The Mystery of Hugh Forgey's land

 Land records in Knox County, Tennessee had been key to establishing possible relationships in Lucille Wallace's book A genealogical history of the Forgy, Forgey and Forgie families in America. She located a land grant for a James Forgey which was for 500 acres on Flat Creek in Knox County, TN.

She assumed that this 500 acres was sold and split between Alexander Forgey, Andrew Forgey, and Hugh Forgey. Below is a snip from the book. 

Actually the land was split between Alexander and Andrew Forgey. Hugh did witness one of the deeds which may have led to the misunderstanding. 

Adding even more confusion was the fact Hugh Forgey sold 250 acres of land on Flat Creek also. 

All of this led Lucille Wallace to assume James Forgey was the father of Alexander, Andrew, and Hugh. It would have been unusual for a father to sell land to his sons. It's most likely this James was the son of Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds. He appears to have bought land as a speculator in several areas. His Reynolds cousins owned land on Flat Creek so he had family ties there. 

Alexander and Andrew were likely brothers. Alexander Forgey, James Forgey's uncle, could have been their father. 

Examining land records we discover Hugh Forgey owned 400 acres on Flat Creek well before the sale of  the 250 acres by James. He was living on Flat Creek in the 1780s. He was definitely much older than Alexander Forgey who was said to have been born in 1780. Hugh Forgey was likely born in the 1760s. 

Hugh Forgey was a chain bearer in Knox County, Tennessee in 1786, again pointing to the fact he was much older than Andrew and Alexander. Both of those men didn't own any land until they bought the land from James in 1802. 

Hugh Forgey actually owned 400 acres on Flat Creek. Hugh Forgey shared a property line with Robert Reynolds. Likely his cousin. He sold off 150 acres in 1798. By coincidence leaving 250 acres. He sold off the remaining 250 acres, on Flat Creek, in 1806.

I have not been able to find a grant or purchase deed for the land Hugh Forgey sold off? The lack of a deed misled Lucille Wallace. 

Recently I have found references to this land in other grants at the NORTH CAROLINA LAND GRANT IMAGES AND DATA website. It appears he likely purchased this grant from William McBroom. or survey. 

Here Hugh Forgey is described as living on William McBroom's survey on Flat Creek in 1793. 

It states Hugh Forgey lives on McBroom's survey. There was a 400 acre grant to McBroom on Flat Creek in 1789. 

I would like to find out when Hugh purchased the 400 acres. I have an index with page numbers for additional deeds but have not located the books these page numbers refer to?

We do know Hugh was living on 400 acres on the west fork of Flat Creek in 1791, according to Robert Reynolds land patent. This entry below, from 1791, refers to Hugh Forgey's 400 acre survey. I have not found a 400 acre survey for Hugh, however. 

As the old deed books began to fade and fall apart deeds were copied into new books. It's possible Hugh Forgey's purchase deed never made it into the newer books? Notations for book and page numbers of other books are often recorded in the margins of the deeds. Below is an example. 

Some of the page numbers I found might refer to an older volume that no longer exists or isn't at the McClung library in Knoxville? 

Hugh and John Forgey were chainbearers for James Reynolds in 1788. We know the Reynolds family is related through Andrew Forgey's wife Margaret Reynolds. 

John is kind of a mystery because he was said to have died in 1793 and James Forgey of Hawkins County, Tennessee was the administrator of his estate. According to Andrew Forgey's, husband of Margaret Reynolds, will John was still alive when Andrew Forgey wrote his will leaving John land in 1809. 

According to Andrew's will Hugh Forgey was living on some of John's land in 1809. There appeared to be a close relationship between Hugh and John. I surmise they were together in Knox County in the 1780s. I see no sign of another John in the records. Maybe John didn't really die in 1793? Hugh was accused of perjury for his testimony in the case regarding the estate of John Forgey. Another John Forgey could also have joined the family, coming out from Ireland. or he could have been Andrew and Alexander's brother? 

Hugh Crawford, son of Nancy Forgey, did mention John and Hugh Forgey in his journal. He remembered seeing John and the fact he lived in Middle Tennessee. His uncle Hugh Forgey died when he was very young and he didn't know much about him. Below is a passage from his journal stating his uncle Hugh Forgey lived in Knox County, Tennessee at one time not far from where he was then living.

 We can with reasonable certainty surmise John and Hugh Forgey were sons of Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds. Andrew and Alexander might be sons of Alexander Forgey, brother of Andrew, who lived in Washington County, Virginia. 

More deed books will eventually come online for Knox County, Tennessee. I might be able to find the deed of sale for Hugh's 400 acres when more books come online? 

Knox County, Tennessee Researchers

The McClung library sent me this list of researchers who specialize in research in Knox County, Tennessee. Personally I'm not interested in hiring a professional, but this might be of help to someone else. 

Native American DNA/Tall Tale or True?

 Many Americans claim Native American ancestry who aren't tribal members. Stories are often passed down in families about Native American ancestors. In some cases the stories are true. Many Americans have turned to DNA to verify these stories. Few people who have tested actually find any traces of Native American DNA in their results. 

When these testers are so confident they have Native American ancestry why isn't it showing up in their results? Here are a few possibilities:

1. The Native American ancestor is too many generations removed from the test taker. It's always best to have someone test who is closer generation wise because we lose portions of our distant ancestors DNA with every generation. 
2. We share a very small trace amount that the companies aren't picking up. If you test with multiple companies there is a chance one will detect this small percentage, which could be less than 1%.
3. Your Native American ancestor was mixed and not 100% Native American leading you to inherit only a trace amount. 

My impression, after many years of genealogy research, is Americans, those living in today's United States, didn't marry Native Americans very often. This is because the European population of Colonial America was large, with a larger population of women than in Central America, South America, and Canada. Most DNA testers in the United States do not have substantial amounts of Native American DNA, most actually don't have any Native American results. 

Fewer women came to the new world from Spain and Portugal. This led to more mixing between Iberian males and  Native Americans. 

There likely would have been more mixing between the  British colonists and Native Americans in the early 17th century, when the population was small, when there were fewer European women in the colonies.

If a person has family from Oklahoma, where eastern tribes were resettled, the chances of having Native American ancestry would be greater.  

The DNA companies get many questions and angry comments from people who are certain they have Native American ancestry which didn't show up in their DNA results. When they tell people it's possible the ancestor lived too far back for this to show up they are being truthful. Another explanation thrown out is the companies don't have good reference populations for Eastern North American Native Americans. This is because the tribal leadership is often against DNA testing. Is this true? Is that why this DNA admixture isn't showing up?

Let's look at my French Canadian DNA matches. Many of these matches still live in Canada and are French speaking even today. If it isn't possible to identify Eastern North American Native in the DNA samples then this admixture wouldn't show up in those living in Eastern Canada either. There was migration and mixing between the Canadian tribes and those south of them. 

Here we see one of my French Canadian matches has 0.80% Native American DNA. Because this is less than 1% I wouldn't look at this as strong proof of Native American ancestry. He does, however, have a Native American mtDNA haplogroup, A2i, proving his direct maternal line is in fact Native American. So the trace amount of Native American DNA is in fact correct. (The haplogroup A2i is found in the following groups:"USA (Hispanic, etc.), Canada (Ojibwa, Prince Edward Island, Pabos in Quebec)".  According to the Wikipedia article "Haplogroup A (mtDNA)" )

Looking at more French Canadian matches I find many with traces of Native American DNA. Here is another case. This match currently lives in Canada and has over 1% Native American DNA. He doesn't however have Native American ancestry in his direct male of female lines, because he has European haplogroups, unlike the previous example. 

Yes, in most cases North Eastern Native American DNA can be detected if present. 

The colonial population of Quebec was very small. They had difficulty attracting French women to settle in Quebec. Also many of the Quebecois were fur traders who would have had close contact with Native Americans. There is definitely more detectable Native American in the French Canadian population than those who settled the United States. 

Basically if your ancestors were from south of the United States border it's nearly certain you have Native American ancestry. If you have French Canadian ancestry you might find traces of Native American admixture. If you have American, United States, ancestry your chances of having Native American ancestry are much lower, unless you are a tribal member. 

 If you're positive the stories in your family are true and would like to prove that with DNA, but you don't have any trace in your results, I would suggest testing at more of the major testing companies or testing more relatives. Check the Y and mtDNA haplogroups of your matches at 23andMe and Family Tree DNA. It's possible, if your ancestors were among the earliest arriving in Virginia, for instance. that you might indeed have Native American ancestry. However, that far back any trace of these ancestors' DNA is probably no longer discernible. If your Native American ancestor was said to have been born in the 19th or 20th centuries you should find traces of their DNA in your results. In a case of a supposed closer ancestor not showing up then the story you were told is just another tall tale.