The family study gives Hannah’s birth as 31 July 1758. James’s will names Hannah with Margery and Mary, giving them use of half the house while they remain single and unmarried. It also provides shared land and household goods. These clauses establish the daughters’ place in the 1809 family.

The previous research identified two Hannah Calhouns in Reuben’s 1850 household: his wife Hannah Beers and another woman about the same age. The death notices report Miss Hannah Calhoun, 26 January 1852, aged 73, and Mrs. Hannah Calhoun, wife of Reuben, 30 January 1852, aged 72. A woman born in July 1758 would have been ninety-three in January 1852. The discrepancy is too large to merge these identities without further evidence; it does not establish that Hannah misstated her age.

Margery’s reported birth is 23 July 1764 in the family study and 23 July 1763 in the published Guthrie genealogy. The reviewed record establishes a 23 July 1769 baptism, not either birth year. Her death is reported as 12 September 1843, with burial at Old Judea Cemetery. No marriage or children have been established in this review.

Preserved newspaper leads: Litchfield Enquirer, 4 March 1852, volume 26, issue 43, page 4; and Hartford Times, 6 March 1852. View the saved Litchfield clipping.

The family study reports Sarah’s birth as 30 November 1761 and death in 1842. Washington’s Barbour page 58 records Sarah, daughter of James, baptized 23 July 1769, and separately records Sarah’s marriage as Jonathan Hine’s second wife on 30 May 1808, citing volume 2, page 37. The baptism and marriage entries should be linked through additional evidence rather than their shared given name alone.

If the reported birth belongs to this Sarah, she was forty-six at marriage. Her omission from James’s will may be relevant to her already-married status, but the will does not explain the omission. No children have been established for this marriage in the supplied material.

Reuben’s birth is reported as 7 August 1766. The baptism transcription names him as James’s son on 23 July 1769. He married Hannah Beers before 1818 in the family reconstruction, farmed in Washington, and reportedly died in 1860.

James’s will leaves Reuben several parcels, a barn, half the stable, the new barn, and the dwelling, subject to the daughters’ use of half the house while unmarried. Reuben is also named an executor and signs the February 1814 bond.

1. Burr Calhoun, 1818 Connecticut–1903 Connecticut; farmer; married Susan L. Judson in Connecticut in 1848; children.
2. Abel Calhoun, 1822 Connecticut–1901 Connecticut; farmer; married Mary Eliza Judson about 1850; children.

No confirmed autosomal DNA participant is currently documented for Reuben’s line. The earlier participation statement has not been substantiated and is not counted in the project coverage below.

Barbour records James’s birth as 7 January 1769 and marriage to Sally Nichols on 28 March 1798, with the entry recorded on 19 December 1814 and cited to town volume 1, page 21. The separate baptism entry names James’s son James on 23 July 1769.

The family study describes him as a farmer and reports Sally’s death on 4 November 1851, followed by James on 8 March 1853. They are reported buried at Washington Cemetery on the Green. James is named son and executor in his father’s will.

1. Harmon Calhoun, 1799 Connecticut–1860 Connecticut; married Dorcas Philena Hopkins at New Milford in 1840; children.
2. Garry Calhoun, 1803 Connecticut–1822 Connecticut; died at nineteen.
3. James Harvey Calhoun, 1804 Connecticut–1850 New York; married Minerva Douglas in 1834; children.
4. David Calhoun, 1811 Connecticut–1889 Connecticut; married Fanny Rebecca Lemmon in 1838; children.

AncestryDNA participant. The documented descendant line continues through David Calhoun and Fanny Rebecca Lemmon. No participant name or kit number is displayed.

Washington’s Barbour page 58 records Mary, daughter of James, baptized 2 June 1771, citing volume 2, page 20. James’s will separately and repeatedly names his daughter Mary with Hannah and Margery. She receives an interest in land and household furniture, and rights in the dwelling and to gather fuel while unmarried.

These entries restore Mary to the working family list. The baptism does not state her birth date or name her mother. Her later marriage, death, and burial have not been established. She must remain distinct from her mother Mary Guthrie and from Mary B., daughter of William and Mary Ann.

The reviewed entry reads William, son of James, baptized 19 September 1773, citing town volume 2, page 22. The earlier family study used this as his birth date; it should now be identified as a baptism.

Barbour gives his first marriage as 23 December 1800 to Elizabeth TERRY, while the family study and recorded descendant line use Ferry. The original marriage entry is needed to settle that surname. His second marriage was 5 May 1812 to Mary Ann Parker. The first wife’s reported death in 1812 remains a separate fact to document; the remarriage itself does not supply her death date.

William is named son and executor in James’s will. The family study reports William’s death on 21 December 1835 and burial at Old Judea Cemetery.

1. Nancy Calhoun, born 14 October 1808 to William and Elizabeth in the Barbour transcription; died 1891 in the family study. Married Garry Newton on 7 June 1848; no children reported.
2. William Ferry Calhoun, born 17 October 1811, with parents [William and Elizabeth] supplied in brackets by the compilation; died 1881 in the family study; farmer. Barbour records William F.’s marriage to Lemira E. Tracey, both of New Preston, on [29 September 1839]. The family study expands her name as Lemira Esther Tracy; children.
3. Mary B. Calhoun, born 24 April 1813, with parents [William and Mary Ann] supplied in brackets; died 1816, aged two, in the family study.

Family Finder kit 317589 has a recorded lineage through William and Elizabeth, then William Ferry Calhoun and Lemira Esther Tracy. The surname discrepancy in the marriage transcription remains part of that documentary trail.

James explicitly calls Elijah Calhoun his son. He gives Elijah a ten-acre parcel and includes him with Reuben, James, and William in the residual estate. The provision for continued use while he lives where he presently does supplies a residence lead, not a birth date.

The Barbour continuation page records Thetis, daughter of [Elijah and Mary], born 19 December 1807, citing volume 1, page 39. This is a useful candidate family, but the same given name alone does not establish that her father was this Elijah. His wife and children should remain unassigned until the identities are connected.

Barbour Collection, Durham Vital Records, 1708–1852, printed page 45 (supplied viewer image 55 of 118) contains two separate entries:

• Mary, daughter of John and Abigail, born 20 December 1735, citing record page 356.
• Mary, daughter of John and Abigail, baptized 23 November [1735], citing page 271; the compilation notes the name was written “Mary GULLONY.”

The November date is a baptism, not an alternative birth date. As printed, it precedes the December birth. The year is bracketed in the baptism entry, and family histories give 23 December instead. The original entries are needed to determine whether the problem lies in the month, the supplied year, the transcription, or the identification. The memorial index’s 1725 birth year conflicts with the dated 1735 birth transcription and is not adopted.

Washington Vital Records, 1779–1854, printed pages 58 and 85, gives James Calhoun and Mary Guthrie, both of Judea, married 31 December 1754, with [Rev. Daniel Brinsmade] supplied in brackets. Both alphabetical entries cite volume 2, page 32; they are two index routes to the same underlying event.

Bailey’s Early Connecticut Marriages, book 1, Washington section, page 95, also prints the marriage. Its introduction identifies Judea and the Congregational church, formed in 1742. These published copies may derive from the same church record and should not automatically be counted as independent witnesses.

John Guthrie’s will, dated 29 June 1756, identifies Mary Calhoun as his eldest daughter. He gives her one looking glass, four chairs, and four sheep, in addition to previous gifts. This is direct relationship evidence linking the married Mary Calhoun to John.

The record belongs to the Woodbury Probate District; the parent-family review identifies the composite probate volumes 3–4, 1749–1760, including viewer images 248–249 of 488. The Branch F Family Hub preserves the broader estate discussion.

Connecticut Wills and Probate Records, Woodbury District, estate packet 801, James Calhoun of Washington, 1814. The supplied collection is labeled Probate Packets, Brush, John–Carrington, J, 1720–1880; the relevant viewer sequence is 562–569 of 1392. Images 565–567 show the will across successive portions; image 569 repeats its opening. The packet’s 1814 date is not the will’s execution date.

The will further provides the daughters with rights to gather fuel while single and unmarried and reserves a bed and bedding for Reuben. These provisions distinguish daughter Mary from the testator’s wife. No provision for a wife is apparent in the reviewed will, but that omission alone cannot settle Mary Guthrie’s conflicting death dates.

Sarah is not named in the reviewed will; her baptism supplies separate relationship evidence. A will’s beneficiary list is not automatically a complete list of all children ever born.

The bond dated 28 February 1814 names Reuben Calhoun, James Calhoun, and William Calhoun of Washington, bound in the penal sum of $2,000. All three sign. The condition specifically identifies Reuben and James as the executors who have accepted the trust. Although the will nominated William as well, his signature on the bond does not by itself establish that he qualified as an executor.

The will’s reverse records exhibition on 28 February 1814. Keep the dates distinct: 8 July 1809 is execution; 12 February 1814 is the town-record death date; and 28 February 1814 belongs to estate proceedings. The packet index’s inferred 1814 death is not an independent death record.

Hale Collection, Connecticut Headstone Inscriptions, volume 51, Old Washington Cemetery, cemetery code 623-2, page 54, reads Mary Calhoon, wife of James, died 1 May 1809, aged 74. The supplied Deaths and Burials index repeats that date and cites FHL film 3367. These may represent the same cemetery evidence rather than independent records.

Washington’s Barbour transcription, printed page 58, records Mary, [wife of James], died 2 May 1811, citing volume 1, page 56. The wife identification is bracketed by the compiler. The same printed page records James’s death on 12 February 1814, also citing volume 1, page 56.

A December 1735 birth would make Mary seventy-three in May 1809, although in her seventy-fourth year. The cemetery copy’s “age 74” therefore needs comparison with the stone’s exact wording. It does not resolve the two-year death discrepancy. The original town entry, gravestone photograph, and earlier cemetery copies remain priorities.

Washington Barbour, page 58, cites volume 2, page 19 for the 23 July 1769 baptisms of James, Margery, Reuben, and Sarah, each identified as a child of James. Mary’s 2 June 1771 baptism cites volume 2, page 20. On printed page 59, William’s 19 September 1773 baptism cites volume 2, page 22.

The page also includes other Calhoun households. Shared surnames, adjacent entries, and memorial links do not establish that all belong to James and Mary.

The Branch F Family Hub flags “Mary’s possible additional son Joseph.” That question comes from the older published family account, which includes Joseph Calhoun, born 19 November 1767, among James and Mary’s children. Joseph is not one of the six children in the existing child-page study and Research Tree.

Washington’s Barbour Collection, printed page 58, identifies a different father: Joseph Calhoun, who died 6 October 1812 aged eighty-three, had a son Joseph born 19 November 1767. Both that father-son statement and the younger Joseph’s birth and marriage to Anne Clark on 25 December 1796 cite town volume 1, page 33.

Conclusion: the explicit father-son entry and matching birth date support assigning this Joseph to the elder Joseph Calhoun’s family. He is therefore not included among James and Mary’s eight children on this page. His absence from James’s will alone would not establish his parentage; the Barbour relationship entry supplies the evidence for this correction. The underlying town page remains the next record to inspect to verify the transcription.

The supplied original 1790 Washington, Litchfield County census shows Jeames Calhoun with three free white males sixteen and older, four under sixteen, and five females: twelve residents. Only the head is named. The four younger males cannot simply be inserted into the child list; they may represent younger relatives or other household members. Other Calhoun households appear nearby.

The supplied Connecticut Church Record Abstracts index identifies James Calhoune, born 24 April 1731, parents David and Katharine, under Trumbull. The memorial index instead supplies 25 April and Stratford. The full church page and original record should determine the event wording and historical locality; the index alone does not prove Katharine’s proposed Coe/Fairchild identity.

• Laurence R. Guthrie, American Guthrie and Allied Families, page 152: Mary and James’s family. Compare its child list and Margery’s birth year with the supplied records.
• Records of the Guthrie Family, Dunn & Dunn: the earlier family account and a source trail for later genealogies.
• Ann’s research-tree profile for Mary Guthrie: assembled records, relationships, and continuing notes.
• The saved 1852 Litchfield newspaper clipping: preserve the distinction between Miss Hannah and Mrs. Hannah, wife of Reuben.

The descendants listed in the Family section preserve the existing research. Dates without a reviewed primary record remain reported findings rather than newly proved facts.