m28p23wr

On the “George A. McAninch” pages (which includes his own ancestral line), Bert Austin gives

a lot of Kentucky family information, down to the 1980s, with two significant mistakes:

F. List of children of George A. and Mary Elizabeth (Ross) McAninch, Bert Austin names both

“C-1 David b.1818 (mar.) Polly Walker” and “C-2 Harrison b.1819 (mar.) Dolly ___”

F.1. there is only one person here, Daniel (not David) Harrison McAninch, known as Harrison

(“David” was probably a transcription error); Harrison married Mary ‘Polly’ Lockett Walker,

28 May 1837, Casey County, and they had five children, all born in Kentucky; Harrison died

17 July 1852, and is buried in Casey County; after his death, his widow Polly and the children

went to Pettis County, Missouri, with her Walker relatives. History of Pettis County, Missouri,

State Historical Society of Missouri, 1919, pg.831-834; MFHN v.IV n.4 Dec. 1996 p.1996-31

G. And Bert Austin mis-interpreted some 1820 census data (George A. did not have “2 slaves”):

Bert Austin said “. . . information taken from the 1820 Census of Casey County, Kentucky.

George McAninch / 2 males under 10 . . . / 2 males 18-26 . . . / 1 female 16-18 . . . / 2 slaves”

G.1 The actual census record shows George on the 32nd line on the census page:

“George McAninch 2 0 0 2 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 - 2 0” (this count is for 5 people, not 7 people):

2 males < 10 years: sons (Daniel) Harrison b.1819 and William 'Berry' b. before 1820 census;

2 males of 18 years & under 26 years: George, age ~26, b.1794, and who? brother? farmhand?

1 female 16 to 18: his wife, Mary Elizabeth (Ross) McA. age ~26 b.1794, mis-counted "16-18",

2 engaged in Agriculture (i.e. 2 of these 5 are engaged in Agriculture, this is NOT '2 slaves')

NARA M33 Roll 18 p.206 (his brother Jonathan McAninch is the 10th line on the same page)

So, Bert Austin’s "McAninch Family Genealogical Data: ca 1746-1988, in Kentucky" manuscript

is a useful source for Kentucky people, Daniel (O.?) McAninch, William McAninch (died 1813),

Daniel’s son, George A. McAninch, and his descendants who lived in Kentucky and/or Ohio.

Great effort, limited scope (“in Kentucky”, per his title), with a few problems, as noted above.

However, Daniel had five (known) sons, and William had five (known) sons, and nine of these

ten McAninch males left Kentucky, going north, south, and west to Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi,

Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas, with their children and grand-children continuing the McAninch

family story beyond our ‘northern Ireland’ / ‘colonial Pennsylvania’ / ‘great valley of Virginia’ /

‘eastern Tennessee’ / ‘Cumberland Gap’ / ‘Wilderness Road’ / ‘into Kentucky’ early migration.

____________________________________________________________________________

McAninch Family History NL v.XXVIII n.2 / Oct.2020 / Copyright Frank McAninch / p.2020-23