Final DNA Report
Todds of
Richard McMurtry
March 2012
In early 2011, Richard McMurtry began an intensive DNA study and records search to pin down the identities and relationships of the Todds of Wilkes County Georgia and Rutherford/Cannon County Tennessee and Madison County Kentucky. The identities of many of these individuals had puzzled family historians for decades. With the support of many Todd descendants, he was finally able to put most of these Todds in their rightful place on the family tree.
Major Discoveries
Though earlier Todd historians thought that all the Rutherford County/Cannon County Todds were part of the same family, the DNA revealed instead that there were three distinct families in the area in the early 1800s. And in the mid-1800s, two of these families began to intermarry and, as decades passed, their distinct origins were forgotten.
Family #1: One of
these families was that of Edmond Todd b 1786 NC whose descendant’s DNA doesn’t
have a close match to any of the other Todds in the county, suggesting that
whatever kinship the descendant has with them is through one of his other
ancestral lines, not the Todds. He
settled in
Family #2: The second of these families was a family
descended from Joseph Todd of Eling in southern
Benjamin Todd 1759-1855, a Revolutionary War soldier and his sons Benjamin b 1785 and Robert b 1784 and daughters Sally who had married Aaron Todd in 1808; Mary who later
married Samuel Lusk in 1818; Leah who had children with Isham Medford; and three
other daughters listed in the 1810 census.
Aaron Todd b 1784, Benjamin’s nephew (son of Benjamin’s brother Peter Todd b 1756)
William Todd b 1781, Benjamin’s nephew (son of Benjamin ‘s brother Caleb Todd b 1751/8)
Reuben Todd b 1785, Benjamin’s nephew (son of Benjamin’s brother Caleb Todd b 1751/8)
The Georgia-born Todds of Rutherford County, namely William
b 1781 and Reuben b 1785 were shown to be brothers to each other and nephews of
Benjamin Todd 1759-1855. Their father
was Caleb Todd b 1751/8 who had migrated to
The DNA also revealed the identity
of a
Family #3: The third
family in Rutherford/Cannon County was also of
Jesse Todd b 1770-80
James B. Todd b 1788 NC
William Thomas Todd b 1793 NC
And
Jemima Todd md 1821 Hugh Brawley.
Jesse settled in
James B. and William T. Todd lived a mile or so south on Horse Spring Branch, assumed to be present Haws Spring Branch of Carson’s Fork near the community of Burt.
Jemima married Hugh Brawley in 1821 and moved to Shelby Co
Elusive Todds
There are three Todds for which the DNA evidence suggests a
place on the family tree for them, but more DNA samples and genealogical
research would be needed to prove this with certainty. These
three are: Jefferson Todd b 1814, Walker Todd b 1822 and
As far as his father was concerned,
we were able to show that the father was not the father of Walker Todd and not
a blood descendant of any of the two Todd families in the area. We got two male DNA samples – one from a
desc of Jefferson’s son John Henry Todd b 1841 and one from a desc of
One promising development is that we have a DNA sample from a McFerrin descendant of the Cannon Co McFerrin family that sold Jefferson Todd a piece of land in 1856, just before his death. This DNA seemed a close match to the John Henry Todd desc at the 25 marker level, but the distance increased when the 37 marker results came in. Additional samples from the McFerrins and the Todds have been recruited to see if they are close enough of a match to suggest a McFerrin father to Jefferson Todd.
With respect to the mother of Jefferson
Todd, one Family Finder DNA test suggested a connection between a Jefferson
Todd b 1814 descendant and an Elizabeth Duncan b 1800 descendant, but the
second sample did not. The two
We do have some facts about Walker
and Jefferson that suggest a close association with each other over a long
period of time. They bought land within
a year of each other (1847/1848) on
Loose Ends
Keep in mind that the DNA conclusions here are not absolutely certain. There is so much variability in the DNA results that these conclusions can only be considered “most likely” interpretations of the data. More samples would be needed to prove the relationships suggested here.
Thanks to all those who contributed information and funding for DNA samples to make this report possible!
Reasons for Concluding that Benjamin Todd b 1759 was Grandfather of Walker Todd b 1822
Anyone familiar with the tradition that Mary Todd 1762-1866 was the sister of Benjamin Todd b 1759 may find it hard to swallow that she could instead have been the mother of a daughter of Benjamin b 1759. However, what follows is a detailed discussion of the DNA results that lead us to that conclusion.
We initially sought to show whether or not Mary Todd
1762-1866 could have been a sister of Benjamin Todd b 1759. We reasoned that if she were a sister to
Benjamin, then Walker Todd would share Benjamin Todd b 1730 as the common
ancestor with the other Todds.
|
Individuals Compared |
Genetic distance to common ancestor |
|
|
Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) |
Jimmie Medford (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759 |
4.1 |
|
Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) |
Sterling Todd (desc of Walker Todd) |
4.1 |
|
Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) |
Mark Todd (Desc of Walker Todd) |
4.3 |
|
Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) |
4 of 5 desc of Caleb Todd b 1751 |
6.8 (average) 6.7 to 6.9 (range) |
|
Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) |
2 desc of Joseph Todd b 1757 |
6.4 |
Though not all the data we obtained was as consistent as
that shown above, the data did appear to show that Walker Todd was more closely
related to Benjamin Todd b 1759 than to the other Todds. This would mean that Benjamin Todd b 1759 was
the grandfather of Walker Todd, unless there were a connection to Jerry Lusk
through
We noticed that Jerry Lusk (desc of Benjamin Todd b 1759) was identified by Family Tree DNA as 2nd to 4th cousins to both Walker Todd descendants and identified as 3rd cousins by Gedmatch.com. If Benjamin Todd were the grandfather of Walker Todd, then the family tree would show the Walker Todd descendants as 4th cousins. This was one more generation distant than predicted by Gedmatch.com but within the range predicted by Family Tree DNA.
We noticed that if Jerry Lusk were related to the desc of Walker Todd as 3rd cousins, then either Samuel Lusk or Thomas Summers could have been the father of Walker Todd. But we checked the male DNA for the Lusk family and the Summers family and neither matched the male DNA for Walker Todd.
So the most likely interpretation of the data is that Walker Todd b 1822 is the grandson of Benjamin Todd b 1759.
The Search for the Father of Walker Todd b 1822
A listing was made of the individuals who have done Family Finder DNA tests who matched both Mark Todd and Sterling Todd.
There were several who were 2nd to 3rd cousins and several who appeared to be more distant:
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Lewis |
2nd
Cousin - 4th Cousin |
3rd
Cousin |
49.10 |
20.21 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Lewis |
3rd
Cousin - 5th Cousin |
4th Cousin |
34.34 |
12.71 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Keever |
2nd
Cousin - 4th Cousin |
3rd
Cousin |
51.68 |
16.94 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Keever |
3rd
Cousin - 5th Cousin |
4th
Cousin |
32.94 |
16.94 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Lusk |
2nd
Cousin - 4th Cousin |
3rd
Cousin |
46.84 |
28.41 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Lusk |
2nd
Cousin - 4th Cousin |
3rd
Cousin |
49.19 |
24.34 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
|
4th to
remote |
|
43.43 |
11.29 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
|
4th to
remote |
|
29.99 |
11.29 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
|
3rd
Cousin - 5th Cousin |
4th
Cousin |
38.76 |
20.09 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
|
5th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
41.77 |
9.57 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Eudaley |
3rd
Cousin - 5th Cousin |
4th
Cousin |
32.86 |
13.09 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Eudaley |
3rd
Cousin - 5th Cousin |
4th
Cousin |
34.93 |
13.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Barber |
4th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
40.48 |
10.52 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Barber |
4th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
37.26 |
10.90 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Green |
4th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
38.35 |
15.71 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Green |
4th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
36.78 |
10.65 |
|
216243 -
Walker Todd (Mark Todd) |
Robertson |
5th
Cousin - Remote Cousin |
- |
28.88 |
11.65 |
|
206636 -
Walker Todd ( |
Robertson |
4th Cousin
- Remote Cousin |
- |
45.98 |
11.05 |
These matches are individuals that are descended from either
What is needed is to compile the ancestry back to the great great great grandparents of each of these individuals and see where the likely connection to Walker Todd might lie. Additonal DNA testing of the promising branches of those families would then be needed to pinpoint where the connection lay.
We have tested the male DNA for James Eudaley, Jimmie Medford, Jerry Lusk and found none of them match Walker Todd.
More research is needed to find the link between these families and Walker Todd b 1822.
We have also noticed that Mark Todd has a Y-DNA 34 of 37
marker match with a Craig Kelston McPherson of
One interesting result that one of the matches above seemed
to be close enough kin to Walker Todd that it seemed he might be a descendant
of the father or paternal grandfather of Walker Todd. Though I made contact with the matching
sample donor, he stopped communicating.
I contacted his parents but they wouldn’t talk about the family
history. I finally found someone who
told me that the sample donor’s great grandmother was adopted and noone knew
the details of her birth family. There
are a couple of clues that could be pursued, but here was what seemed like it
would be the answer to the question of
Search For Ancestry of Jefferson Todd b 1814
The Family Finder Gedmatch.com results did not show that the Jefferson Todd descendant was related to either of the Walker Todd descendants, but this may be because the relationship was very distant (greater than 6 or 7 generations).
The DNA showed a distant relationship (over 6-1/2 generations to common ancestor) to both of the two Todd families in Rutherford/Cannon County: to a descendant of Jesse Todd and Jemima Todd, to a descendant of Elizabeth Duncan, to two of the Caleb Todd descendants. But this was not a strong pattern, suggesting that the relationship was at least 6.5 generations. Or that the relationships were through one of the collateral lines not the Todd line.
It would be highly desirable to get another sample from a confirmed descendant of Jefferson Todd. We did get a second sample from a person we thought was a Jefferson Todd descendant, but given that the male DNA of the brother of the person whose sample we got turned out not to match the other male Todd sample, we are not confident that the sister’s results are representative of Jefferson Todd. Curiously, that person showed a 6-1/2 generation match with Walker Todd. Another sample from a Jefferson Todd descendant would help clarify his relationship to the other branches of the family.
The Jefferson Todd sample showed a close connection to the a descendant of Benjamin Todd b 1759, but we don’t know if that is due to kinship of the spouses in a generation along the lineage line of those sampled.
One of the individuals who match both Walker Todd b 1822 and Jefferson Todd b 1814 was a descendant of John Jones b 1762 Rowan Co NC who came to Madison Co KY in the late 1780s, but then went to Montgomery Co KY and settled in Bath Co KY where he died in 1851. The DNA suggests that the connection between Walker and Jefferson may have been through this Jones family suggesting that Mary may have been born a Jones. However, this is just one possible interpretation among many. Further testing is needed to be able to make good conclusions.
The Brawley Addendum to the Todd DNA Report of March 2012
We sought to answer the questions:
The Family Finder DNA results were not as consistent as we hoped for, but the most consistent results indicated that Hugh Brawley b 1823 descendant was equally distant from the Mary Margaret Brawley and Nancy Brawley descendant and at the correct distance (4 generations to common ancestor: Hugh P Brawley b 1799) and was 4-1/2 generations to the descendant of Hugh P Brawley’s brother John Brawley. This is what we would expect if all three were children of Jemima Todd and Hugh P. Brawley.
The Mary Margaret Brawley descendant sample showed about
equal distance to Hugh b 1823and
The Nancy Brawley descendant sample showed about equal distance to Hugh b 1823 and Mary Margaret b 1826 descendant, but no relationship to the John Brawley descendant.
Taken as a whole though, we can conclude that the three were siblings.
Unfortunately, the distance to Jesse Todd b 1770-80 was 6.5 to 6.7 generations, to James B. Todd b 1788 6.7 and 6.8 (though one sample was 4.1) and William T Todd b 1793 (no relationship). If Jesses, James B. and William T were siblings of Jemima and Jemima was mother to the three Brawley’s, we would have expected to see distances of 5.0, not 6.5.
So though we can conclude that the three Brawley’s are
siblings, we are not so confident that they were children of Jemima Todd and
Hugh Brawley. In fact, we would have to
conclude based on these limited results that they are not Jemima’s children, assusming
she was a sister of the Jesse, James B and William T. Nevertheless, they seem to be related to
Jesse Todd and James B. Todd, but at too great a distance for Jemima Todd to
have been a sister. It was as if she
were a cousin of Jesse and James B.
More samples in the Brawley family perhaps in
We have placed the three Brawley’s as children of Jemima and Hugh Brawley as placeholders while waiting for further research to be completed.