including various Polk genealogies, secondary type information, andmany documents on various Polk lines. These genealogies includedWilliam Harrison Polk's 1912, "Polk Family and Kinsmen," and MaryWinder Garrett's series of articles published in the late 1890s.Basically, these genealogies stated the same lineage for William Polk(who m. Margaret Taylor, hereinafter shown as William Polk/MT), allstarting with Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker Porter of Somerset Co., MD. Ms. Garrett had the lineage to William Polk/MT going through Robertand Magdalen's son John rather than through their son William Polk, asthe other two works did, and she took the family back to Ireland andto Scotland, as did William Harrison Polk. WHP used Ms. Garrett's work on the Irish and Scottish Polloks/Pollockswith few additions or changes (that I could see). Every source Ifound pointed in the same direction, to Robert and Magdalen TaskerPorter of Somerset Co., MD., so I felt comfortable with not provingthe lineage that I had found in "The Polks of North Carolina andTennessee" so many years before in Columbia, TN. After all, Ithought, all these old genealogies basically stated the samething..... how could all of them be wrong? But, by this time, I hadyears of research experience under my belt; I knew the basic rule ofgenealogy, that one must prove the lineage with proper evidence andnot accept as fact, undocumented genealogies. So, I started down thelaborious path to finding evidence to support my Polk line back fromTaylor Polk to William and Margaret Taylor and beyond. Eventually, Iwas satisfied for the most part that my Polk family ancestry wasfairly well documented/proven back to William Polk/MT. Then I started working on the ancestry of William Polk/MT. I hadalready accumulated much evidence over the years on the MarylandPolks, but was unable to find anything to substantiate the father/sonrelationship between William Polk/MT and William Polk/Nancy (Knox)Owens, his parents as provided in virtually everything I had everfound on this Polk family. After some years of work, and findingnothing to substantiate the Polk lineage going back to RobertPolk/Magdalen Tasker Porter, and wishing to take a break from thePolks in America, I decided to try my hand at proving the Polk linein Ireland and in Scotland, thinking I could, perhaps, come in theback door, so to speak, and find something which might connect WilliamPolk/MT to the Somerset/Dorchester Polks. I worked on this and letall other research go (for the most part) for a couple of years. I wasable to fairly well substantiate the Pollock lines in Scotland, butfound no linkage to these Scottish Pollocks to our supposed Pollocksin Ireland. The data for Ireland is very scarce, but a few itemssurfaced, enough to cause me to think that the part of the Polkgenealogy/history about Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker Porter being inNorthern Ireland and eventually coming to America probably had somemerit, thus giving me renewed hope that my line back to RobertPolk/Magdalen Tasker Porter still might be the correct lineage. Butin all this research of the Irish and Scottish Polloks/Pollocks, Ifound nothing to document the supposed connection of William Polk/MTto the Polks of Somerset/Dorchester counties, MD. I once again turnedmy efforts to work specifically on the Maryland Polks, finding evenmore information to add to my accumulation on the various family linesstemming from Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker Porter. I found evidence toprove that Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker Porter did have a son namedWilliam Polk and this son did marry one Nancy (Knox) Owens. Not onebit of evidence surfaced, however, to indicate that William Polk/Nancy(Knox) Owens had sons William Polk and/or Charles Polke (the IndianTrader). Several years passed and to this day, I continue to work onall Polk lines, accumulating data, and I am still trying to find theparents of William Polk/MT. After all the years of research had yielded no fruit and all the hopeI had that the genealogies and secondary evidence were correct hadslowly faded, I finally decided that I had enough information/evidence to make a case that the genealogies might be incorrect as towho the ancestors of William Polk/MT were. The genealogies "The Polksof North Carolina and Tennessee," 1923-1924, Emma Angellotti; "PolkFamily and Kinsmen" 1912, William Harrison Polk; and virtually everyother writing one can find on the Polks of Mecklenburg Co., NC. allstate the same lineage, but I have doubts. Why do I have the doubts Ido? Mainly because the lineage is not proven with documents andevidence has surfaced which points to a possibly different scenariothan the one from the Polk genealogies. While this evidence does notconclusively rule out that William Polk/MT and Charles Polke are notthe sons of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens, it certainly is strongenough to cause one to give much thought to the idea that thegenealogies are wrong. Here are several points that I think anyoneshould consider before accepting the currently published ancestry ofWilliam Polk/MT as fact. 1. None of the Polk genealogies is sourced (with footnotes and/orendnotes) as to how the father/ son relationship between WilliamPolk/MT and William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens was established and/orproven. Any source information is given in only broad, general terms. 2. Angellott's work "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee" haserrors in the first generation or two, some of these errors strongenough to cause one to doubt the veracity of the early Polk ancestry.See discussion of some of these errors below. 3. The passage of time has ensured that the two above-mentionedundocumented genealogies have become "bibles" of the Polks. Familyresearchers and professionals alike have used these works as thegospel of the Polk genealogy, often citing one or both of these worksas the source for the early generations of William Polk/MT. Rule tofollow: Just because a work is old does not make it accurate; if itwas not correct when it was written, time does not change that. 4. There is evidence pointing away from what previous works show asthe ancestry of William Polk/MT. See below. Below (under DETAILED ANALYSIS), I show the reasons I doubt thefather/son relationship between William Polk/MT and William Polk/Nancy(Knox) Owens. But first, let's examine some of the informationavailable in the way of genealogies and other printedmaterial/secondary evidence for the ancestry of William Polk/MT. (1) A Genealogical Tree of The Polk Family, 1849, GenealogicalSociety of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt LakeCity, UT. The wrong William is shown in this tree as the progenitorof the Southern Polk Family. This source has the lineage as RobertBruce Polk, his son John Polk, John's son William Polk. Subsequentresearch by Mr. Earle B. Polk of Princess Anne, Somerset Co., MD., inthe early 1900s, revealed that William Polk, son of John Polk, son ofRobert Bruce Polk was not the William Polk who m. Margaret Taylor, buta different William Polk, said William Polk marrying PriscillaRoberts. The correction of which William Polk was the husband ofMargaret Taylor was shown in "Polk Family and Kinsmen," 1912, WilliamHarrison Polk (see details below). However, in making the correction,William H. Polk inserted a William Polk, son of William Polk, son ofRobert Bruce? Polk, and no such William Polk has been found to exist(by me, at least). No sources were provided for the information inthe tree, but that is not unusual for tree type genealogy information. (2) "Pedigree of the Pollok or Polk Family From Fulbert the Saxon (A.D. 1075) to the Present Time," The American Historical Magazine,TheUniversity Press, 208 N. College St., Nashville, TN. April 1896issue begins the series and concludes with Vol. 4, 1899: Vol. II, No.4, Oct. 1897, pg. 382, by Miss Mary Winder Garrett of Williamsburg,VA., shows the following: "John Polk or Pollok, eldest son of Robert Bruce Polk or Pollok, and Magdaline his wife, was the progenitor ofthe North Carolina and Tennessee branch of the Polk family. He wastwice married, first wife Joanna Knox; second Jugga Hugg. By hisfirst marriage with Joanna Knox, he had two children, William, theelder, and Nancy, the younger......... William Polk, only son of JohnPolk, married twice -- first wife Priscilla Roberts; second wifeMargaret Taylor." Ms. Garrett, using the information in the 1849 tree as a base(assumption on my part) managed to thoroughly mix up the lines of thetwo William Polks, even going so far as to show a second marriage forthe William Polk (who was the incorrect one, that is, the one used inthe 1849 tree) to Margaret Taylor, with several children being issueof the marriage. Where Ms. Garrett got the wife (of John Polk) JuggaHugg is unknown to me, but this name appears to be a misunderstandingof Joanna coupled with the surname of Hugg, whom Joanna Polk marriedafter John Polk (son of Robert/Magdalen) died. I note that Ms.Garrett does not mention a brother of William Polk (Charles Polke, theIndian Trader) anywhere in her information. Of course, this may bebecause she had the William Polks scrambled. But she did have theinformation that William Polk married Margaret Taylor, and if thatWilliam Polk were the brother of Charles Polk, the Indian Trader, asindicated by the later genealogy ("Polk Family and Kinsmen") ofWilliam Harrison Polk, one would think that Ms. Garrett would haveknown about this brother (again, she was dealing with the wrongWilliam Polk, that is, son of John Polk, not the William Polk who m.Margaret Taylor, so this omission may mean little as far asdetermining if William Polk (who m. Margaret Taylor) were really thebrother of Charles Polke, the Indian Trader ). No sources are givenin this publication except in general terms and even those generalsources were rarely used in Ms. Garrett's work. (3) "Polk Family and Kinsmen," 1912, by William Harrison Polk, offersno proof of the relationship between William Polk (I) and William Polk(II). W. H. Polk points out that the William Polk, son of John Polk,son of Robert Polk the immigrant, who was originally thought to be theancestor of the Polks of Mecklenburg Co., NC., was subsequently provennot to be that ancestor (PF&K, pg. 207). W. H. Polk states on pg.207: "The long held traditionary statement that the William Polk whomoved from Carlisle to North Carolina was a son of John Polk andPriscilla Roberts, has been irrefutably proven to be incorrect byexhaustive examinations of the official records of Maryland, Delaware,Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina. John Polk, eldest son ofRobert and Magdalen, reputed progenitor of the Southern Polks, marriedJane ----- as shown by the old Monie church records in SomersetCounty, and she was the mother of his two surviving children, Williamand Nancy...... William, son of John and Jan, grew to manhood,married Priscilla Roberts, his cousin, and died in Maryland in 1726,his widow later marrying Robert Clarkson. These statements aresupported by official records, and they entirely dissipate the longheld tradition that the William who married priscilla Roberts was theprogenitor of the Southern Polks, as stated on the Polk 'Tree'published in 1849." After detailing how the wrong William Polk wasused in the tree, William Polk then creates a scenario where theremust be a William Polk (II) (who married Margaret Taylor), saidWilliam (II) the son of William Polk (I) and brother of Charles Polke,the Indian Trader, without citing any proof or any mention whatsoeverof documentation for such a relationship (I have reviewed "Polk Familyand Kinsmen" thoroughly and cannot find the basis for W. H. Polk'slineage of William Polk (II), back to William Polk (I), then RobertBruce Polk). Wm. H. Polk may have looked at the genealogy andinformation of Mary Winder Garrett, and seeing that the William Polkshe thought was the one who married Margaret Taylor (as a second wife)was not the correct William Polk (now proven to be the wrong WilliamPolk), decided (on what basis I have no idea) that there had to be aWilliam Polk who married Margaret Taylor and that such a William Polkmust be connected to William Polk (I) of Maryland, and to CharlesPolke, the Indian Trader. It appears William H. Polk gave littlethought to the idea that the William Polk who married Margaret Taylormay have come from Ireland with the mass of Irish who came to Americain the 1720s-1730s. The only mention of proof about the father/sonrelationship between William Polk and William Polk/MT is on page 34 of"Polk Family and Kinsmen." WHP states: "The weight of evidenceindicates that the William Polk who married Margaret Taylor, was a sonof Wm. Polk, Sr., second son of the immigrants, Capt. Robert Bruce andMagdalen Polk [BILL POLK ADDITION: This evidence that Wm. HarrisonPolk refers to escapes me. WHP carefully explains on pp. 33-34 theerror of the wrong William Polk being used in the 1849 Polk tree, butthen simply fills in another William Polk (the William Polk whomarried Margaret Taylor) without providing any basis for thisinsertion]. It is said that Wm. Polk Sr., was twice married first toNancy (Knox) Owens, and second to a widow Grey, who had a son AllenGrey. Both wives died before Wm. Sr. executed his will in Jan.1739-40, as in that he mentions the 'decease of my wife,' and makes abequest to Allen Grey, a member of his family, who was inferentially,his stepson." No sources were specifically cited in "Polk Family and Kinsmen" otherthan what is shown in the actual text information throughout the work. (4) "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee," Emma Angellotti,originally published by the New England Historical and GenealogicalSoc., 1923-1924; republished for the James K. Polk MemorialAssociation, Columbia, TN., 1984, by Southern Historical Press,Easley, SC., pg. 4: "William3Polk (William2, Robert1), born inMaryland, probably at "White Hall," his father's home, about 1700,died in North Carolina, "west of the Yadkin," about 1753. He married MargaretTaylor, who survived him. Apparently he and his brother Charles lefthome after his father married for the second time, and William settledin the vicinity of what is now Carlisle, Pa., a region then a part ofthe frontier. Later he and his family moved to Mecklenburg Co., N.C." Emma Angellotti made no effort to provide the ancient Polkancestry in her genealogy. She appears to have followed the lead ofprevious writers and accepted the Robert Polk, William Polk, WilliamPolk lineage. She explains away the lack of documentation for afather/son relationship between William Polk (I) and his son CharlesPolke and Charles' brother William Polk (II), by the following: "His[referring to William I, son of Robert Polk] older sons are notmentioned in his will, but they probably received their shares in hisproperty and left home after their father's second marriage." It was not all that unusual for children who hadpreviously received their shares to not be mentioned in a will;however, it is somewhat convenient in this case, since no otherevidence has been found to support a father-son connection betweenWilliam I and William II and William I and Charles Polke, the IndianTrader. No sources were provided in this work except in thebroadest, general terms. See below for discussion of some of theerrors in Angellott's work. The above three genealogies and the 1849 Polk Tree might be thought ofas the base or framework of the Polk family genealogy. Most family(and professional, too) researchers of the Polk families eventuallyfind these sources and cite one or more of them in their own work.Ms. Garrett's work is very difficult to find. The 1849 Tree has beencopied by various entities over the years and is available throughLDS. The other two genealogies are around in various libraries, but Iknow "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee," is out of print. The original "Polk Familyand Kinsmen," of 1912, is obviously out of print, and can be difficultto locate, also. A reprint of PF&K was done in 1993 by Ed and WillaVoyles, and this reprint contains an index, making this very large andcumbersome work much easier to use. There are other important secondary works which provide abundantinformation on the Polk family: (5) Charles A. Hanna, "The Scotch-Irish" Vol. II, GenealogicalPublishing Co., 1902 (original printing), reprints 1968, 1985, 1995,ISBN 0-8063-1134-7, Appendix N, Notes on the Genealogies of thePresidents, pg. 187, re President James Knox Polk, shows thefollowing: "James Knox Polk, born in Mecklenburg county, NorthCarolina, November 2, 1795, was the son of Samuel (1771-1827) andJane-Knox (1773-1848); daughter of James Knox, of Iredell county, N.C.] Polk; grandson of Ezekiel (b. about 1737) and Mary - Wilson [daughter of Samuel Wilson] Polk; andgreat-grandson of William (1701-1769) and Nancy Knox Pollock. WilliamPollock (the original form of the name 'Polk') was the son of RobertPollock, (d. 1727) and Margaret Pollock; and grandson of Robert (d.1703) and Magdalene Tasker Pollock, who emigrated with their familyfrom County Londonderry, Ireland, to Somerset county, Md., about 1690.William Pollock removed from Dorchester county, Md., to Hopewelltownship, Cumberland county, Pa., about 1738, and thence, a few yearslater, to Mecklenburg county, N. C." Charles Hanna appears to havemingled some of the ancestors of President Polk, in that he states thegreatgrandparents of the President were William and Nancy KnoxPollock. This is not so, the greatgrandparents of the President wereWilliam Polk and Margaret Taylor. Hanna then seems to be saying thatthe same William Pollock (who was the greatgrandfather of PresidentPolk) was the son of Robert Pollock who d. 1727, and Margaret Pollock, and that RobertPollock was the son of Robert and Magdalen Tasker Pollock. WhereHanna got this latter information is unknown to me. Robert Polk, Jr.,of Dorchester Co., MD., did die about 1727, but his wife's name wasGrace Gullette, not Margaret. William Polk/MT may have been the sonof a Robert Pollock and wife Margaret, and perhaps that is the missingpiece of the puzzle of who the parents of William Polk/MT were.However, given the convoluted ancestry shown above, I tend to viewthis information with scepticism. If Robert Pollock and wife Margaretwere the parents of William Polk/MT, any connection of said RobertPollock to the Polks of Somerset Co., MD., and to Robert Polk/MagdalenTasker Porter Polk is unknown to me. I tend to think that if Robertand Margaret Pollock were William Polk's parents, then this couplecame from Ireland directly with their son William Polk/MT (and otherchildren ?), perhaps landing in New Castle, DE. This scenario may tiethem into the other Polks who were in Cecil Co., MD., in the early1700s. I find it interesting that Hanna shows William Pollockarriving in 1738 in Hopewell Township, PA., as that is where therewere some Pollocks/Poalks in the mid to later 1700s, specifically oneJames Pollock and wife Margaret (her surname perhaps Lawry) who werethe parents of Capt. Robert Polk (who married Elizabeth Digby Peale),and Capt. William Polk of Accomac Co., VA., said William Polk who Wm.Harrison Polk, in his "Polk Family and Kinsmen" was unable to placewith his (William Polk of Accomac Co.) ancestral line. W. H. Polk, inhis PF&K, also had the lineage of the aforementioned Capt. RobertPolk as (father) Robert Polk III, then (grandfather) Robert Polk,Jr., then (greatgrandparents) Robert Polk/ Magdalen Tasker, which isan incorrect lineage. William Harrison Polk thoroughly mixed up someof the Robert Polk lines in Maryland, but that is another situationfor another time. (6) "The Surnames of Scotland, Their Origin, Meaning and History," byGeorge F. Black, Ph.D., 1946, shows on page 669 (under heading of"POLLOCK, POLLOK), (my IRN P-26) the following: "The name has becomePolk in the United States, the eleventh president of which was JamesKnox Polk, a great-great-grandson of Robert Polk or Pollok whoemigrated from Ayrshire to the American colonies. The place name onPont's map of Renfrewhire is spelled Pook, and that is thepronunciation in common speech." As I interpret this information, itis stating that Robert Polk came directly from Ayrshire, Scotland, toAmerica. Also, this source does not use the lineage of James K. Polkas provided in various publications, that lineage being Robert Polk ofMaryland, William I, William II, Ezekiel, Samuel, James K. Polk. Thelineage presented by Black would have skipped one of the generationsas given in the above mentioned genealogies, thus, the Black lineagewould be Robert, William, Ezekiel, Samuel, James K. Polk. Black'slineage is not without merit if one considers that the lineage asshown in various Polk genealogies, that is, William Polk/MT, thenWilliam Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens, then Robert Polk /Magdalen TaskerPorter, is not supported by any documentary evidence. Also, Black'slineage supports Hanna's, if my interpretation of what Hanna (above)states is correct, that is, that the parents of William Polk/MT areRobert Pollock(Polk)/Margaret. But again, Hanna seems to be minglinglines, so I do not give much weight to what he states above, making acomparison of Hanna's info with Black's info somewhat moot (7) Burke's Peerage, Burke's Presidential Families of the UnitedStates, (Burke's Peerage Limited, 1975, London; distributed inAmerica by Arco Publishing Co., Inc., NY, NY.), pg. 243, shows thefollowing: "The first three generations of this lineage are in fact unproven, butappear highly probable." "SIR JOHN POLLOK, of Renfrewshire, Scotland, m Janet Mure, and was kat the Battle of Lecherbie 1593, leaving issue, [BILL POLK ADDITION:Actually, this source has the wrong Sir John Pollok. It was the sonof this Sir John Pollok who was killed in 1593 at Lecherbie, and itwas the son who married Janet Mure, and was the father of a RobertPollok. But I have found no evidence that the son Robert Pollok wentto Ireland or was the Sir Robert Pollock I that Mary Winder Garrettstated had estates in Ireland] ROBERT POLLOK, who received a grant of lands in Coleraine, co Derry,Ireland 1605/8, m, and had issue, ROBERT P0LLOK, of Coleraine, aCovenanter, b. ca 1595/8, m, and d ca 1640, leaving issue, ROBERT POLLOK (or POLKE), served as a Capt in Col Porter's Regtagainst King Charles I, later emigrated to Maryland and was grantedland knowns as 'Polke's Lott' and "Polke's Folly' by Lord Baltimore 7March 1687, m Magdalen (will dated 7 April 1726), widow of ----Porter, and dau of ----- Tasker, of Moneen, nr Strabane, co Tyrone,Ireland, and d in Somerset County, Maryland (will pr 5 June 1704),leaving, with other issue, WILLIAM POLK, of White Hall, Maryland, b probably in co Donegal ca1664, m 1st, Nancy, widow of ---- Owen, and dau of ---- Knox; and 2nd,---- Gray, widow, and d (will pr 24 Feb 1739), leaving issue, WILLIAM POLK, Jr, settled first in Hopewell Township, CumberlandCounty, Pennsylvania, then 'west of the Yadkin River' in N Carolina, bat White Hall ca 1700, m ca 1730, Margaret Taylor (who survived him),and d in N Carolina ca 1753, leaving with other issue, COLONEL EZEKIEL POLK, served in the Revolutionary War, later acquiredlarge tracts of land in Tennessee Territory, N Carolina, b inCumberland County, Pennsylvania 7 Dec 1747, m 1st ca 1769, Mary (d1791), bur Polk Cemetery, nr Pineville, N Carolina), dau of SamuelWilson, of Mecklenburg County, N Carolina, by his wife Mary Winslow,and had issue. He m 2ndly in N Carolina ca 1791, Bessie Davis; and 3rdly in Maury County, Tennessee ca 1812, Sophia, widow of---- Leonard, and dau of ----- Neely, and d at Bolivar, Tennessee 31Aug 1824. His son by his 1st marriage, SAMUEL POLK, settled in Maury County, Tennessee 1806, served as aMajor in the War of 1812, b. probably in Tryon county, N Carolina 5July 1772, m at Hopewell Church, Mecklenburg County, N Carolina 25 Dec1794, Jane (b probably in Iredell County, N Carolina 13 Nov 1776; d atColumbia, Maury County, Tennessee 11 Jan 1852, bur Greenwood Cemetery,Columbia), dau of Capt. James Knox, of Iredell County, N Carolina (whoserved in the Revolutionary War), by his wife Lydia Gillispie, and dat Columbia, Maury County, Tennessee 5 Nov 1827 (bur GreenwoodCemetery), leaving, with other issue (see Brothers and Sisters orfPresident Polk, p 244), an eldest son, JAMES KNOX POLK, 11th President of the United States of America" (8) "Papers of Archibald DeBow Murphy," 1914, Vol. 2, has, beginningon pg. 400 and ending on page 410, an "Autobiography of ColonelWilliam Polk," which is from William Polk's manuscript in the Libraryof Congress. This writing begins with the following: "William Polkis a descendant of a family who emigrated from Ireland about the year1722 and settled on the Eastern Shore of Maryland [BILL POLK ADDITION: Note that this is basically the same information as givenin the Ewing letter; see below. Also note that this informationcontradicts the information that then Mecklenburg Polks were from theSomerset Polks. This William Polk was the son of Thomas Polk andgrandson of William Polk/Margaret Taylor. I consider what he saidquite reliable]; where they resided untill about the year 1740 whenthey removed into the State of Pennsylvania and in the neighbourhoodof Carlisle. Thomas the third son of William and Margaret, a youngman of great athletickness, of much energy of both mind and body;could not bear the dull persuit of a Pennsylvania farmer, especiallyin a section where nothing was presented which promised to better hissituation; left his parents about the year 1753 to seek his fortune ina country that furnished greater scope to his active mind. In companywith several young men, he traversed the country bordering on the Eastof the Blue ridge crossing the Dan and Yadkin untill he fell in uponSugau or Sugar creek a branch of the Catawba River; in theneighbourhood of which there were a few settlements. Here he made apermanent location of himself." According to the above, the Polk family arrived in Maryland about 1722from Ireland. This resonates with the Ewing letter of 1844 (seebelow), and also, somewhat with Black in that Black states (above)that the ancestor of William Polk, that is, Robert Polk, came directlyto this country from Scotland (not Ireland; difference noted). SinceBlack shows the father of William Polk (that is, Robert Polk) camedirectly from Scotland, it can be assumed that William Polk did nothave a line of descent in this country from Polks already establishedhere (as the Somerset Co., MD., Polks were). In other words, thesethree sources basically state the same thing, that there is not aconnection of the Polks of the line of President Polk to anestablished Polk line in America. I wonder if the information abouthis ancestors was provided to William Polk by his father Thomas Polk(William Polk states no source of his information; I assume it wasfrom first-hand knowledge or what his father told him about thefamily). This autobiography of William Polk is the oldest publishedfamily information of which I am aware about the ancestry of the Polksof Mecklenburg. This autobiography had to have been written beforeJanuary 14, 1834, when Colonel William Polk died in Raleigh, NC. Assuch, it perhaps has more credibility than other versions. Obviously,credibility is added to the account by the fact that this William Polkwas the grand-son of William Polk/Margaret Taylor, and apparently(from PF&K information) was quite interested in the Polk familyancestry. Note that the writing does not mention Somerset Co., MD.,at all; it states that the family arrived on the eastern shore ofMaryland. Could this mean the port of Baltimore or New Castle, DE.,and/or the area around Cecil Co., MD. (see the Ewing Letterinformation below)? In other genealo-gies such as "Polk Family andKinsmen" and Mary Winder Garrett's articles, "Eastern Shore" appearsto have referred to the area around Somerset Co., MD. The"Autobiography of Colonel William Polk" referred to above is said byCharles Grier Sellers, Jr., Professor of History at Princeton, andauthor of a 1953 article in the William and Mary College Quarterly(3rd Series, Vol. I, No. 1, January 1953) to be "The most reliableaccount of the early years of the Polk family in America....." There are a couple of more recent major genealogies on the Polk familythat I must mention here: (9) "Pogue/Pollock/Polk Genealogy as Mirrored In History" by LloydWelch Pogue, Gateway Press Inc., 1990. In this very lengthy work, Mr.Pogue endeavors to prove his Pollock ancestry from ancient Scotlandvia Ireland and on to America. There is much good information inthis genealogy, but nothing new on the Mecklenburg Polks. Basically what is included on the Mecklenburg Polks is the sameinformation as given in the old Polk genealogies. (10) The latest major book on the Polks (as of January 2000),"Polk's Folly," by William Roe Polk, Doubleday, 2000, provides thesame basic ancestry of the family as given in the previous Polkgenealogies, with one notable exception. This exception (or change tothe ancient Polk genealogy) is reflected in the chart at the beginningof the book, showing descendancy of the Polks from the Maxwells,rather than from the de Polloks. This chart changes the ancientancestry of the Polks, which has been accepted, more or less, sincethe early 1700s, and no documentation is given for this major difference in ancestry. While the Polloks and Maxwells did intermarryin ancient times, and Maxwell is a direct line female (female Maxwellmarried direct line Pollock) lineage of the Polloks/Pollocks ofScotland, there is no evidence in the peerage books and other reliablesources about ancient Scottish families (that I have found), whichreflects a descendancy of the Polks from the Maxwells rather than thePollok/Pollock family. Specifically, regarding the ancestry of theWilliam Polk who married Margaret Taylor, on pg. 78 of "Polk's Folly,"there is shown what would be good evidence of a relationship betweenWilliam Polk, son of Robert Bruce? Polk, and William Polk (who marriedMargaret Taylor). On that page, information is given about aconveyance of approximately 500 acres in 1723 from William Polk I tohis son William. The problem is that no such land transaction hasbeen found in the Maryland records (which are quite complete and havebeen searched thoroughly). No source citation is provided for thisinformation, which is unfortunate, because such a record might be theonly evidence of a father/son relationship between the two WilliamPolks (no such record of any type for this land conveyance has beenfound in Maryland records). There are many other works which include information on the Polkfamily/families. The many I have read and studied offer nothing moreon the central question and Polk history than those publications Ilist above. And not one of the genealogies I have studied nor anysecondary source I have found cites any or refers to any documentaryproof or any citation of a record of the father/son relationship thatsupposedly existed between the William Polk who m. Margaret Taylor andWilliam Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens. DETAILED ANALYSIS (1) As I mentioned earlier in this writing, "The Polks of NorthCarolina and Tennessee" has some basic errors in the early ancestry ofthe Polks. I firmly believe that Ms. Angellotti did little researchon these earlier generations and copied much of what she included inher work (on the early generations of Polks) from "Polk Family andKinsmen." Since Angellotti's work is most often cited as the basisfor the father/son relationship between William Polk/MT and WilliamPolk/Nancy (Knox) Owens, this genealogy deserves special scrutiny. Iwish to state at this point that for the most part, I have found EmmaAngellotti's genealogy to be accurate; it is the ancestry of WilliamPolk/MT that I believe is doubtful and which is of my most concern. Angellotti shows that William Polk, son of Robert Polk/Magdalen TaskerPorter, first married Nancy (Knox) Owens and secondly, --------Gray. Angellotti then states that the family lived at the old familyhome "White Hall." She goes on to state that the two "older sons"probably received their shares in his property and left home aftertheir father's second marriage. She shows the children of the firstmarriage as: Elizabeth, b. about 1695; William b. c1700; Charles, b. probably in1703. The children of the second marriage are shown: James, b. 17May 1719; David, b. in 1721; Jane, b. in 1723. First, one must understand that Nancy (Knox) Owens was a widow of JohnOwens, who d. in May 1697/98 (double dating), this proven by his will.So, William Polk, son of Robert Polk.Magdalen Tasker Porter did notmarry her until after this date, so none of the children of WilliamPolk/Nancy (Knox) Owens could have been born until at least sometimein 1699/1700 (double dating). This fact destroys Angellotti'scontention about Elizabeth being b. in 1695. Nancy (Knox) Owens couldnot have been her mother if Elizabeth Polk were b. in 1695. Elizabeth m. John Williamson 10 April 1733, and I believe this marriage (I have found noevidence of any other marriage for Elizabeth Polk other than themarriage to John Williams) shows she was likely a younger child,rather than the oldest child, of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens. Mybelief is that she was a child of this couple and not as old asAngellotti shows. William Polk's birth, c1700, creates somewhat of aproblem (in the acceptance of Angellott's information being correct)when compared with the birth of James Polk, supposedly the first childof the second marriage to ---------- Gray. I have never found anydocumentary evidence of when William Polk/MT was born. James Polk,son of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens was defininitely not born on17 May 1719. Where Angellotti got this birthdate for James Polk (andfor the dates she shows for siblings David (b. 1721) and Jane Polk (b.1723), is unknown to me). James Polk was b. 6 Jan 1699/00 (doubledating) according to Somerset Parish Records, by R. Barnes, MDHistorical Magazine, Vol. 69, p.196. I cannot attest to the accuracyof this secondary source. However, there is primary evidence of arange date of birth for James of 1701-1702. This range of birth forJames can be established by a deposition in Somerset [MD.] JudicialRecords, 1757-1760, Accession: 9190, MSA C 1774-44, Loc. 1/48/3/18, 6, March Court, 1757, such deposition involving landcalled "Bare Ridge" and such deposition where David Polk, age 51 ortherabouts, provides information about his (David Polk's) survey ofproperty lines. This age of 51 in 1757, establishes that David Polkwas born c1705-1706. Later on in the deposition, James Polk, age 55,is mentioned. This age of 55 in 1757, established that James Polk wasb. c1701-1702. Another primary source for James and David Polk's ageis the Somerset Co., MD., tax records. Both David and James Polkfirst show up in these records in 1723 in the HH of William Polk (1723being the earliest tax records extant for Somerset Co., Md.). Since young males became tithables at age 16, one can assume that bothJames Polk and David Polk were born at least by 1706-1707, probablyearlier (considering the depositions). The tax records support thedepositions, and since the tax records are less exact at a point intime than the depositions, I think the depositions have more weight ofevidence, therefore I conclude that James Polk was likely born1701-1702 and his brother David was b. 1705-1706. I am not sure whensister Jane was b., but I strongly believe her birth must haveoccurred somewhere near to the births of James and David. Her marriageto James (or possibly William, I am not sure of given name)Strawbridge appears to have occurred around 1719, so assuming she wasat least 16 at marriage, her birth would have occurred c1702-1703.Since James Polk appears from evidence to claim the eldest child spot,Jane would fit between James and David Polk in the birth order.Elizabeth Polk, I believe, was the youngest child, not the oldest asAngellotti states, and was probably b. c1710. She married 20 April1733, Somerset Co., MD., to John Williams. Assuming at least age 16at marriage, she was b. at last by 1716-1717, and given the birthdatesof James and David, probably earlier. So, where do William Polk and Charles Polke fit into the family ofWilliam Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens? If they were older sons asAngellotti states, then they had to have been born before 1699-1700.The only way that these two supposed sons of William Polk could havebeen sons of William Polk would be if William Polk had an earliermarriage than his marriage to Nancy (Knox) Owens. This very scenariois suggested by William Harrison Polk and other Polk researchers incorrespondence (see below). However, there is absolutely no evidence,secondary or primary, that I have seen, which even indicates thatWilliam Polk had a marriage before his marriage to Nancy (Knox) Owens.William Polk was b. 1672-1673 (Deposition of William Polk, SomersetCo., MD., 1739, Maryland Hall of Records, Somerset County JudicialRecords, 1738-1740, folio 202, Accession #9181, "November Court........ 1739, pg. 203........"The deposition of William polk agedabout sixty six years being sworn upon the hold evangelist of almightGod....."). This birth range makes it entirely possible that WilliamPolk could have had a first marriage (but less likely so than had hebeen older, as suggested by William Harrison Polk and otherresearchers working with him) before the marriage to Nancy (Knox)Owens, but, as I stated previously, there is no evidence of such amarriage. Could William Polk and Charles Polke fit in between birthsof the other children of William and Nancy? No, not possible, if thetax records are to be believed. If these two were younger sons(younger than James, or possibly even younger than David) , then theyshould both show up in the tax records as do James and David; they donot show in these records. The above items show that Angellotti had some accuracy problems. Hereare a few other "facts" she had wrong. She mentions that William Polk raised his family at "the old familyhome, 'White Hall." This is absolutely false. "White Hall did notcome into existence until the later 1790s (8 Nov 1795, to bespecific) and was a consolidation of several properties by WilliamPolk, son of David Polk, son of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens.Angellotti and other writers have badly mixed up the generations ofthe Polk family history concerning the estate called "White Hall." The William Polk who owned"White Hall" was William Polk, b. 11 Dec 1752, d. cDec 1812, and whom. Esther Winder Handy. There was no such estate in the time of Robert Polk and MagdalenTasker Porter Polk. This couple lived in what is now the Deal IslandWildlife Sanctuary in Somerset Co., MD., and they did not have a fancyhome/estate like "White Hall." The second marriage of William Polk to a ----------- Gray. Inferringthat Allen Gray (from William Polk's 1739/1740 will where Allen Greywas left some livestock) was a member of William's family, and astepson, and from that to William's having a second wife named Graystretches the genealogical evidence rules to the breaking point.Such stretching might be excused if such second marrriage wereinserted into the work as a theory and if children were not attachedto this second wife (James, David, Jane) ------- - Gray, as if such amarriage and children of such marriage were fact. It is just thissort of genealogical carelessness which has led later researchers tobelieve that Angellotti's work was correct (because she provided nosources and did not explain how she came to the conclusions she did,later researchers appear to have not closely examined her "facts").It may be that this second marriage to a ----- Gray is true, but Ifirmly believe there would be more evidence needed to supportWilliam's having a second wife after Nancy (Knox) Owens died. AllenGray could have been a valued friend or even an apprentice instead ofa stepson. I know of no evidence to show that William Polk married a widow Gray after the death of his wife Nancy (Knox) OwensPolk. I have no information as to when Nancy (Knox) Owens Polk died.It is certain that William Polk was married as of 1708, since courtrecords show he was applying in that year to become guardian of thechildren of his brother John. But who that wife mentioned in therecord is not known to me. This possible marriage to a ---------Gray is one of the many items I think Angellotti borrowed from WilliamHarrison Polk, as he stated basically the same scenario in his "PolkFamily and Kinsmen," also without evidence other than the will ofWilliam Polk. One other item in which Angellotti was wrong has nothing to do withthe father/son question of William Polk/MT and William Polk/Nancy(Knox) Owens, but I offer it here simply to illustrate how she hadsome major "facts" wrong about the Polks. In her work on Capt. JohnPolk, son of William Polk/Margaret Taylor (who, by the way, is my owndirect line ancestor), Angellotti shows much military service forCapt. John Polk and states he died ".... probably early in 1785, as on9 Sept. of that year the Assembly of North Carolina issued LandWarrant No. 2149 'to the heirs of John Polk'...." This death in"early in 1785" was totally wrong for Capt. John Polk, and consideringthat this John Polk was Emma Angellotti's direct line ancestor, reallycaused me to question some of her work (to question earliergenerations, not so much the later generations). John Polk did notdie in 1785, he lived until 1803, dying in York Dist. (county) in 1803(proven by his will, York Co., SC.). The John Polk who died in 1785is an unknown Polk. I have researched him for as long as I haveresearched Polks and still am not able to place him with any knownPolk line. The heir of this John Polk who d. in 1785 was one PeterPolk, who sold the land (which was located on the north side of theCumberland River in Tennessee). Some of the military service thatAngellotti attributes to Capt. John Polk is not his service, Istrongly believe, but the service of another John Polk who resided inBurke Co., NC. I have ample evidence for all this, but since it isbeyond the scope of this writing, I will not get into such evidencehere. (2) Another reason I question the William Polk/MT to WilliamPolk/Nancy (Knox) Owens genealogical path is naming patterns of thesupposed descendants. The name Robert is rarely used in thedescendants of William Polk/Margaret Taylor; this name is used more inthe Charles Polke descendant lines. I know of not one instance of thename Magdalen being used in the descendants of William Polk/MargaretTaylor. I know of a few instances of usage of the given nameMagdalen in the descendants of Charles Polke, the Indian Trader. IfWilliam Polk and Charles Polke were descendants of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens and the line went back to RobertPolk/Magdalen Tasker Porter, then one would think that there would bemore usage of the names Robert and Magdalen in the descendant lines.I have a database of almost 40,000 Polks, probably a third of thesefolks being descendants of William Polk/Margaret Taylor, and a fifthor so being descendants of Charles Polke, and I have extremely fewMagdalens in any of this data; the rest of my database is comprised ofPolks from all over the U. S. Most Polk researchers know that thePolks who descended from William Polk/Margaret Taylor repeated givennames over and over to the point of making some Polk researchnightmarish. They loved the given names William, John, Charles andThomas. Has anyone ever wondered where Ezekiel came from (as inEzekiel Polk, grandfather of President James K. Polk)? I supposeEzekiel may have come from Margaret Taylor's side of the family, orperhaps William and Margaret just liked the name (but this goesagainst the naming trends of the times and of the Polks), but I wonderif there might be an Ezekiel Polk in the Polk ancestry of WilliamPolk/MT. (3) One important fact that points to the Polks of North Carolina notbeing descendants of the Somerset Polks is found in a letter dated 5Oct 1848, from Josiah Polk, to William H. Winder, William H. PolkCollection, University of Kentucky. That fact being that the MarylandPolks (who were researching the Polk ancestry) knew of no connectionto the North Carolina Polks. In his letter to William Winder, JosiahPolk (a leading researcher of the Polk family history), referring toJohn Polk, son of Robert Bruce? Polk, states "John settled in what isnow Dorchester County, but then I believe forming a part of Somerset.His son, William, soon after his father's death, sold in 1723, theland he inherited lying near Salisbury and removed with his family toCarlisle in Pennsylvania. We were unable to trace this family anyfurther till we met with the late Col. William Polk of Raleigh NC in1828." This statement shows that the Maryland Polks knew of noconnections to the North Carolina Polks until the meeting with Col.William Polk (son of Gen. Thomas Polk of Mecklenburg Co., NC.) ThePolks of NC did know their ancestor, William Polk, had come fromMaryland before settling in Pennsylvania, around Carlisle. This wasevident from another part of Josiah Polk's letter to William Winder,viz.: "At the inauguration of President Jackson we saw Col. WilliamPolk of Raleigh who stated that all he could say of his family wasthat they went from Maryland to Carlisle, in Pennsylvania, andthence to Mecklenburg County N. C.; that his grandfather's name wasWilliam and that he had understood they came to this country aboutthe year 1722, which is about the time we have ascertained that theywent from Maryland to Carlisle." This statement of Col. WilliamPolk, per Josiah Polk's letter, is consistent with other evidence,namely the "Autobiography of Colonel William Polk." (see above), andthe Nathaniel Ewing letter in the correspon-dence of President JamesK. Polk (Volume 8) (see below), the difference being one of dates ofarrival in America, 1722 vs. 1727. Cecil County land records do showthat a William Pollock purchased land there in 1727 and, with wifeMargaret, sold it 1736 (see deed below). Note that in theintroduction of "Polk Family and Kinsmen," 1912, William Harrison Polkgives a lengthy explanation of this first meeting of the Polks ofNorth Carolina and the Maryland Polks and how the research for thePolk genealogy was accomplished over many years. This group of Polk family members/researchers evidently concluded thatthe William Polk who sold his land in 1723 was the same William Polkwho settled in Pennsylvania, near Carlisle, and then moved on to NorthCarolina. At this point in time, Josiah Polk and the others werelaboring under the impression that William Polk, son of John Polk, wasthe progenitor of the Polk line in NC. Years later, this connectionwas proven to be incorrect, and the William Polk who sold his land in1723 actually was the son of John Polk (son of Robert Polk/MagdalenTasker Porter), said William Polk living and dying in Dorchester Co.,Maryland (for an explanation of how this connection was broken, see"Polk Family and Kinsmen," pg. 207). The connection between the NorthCarolina Polks and the Maryland Polks via this William Polk, son ofJohn Polk, was thought to be valid at the time, and made sense to all,since the Somerset/ Dorchester Co., MD., Polks were the only Polksknown to the North Carolina Polks. This conclusion led to the 1849Polk tree with the wrong William Polk being the base of said tree.When William Harrison Polk was working on his genealogy, "Polk Familyand Kinsmen," it was found that the wrong William Polk was used inthat 1849 Polk family tree. This finding broke the connection ofWilliam Polk of Penn-sylvania and Anson/Mecklenburg Co., NC., backto the Somerset/Dorchester county, Maryland Polks. Apparently thepossibility of a connection of the Polks of North Carolina to Polks inother parts of Maryland was not given much thought, nor does it appearWHP considered that William Polk may have come directly from Irelandwith the mass of Irish who came to America in the 1720s-1730s. WHPthen came up with the connection between William Polk/Nancy Knox andWilliam Polk of Carlisle, PA., and later NC. He never explained howhe came up with this connection or what evidence he used to validatesuch a connection. From William Harrison Polk's papers at theUniversity of Kentucky and from those papers what appears to be aworking copy of a Polk tree (with notation in the corner referencingEarle B. Polk's letter of Oct 19, 1910 - Earle B. Polk being theDeputy Circuit Clerk of Somerset Co., MD., and the man who found theMonie Church records proving that the William Polk, son of John Polk,of the 1849 Polk Tree, could not possibly be the William Polk who wasthe one who m. Margaret Taylor), I definitly get the impression as ofat least Oct 19, 1910, ´ William Harrison Polk did not think that theWilliam Polk who m. Margaret Taylor was the son of William Polk/NancyKnox Owens. The large drawing of a tree does not show either WilliamPolk or Charles Polke (the Indian Trader) as sons of the William Polkwho m. Nancy Knox Owens. So, sometime between October 1910 and 1912,when WHP published "Polk Family and Kinsmen," he decided to make theWilliam Polk who m. Margaret Taylor the son of William Polk/Nancy KnoxOwens, apparently without any proof (or if he had any proof, he didnot mention it at all in his genealogy). In still another part of the Josiah Polk letter of 1848, Josiah Polkgives the children of William Polk, the second son of Robert andMagdalen, viz.: "The children of William Polk, the second son ofRobert and Magdalen, and of Nancy Knox, his wife, who was the widowOwens when he married her re - James, David, Jane and Betsy. Williamdied probably somewhere about 1730......." Note there is no mentionat all of sons William Polk (William Polk, who m. Margaret Taylor) andCharles Polk (Charles Polke, the Indian Trader of the north bend ofthe Potomac). (4) There is some evidence that William Polk had a brother Charles(Charles Polke the Indian Trader, is possibly this brother). Old Polkgenealogies state that this Charles Polke IS the brother of theWilliam Polk who m. Margaret Taylor. The inventory of Charles Polke,the Indian Trader, said inventory of estate dated 5 Oct 1753,Frederick Co., MD., shows next of kin shown as William Polk and JohnPolk. By process of elimination, the William Polk of the inventoryappears to be Charles Polke's brother William Polk/MT (however, it isquite possible that this William Polk of the inventory is WilliamPolk, oldest son/ child of William Polk/Margaret Taylor, who would beCharles Polke's nephew. ) The John Polk of the inventory appears to beJohn Polk who m. Eleanor Shelby, nephew of Charles Polke, who happensto be my own direct line Polk ancestor. It is known that William Polkand his son William Polk were in Anson Co., NC., by Jan 1757 (evidenced by the Jan 1757 will of ThomasSpratt, Anson Co., NC., the father of Susannah Spratt, who marriedThomas Polk, son of William Polk/Margaret Taylor.) Thus, there is awindow between 5 Oct 1753 and Jan 1757, where the Polks (or some ofthem; I believe Capt. John Polk arrived later in NC., with members ofthe Shelby family - John married Eleanor Shelby) are likely to have travelled to NC., this window allowing either William Polk/MT or theirson William Polk to be the next of kin in Charles Polke's estateinventory. (5) William Polk (who married Margaret Taylor) may have come toAmerica in 1727 with the Ewings, Porters, and other families (seeEwing Letter below) and possibly had (at least) a brother John Polk,said John living and dying in Cecil Co., MD.), and possibly anotherbrother, Charles Polke, the Indian Trader (see above reference to theinventory of the estate of Charles Polke). (6) That William Polk who m. Margaret Taylor was in Cecil Co., MD.,as of early 1727 can be established (with some question; see below) bythe following deed: Following is description of a deed from Cecil Co., MD., which appearsto be for ´William Polk (who married Margaret Taylor): 20 April 1727,land called Moyn, 80 acres, Cecil Co., MD., Deed, on Christiana Creek,Pollock, William, cordwinder, and wife Margaret, purchased fromDavid Alexander, Cecil SK#5, f.81; Cecil Vol. 5, f.203; Cecil WK11(Vol.6), f.283; Moyn was a sub-tract of New Munster; 1727/4/20 purchase by William Pollock was recorded in Cecil SK#5, f.81-2; thatvolume is lost but is later cited in Cecil WK11, f. 283 when WalterBettey (Beatty) sold Moyn to Robert Mitchell; Beg. mrked maple tree onW bank of Christiana Creek, upon N side of small rivulet running downS side of land of James and Moses Alexander; W, 142p; S, 50p; S21E,48p; S41E, 52p; E, 10p; return; 1736/4/2 sold to Walter Betty(Beatty), blacksmith, late of Kingdom of Ireland, for £37-10; Bettey,with wife Martha, sold Moyn to Robert Mitchel in 1744 for £47; Beattymoved to now Adams (then Cumberland) County PA; 1736/4/2 CecilCounty Land Records, WK11 (Vol.6), f.283. If the above deed(s) is/are accepted as that of the William Polk whom. Margaret Taylor (one cannot be absolutely sure that this WilliamPollock and wife Margaret are William Polk/Margaret Taylor, but Idefinitely believe that they are one and the same couple. I havefound no records of any persons of these names who better fit thisdeed), then we know William Polk and Margaret Taylor were married by20 April 1727. If we accept the Ewing letter (see below) in thatWilliam Polk arrived in America in 1727, then he had to have arrivedbefore 20 April 1727. Since it appears (to me) that at least onechild (William Polk, the eldest) was born c1725 (birth, at best,educated guess), then that means William and Margaret Taylor weremarried in Ireland (perhaps this is why no marriage record has beenfound in America for this couple), and William Polk (the eldest child)(at least) was born in Ireland. Any such marriage in Ireland goesmuch against the grain of the limited information I have found onMargaret Taylor, hardly any of which I have been able to substantiate.This secondary information shows Margaret Taylor was from the Taylorsof Virginia and that she had a brother James Taylor (who m. HannahWilliams) and that at one time, this Taylor family owned much propertyin what is now the city of Philadelphia. See the Ewing´ Letterinformation later on in this writing. I don't think it very probablethat William Polk and Margaret Taylor married in Ireland and hadchildren there before coming to America, but this could be the case. I just do not know. Using the 1727 arrival in America date, I have put together thepossible birth order for the children of William and Margaret (Taylor)Polk. The earlier births in Ireland are entirely speculation based onthe 1727 deed and the Ewing Letter. William Polk b. c1725 (possibly in Ireland) John Polk b. c1727 (on ship or soon after arrival; this circa birthdate for Capt. John Polk is in disagreement with his published birthof 1739; see more below on John Polk's birthdate) Margaret Polk, b. c1729 (probably in Cecil Co., MD.) Thomas Polk, b. c1730-31 (probably in Cecil Co., MD.) Charles Polk, b. 1732 (probably in Cecil Co., MD.) Deborah Polk, b. c1733 (probably in Cecil Co., MD.) Susan Polk, b. 1734 (probably in Cecil Co., Md.) Ezekiel Polk, b. 1747, PA., probably in Chester Co., Little Cove area,possibly, in the area which became Cumberland Co., in 1850, and is nowin southern Franklin Co., PA., near the Pennsylvania/Maryland border Unfortunately, we have only the "proven" (proven to some degree; thesedates as probably as "proven" as they ever will be) birth years ofCharles (1732), Deborah (c1733), and Ezekiel (1747) to work with, sothe others have to be slipped into the cracks between the otherchildren. Thomas Polk was supposedly b.1730-1734 , but I have nothingconcrete on his birthdate (there are several secondary sources givingvarious birthdates in this 1730-1734 range). Thomas was supposedlythe third son (per autobiography of William Polk, papers of ArchibaldD. Murphy). If William were the oldest (child and son), followed byother sons John, then Charles, then Thomas, that makes Thomas order ofbirth inconsistent with the best evidence (best I have, A. D. Murphypapers). Putting Thomas as the third son results in the above birthorder. There is a major gap above between Susan b. 1734 and EzekielPolk, b. 1747, but there may have been children who died during thisperiod. But this large gap does give me pause about this birth orderI have devised. The above birth order/birth date for John Polk verymuch goes against the grain of published information, as the birthdate of c1739 was given for him in all the old Polk genealogies.However, there are many questions about this c1739 birth date, and Ithink John may have been one of the older children, rather than ayounger child. I have much information on John Polk/Eleanor Shelby inmy database and I would be happy to discuss John Polk, his birthdate,and anything else about him (or Eleanor Shelby, his wife, with anyonewho sends me an email). See the reference above, Charles A. Hanna, "TheScotch-Irish" Vol. II, Genealogical Publishing Co., 1902, which showsEzekiel Polk, the youngest child of William Polk/Margaret Taylor, wasb. c1737. This year of birth, 1737,actually fits in better with theother children than the year 1747, but since 1747 has some evidence toback it up (mainly Ezekiel Polk's tombstone epitaph, which he wrotehimself) I hesitate to use any date that is not supported with betterproof than Ezekiel's own information). I do wonder about the long period of time between 1739 (birth year ofJohn Polk per Polk genealogies: John being shown as the next to lastchild of William Polk/Margaret Taylor in the Polk genealogies) and1747 (birth year of Ezekiel Polk). I think there may be informationabout the children of William Polk/ Margaret Taylor and their birthdates that we simply do not know and may never know. There are some Polk family connections to the Alexander family ofCecil Co., MD., and later, to the Pennsylvania, and NC., Alexanders.Note that David Alexander in the deed above was the grantor to granteeWilliam Polk. Some Alexander family material I have seen states thatthe Alexanders and the Polks arrived in America together in themid-1600s, but I have found nothing to substantiate this. It doesappear that the Polks and Alexanders of Somerset Co., MD., were livingin that area at the same time in the later 1600s and early 1700s, andcertainly the Alexanders of Cecil Co., MD. (some of them, at least),appear to have arrived there from Somerset and other counties in lowerMaryland. Some of the Cecil Co., MD., Alexanders moved on toPennsylvania, and then on Anson Co., NC., and the area which becameMecklenburg Co., NC., in Feb. 1763. (7) That William Harrison Polk (or at least one or more of theresearchers with whom WHP had corresponded) had some doubts about whowas the father of the William Polk who married Margaret Taylor, isillustrated by letters found in the W. H. Polk Papers, SpecialCollections, Margaret I. King Library, University of Kentucky,Lexington, KY. It appears that at the end of many years discussion,the thinking was that William Polk (who m. Margaret Taylor) andCharles Polke, the Indian Trader, were sons of William Polk by anunknown first wife (wife before Nancy (Knox) Owens). Some excerptsfrom various letters: (A) Letter, 15 Nov 1909, Wm. H. Polk to R. C. Ballard Thruston:"......... William Polk, whom our records state was the second son ofRobert and Magdalene, married Nancy Knox, who was the widow of Wm.Owens, of will dated March 27, 1698. You will also recall the factthat there was an impression that she married another before marryingWm. Polk, but of that we have no proof. This Wm. Polk was born about1660 and was therefore approximately forty years of age when hemarried the widow. I think it highly probable that he had beenpreviously married. That he had children by that first marriage whomhe provided for and did not mention in his will, such omissions werefrequently made then and are to-day. Therefore, I see no reason forassuming that those Polks, probably born about or before 1700, nototherwise located in the Polk tree, were not sons of this William, whowas the son of Robert and Magdalene. [BILL POLK ADDITION: One of theproblems with WHP's argument here is that William Polk, son of Robertand Magdalen, was b. c1673 (by deposition), not 1660, thereforelessening (but not eliminating the possibility) the likelihood thatsaid William Polk had a first marriage, and William Polk and CharlesPolke, the Indian Trader, being children of that first marriage].......... I think the record proof is conclusive that the Wm. Polk who married Priscilla Roberts was the sonof Jon. And not the Wm. Polk who married Margaret Taylor and becamethe ancestor of the southern Polks. I am inclined to think that thelatter Wm. was born before 1700 and therefore too old to be the son ofeither David or Joseph [Polk]. I do not see any other place for himin the family tree unless he was the son of Wm. by a marriage of whichwe have no proof. [BILL POLK ADDITION: Here is where WHP failed torecognize the possiblity that the William Polk who m. Margaret Taylor could havebeen from another Polk line other than Robert Polk/Magdalen Tasker;however, R. C. Ballard Thruston certainly thought about thispossibility in his letter of 6 Dec 1909 to WHP: ".... But this I think we must take into our calculations, viz: - thatof all the Polks and Pollocks then liveing, we have no right to assumethat Robert Bruce Polk and his wife are the only ones who came toAmerican and even to Maryland]." (B) Letter, 7 Oct 1910, R. C. Ballard Thruston to William HarrisonPolk: "I have just returned from a trip to Alaska and the Pacificcoast and in my mail I find two letters from you dated Aug. 8th andSept. 17th respectively. You can realize that I have done nothing inthe line of Polk genealogy since my last to you but I have neitherseen nor heard of anything to change my views. I believe that theWilliam Polk, who married Margaret Taylor and was ancestor of thesouthern Polks, was too old a man to have been the son of either Davidor Joseph and I do not see any place in the tree for him other thanson of William Polk by a marriage of which our records do not speak.I believe it would be well in your book to suggest that as a solutionof the problem ratherthan assume it. Of course the southern Polkswill kick but the Maryland records are against them......... Now withreference to yours of the 17th. I think that your reasoning isexcellent. My recollection is, however, that I considered the WilliamPolk, who married Margaret Taylor was born not later than 1700, morelikely earlier but my notes were all taken down to the safety vaultand locked up when I left home and I haven't them here now forreference. Another point I want to call your attention to - WilliamPolk married Nancy Knox Owens presumably soon after 1698 as herhusband, William Owens, left a will dated March 27 of that year. Theeldest son of William Polk, of whom we have record, was born about1712 or 1715. Is it probable that she was the mother of that son?[BILL POLK ADDITION: This 1712-1715 date of birth of the "eldestson" James Polk is incorrect as indicated by the discussion aboveabout his birth and that of his brother David Polk. Both of these twosons of William Polk were born much earlier than these twocorrespondents believed] .......... On the whole, I believe if I werein your place, I would bring in the facts and suggest that the WilliamPolk, who married Margaret Taylor, was a son of William, provided forduring lifetime of his father therefore omitted in the will. The moreI think over it the more satisfied I am that it is the only place inthe Polk tree for him, unless he happened to be the son of David ofwhom we know so little. I am also inclined to believe that theCharles Polk of Frederick, who was my ancestor was a brother of theWilliam who married Margaret Taylor. The earlier generations seemedto know definitely what their relationship was to President Polk andthat relationship could have existed if this William and this Charleswere brothers. If I were in your place, I would also make that as asuggestion. I believe that putting such matters in the form of asuggestion, it will have the tendence of giving greater weight to yourstate-ments of facts as such...." (C) Letter, 17 Oct 1910, R. C. Thruston Ballard to William HarrisonPolk: [referring to a John Pelkey will dated 20 Dec 1702, proved 24May, 1703; this is the will in which property "Locust Hammock" was, ina roundabout way, put into the hands of a William Kent andsubsequently put into the hands of William Polk, son of John Polk (sonof Robert/Magdalen), but this will was misread by William HarrisonPolk [this situation perhaps illustrating that WHPe could be mistakenat times in his thinking about what certain documents might mean],viz. "That does not look as if it could have been the will of our JohnPolk and therefore think you have misunderstood the deed from Wm. Kentto William Polk........ ]..... I believe if we can ever arrive at thefacts, and the probabilities are that church records are the bestsource we have, we will find that William Polk [referring here toWilliam Polk, supposed father of William Polk who m. MargaretTaylor] also married twice and that by 1st marriage he had sons,William and Charles [the Indian Trader]. I am furthermore thoroughlysatisfied that there is a vast deal more information in Marylandregarding these early Polks, which has not as yet been unearthed. Ibelieve, moreover, after your book is published, you will receive manyletters giving you information, which now you have no possible meansof locating. I would not be at all surprised if the records from theold family bible had been copied and the copy preserved among the archives of some branch,which you have not as yet located. It will take the publication ofthe book to bring that sort of information to light and after a coupleof years or so, you will then be in a position to bring out a secondedition more full and complete than the first." (D) Letter, 14 April 1911, R. C. Ballard Thruston to William HarrisonPolk: "I was indeed glad to receive yours of the 13th. Whilst theproof is still lacking, it is confirming the views which I haveexpressed on several occasions in the past; namely, that William Polkson of Robert and Madeline [sic] was twice married and that his secondset of children are the ones of whom we have the record as hisdescendants; that his first set of children were probably married andprovided for earlier in life, and therefore not mentioned in hiswill; furthermore that I believed that William Polk, who marriedMargaret Taylor, and Charles Polk of Frederick County would turn up tobe the children of the first marriage." --------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIEL EWING 1844 LETTER [Source: Correspondence of James K Polk, Volume 8, pp. 9-12. Thanks toJohn F. Polk, Harve de Grace, Maryland, a Polk family researcher, forsending me a copy of this letter. This article is a quote from thepublished letter including all of the footnotes.] FROM NATHANIEL EWING Dear Sir Vincennes Indiana Sept. 3d 1844 A scetch of your biography happening to fall into my hands, I findthat I am better acquainted with the early history of your family thanperhaps any of your immediate relatives now alive. Your forefathers and mine emigrated together in the same ship from theNorth of Ireland in the year seventeen hundred an twenty seven, landedat Newcastel & settled together in the upper part of Cecil Countyadjoining the Pennsylvania line and Lancaster County.' There was alarge colony composed principally of Ewings Porters Gillespies &Polks. Your great grandfather and two Grand Uncles were of the number. Of your great grandfather and one of his brothers I have norecollection. They with some of my relatives of the names of Gillespie& Porter had removed to Cumberland County near [EXPLANATION OF ABOVE] 'Born in Cumberland County, Penn. in 1772, Ewing moved to Vincennes in1807 to take up his duties as receiver of the public land office. Hewas the president of the first bank established in Vincennes andserved in the Indiana territorial legislature. 'According to the most widely accepted genealogical study, the Polksfirst came to America from Northern Ireland in the 1680's and settledin Somerset County, Md.; one branch of the family then moved toCumberland County, Penn., in the 1730's and subsequently toMecklenberg County, N.C. in the 1750's. This study does not display,however, such documentation as might verify the movement of Polks fromSomerset County, Md., to Cumberland County, Penn. See Mrs. Frank M.Angellotti, The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee (Columbia,Tenn.: James K. Polk Memorial Association, 1984), pp, 2-5; reprintedfrom The New England Historic Genealogical Register, LXXVII (April,1923), pp. 134-36. Journal of Clan Ewing November 1999 9 [CONTINUATION OF LETTER] Carlisle before my time.' One of the brothers John Polk remained wherehe first settled until he died which was about the year seventeenhundred eighty three.' Him I well recollect as his Land & that of bothmy Grandfathers joined, and a constant friendly intercourse alwaysubsisted between the families, during their lives. On his land wasthe place selected by the emigrants on their first arival for aburying ground and in it is inter'd both my Grand fathers & grandmothers myFather & Mother with Uncles Aunts & cousins without number. John Polk& his family also lie there. In the year seventeen hundred & eighty eight I found living on CrippleCreek one of the head branches of New River a numerous band of myrelatives desendants of those who had removed from Cumberland CountyPa. and from the old settlement in Cecil Co. Md. I understood thePolks had settled further south in Carolina. In this tour I found myrelatives scattered from Prince Edward Co. Va. through Bortitort WytheWashington and down to Knoxville,' all the descendants of theemigrants of seventeen hundred & twenty seven. I have this date fromrecord. One of my aunts was born on sea on their passage to America & this is the recorded year of hir birth. Here endsmy knowledge of the family of the Polks except the grandsons of JohnPolk by his daughter Isabella who maried Thomas Grubb.' With those Iwas raised and schooled three of whome are still alive all living inPennsylvania one in Franklin Co. & ten [this should be two] in Erie Conear the Town of that name. One of the latter Judge Grubb' is a man ofsix feet four & half inches high of good proportions. About ten yearsago I visited the anciant site of [EXPLANATION OF ABOVE] 3 Angellotti's sources indicate that Polk's paternal greatgrandfather,William Polk, was the father of eight children, all bornin Cumberland County, Penn. According to Angellotti, William Polk'sbrothers remained in Maryland. 'Ewing's meaning is that John Polk, one of the three brothers whosettled in Cumberland County, Penn., remained there and did not moveto North Carolina. 'References are to the Virginia counties of Prince Edward, Botetourt,Wythe, and Washington. 'Not Identified fin-ther. 'Reference probably is to John Grubb, a resident of Mill Creektownship and an associate judge of the Erie Court from 1820 until1841. 10 Journal of Clan Ewing November 1999 [CONTINUATION OF LETTER] the Emigants' after an absense of more than forty years. I was muchsurprised to find so little alteration in the superficial appearanceof the country. The lands were unaltered the woodland but littledeminished the only and great change was in the improvement of thesoil. The fields which I had left in the most decay state of poverty Ifound covered with luxurient crops of clover & wheat. The tracts ofland which were originally large I found divided into small ones notmuch exceeding one hundred acres on each of which were fine brickhouses & barns and every conveniance necessary for a neat farm. In the year seventeen hundred & seventy nine there was one of yourfamily living at Natches, placed there by the State of Virginia astheir agent to accept & pay the bills of Genl. Clark when carrying onhis expedition against the british forts at Kaskaskia & Vincennes.'Thus I have given you my recollections & traditions of your familyfrom their first landing in America. Your family like mine wereoriginally from Scodant emigrated from that Country during theProtectorship of Cromwell. As to our politicks in this State the parties are verry warm, I neversaw the democrats so active & determined. The whigs obtained amajority in the house or representatives but that was measurably owingto the manner the districts are laid off. The democrats have thepopular vote. There are also a great many who voted for whigrepresentatives who will not vote the Clay ticket. The most of thePresbiterians arc whigs but the moral charater of Clay is rather morethan they can digest. The Texas question altho but little understoodis a new thing and as the mass is always delighted with novelty ittakes well with them, and I have no doubt of the democrats taking thisState. I have always though and still think that the Globe & Thos. Benton"has done the [EXPLANATION OF ABOVE] 'Reference is to Ewing's former home, which was located near Carlislein Cumberland Countv, Penn. 'Reference is to George Rogers Clark's conquest of the Illinoiscountry. He captured Fort Kaskaskia on July 4, 1778, and followed inAugust with the capture of the British fort at Vincennes, Ind. Thefort at Vincennes was retaken by the British, but Clark recaptured itin February 1779. The Washington Globe of April 29, 1844, published a letter from ThomasH. Benton addressed to members of the Texas Congress in which heobjected to the immediate annexation of that republic. Benton's letterwas followed by a "postscript" in the Globe on May 2, 1844. Journal of Clan Ewing November 1999 11 [CONTINUATION OF LETTER] democratic cause more injury than the partizens of Clay-their violenceagainst Mr. Tyler disgusted many for say what place against him." Thethinking & honest democrats will always feel greatfull for theservises he tendered the party by his firmness in placing his veto onthe bill creating a U.S. Bank with such powers to render arepresentation of the people a perfect farse. " Instead ofrepresenting those who sent them they would become the panders of themoneyed power. This udging harshly of my fellow citizens but in justifycation of myopinion we have only to recur to the conduct of congress at the time.The Bank obtained a recharter as far as they had power to give it andto the legislature or Pennsylvania when that same Bank obtained itscharter as a bank of that State. As to this last I have some personalknowledge, I was in Pennsylvania during the canvass for Governor whenRitner was elected. " He lived in Washington Co. which had alwaysbefore then been a democratic county untill the Bank of the U.S. underthe cloak of subscribing to a turnpike Road between Washington &Pittsburgh (a road which mill never yeald toll to keep itself inrepair) gave them fifty thousand dollars which compleatly changed thepolitical complextion of the county & gave it to the Whigs. I am sorrysome of my relatives had a hand in this business. John Sergeant ofPhiladelphia" as the head he acted as agent for [EXPLANATION OF ABOVE] "Syntax garbled. After the publication of Martin Van Buren's April 27,1844, letter on the annexation of Texas, the Globe defended the formerpresident and attacked his rivals for the Democratic nomination,including John Tyler. "On August 16, 1841, John Tyler returned the bill entitled "An act toincorporate the subscribers to the Fiscal Bank of the united States,"to the U.S. Senate with his veto. "Joseph Ritner. Elected to the Pennsylvania House from WashingtonCounty, Ritner served seven years in that body, including two years asits Speaker from 1826-28. He won election as governor on theAnti-masons' ticket of 1835; renominated for a second term in 1838, helost the election to the Democratic candidate, David R. Porter. "An accomplished attorney, Sergeant served seven terms in the U.S.House, 1815-23, 1827-29, and 1837-41; his political affiliationchanged from Federalist to National Republican to Whig, successively.He served as chief legal and political adviser to Nicholas Biddle,president of the second Bank of the United States and its successorcorporation, the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, which waschartered by the Pennsylvania legislature in 1837. Biddle claimed thatthe Pennsylvania charter cost 12 Journal of Clan Ewing November 1999 [CONTINUATION OF LETTER] the Bank in negotiating the business. The papers from all quartersgive cheering news as it regards the Presidental election. For my partI have never doubted our success. Twenty years ago I made a bet with a friend who is now dead that HenryClay never would be president of the U.S. This Election will determineit. Nath Ewing P.S. You will excuse my writing you on so immeterial a subject but itmay perhaps tend to relieve your mind from too intense an applicationto politicks. Editor's note: This letter identifies the port where the Ewing familylanded in America as New Castle, Delaware. When we attended thereunion in 1990, we visited New Castle and it was pointed out that waspossibly the port of entry. Also, the year of birth of the thirdchildren of Nathaniel & Rachel Porter Ewing is identified as being theyear 1727. Since the third child of Nathaniel & Rachel was born at seaand that is fact that is generally accepted by all researchers, lendssupport to 1727 being the year that Rachel & Nathaniel came to America [BILL POLK ADDITION to the information from the Ewing Letter] The above letter certainly indicates that there were other Polks inMaryland, in Cecil County (I can attest that there were such Polks inCecil Co., MD. in the early 1700s). The presence of other Polks in Maryland lends credibility to the ideathat the Polks of Mecklenburg Co., NC., may not have come from thePolks of Somerset/Dorchester counties, MD., but rather from the CecilCo., MD. Polks. This idea is advanced by the proximity of CecilCounty to Pennsylvania and the fact there there were Alexanderfamilies in Cecil Co., MD., many of whom moved on to Mecklenburg Co.,NC., or had descendants who made that move, and some of theseAlexanders married Polks. Nathaniel Ewing was a descendant of the Ewings who supposedly camewith the Polks in 1727. A short time before Nathaniel3 Ewing(1772-1846) (George2, Nathaniel1, William A), of Mount Clair (nearVincennes), Indiana, died he wrote an account of his family. Thatinformation along with additional information added by Col. Wm. A.Ewing was published in The Courier-Journal (February 28, 1897).Nathaniel moved from Maryland to Indiana in 1801. The article waspublished just over fifty years after the death of Nathaniel3. I have the entire article that NathanielEwing wrote in 1846, and he makes no mention of his Ewings coming fromIreland with the Polks. This omission causes me to wonder why hewrote the letter to President Polk in 1844 stating the families camefrom Northern Ireland on the same ship. I wonder if he (like othersof the surname Polk and Pollock, who also wrote letters to PresidentPolk claiming kinship) was currying some sort of favor; or perhaps hewas simply mistaken about his Ewings arriving in America with the Polk family ancestors of PresidentPolk. This omission of anything about the Polks in the Ewing familyhistory causes me to pause and ponder about the credibility of thewhole Ewing/Polk connection. However, there were Ewings and Polks inCecil Co., MD., so I cannot just dismiss this Ewing Letter out of handand will keep it in the forefront of the whole of the Polk informationI have accumulated. These Polks in Cecil Co., MD., in the early 1700smay or may not be related to William Polk/MT; I just do not know. The possibilites areintriguing, however; a relationship being established between WilliamPolk/MT and these Cecil Co., MD., Polks, would probably help answersome of the questions I have about the ancestry of William Polk/MT. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONCLUSION I have not proven beyond a doubt that the William Polk who m. MargaretTaylor was not the son of William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens, but Ibelieve that I have poked some gigantic holes in the publishedancestry of William Polk/MT as given in the Polk genealogies andvarious other works. When one considers the totality of the evidence,including what I have presented in this writing, and my statementsfollowing, I think most Polk researchers would come to the sameconclusion that I have, that is, the ancestry of William Polk that wehave believed to be accurate for so long is likely incorrect. At thevery least, the ancestry as published is unproven and needs to beproven before we perpetuate it further. 1. There is no documentary proof that William Polk/MT was the son ofWilliam Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens. Not one document has been located toeven hint at a father/son relationship between the two William Polks(or between William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens and Charles Polke, theIndian Trader). 2. The published ancestry of William Polk/MT back to WilliamPolk/Nancy (Knox) Owens in "Polk Family and Kinsmen" 1912, came aboutout of some desperation on the part of William Harrison Polk tocomplete his work of 30 plus years, and to have an ancestry for theMecklenburg Polks. When the original lineage of Robert Polk to JohnPolk to William Polk to William Polk/MT was found to be incorrect (perthe 1849 Polk Tree), WHP found himself in a pickle...... he hadWilliam Polk/MT, who had been previously attached to the wrong William Polk, stuck out there withoutan ancestry. WHP and fellow researchers searched for and did not find any proofthat William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens had sons William and Charles.So, without evidence, and based on guesswork and theory, WilliamHarrison Polk inserted William Polk/MT as a son of William Polk/Nancy(Knox) Owens into his "Polk Family and Kinsmen" as a fact, when, infact, it was not fact. Emma Angellotti simply followed his lead inher "The Polks of North Carolina and Tennessee." The rest isgenealogical history in that researchers for over 90 years haveaccepted as fact what was not proven and was a theory of what theancestry of William Polk/MT was. 3. There is ample evidence (see discussions above) pointing to otherpaths, other possibilities, as to the ancestry of William Polk/MT andhis (probable) sibling Charles Polke, the Indian Trader. I have great respect for the work expended by William Harrison Polkand Emma Angellotti in compiling and publishing their genealogies ofthe Polks. Where would Polk descendants be today without these familyhistories/genealogies? In any large genealogical undertaking, errorsare almost certain to creep into some of the family lines. I do notfault these two writers/researchers for errors. I do, however, faulteach of them for failing to show sources of information (footnotes andendnotes); for not giving details of their reasonings for certain family couplings andassociations when such couplings /associations are unclear; and forinserting into the record as fact, information which was not proven.Actually, it is those of who who have followed Mary Winder Garret,William Harrison Polk and Emma Angellotti, who are more at fault thanthese writers. We should never have accepted the Polk genealogies asfact in the first place; we should have accepted them as means tofurther our own research. But, it is so very easy to fall into the trap of accepting a genealogythat is old and that so many other writers/researchers (evenprofessional writers/researchers) have accepted as fact (and used intheir own research/publications) for so many years. Many, many familyresearchers today are using the Internet, and they should; it isprobably the greatest boon to genealogy than anything else everinvented. However, many of these same researchers are findingunproven/undocumented information out there in Internet land, using itas fact, and perpetuating it as fact, contributing mightily to themisinformation problem, and not just for Polks, but for all families.My hope, in presenting this discussion of the ancestry of WilliamPolk/MT, is that researchers, novice and experienced, will think a bitmore about finding the truth of the matter in their quest for theirfamily ancestry. I also hope to inspire more research on the ancestryof William Polk/MT by those folks who, to this point, may have beensatisfied with the status quo. Let's find the truth about the ancestry ofWilliam Polk/MT and not keep perpetuating a theory. I invite anyone interested in anything I have presented here tocontact me with your questions and/or discussion of all or any part ofit. If you have documentary evidence of the William Polk/MTconnection back to William Polk/Nancy (Knox) Owens, I sure would liketo hear from you. Bill Polk, Kansas City, MO.

Quellenangaben

Datenbank

Titel
Beschreibung
Hochgeladen	2011-06-12 00:05:48.0
Einsender	Karl-Heinz Böttcher
E-Mail	ahnen@centurylink.net
Zeige alle Personen dieser Datenbank

Herunterladen

Kommentare

Einen neuen Kommentar schreiben

Name
E-Mail
Webseite (optional)
Nachrichtentext

Um Missbrauch zu verhindern, lösen Sie bitte diese Aufgabe, indem Sie die Geburtsdaten aus beiden Einträgen eingeben.

Einen Kommentar schreiben.