James Guthrie’s will, written 1 November 1800 and proved at May Term 1801, names Martha among his four eldest daughters. It also names grandson James Barnett. The grouping does not establish the daughters’ exact birth order.

Martha’s working birth estimate, before 1766, depends on identifying her as the older woman in Joseph Snodgrass’s proposed 1810 household. Maryland and North Carolina remain proposed birthplaces.

Her deed executed 8 September 1846 establishes that she was then living. The later proof and recording were performed through witnesses. Her reported death between 1846 and 1850 remains an estimate; no exact death or burial record has been identified.

James Guthrie’s recorded will, first page · ending and proof.

Hugh’s 6 October 1799 will names wife Martha, gives her a gray mare, and provides for her use of other property during her life or widowhood. If she remarries, it directs a division involving her and the children. Martha and Richard Felts are appointed executors; John Barnett and Mary Barnett witness the will.

Thomas is the only child named individually. Hugh discusses his infirmity in connection with binding children to trades. The will refers to other children without naming or counting them. It does not name James or William, and it does not identify every child’s mother.

The probate entry records Hugh as deceased in 1799, with the day and month left blank in the visible copy. A later tax-derived listing should not be used by itself to extend his life into 1800.

Possible earlier leads include a Hugh Barnett in the 1790 Caswell census, a 1796 Robertson County lawsuit involving James Burch, and Logan levy and tax entries in 1797–1799. These require identity checks before being added to Hugh’s established history.

View Hugh’s recorded will → · Read the retained transcription.

A 23 May 1803 letter describes the intended marriage of Joseph Snodgrass and Martha Barnett, identifying Martha as a widow and of age. The writer’s identity and wording should be checked before inferring a family relationship.

The 26 May 1803 Warren County bond binds Joseph Snodgrass and Isaac Stephens for Joseph’s intended marriage to Martha. William Chapline attests it. This is the bond date; a separate marriage return is needed to establish the ceremony date.

In July 1803, Logan County ordered Joseph to provide countersecurity for Martha’s administration of Hugh Barnett’s estate. Joseph supplied security and the former security was discharged. The order concerns continuing estate responsibilities after remarriage.

A reported 21 November 1815 settlement in Logan Order Book 6, p. 156, is a further lead. The original should be checked before using it to narrow Joseph’s death interval.

Marriage bond → · Estate-security order → · Retained 1815 order-book locator.

Certificate and survey: The 1818 act recites Logan certificate No. 109 for 400 acres, issued to Martha Barnett at September Term 1802. The survey dated 22 December 1803 places 400 acres on Gasper River. Joseph Snodgrass is director; David Snodgrass and James Barnett are chain carriers. The chain carrier James should not automatically be equated with a child born about 1795.

Legislative act, 4 February 1818: Chapter CCCI (301), p. 567, directly connects Martha Barnett with Martha Snodgrass. It describes Joseph’s death and her poverty, and directs a grant of 200 acres from the earlier land, with the survey and plat registered without fees while preserving others’ rights. The act does not establish military service by Hugh or a military-bounty origin for her certificate.

15 November 1836: Martha Snodgrass of Logan County conveys 100 acres for $100 to Thomas R. Barnett of Butler County, describing the land as part of her original 200-acre survey. The deed was proved and recorded 24 April 1837. It does not call Thomas her son. Citation: Logan Deed Book V, pp. 148–149, deed No. 150.

8 September 1846: Martha, recorded as Marthay Snodgrass, conveys land to W. Barnett for $50. The description covers a 200-acre tract but expressly excepts about 100 acres already deeded on its south side. It therefore concerns the remaining interest, not 200 additional acres. The prior grantee’s abbreviated name should be compared with the 1836 deed.

Martha signs by mark. Samuel Price proves execution on 25 September; C. Hutcheson supplies further proof on 28 September 1846, when the clerk records it. Neither the deed nor its consideration establishes that W. Barnett was her son. Citation: Logan Deed Book 26, pp. 456–457, deed No. 338.

The certificate, survey, reduced grant, and later conveyances belong to a title history. Their acreages should not be added together as separate purchases. A retained 1804 headright-sale image and later grant-index entries remain leads for completing that history.

1803 survey → · 1818 act → · 1836 deed → · 1804 headright-sale image →

On 24 August 1805, Joseph Snodgrass of Logan County appointed Robert Guthry to receive money or property due to him as legatee or heir of James Guthry, deceased, transact business, and give receipts. The instrument and its acknowledgment are dated the same day.

Read with Martha’s other records, this is a strong connection between the Snodgrass household and the Guthrie estate. The instrument itself does not name Martha or state that Robert was Joseph’s brother-in-law. It describes Robert in North Carolina but leaves the county space blank.

Logan Circuit Court Book A, p. 354. View the power of attorney →

1810, Joseph Snodgrass, Logan County: One male and one female aged 45 or older; two males aged 16–25; two males aged 10–15; one female under ten. This is seven people. The entry remains a proposed household identification; the five younger residents are not automatically five biological children of Martha.

A reported November 1810 order apprenticed Nancy Pitman, about seven, orphan of Burgess Pitman, to Joseph. That record may help explain a household association, but a November placement does not establish who was present at the August census reference date. The original order remains desirable.

1820, Russellville, Logan County: The manuscript and index read Thomas Bennett, followed by a William Bennett household. Thomas’s household contains one male 26–44, two males 16–25, and one female 45 or older: four people. Three engaged in agriculture is an occupation subtotal. The proposed Barnett identification and Martha’s presence remain hypotheses.

Retained tax abstracts report Joseph with 400 acres entered in Marthy Barnett’s name in 1815; Martha Barnett without land in 1817; and Martha Snodgrass with 200 acres in 1819 and 1821–1823. The changing names and acreage are useful leads, but the original pages and county descriptions should be compared. The William Barnett entries may involve more than one man.

Joseph was certainly dead by the 1818 act. An absence from a tax list or Martha’s reappearance under Barnett does not independently fix his death year.

Hugh’s son Thomas was living when the 1799 will was written. The separate proposal that he was Thomas R. Barnett of Butler County is supported by the later association with Martha, but the identifying link remains incomplete.

The proposed Thomas R. is reported born 1 January 1793 and deceased 16 November 1863, with burial at Russ Cemetery near Morgantown. A marriage to Anna Reed on 1 February 1825 and an administrator’s bond naming James H. Barnett on 11 April 1864 are retained research leads.

The family research identifies William R. Barnett (1828–1911) as their son, citing his death record. He married Mary Jane Garrison on 17 April 1861. Their children are listed as Sam Robert, James O., Laura, Thomas, and Nancy. The family appears in Vermillion, Dakota County, Minnesota, in 1870, and returned to Butler County by 1880 after Mary Jane’s death.

Anna and William’s separate census appearances warrant further work on Thomas’s residence and marital history; separation or divorce should not be assumed without a record. William R.’s 1828 birth also makes him a minor at Martha’s 1846 conveyance, so he should not be silently merged with its W. Barnett grantee.

James Barnett existed by 1 November 1800, when James Guthrie named him as a grandson. The family reconstruction places him with Martha. His identification with James Guthrie Barnett of Lawrence County, Arkansas remains a working hypothesis.

The proposed Arkansas James is reported born about 1795, in North Carolina or Kentucky, and married Mary Henderson about 1817. Missouri appears in the migration research before the family’s Arkansas years. His death is reported in 1846; the 1844 and 1846 probate references need to be separated into will, death, admission, and other estate events.

The following ten children belong to that proposed Arkansas family. Their inclusion preserves the research and does not resolve the missing connection to Martha:

• William H. Barnett (about 1817/1818–1857); Martha E. McGee; descendants reported.
• Martha G. Barnett (1820–1880); first James Cravens, then David McKnight; descendants reported.
• John Robinson Barnett; Linda Carolina Johnson; no children established in the retained account. The printed birth year “1722/3” is inconsistent with this proposed generation and requires source correction.
• James Alexander Barnett (about 1824/1825–1900); Nancy Jane Ware; descendants reported.
• Mary Ann Barnett (1829–1862); Markus B. Jackson; descendants reported.
• Harvey Clark Barnett (born about 1831/1832); later history unresolved.
• Franklin Monroe Barnett (1833–1888); Mary E. Cunningham; descendants reported.
• Ira Nelson Barnett (about 1836/1837–1866); Mariah Simpson; descendants reported.
• Margaret Elizabeth Barnett (1839–1899); first A. M. Holt, then Israel Folsom Dawson; descendants reported.
• Samuel K. Barnett; birth year and later history unresolved.

Reported autosomal matches and the separate Barnett Y-DNA project lead are discussed in DNA Participation. They should be considered alongside the documentary lineage.

The 1846 deed names W. Barnett, a Logan County resident, without explaining his relationship to Martha. The published family research considers a son, grandson, or other relative; none of those possibilities is established by the deed.

The proposed son William has no securely established dates, spouse, or child list. A William Barnett household in 1840 and a William Barnett aged 48 in James W. Covington’s 1850 Logan household are separate identity leads. If that man’s estimated 1802 birth is correct, it falls after Hugh’s 1799 death.

William R. Barnett, born in 1828, the William Sr. tax entries, the Bennett census households, and W. Barnett the grantee must each be traced before they can be combined. No additional child is created from a surname, a nearby household, or an unexplained land transaction.

• Martha’s Guthrie Research Tree profile.
• Martha’s WikiTree profile, a collaborative research summary.
• American Guthrie and Allied Families, Laurence R. Guthrie, 1933.
• Retained Kentucky–Tennessee county reference map →. A geographic aid, not a plotted property boundary.
• Original-record locators: Logan Will Book 1, p. 11; Survey Book C, p. 45; Order Book 3, p. 5; Circuit Book A, p. 354; Deed Book V, pp. 148–149; Deed Book 26, pp. 456–457; and the 1818 act, chapter 301, p. 567.

Linked transcriptions, indexes, trees, and source images serve different purposes. The conclusions here retain the completed image review; a locator does not mean every original volume or proposed descendant record has been fully examined.