Revolutionary Service and the Age Problem

The transcript of pension file R4398 preserves four reported tours: six months under Alfred Moore; three months as William Sergeant’s substitute under McFarlin; nine months under Robert Moore and William Goodman, including Stono; and three months under Mason Foley after Governor Burke’s capture. The chronology and officer names vary within the file.

The 31 October 1836 declaration gives his age as ninety-eight. Other research notes report eighty-five and an undated or faded 27 November document formerly assigned to 1825 by inference. Neither that inferred year nor a suggested reversal of “98” to “89” resolves the conflict.

In his letter of 27 April 1836 from Tumbling Shoals, John said his and brother William’s pension papers had been sent from Georgia the previous year. He described failing memory and dependence on acquaintances for support. His wife is mentioned, but not named, in another witness’s testimony. The transcript does not establish his father.

North Carolina and South Carolina

1784–1786: John bought at William Man’s estate sale in March 1784 (p. 28), received a 150-acre grant on Gents Creek on 10 November 1784 adjoining William and Thomas Carver (Caswell Deed Book D, p. 163, no. 833), and bought at John Dowell’s estate sale in April 1786 (p. 116).

1792–1797: John Gutrey witnessed the 15 July 1792 Bratcher deed on Bullet Branch of Reaborn Creek, recorded 10 May 1793 (Laurens Deed Book D, p. 446; fellow witness Elisha Hunt). On 21 June 1797, John Guthrey of “Lawrence,” understood as Laurens, South Carolina, sold Josias Carver 150 acres on Stories Creek (Person Deed Book C; witnesses William Carver and Edward Nash). Gents Creek and Stories Creek should not be treated as interchangeable names without tracing the land.

1800–1804: John Gouthory’s Laurens household includes a man and woman forty-five or older, a female sixteen to twenty-five, and two males ten to fifteen. These unnamed occupants do not establish the proposed children’s identities. An 1804 account lists John Guttery’s residence as “n. Allen’s” (Some South Carolina County Records, vol. 2, p. 268). Failure to find him as a household head in later censuses does not prove he was living with relatives.

Georgia Connections and Later Records

Associated 1827 lottery entries name Troup lot 13, district 9 (9 April); Muscogee lot 169, district 3 (8 May); and Carroll lot 87, district 15 (22 May). Awards do not establish residence in those counties, and all entries need an identity check.

A power of attorney executed 11 June 1827, under a 4 March 1828 entry, authorizes John’s son Benjamin of Walton County to sell land (p. 13). Its Troup lot is abstracted as 12, whereas the lottery and a 16 June 1827 sale to Elisha Winn give 13. The sale concerns 202½ acres and appears under a 24 May 1828 entry (p. 29; witnesses Rachel M. Guthier and Augustine Young). Execution and recording dates, and the lot-number discrepancy, need the originals.

John testified about John Roper’s service in Gwinnett County on 3 October 1832. His own pension papers place him in Laurens in 1836; the research also preserves a 3 November 1836 document. His exact death and burial remain unknown.

Keep Other Johns Separate

The grave attributed to John Guthrie, 17 December 1765–11 September 1838, in present-day McCormick County, South Carolina, does not establish this veteran’s identity and conflicts with the reported pension ages. It should not supply his death date or burial.

Ann’s unrelated GFG2A Branch A family also lived near Orange, Caswell, and Person. No corresponding John is identified in that generation, but absence from that reconstruction does not prove this John’s father. The nearby family’s Irish and Covenanter traditions raise a separate question about whether origin stories became confused in later retellings.

1782–1789: James bought at Steven Hamblin’s estate sale in December 1782 (p. 227), appears in a Caswell state-fines list in October 1787 (p. 200), and bought 250 acres south of the Tyger River from Philip and Elizabeth Anderson on 27 February 1788 for £200 sterling. He witnessed Daniel Lipham’s deed to Josias Darby on 10 February 1789 (Union Deed Book C, pp. 302–303). Will and James Guttery appear in John Rogers’s additional accounts as executor of Fielding Lewis in 1789 (Caswell Book B, p. 292).

1795–1798: A neighboring Anderson tract identifies James’s land in September 1795. A purchase dated 29 October 1796, recorded in 1798, calls him a tailor and concerns fifty acres adjoining Leverett and Jenkins; the consideration is abstracted as $50. On 6 November 1798, James conveyed Absolem Guthrie 100 acres from Jarrett Guttree’s 250-acre tract in Person. The research summaries disagree between $100 and $110 and between readings of widow Barnett/Garrett. The widow’s name must not become an invented wife for Garritt.

Household Clues

The 1790 Union household has one male sixteen or older and two females. The 1800 return has an older man, a woman twenty-six to forty-four, a female ten to fifteen, and four boys under ten. The 1810 household includes six younger males and two girls, with Absalom nearby. These counts help test the child list, but adjacency does not prove brotherhood and unnamed age categories do not identify individual children.

The 1820 return includes two older adults, three males sixteen to twenty-five, two females ten to fifteen, and a girl under ten, together with four enslaved people. Its additional male aged sixteen to eighteen is a subset of the sixteen-to-twenty-five category, not another person. The 1830 household includes a man seventy to seventy-nine, a woman fifty to fifty-nine, younger adults and girls, and two enslaved people.

The 1837 Estate

The 8 May gift names Polly P. Teagle, Absolom Guthrie, Elizabeth P. Hawkins, Mourning P. Guthrie, and Nancy C. Guthrie. The October appraisal valued personal property at $225.39; the research names Thos. A. Carlisle, W. N. Glenn, and Wm. and James Rogers in connection with the appraisal. The deed and estate file should establish the wording, capacities, and complete distribution.

1790: A Surry County household is a possible identification. The Carteret County household is not an established match and belongs in the separate Carteret identity investigation.

25 July 1798: Charles witnessed Nathaniel Guthrie’s marriage to Fanny Link in Halifax. This is a documented association; the proposed brotherhood requires the broader evidence.

29 November 1814: Charles bought 103 acres on the Dan River from John Link (Halifax Bargain and Sale Book 25, p. 142). On 27 February 1827, he sold 103 acres to James Warren, described near the Red House–Clarksville road (Book 34, p. 361). The family is associated with the 1830 Trigg County census.

The Carteret family descends from Daniel Guthrie and Mary Little and contains several men named Charles. Earlier research considered Charles Jr (1748–1809), husband of Mary Morse, or a younger Charles (about 1764–before 1820), husband of Nancy, as possible parties to that later marriage. Those alternatives depend on the wives’ death records and remain unresolved within the Carteret family.

Military and Shared Land

A 1778 enrollment list is reported to include James, William, and John Guttrey under Robert Moore. Identifying this William with a man born in 1764 would make him about fourteen; that is a reason to check the identification and birth year, not to rewrite either automatically.

On 22 January 1779, James and William Guttree entered 250 acres on Adams Creek, adjoining Nathan Byas, Charles Bostick, and William Allen and including improvements where Garrett lived. A 13 October 1783 grant to William and James concerns 250 acres there (no. 459; Caswell Deed Book B, p. 281). These are important connections, but the summaries do not state a father–son relationship.

James’s pension names a brother William; John’s pension letter independently names a brother William. Establishing that both references concern this same William is an important step in reconstructing the siblings.

Caswell, Person, and the Sheppard Family

William appears in the 1784 tax research and as a witness with Ad. Murphey to William Smith’s 27 May 1785 sale to Goodloe Waren, 100 acres on Cain Creek for £60 (Deed Book C, p. 101). This predates Person County’s formation. A July 1787 bond identifies Elizabeth Guttery and Sarah Sheppard as John Sheppard’s heirs (p. 196); the complete wording is needed to establish each relationship. Will and James appear again in the 1789 Rogers accounts (p. 292).

On 27 November 1792, William of Laurens conveyed Absolem Guthrie 125 acres on Adams Creek for £20 (Person Deed Book A, pp. 149–150), witnessed by Timothy Holt, Benjamin Harralson, and Nathaniel Guthrie. The compressed phrase “after death of his parents” needs the full deed: it may concern deferred possession and does not establish that Garritt and his wife were already dead.

A 27 May 1794 Johnston–Deshazo deed places William and James among adjoining owners (Person Deed Book A, pp. 205–206). It provides another land connection, not an independent statement of kinship.

South Carolina Land and Household Records

The 1790 Laurens household contains one adult male, one younger male, and four females, next to William Johnston. An October 1797 Pitman sale concerns 100 acres on Cuffeetown and Mountain Creek for £45 (Deed Book 15, pp. 201–204; jurisdiction should be checked). On 13 March 1798, Peter and Mary Jones sold William about 400 acres on Mountain and Horse Pen creeks for £45.

Elizabeth Guttery appears among William Johnston’s 1798 legatees (Will Book A, p. 181). The suggested grandfather relationship requires the will’s wording, not simply proximity or inclusion in a list of beneficiaries.

William and Elizabeth both signed by mark in the 17 November 1800 conveyance of 279 acres on Bird Creek to John Smith for $500, recorded 8 October 1802 (Edgefield Deed Book 22, pp. 239–240; witnesses George Harris and Aaron Grinage). A 20 December 1800 Mountain/Horse Pen Creek transaction is also noted, but its full parties and terms remain to be recovered.

The proposed 1800 Edgefield household has a man forty-five or older and several females, with no younger males reported. The 1810 identification includes two boys ten to fifteen and a boy under ten. The changing counts do not by themselves establish a complete child list. A Washington County, Georgia, household in 1820 remains only a candidate.

Distinguishing the Georgia Williams

Associated 1827 lottery entries name Williams from Gwinnett and Newton counties and may represent different men. The 5 April 1830 purchase of fifty acres of lot 88 for $130 is explicitly by William J. Guthrie from William F. Phillips (Coweta Deed Book A, p. 374; recorded 6 April). It must not be silently assigned to the older William.

The proposed 1830 household places William at seventy to seventy-nine, inconsistent with 1764. The 1840 household is headed Wm. J. Guthrey and contains an older male; that does not establish that the older man was the head. County-formation background is not evidence of the family’s arrival date. Ann’s nearby GFG2A Branch A reconstruction has no corresponding William in this generation, but that alone cannot settle these identities.

1792–1804: Nathaniel witnessed William’s 27 November 1792 deed to Absolem. Halifax militia references record him as ensign and lieutenant in 1796 (Pleas and Minutes 17:472; 18:29), and as captain in 1804 (23:91; 23:253). A 1803 Person deed from William Stuart to Alexander Cunningham for $120 names Nathaniel as witness.

22 March 1810: Berryman’s Halifax tax list includes Charles, Nathaniel, Casen, and Ephram Guthrie. The shared surname does not establish that every entry belongs to this family; Halifax contained unrelated Guthrie lines.

1820–1821: Halifax Deed Book 29, p. 332, records Nathaniel, formerly of Halifax, conveying 271½ acres south of the Dan River to John L. Crawley for $666. The abstract contains both 8 December 1820 and 28 May 1821; execution and recording dates should be distinguished. Witnesses are reported as Wm. Standfield, Robert Brandon, Benjamin Adams, and John Standfield.

Williamson County, Tennessee, court proceedings in 1820 call for a deposition from Nathaniel Guthrie of Lauderdale County, Alabama; a continuation calls him Captain Guthrie. This is a specific Alabama residence lead, distinct from his later reported Franklin County death.

Further Research: Larry J. Guthrie’s Guthrie Family Info — Nathaniel Guthrie of Halifax, Virginia, preserved by USGenWeb Archives, collects family records and theories concerning Nathaniel and Garritt. Its conclusions should be evaluated alongside the cited records.

The 1792 William-to-Absolem deed and 1798 James-to-Absolem deed connect him to the Adams Creek and Hico/Aspin Mill Creek properties. Their unresolved wording and consideration are discussed in William’s and James’s accounts. Neither abstract should be stretched into a parentage statement it does not clearly make.

The sixteen-to-twenty-five-year-old male in Garritt’s proposed 1800 household could be Absalom, but is unnamed. In 1805, Absolom Gutrie appears with 250 acres and one white poll in Captain Morrow’s company on the Person tax list.

The associated 1810 Union household includes a man and woman twenty-six to forty-four, a boy and girl under ten, and two enslaved people. Census categories alone cannot identify the children.

On 7 December 1835, Absolem and Rebecca of Spartanburg gave power of attorney to John D. Guthrie. The abstract identifies Rebecca as an heir of William Allen (Person County Letters of Attorney).

The will leaves property to wife Rebecca, including land, livestock, and enslaved people, and provides a horse for each son as he comes of age. William and John Grogan proved the will on 19 July 1836 (Spartanburg Will Book C, pp. 92–94). That is a probate date, not an exact death date; the full will and estate papers may clarify the children and distribution.

The birth date: The identical 1 January 1756 date assigned to Mary and her sister Agnes does not establish that they were twins. A contemporary birth record or a traceable family record is needed.

The marriage: Locate the complete Bedford marriage entry, bond, consent, or minister’s return associated with 26 February 1772. Search the surname under Forqueran and variants such as Fourqueron, while comparing the spouse, place, and associates.

The 1827 probate: Compare the decedent’s name, residence, spouse, heirs, witnesses, and property with this household. A probate date is an estate-event date, not automatically a death date. Kanawha belonged to Virginia in 1827; a modern West Virginia collection title does not change the historical jurisdiction.

The migration: Kentucky and Kanawha accounts might concern successive residences or different families. Deeds, tax lists, and the children’s marriages can test those possibilities without choosing one merely because it appears in more trees.

Research References: Bedford County marriage records; the proposed 9 April 1827 Kanawha probate entry in West Virginia, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1724–1985; and the compiled Forqueran child list. The probate identification remains unverified.

Evidence for the marriage: Ed Marsh traced Agnes’s identification as William’s wife to a 1937 letter from Robert Achilles Russell to Rev. B. T. Candler. Marsh reported finding no corresponding marriage record in Bedford or Campbell County.

Birth and death: Family accounts give Agnes’s birth as 1 January 1756 or place it in 1757. Her reported death on 17 July 1848 duplicates the date assigned to sister Mildred. Either or both dates may be correct, but independent notices or estate records are needed before accepting both as secure.

A further child to investigate: Marsh also places a Daniel Candler, born about 1784, under William. His relationship to Agnes requires comparison with the five-child reconstruction above.

Further Reading: Ed Marsh, “Lynchburg Candlers — The First Generations” (1999), especially the Agnes Guthrie discussion and Candler household comparisons. The cited 1937 letter and the relevant estate and marriage records remain important documents to obtain.

Virginia Records

1787: James is listed as a personal-property taxpayer in Bedford County. In 1800, a James Gutridge entry records one male tithable and one horse. These are tax references, distinct from the later federal census entries.

1808: Marsh cites Campbell Deed Book 8, pp. 272–274, recorded 11 July: Daniel Candler of Maryland, William Candler, and James Guthree conveyed 285 acres associated with deceased Henry Candler to James Candler. The deed is a useful kinship lead.

1810: The family research identifies James in Lynchburg, Campbell County. Comparing the original household and neighboring entries with the Bedford tax records would help establish continuity.

Was James a Quaker?

A family-history account says James joined South River Monthly Meeting in 1782. Correspondence published by Marsh instead says he was not known to be a Quaker. Neither statement should settle the question without the meeting record.

A separate set of Candler meeting extracts identifies James Candler, son of John, as received by request on 10 May 1782. That entry concerns James Candler. It raises a possible identity-confusion question, but does not by itself disprove a separate admission of James Guthrie.

Ohio Household and Child Identifications

The 1820 Fairfield, Highland County reference supports the Ohio portion of the research. The proposed identification of James in Henry Guthrie’s 1840 household rests on age categories; the census does not name every occupant or state relationships.

A forwarded 1999 genealogy differs from the current child dates, giving Henry as 1780–1859 and Agnes as born in 1780. The current reconstruction gives Henry 1782–1853 and Agnes 1790–1870. These discrepancies require comparison with each child’s own records.

That compilation also offers spouse leads: William—Rachel Jones; Henry—Margaret Anthrum; Martha—John Wright; Penelope—John Blalock; Agnes—Thomas Jones; Elizabeth—Jacob Kinzer; John C.—Gensy Jane Glass; Mildred—Thomas Gallaspy; and James Jr—Mahala C. Hardy, Mariah Callihan, and Sarah Jane Huff. These are research leads, not independently verified marriages.

Sources & Further Reading: The Guthrie Family of Pike County, Illinois, cited in the family’s research notes; the Bedford tax and Ohio census references; Marsh’s Candler essay, Candler Quaker extracts, and forwarded Guthrie genealogy. The latter contains conflicting dates and should be used as a lead rather than a final authority.

Franklin County Court References

May 1786: Henry Guthry’s probate account names John Guthry as a witness and legatee who relinquished an interest. The complete will and order are needed before describing the scope of that relinquishment. John was already twenty-five if his reported February 1761 birth is correct.

August 1787: John Guttery served as a juror in Early v. Moody and Holley v. Cockram. These are two case references; repeated citations to the same cases do not represent additional events.

4 May 1789: The quarterly sessions include dismissal of Callaway & Co. v. Jno. Guttery. The brief entry does not explain the dispute or establish its outcome beyond dismissal.

Six Mile Creek, Nine Mile Creek & Rowley Cemetery

The settlement account names Six Mile Creek, while a death-location entry names Nine Mile Creek. A burial reference gives Rowley Cemetery on Six Mile Creek, associated with Martinsburg. These descriptions should be compared with land and cemetery records rather than treated as interchangeable.

The published Rowley Cemetery compilation includes John and Nancy from information supplied by Susan Bowman, but explicitly says neither appears in the cited cemetery list or photographs. Their inclusion is therefore a family-information entry, not a documented surviving headstone. The same compilation’s King and Queen County origin suggestion should not override the family and DNA evidence placing this line with Henry and Penelope.

Some accounts use Martinsville, while the cemetery reference uses Martinsburg. Confirm the place from the actual cemetery and land records. A proposed Kentucky stage in the migration likewise needs independent evidence.

Research References: Franklin County court orders for 1786–1789; the family account titled My Grandmother: Eliza Guthrie Briant Watson, 1843–1923; the burial citation abbreviated “LRG, p. 12” in the family notes; and the Rowley Cemetery compilation. An abbreviated citation or a cemetery database entry should be traced to its underlying evidence.

The family Bible: A published reproduction labeled David Guthrie’s Family Bible Record is an important source to compare with the child list. The complete record, its publication or ownership history, and whether entries were contemporary or copied later all matter when assessing the dates.

The twelve-child list: The current reconstruction includes Penelope, reported born in 1801, as well as Sara, whose dates remain unknown. William’s proposed 1796 date should not be treated as evidence that he and Benjamin were twins. The Bible and estate distributions may help establish order, identity, and married names.

6 January 1841 versus 19 October 1842: An estate-related event labeled “Probate” is dated before David’s reported death. It could represent the writing of a will or another proceeding, but that explanation remains a hypothesis until the document is read. Preserve both dates while checking the document’s actual wording, signature date, proof, and recording date.

Anderson residence and burial: The research includes an additional residence reference about 1841 and an Anderson County burial association. A cemetery name and independently supported grave identification remain to be established here.

Test proposed additional children: Anselm Guthrie and Matilda Brock’s family has been proposed in connection with David and Mary, but that parentage and a GFG1A assignment remain unproved. A suitable Y-DNA test and documentary evidence are needed before adding Anselm to this household.

Research References: Franklin County marriage records; the 1800–1840 census sequence; the family Bible reproduction; and South Carolina, U.S., Wills and Probate Records, 1670–1980. Census and database attachments must be checked against their original pages before resolving the estate-date discrepancy.

Start with the complete will: Transcribe Sally’s bequest exactly and identify any surname, residence, property, or associated person that could distinguish her from other Sarah or Sally Guthries.

Compare each proposed marriage separately: Look for a bond, parental consent, minister’s return, deed, estate distribution, or other record linking the bride to Henry, Penelope, or a documented sibling. A matching name and approximate age are insufficient.

Do not merge two Sallys: Sarah “Sally” Bradley, who married Benjamin Guthrie, is this family’s daughter-in-law. The shared familiar name does not make her Henry and Penelope’s daughter Sarah.

Most Wanted: Henry’s full will and subsequent distributions, the original documents behind the competing marriage claims, and a later record giving Sarah’s married name or relationship to a sibling.

Marriage date: The Franklin marriage references need comparison at the level of the bond, license, and minister’s return. The reported dates 13 and 15 September 1786 might concern different stages of the marriage process, but that explanation has not been established. David Guthrie and Mary Booth’s reported 13 September marriage is a separate event.

Stephen’s name: Family accounts sometimes use “Stephen Shaybe Booth” or “Boothe.” The middle name requires documentary support; it is not adopted here as established.

Henry and Harry: Both names appear separately in the family reconstruction, with births assigned to 1788 and 1794. They should neither be merged automatically nor treated as conclusively distinct without examining their records. The second name is Harry, not Fanny.

Mary’s birth: A birth in 1818 would place Penelope at about fifty-one. That makes the dates and relationship worth checking; it does not alone justify removing Mary from the household.

County continuity: The two Bedford counties in this family’s wider history are in different states. Tennessee tax and deed records should establish the route from Pendleton to Bedford and Haywood.

Research References: Franklin County marriage records; the 1790 and 1800 Pendleton census references; Tennessee tax records for 1812 and 1836; the 1850 Haywood census; and the compiled Booth family accounts. Dates and child assignments remain subject to those original records.

The Revolutionary-War Recollections

The transcript of Daniel French’s pension file, R14291, preserves Ann’s claims for a widow’s pension and bounty land. She described Daniel’s two militia tours, an illness during service, and his return home with help from his brother Hugh. A claim describing service is distinct from proof that a pension was awarded.

Ann said the Guthrie and French fathers were neighbors near Hales Ferry on the Staunton, also called the Roanoke River. Her use of Franklin County for events before its creation requires reading the place as the area later incorporated into Franklin.

She recalled John moving from Powell Valley to Kentucky and David moving south. She also named William “Kandeler” as a sister’s husband. That corroborates a Guthrie–Candler connection but does not name the sister in that passage.

Lost Records and Conflicting Ages

Ann reported two lost family registers: one burned in a Virginia schoolhouse and another destroyed later. She named William Johnson as the minister but could supply no surviving written marriage record.

The family research gives her age as eighty-three in 1850 and ninety-eight in 1860. Her declaration says above ninety, rather than exactly ninety. These statements do not establish a single birth year. Her recollection of being nearly grown during the Yorktown campaign also needs comparison with the younger estimates.

She said papers entrusted to eldest son Mason French were lost after his home was robbed. Her declarations were signed by mark because of failing eyesight.

Catherine’s Affidavit and the Child List

The family account says Catherine French Flanagan was the sixth child, that Sarah was eldest, and that only one other sibling survived. The published transcript’s note names that sibling David, four years older; the family account instead names Daniel. The original affidavit must resolve this discrepancy. William S. Flanagan also supplied testimony.

Catherine’s stated position as sixth child conflicts with the working list above, which places six children before her. Do not resolve this by silently deleting a child or changing a date.

The family’s fuller pension notes also identify son-in-law William D. Littell, who described his deceased wife as the youngest daughter and next-to-youngest child. He did not name her in that summary. This raises a possible later son; it does not establish his name or automatically identify Littell’s wife with Sofia.

Source: C. Leon Harris’s transcription of R14291, revised 3 March 2014, together with the fuller family notes on the accompanying affidavits. The original pension images should govern disputed names, ages, and wording.

The Gentry question: A Vawter compilation abstracts the 1811 bride’s name as Gutrey/Gentry and cites Lynchburg Marriage Book 1, p. 4. The original reading could affect the proposed intervening Gentry marriage; that marriage remains inferred.

The 1831 wedding: The notice published Monday, 8 August 1831, says the ceremony took place on the preceding Thursday. That points to 4 August, not 3 August. The minister was Rev. Robert Ryland and the groom was described as of Pittsylvania. A compiled abstract also identifies a 7 July 1831 marriage contract, Lynchburg Deed Book K, p. 329.

The 1830 ages: The research places Milly in the fifty-to-fifty-nine category, which does not fit a 1769 birth exactly. The two boys’ reported age categories are fifteen-to-nineteen and ten-to-fourteen. Census categories support household reconstruction but do not name the boys or establish maternity by themselves. The household also included three enslaved people.

Silas: His death is reported on 31 July 1833. The Vawter compilation identifies a wife Sarah, whose surname appears with conflicting readings. His early death should not be equated with proof that he never married.

Bransford: Remembered as an early Lynchburg poet, he is reported to have died of tuberculosis in 1838. The compiled newspaper and burial references differ between 15 and 16 November. “In his twenty-third year” and “aged twenty-three” also require distinction when estimating his birth.

A possible additional child: A compiled Vawter account proposes a young Benjamin, buried in 1827. His parentage requires independent confirmation.

Research References: The Franklin and Lynchburg marriage records; the 1830 census; The Lynchburg Virginian; and the Benjamin Vawter family compilation, which supplies record-book references for further checking.

Mildred Echols’s will is reported as dated 15 August 1839, while another research entry gives 1838. A compiled abstract cites Lynchburg Hustings Court Will Book C, p. 250, with probate on 7 August 1848. The original pages are needed to settle the year and establish the complete text.

The following is the complete emancipation clause preserved in the family’s transcription, not the complete will. Its uncertain spelling and readings are retained for comparison with the manuscript.

“It is my will and desire and I hereby especially direct that my negro woman Nancy shall immediately upon my death be liberated and set free. It is also my will and desire that my slaves Davy & Charles children of the said Nancy together with any child or children which the said Nancy may hereafter have, shall upon them attaining to the ages of twenty five years respectively, be likewise liberated and set free, and especially injoin(?) it upon my excecution herein after named to see to the due execution of the request in this clause contained.”

The bequest summary names nephew Henry Lazenby as the principal beneficiary, receiving the real estate and the benefit of Davy and Charles’s labor until each reached twenty-five. It also identifies a bequest to Mary Vawter, widow of John Vawter, without establishing her relationship to Milly.

The directions distinguish Nancy’s immediate release at Milly’s death from the children’s delayed release. They do not prove that emancipation was carried out. Estate accounts, court orders, and records of free people of color may reveal what happened to Nancy, Davy, Charles, and any later children.

The estate inventory reportedly valued Nancy and two children together at $900. Retaining their names alongside the testamentary provisions helps make their individual histories traceable.

Henry Lazenby’s identity: He must not automatically be identified with Ruth Guthrie’s son Henry, whose tree entry gives a death in 1804. If that early death is correct, he cannot be this later beneficiary. The will’s kinship wording and the Lazenby records need comparison.

Milly’s death: The reported 17 July 1848 date also appears for sister Agnes. An independent notice or estate record should verify each date.

Sources: The family’s will extract and bequest summary; Lynchburg Hustings Court Will Book C, p. 250, as cited in the Vawter compilation; and the associated estate inventory. The complete will, probate order, and evidence of implementation remain to be obtained.

10 December 1799: Benjamin purchased 115 acres on Merrymon’s Creek from Ann and Daniel French, identified in the family research as his sister and brother-in-law.

27 January 1801: The notes describe a mortgage to William Bradley, calling him Benjamin’s father-in-law. On 6 July 1801, the Guthries and Bradleys reportedly conveyed the tract to John Guthry. The original deeds should establish the parties and whether kinship is stated or supplied by the researcher.

Sarah’s parents: Another account identifies Philip and Sarah Bradley as her parents, while William appears as marriage surety. Surety alone does not establish fatherhood. The Philip–William discrepancy remains unresolved.

The census problem: The family research proposes a Botetourt household in 1830, with Benjamin aged fifty-to-fifty-nine. A Floyd compilation gives that age category again in 1840 and transcribes him as a sixty-seven-year-old carpenter in 1850. The latter implies birth about 1782–1783, conflicting with 1769. Compare the original entries and household identities before choosing a birth year.

Places and missing entries: Floyd County was formed in 1831. Failure to locate a Franklin household in 1820 does not establish death or a particular migration. The 1830 Botetourt identification remains a candidate to connect through deeds and neighbors.

The 1850 household: The compilation places Sally, Betsy, and Patsy with Benjamin, together with younger household members. Those relationships and the five-child list require record-by-record assessment; census co-residence alone does not prove parentage.

Further Reading: Benjamin & Sarah “Sally” Bradley Guthrie Family, Floyd County research compilation; Franklin deeds and marriage records; and the 1853 death register. The age and death-date conflicts should remain visible until the originals resolve them.

The reported 1831 list: Researcher Lem Guthery’s account describes Henry Guthry as married, a farmer, and the father of seven children. The next entry is David Guthry, unmarried, without children, and also a farmer. The account refers to a Georgia genealogical publication drawing on a WPA extraction of records concerning the Cherokee.

The original list, its date, and the chain of transcription remain essential. Adjacent entries do not by themselves establish a father–son relationship. A license for residence among the Cherokee does not establish Cherokee ancestry, and an 1831 entry does not prove residence there throughout the 1820s.

The 1840 household: The candidate Alabama entry includes a male aged sixty-to-sixty-nine, consistent with a birth around 1770–1780. If correctly identified, Henry was living at the enumeration; the year should not be copied as an exact death date. A later death in Georgia or Alabama remains the research estimate.

David Guthery: Lem’s account identifies David, born in South Carolina in 1811 and later married to Mary Ann Crone, as Henry’s son. Its specific Abbeville birthplace needs verification against the Pendleton associations. Established Abbeville families from GFG9 and GFG13 should not be merged into this line merely because of geography or surname.

Edwin: Edwin A. Guthrie, reported born in 1813, remains the second named child in the reconstruction. His relationship needs its own documentary chain.

Keep other Henrys separate: This man is not established as Henry P. or Henry Pigg Guthrie, husband of Mary Catherine Stedman in York County on 19 December 1818. He is also distinct from the Henry Guthrie associated with Catherine Dobson in Claiborne County, Tennessee. Neither marriage identifies his wife.

Research Leads: Lem Guthery’s “Henry Guthery Brick Wall” notes on Genealogy.com; the Clan Guthrie article “A Fifty Year Search for One Ancestor”; the Pendleton deed; the reported 1831 license list; and the 1840 Cherokee County census. The original license image remains a priority.

The interval between births: From Henry’s reported 3 October 1771 birth to Ruth’s 5 March 1781 birth is about nine and a half years. The gap is not eleven years and does not alone disprove the proposed parentage. The other children’s uncertain birth estimates must also be considered.

Marriage: Compare the Bedford bond, license, and minister’s return for 9 and 12 October 1802. Two index dates need not represent two ceremonies.

Which Henry Lazenby? The current child entry gives Henry as 1803–1804. Mildred Echols’s later will names a nephew Henry Lazenby. An infant who died in 1804 cannot be that beneficiary. The child’s death date, the nephew’s exact relationship, and the possibility of another Henry must be investigated separately.

Joshua’s age: An age of ninety-one at death in January 1865 would suggest birth about 1773–1774, while the family tree gives 1775. The burial record and inscription should be compared before treating the age and year as consistent.

The Ohio move: Dates and places assigned to the younger children are useful clues, but each must be sourced. They do not establish the exact travel date or prove that James Guthrie accompanied the Lazenbys.

Research References: Bedford marriage records; the 1850 and 1860 Clinton County censuses; Ohio probate records; Sugar Grove Cemetery records; and the Lazenby family reconstruction. Mildred’s will provides a separate kinship lead requiring an identified beneficiary.

Which March 1744?

The date 5 March 1744 is retained as it appears in the court abstract. Its placement after an autumn 1744 entry suggests an Old Style date that could be written 1744/45, but the original court sequence must confirm that interpretation. William would have been fourteen in March 1744 or fifteen in March 1745. Neither age should be adopted as settled before checking the record.

James Daniel Jr and Robert Daniel are valuable associates to follow in the search for William. The apprenticeship entries alone do not establish that either man was related to him.

William Guthrie & Eleanor Harris Abbott

The William Guthrie who married Eleanor Harris Abbott, often assigned dates of 1722–1798, is not identified as this twin. His tested paternal family belongs to GFG5, while the Middlesex John Guthrie family belongs to GFG1A. No documentary chain establishes the proposed attachment.

The GFG5 identification extends beyond a single Guthrie–Abbott descendant line. It must not be used as a substitute family for the untraced William born in 1729. This twin’s own descendants, if any, have not been identified.

Court References: William Lindsay Hopkins, Middlesex County, Virginia, Wills and Inventories 1673–1812 and Other Court Papers (1989), pp. 272, 278, as further abstracted in Pam Miller’s Daniel court-record extracts. The cited underlying order-book pages are 146 and 277. The fuller training terms are preserved in the family research notes and should be compared with the original order.

Garritt’s associated families: Y-DNA relatedness does not settle whether each proposed descendant was his son, grandson, or a member of another related branch. Deeds naming relationships, probate distributions, guardianships, and contemporary family records remain essential.

Judith Guthrie Gunter: Her proposed placement as a daughter of John and Jane Mitcham remains unproved. Autosomal matches among descendants may guide research, but shared ancestry through other lines and the distance of this proposed relationship must be considered. The absence of a detectable match would not by itself exclude her.

Descendants through daughters: Women do not transmit their father’s Y chromosome. Their descendants can contribute documentary evidence and autosomal research, but their own paternal Y-DNA follows a different surname line unless another Guthrie paternal connection is present.

Untraced children: No identified participant through a child is a statement about the research assembled so far, not proof that the child had no descendants.

For the broader evidence, visit the Branch B research discussion and Guthrie Family Group 1A. Participation notes in the descendant accounts describe the project evidence assembled for those families; they are not a count of independent proof for every proposed relationship.

Compare the matching names with the collection title, date, place, and register entry. A suggested record is a lead to examine, not a verified attachment. The index discrepancy is separate from the mistaken attachment to the Virginia family.

The register crop shows entry 735, John Howard Paul, parents John and Elizabeth Guthrie, residence Black Boy Hill, and the baptism day January 2. The year is not visible in that crop; the full page heading and adjacent entries should settle the index discrepancy.

Occupation correction: “Plumber & Decorator” appears together in one occupation cell. The entry does not separately identify Elizabeth as a decorator.

Select a reproduction below to open the larger image from the published comparison.

Source: Ancestry, Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813–1922, together with the two indexes listed above; record-comparison images preserved at Guthrie Genealogy. See also the John Howard Paul case and the elder John of Middlesex case.

AGAF, printed p. 428: The account identifies Charles as a son and Nathaniel as a presumptive son. Those descendant references help identify the family being discussed, but each relationship still requires assessment against the records. Correcting “Garner” does not validate every other claim in the account.

Book: Laurence R. Guthrie, American Guthrie and Allied Families: Lineal Representations of the Colonial Guthries of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Some Post-Revolutionary Emigrants and of Some Allied Families (Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, 1933). FamilySearch book record · Open Library record · Ancestry book-image reference.

• Garritt’s wife: Her identity remains unknown. The Sarah Coleman attachment is unsupported. See Garritt’s evidence and family accounts.
• William Guthrie & Eleanor Harris Abbott: Their tested paternal family belongs to GFG5. It is not an established continuation of John and Mary’s twin William.
• Charles Guthrie’s wife: The Halifax–Trigg County Charles and Mariah must not be merged with the Carteret County Mary Hendrickson marriage. See Charles’s family discussion.
• Benjamin Guthrie: “T.” and “Tobias” do not belong in his name without evidence. See Benjamin and Sarah Bradley.
• Henry Guthrie / Guthery: The proposed South Carolina–Alabama descendant is not automatically Henry Pigg Guthrie of the Stedman marriage or Henry Guthrie of the Catherine Dobson marriage. See the Henry Guthery account.
• Anselm Guthrie & Matilda Brock: Their proposed connection to David and Mary Booth remains unproved. They retain Ungrouped status pending the necessary documentary and Y-DNA evidence.

The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812 (Richmond, Virginia, 1897). This is a published transcription, distinct from the original manuscript.

Open the digitized volume · Open the PDF

Page numbers above are the book’s printed numbers, not the viewer’s image count. January through 24 March entries require attention to the year convention. A baptism date should not be substituted for an unrecorded birth date.

The first William’s mother: The register names Mary. His February and March 1722/23 entries follow John’s September 1722 marriage to Mary Shay. There is no calendar reason to change the recorded mother to Jane.

The Household Timeline preserves the dated abstracts, including Finney’s livestock gift; John’s debt actions; the Baskett, Daniel, Nicholls, and Wood transactions; parish care payments; Mary’s administration; and the sons’ apprenticeships.

Research Tree: John Guthrie’s profile in Ann’s Guthrie Research Tree brings the family’s record references together. An attached abstract and the original court or deed image are different sources; spelling, year conventions, and legal relationships should be compared.

Finney’s Guardianship & the Livestock Gift

A fuller court abstract supplies specific references for 3 February 1706/7: Middlesex Order Book 4, 1704–1710, p. 80, and Deed Book 3, pp. 124–125. It reports John’s petition to have William Finney as guardian, Finney’s acknowledgment of a deed of chattels, and a bond involving William Finney, William Provost, and David Davis before Justice John Grymes.

The bond concerns property due to John, described as an orphan of John Guttery deceased, to be paid when he reached lawful age. The gift abstract names John Meacham and James Meacham as witnesses. These are valuable court and associate references, although the manuscript wording still needs checking.

A transcription conflict: The fuller abstract reads two two-year-old horses, whereas another family abstract reads two two-year-old heifers. Both include their increase. The original deed should determine the animals given. The account’s inference that John was the only surviving son, and its description of “adoptive” records, should not be treated as established by the petition and bond.

William’s apprenticeship: Middlesex Orders, 1740–1744, pp. 146 and 277, are cited through William Lindsay Hopkins, Middlesex County, Virginia, Wills and Inventories 1673–1812 and Other Court Papers (1989), pp. 272 and 278, and Pam Miller’s Daniel court-record extracts. The 5 March 1744 year label still needs comparison with the original sequence.

Finding the originals: The Library of Virginia’s Middlesex County microfilm guide lists the mixed volume on reel 4 containing the 1740–1744 orders, pp. 133–281, and the 1745–1752 orders on reel 38. The guide locates records; it is not an image of the entries.

Read the legal terms carefully: “Orphan” may identify a child whose father had died while the mother was living. “Estate” can describe a living person’s property. A five-shilling lease consideration is not automatically the price of an outright land purchase.

Charles Gunter & Judith Guthrie

Charles Gunter’s will, in Ancestry’s Virginia wills and probate collection, names wife Judith and children William, John, Jane, and Charles. It is evidence for the Gunter household, not a statement of Judith’s parents. Milvey’s omission alone does not establish that she died before the will. See Judith’s family account.

Henry Guthrie & Penelope Johnson

Henry Guthry’s estate record: Franklin County, Virginia, Will Books, Volumes 1–2, 1786–1825, in Ancestry’s U.S. wills and probate collection. Viewer locations are inventory image 28 of 590 and will images 29–30 of 590.

Read the will together with the court orders. The May 1786 administration, February 1787 inventory, and later changes in estate administration are separate events. The court dates alone do not establish an exact death on 18 May 1786. A separate entry in David’s family Bible reproduction reports his father’s death that evening, providing additional evidence for the reported date; the father is not named in that line. Franklin court-order transcriptions and Marshall Wingfield’s An Old Virginia Court (1948), printed p. 22, supply additional leads. See Henry and Penelope’s estate discussion.

Mary Shay Guthrie & John III

Mary’s administration and inventory references belong to Middlesex Will Book C, 1740–1748. Her inventory was returned on 3 April 1744. The February 1743/1744 labels and the reading “Rames Reid” need the originals. John III’s reported probate date of 5 January 1747 also requires its court-year context. His daughter Ann/Nanny’s 1746 parish dates should not be changed back to 1748 to accommodate that question.

Mildred “Milly” Guthrie Echols

The Mildred account preserves the available emancipation clause and the summary of other bequests. It is an extract, not the complete will. The directive named Nancy, her children Davy and Charles, and any later children; freedom was to occur at different times under the stated terms. Henry Lazenby’s benefit from their labor until age twenty-five must be read alongside that directive.

The Vawter family compilation supplies a lead to Lynchburg Hustings Will Book C, p. 250, with a will dated 15 August 1839 and probate on 7 August 1848. Compare the complete record with the conflicting 1838 date in the family tree. Probate, estate accounts, and records of free people are needed to establish what actually happened to Nancy and her children.

These Southern Campaigns transcriptions provide access to testimony in pension files. They are transcriptions of primary records; disputed readings should be checked against the manuscript images. An application is not, by itself, proof that a pension was granted.

• James Guthery / Guthrie — S21793: The account names a brother, William Guthery, entrusted with James’s discharge to collect pay. It supplies service and migration evidence but does not name James’s father. Compare with James’s proposed Garritt connection.
• John Gutry — R4398: The 1836 correspondence also names a brother William and describes papers sent to Georgia. The men in the two pension files must be identified before those statements are combined into a proved three-brother family. See John’s account.
• Daniel French — R14291: Ann Guthrie French’s 1860 testimony names her father Henry and brothers John and David. It also refers to William Kandeler as a sister’s husband, independently supporting a Guthrie–Candler connection without naming that sister in the passage.

Ann’s family register: Her testimony describes lost marriage and family papers. Her age statements, Catherine’s birth order, and the brother named David in the transcript versus Daniel in family notes require comparison with the full file. See Ann and Daniel French for the family reconstruction and remaining conflicts.

Transcriptions: Will Graves, S21793 and R4398; C. Leon Harris, R14291, revised 3 March 2014. The complete files may contain material beyond a selected transcription.

Nathaniel Guthrie of Halifax, Virginia

Larry J. Guthrie’s “Guthrie Family Info”, USGenWeb Archives, includes Garritt and Nathaniel. Use the compilation to locate records and compare proposed relationships. Nathaniel’s placement as a son or grandson of Garritt remains a question in the Nathaniel account.

The Lynchburg Candlers

Ed Marsh, Lynchburg Candlers — The First Generations (1999): RootsWeb text · preserved web copy. Related studies include On Candler Genealogy, Quaker record notes, and forwarded Guthrie family information.

The correspondence preserves valuable leads, including the 1937 letter identifying Agnes Guthrie as William Candler’s wife. Later correspondence, Quaker minutes, marriage records, and Ann French’s testimony should be considered together. Conflicting birth dates and statements about Quaker membership are not resolved merely by their appearance in a family compilation.

Benjamin & Sarah “Sally” Bradley Guthrie

Floyd County family study · RootsWeb reference. Compare its census ages and death information with the family’s traditional dates. Benjamin’s birth estimate, Sarah’s parents, and her 1853 death date remain disputed; the underlying census, deed, and death-register entries are the next step.

Henry Guthery’s South Carolina–Alabama Trail

Lem Guthery’s “Henry Guthery Brick Wall” discussion and the family’s reference to A Fifty Year Search for One Ancestor in Clan Guthrie research preserve the lead to an 1831 license list for residence among the Cherokee in Georgia. The reported entries describe Henry as a married farmer with seven children and David as unmarried.

The original list and its archival citation are still needed. Residence among the Cherokee does not establish Cherokee ancestry; adjacent names alone do not prove a father–son relationship. See Henry’s account.

This reproduction is captioned “Bible Pages from David Guthry’s Rev. War Pension File.” It contains family entries, cancellations, and an enlargement of one line. Its legible entries supply important evidence for David Guthrie and Mary Booth, but this partial reproduction does not establish every child and date in the twelve-child reconstruction.

Entries That Can Be Read in the Reproduction

Other entries name Nelson, Temperance, Milly, and Penelope, but portions of the writing are crossed through or less clear. A larger copy and the complete file are needed for a complete transcription that preserves the cancellations and uncertain readings.

A full citation should identify the Bible’s title and publication date, the record pages, the known owners, and the source of the copy. The pension file number and the pages identifying who submitted the leaves are also needed. Those details help distinguish entries made near an event from information entered later. The date labeled “probate” in 1841 also needs identification because David’s reported death is in 1842.

These clippings belong to the Vawter–Echols research trail discussed in Mildred’s family account. Publication dates are distinct from the dates of deaths, marriages, court orders, and other events described. Select a clipping to open its larger reproduction.

• 29 April 1830, p. 3: Reports Benjamin Vawter’s death by suicide on the preceding Sunday, consistent with 25 April 1830. The newspaper’s explanation of his mental state is its contemporary characterization, not a medical finding.
• 24 May 1830, p. 4: A notice signed Mildred Vawter, administratrix, calls for payment of debts owed to Benjamin’s estate and presentation of claims against it. The notice itself carries 20 May; that is distinct from the issue date.
• 25 July 1833, p. 4: An Amherst County writ concerns Benjamin Vawter’s debt action against Ambrose R. Hansard and Elijah Davis. It reports his death and the grant of administration to Mildred, with judgment still outstanding. The writ is dated 10 July 1833, signed by clerk Robert Tinsley, and calls for appearance on the third Monday in August. Its printing line begins 18 July.

Repeated Publications of the Notice

The family’s source list records variations of the notice on the following dates. Each issue is retained as a separate reference; wording should be compared before assuming every printing was identical.

The Echols marriage: The 8 August 1831 newspaper reference reports the marriage on “Thursday last,” which points to 4 August 1831. The newspaper date and inferred ceremony date should be cited separately and compared with the marriage return.

Related Finding Aid: Marriage and death extracts from Lynchburg newspapers, Ancestry viewer. An extract is a route to the newspaper, not a substitute for the complete notice. The Bransford Vawter memorial provides another lead to the cemetery marker and inscriptions; compare these with the contemporary notices.

1. Records identifying the three wives. Seek evidence of Sarah Stiff’s parents and death; Jane Mitcham’s parents and whether Mitcham was a birth surname; and Mary Shay’s parents and birth. Unsupported middle names and exact birthdays should not substitute for records.
2. A record naming Judith’s parents. Gunter deeds, marriage arrangements, estates, and family papers could establish or disprove the proposed John-and-Jane connection. Her marriage and her husband’s will establish her own household, not her parentage.
3. The complete Finney gift and any guardianship appointment. The fuller abstract now identifies the petition and bond at Order Book 4, p. 80, and Deed Book 3, pp. 124–125. Confirm the disposition and terms, and resolve the horses-versus-heifers transcription. Compare the younger Mary’s 1718 bond and inheritance records without assuming all other siblings had died.
4. The original Middlesex court and land entries. Priorities include the 1715 Baskett deed; both 4 September 1716 Walford entries; the 1720 Cheadle will date; the Dragon Swamp lease and release; and the Wait/Wyat proceedings. Check parties, dates, legal roles, and the identity of the John involved.
5. John’s and Mary’s complete estate papers. Compare grants of administration, inventories, accounts, distributions, and bonds. Resolve the January–March year labels and “Rames Reid.” The original apprenticeship orders may help trace William after his bindings and Henry’s connection to John III.
6. Later records for the untraced children. Jane, the twins, and John III’s daughters deserve continued searches in marriage, land, court, and estate records. Lack of a located record is not proof of death in childhood.
7. Documents naming Garritt’s wife and descendants. Full deeds, grants, powers of attorney, pensions, and probate records are needed to distinguish sons from grandsons and other related men. Preserve the separate identity questions within each of the six associated families.
8. The original Cedar Creek minutes and Henry’s full estate file. Establish the context of the January and February 1755 discipline entries without treating a meeting date as a wedding date. Compare the will, court orders, inventory, and later administration before fixing an exact death date.
9. Family registers and complete pension testimony. Obtain the complete pension file containing David’s Bible leaves and resolve its marriage and child-date differences; compare the French pension manuscripts with the transcription; and resolve the Booth marriage dates, children’s identities, and the duplicated Agnes/Mildred death date independently.
10. Mildred Echols’s full probate and emancipation trail. Seek the complete will, estate accounts, guardianships, and records concerning Nancy, Davy, and Charles. Identify the beneficiary Henry Lazenby without merging him with Ruth’s son reported to have died in infancy. Compare the 1811 bride’s Gutrey/Gentry readings before asserting a separate Gentry marriage.
11. Benjamin and Sarah Bradley’s original records. Resolve the conflicting birth estimates, the Philip-versus-William Bradley parentage claims, and Sarah’s competing 1853 death dates.
12. The 1831 Cherokee residence-license record. Locate the original entry and archival reference cited in the Henry Guthery research, then compare the men with South Carolina deeds and later Alabama records.

If you have a relevant record, include the full image where possible, its repository, book or collection, page or image number, and the family relationship you believe it establishes. A transcription alongside the image is especially helpful.