Discoveries of the Todd DNA Project – revised August 2019
Richard McMurtry
This is a summary of the principal discoveries of the Todd DNA project during the 15 years between 2004 and 2019. The DNA has made it possible to show family connections that would not have been possible otherwise. In some case, the DNA evidence caused us to do further research which provided the corroborating evidence to support the DNA and vice versa. In Thi early days of the project, I did a fair of amount of misinterpreting and genealogical guessing that were later proven to be in error. I hope I have corrected those errors in the latest updates to the website.
There have been some amazing discoveries! This essay discusses some highlights – not every discovery we made.
The ones I have especially delighted in are those that reveal a hidden truth. In most families, there are family traditions that are only partially true; with DNA and with in-depth genealogical research into original records (often going far beyond what is available online), one can find out what is true about the tradition, what is not true about the tradition and what hidden truth can be found through research. I take special delight in finding out this hidden truth.
One of the outstanding discoveries was due to the work of
Dee Bardes of Cincinatti,
Irish and Scottish Todds
See elsewhere on this site for a discussion of the DNA patterns of the Todds of Ireland and Scotland and the Todds of America who match their DNA.
a. The ancestor of the Mary Todd Lincoln family, Robert Todd 1697-1775, was reported to have a half-brother Andrew Todd d 1791. We discovered that the same DNA pattern was held by the descendants of William Todd b abt 1700 d 1760/70 who came to America by 1723, baptized his children at the same church between 1723 and 1738 as Robert’s son David married in in 1749. This William also had a granddaughter who married a grandson of Robert Todd 1697-1775 and had a grandson who was on a surveying crew in Kentucky with a grandson of Robert Todd 1697-1775. So William could be another brother or a close cousin forgotten by the later family tradition.
b. There was a John Todd who married in 1724 and baptized his children between 1725 and 1738 in the same churches as did ‘William Todd. This may be the John Todd who appears in the Hunterdon Co records in 1754 and 1757 and then shows up in Mechlenburg Co NC in 1766 and died there in 1799. John Todd of Mechlenburg Co has DNA that differs by 2 mutations from the Mary Todd Lincoln group of Todds; hence they could not share a common ancestor in less that 2 generations and probably more like 10 or so generations before coming to America.
c. A letter written by a grandson of the Robert Todd 1697-1775 stated that two half-brothers Robert Todd and Andrew Todd came to New York and then Robert came to Pennsylvania and Andrew followed. Research confirmed Robert’s arrival in Pennsylvania by 1755 and Andrew’s arrival in 1760. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court records reported a William Todd, a Robert Todd and a John Todd in Hunterdon Co, New Jersey just across the state border from Pennsylvania. So the family may have lived in Hunterdon Co NJ before coming to Pennsylvania.
d. DNA enabled us to distinguish which of two John Todds in central Kentucky was the son of Andrew Todd d 1791 and which was the son of William (two of the immigrant brothers. Descendants of John Todd 1750-1813 Shelby Co KY matched the pattern of Andrew Todd d 1791 and John Todd 1746-1829 of Fayette, Montgomery Co KY and Lincoln Co TN, matched the pattern of William Todd b abt 1700 d 1760/70. See elsewhere for detailed discussion of documentation that supports this assignment of parentage.
a.
Group 3 connects 2 families from eastern
b. This group also shows a genetic link with a family that lived in Johnston Co NC and a family in Fayette Co West Virginia.
a. Family historians in one of the Rowan Co NC Todd families had linked their family to the Mary Todd Lincoln group of Todds, but the DNA showed them to be the long lost branch of the Lancaster Co PA Todds, referred to in a genealogical magazine printed in the 1890s.
b. The DNA disproved a family tradition of the Lancaster Co Pennsylvania Todds printed in a genealogical magazine in the 1890s which asserted a connection with a Hugh Todd who was the son of Todd in nearby Chester Co PA. The DNA led to more indepth research in the Chester Co and Lancaster Co records that showed the two families had been scrambled by the editor of the magazine.
c.
The DNA also disproved the tradition of a Cornelius
Todd of
a. The DNA for the Russell Co Todds showed that Lewis Todd b 1815 was the likely son of James G. Todd 1770-1849 who had come to Russell Co in 1802/1804. Unable to find Lewis Todd in the Russell Co records but knowing from the DNA that he was related to James G. Todd, caused us to research the Catherine Trout who was reported to be Lewis’ mother. We found a record for Lewis Trout that we believe to the son of Catherine Trout and James Todd.
b. The importance of getting samples from all the unknown Todds of the colonial and early national period was underscored by finding a Joseph Todd in Pulaski Co KY who turned out to be kin to the Russell Co VA Todds, even though there were several Todds in the county related to the Washington Co VA Todds.
a.
We are still trying to sort out the Washington Co Todds,
but one curious result of trying to get DNA samples from all Todd families is
that we found a Todd family that was a close genetic match to the Todds of Washington Co VA.
This family was an Irish William Todd b 1815 in
We have DNA samples from families
whose home prior to emigration to