The Linchpin Who Links an 18th Century Family Together

During three decades spanning 1781 to 1812 and across two states, one man repeatedly appeared in records for my Kirk family.

John Beard is the glue holding a cast of characters together, and may prove to be the key to identifying the parents for my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

In fact, John Beard is the common denominator - the linchpin - helping me to infer family relationships among a handful of Kirks where the traditional paper trail offers no surviving evidence to confirm family bonds.

John Beard: 1753 - February 1814

A published Beard family history says John was born in 1753 in Ireland, married a woman named Margaret Kirk, and died in February 1814 in Licking County, Ohio. He was buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery in Licking County, Ohio.

John Beard grave, Beard-Green Cemetery, Licking County, Ohio
(photo by author)

In an application to join the Daughters of the American Revolution that was submitted by Cora Beard Williams - a great-granddaughter of John Beard - she stated that John married Margaret Kirk who was born April 12, 1758 and died July 7, 1850. Some Beard family histories suggest that she, like John, was also born in Ireland.

Sadly, Margaret's headstone is no longer standing. I presume it is the crumbled heap of stone beside John's memorial.

Likely remains of Margaret (Kirk) Beard's headstone, Beard-Green Cemetery,
Licking County, Ohio (photo by author)

In 1970, the Johnstown Genealogy Society conducted a census of the Beard-Green Cemetery and recorded the most basic bio-data from the memorials still surviving in that year. Fortunately, Margaret's headstone was still upright and legible. Her marker once indicated that she was born in 1758 and died in 1850 and was the wife of John Beard.

Excerpt of Beard-Green Cemetery headstone inscriptions, highlighting
John and Margaret (Kirk) Beard

Margaret's relationship, if any, to my Kirk family is unknown.

Aside from the curious shared surname between my kin and Margaret's maiden name, the Beard-Green Cemetery is an important beginning to the role John Beard played in the lives of my Kirk family. Just yards from John's burial is the grave for my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846).

John's eternal resting place is also near Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832) - a woman who I speculate was the older sister to my Thomas. Unfortunately, her headstone no longer survives. However, thanks again to the dedicated efforts of the Johnstown Genealogy Society, I know that in 1970 her memorial was still upright and indicated that she was born in 1774, died in 1832, and was the wife of Anthony Geiger.

Excerpt of Beard-Green Cemetery headstone inscriptions, highlighting
Mary (Kirk) Geiger

The paper trail links John with both Thomas and Mary.

John Beard in the Records

I first heard of John Beard when I found a land deed for my Thomas Kirk. In January 1812, Thomas purchased 100 acres in Licking County from John and Margaret Beard.

Thomas Kirk buys land from John and Margaret Beard - January 25, 1812

After discovering the record, I didn't think much of John Beard and carried on merrily with my research narrowly focused on Thomas.

It wasn't until some years later, when a fellow blogger and descendant of another 19th century Licking County resident, Mary (Kirk) Geiger, turned me on to the possibility that Mary and Thomas were siblings, that I happened upon the Beard name again.

Researching Mary Kirk, I discovered that she and her husband, Anthony Geiger, had married in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia).

A marriage bond, dated September 1797, was signed between Anthony Geiger and [drum roll, please] ... John Beard.

Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk 1797 marriage bond with John Beard as surety

A review of Berkeley County land records confirmed that there was indeed a John and Margaret Beard living in the area. In June 1786, "John Beard and Margaret his wife" sold 25 acres to a William Roberson.

John and Margaret Beard sell land in Berkeley County, Virginia - June 1786

With a John Beard now affiliated with both Thomas Kirk and his alleged sister Mary (Kirk) Geiger, and all three buried in the same small Ohio cemetery, I continued to dig into Berkeley County records.

Geiger family histories stated - without corroborating evidence - that Mary Kirk was the daughter of Joseph and Sarah Kirk.

Fortunately, land and tax records confirmed that there was a Joseph and Sarah Kirk in Berkeley County.

In 1781, Joseph Kirk was required - like all area farmers - to provide grain to Virginia's Continental troops in support of the Revolutionary War effort.

Joseph Kirk received a certificate detailing his contribution. The certificate, numbered 486, was Joseph's receipt which he could use for later reimbursement with the government.

1781 Public Service War Claim for Joseph Kirk, #486

The certificates appeared to have been issued in the sequential order that they were received from area farmers. Certificate number 487? It belonged to [drum roll, please] ... John Beard.

1781 Public Service War Claim for John Beard, #487

Did Joseph Kirk and John Beard go to submit their war claims together? Perhaps it's a faint hint that there was in fact a relationship between the two men.

By 1784, it appears that Joseph Kirk was gravely ill or had died. The Kirks were hauled into court for falling behind in payments on their leased farm. Sarah Kirk was called into court. Joseph didn't accompany her. Instead, she was represented with, you guessed it, John Beard.

1784 Replevy Bond - Fairfax vs. Sarah Kirk and John Beard

A Theory

With John Beard's reoccurring appearances in the Kirk family records, I'm reminded of Elizabeth Shown Mill's recent admonishment that anyone connected to our family is someone we need to get to know well.

Could all of John Beard's appearances be a coincidence? Sure, of course.

But I suspect there's something more at play. John's multiple appearances have helped me stitch together this theory:

• Perhaps Thomas Kirk and Mary (Kirk) Geiger were siblings. 
• Maybe their parents were Joseph and Sarah Kirk. 
• Maybe Joseph died when both of his children were still minors, and John Beard stepped in to play the role of male guardian. 

Why would John do such a thing? Perhaps he was compelled to look after his family. Was John's wife, Margaret Kirk, a sister to Joseph Kirk thus linking the Beards and Kirks?

Although documentary proof has yet to surface, there's certainly enough here to chew on and ponder. What do you think? Is there anything to this notion?

Seeking Sisterhood: A Mitochondrial Research Project

For too long I've neglected the women.

My research has narrowly focused on my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846). If you weren't sporting the Kirk surname or carrying the male Y chromosome, you were secondary to my genealogical investigation.

That's about to change. My Kirk family research is shifting gears and moving in a different direction. Perhaps this approach will yield previously overlooked clues that will help identify Thomas Kirk's parents.

Ladies of Suspicion 

Aside from his wife and daughters, three women have surfaced with biographies that curiously intersect with Thomas Kirk's life.

Were they related to Thomas? Could their histories help bridge the research gaps and pinpoint my Kirk ancestral origins?

The three suspects are Margaret (Kirk) Beard, Mary (Kirk) Geiger, and Ann (Kirk) Ford.

Margaret (Kirk) Beard
With no corroborating documentation, some genealogies claim that Margaret was an older sister to Thomas Kirk. Born twenty years before Thomas, indeed she would be a much older sister. Admittedly, the large age gap doesn't preclude them from being siblings, but it seems more likely - to me - that they would be aunt and nephew (or cousins).

According to an unsourced family history published in 1975 (The Beard Family Genealogy: The Beard Family From Virginia to Ohio and West by Glenneta Schott), "John Beard married Margaret Kirk who was born in Cork County, Ireland April 12, 1758 and who died July 7th 1850 in Ohio."

The Beards lived in Licking County, Ohio - where Thomas Kirk made his home - and are buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery - just steps from Thomas' final resting place. 

In 1812, the Beards sold 100 acres in Licking County to Thomas.

Before moving to Ohio, the Beards lived in Berkeley County, (West) Virginia. On June 17, 1786, they were grantors selling 25^1/2 acres in that county where, coincidentally, Joseph Kirk, a possible father to Thomas, Mary, and Ann, also lived.

Land indenture, John and Margaret Beard sell 25.5 acres
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia 17 June 1786

John Beard was tightly affiliated with Joseph Kirk and his wife Sarah. John even appeared in court with Sarah when the Kirks fell behind on their farm's rent.

Mary (Kirk) Geiger

Mary Kirk, born in about 1774, married Anthony Geiger in 1797 in Martinsburg, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia. John Beard was named a surety (bondsman) on their marriage bond, linking the Beards and Geigers.

Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk marriage bond with John Beard as surety
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia, 26 September 1797

Mary and Anthony also lived in Licking County, Ohio, and she is buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery just steps from the graves of both the Beards and Thomas Kirk.

Perhaps most compelling of all, a handful of Thomas Kirk's descendants are autosomal DNA matches to descendants of Mary (Kirk) Geiger, confirming a genetic link that supports the theory that they were siblings.

Ann (Kirk) Ford
Ann Kirk was born in 1777, and married Hugh Ford in 1800 in Brooke County, (West) Virginia. They eventually moved and settled in Licking County.

Thomas Kirk was in the area, too, enumerated in Brooke County personal property tax records from 1799 through 1803. Did the Kirks move from Berkeley to Brooke County together?

The Fords named one of their sons Vatchel Ford. The unusual first name was also the name Thomas gave to his eldest son.

In 1838, Thomas Kirk moved from Licking Township to Monroe Township (both located in Licking County). His new farm was south of the Fords who also lived in Monroe Township. In 1847, following Thomas' death, the Probate Court appointed Hugh Ford to appraise the value of Thomas' estate.

Detail of Monroe Township, Licking County, Ohio 1847 Land Owners Map
Kirk and Ford farms

In The Genealogy of the Ford Family, a letter from their son Hugh Ford Jr. - who consulted a family bible in the possession of his sister - noted that Ann Ford was the daughter of Joseph Kirk. Of the cast of characters, this is the only one to have a parent named by an immediate family member who would be best positioned to know. Descendants of Mary Geiger often allege - without documentation that I've seen - that her father was also a Joseph Kirk.

If naming conventions are important, it's worth noting that Thomas Kirk, Margaret Beard, Mary Geiger, and Ann Ford all named a son Joseph.

Mitochondrial DNA Research Project

Could I use DNA - specifically mitochondrial DNA - to determine whether these women shared a common maternal ancestor, supporting the claim that they were sisters?

Mothers pass their Mitochondrial DNA on to all of their children. However, only a mother's daughters can pass that same mitochondrial DNA - mostly unchanged - on to her children.

This unique inheritance pattern allows us to trace a direct maternal line back in time following the path of the mitochondrial DNA.

If I can trace a living direct female descendant from Margaret Beard, Mary Geiger, and Ann Ford, we can test the mitochondrial DNA to see if they match.

If the descendants of all three women share the same mitochondrial DNA, we would know that - at some point in history - they shared a common maternal ancestor.

A match would also complement the pieces of the paper trail that hint at a closer family relationship between the three. To be clear, a mitochondrial DNA test wouldn't tell us that the women were sisters, but it could confirm that as a genetic possibility. And that's what this research project endeavors to prove.

If you are a direct female descendant of one of these women, you're eligible for a mitochondrial DNA test with Family Tree DNA. Congratulations! Reach out to familysleuther@gmail.com.

Building A Reverse Genealogy Case Study With DNA, Land, and Tax Records

I think I'm on the cusp of breaking through one of my most impenetrable brick walls.

Regular readers know that the hunt is on to identify the parents of my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

A flurry of recently discovered evidence is finally settling and beginning to coalesce around a person of interest.

Into the Wilds of Virginia

Although he was born in Virginia in 1778, the earliest recorded appearance of Thomas Kirk in the paper trail was an 1806 tax list for Licking County, Ohio. From that document until his death in 1846, he lived in Ohio.

It was just a couple weeks ago that I finally discovered the first evidence of Thomas Kirk in Virginia. A collection of five personal property tax records spanning the years 1799 through 1803 enumerated Thomas in his soon-to-be wife's hometown: Brooke County, Virginia (now West Virginia).

Also enumerated with Thomas in each of those five tax records was a John Kirk. Both men first appeared in Brooke County's tax records in 1799. Neither man was there in 1798. Did they travel to the area together?

If yes, who was John and what relationship, if any, was he to Thomas?

A Sister Moves The Narrative Further Into The Old Dominion

A week before I discovered the Virginia tax records, I shared a DNA case study investigating the possibility that Thomas' Licking County neighbor Mary (Kirk) Geiger was his sister.

Although the distant generations under scrutiny made it difficult to say definitively, the small amounts of shared DNA between descendants of Thomas and Mary matched what one would expect to see if these two Kirks were siblings.

Bottom line: the DNA case study determined that the genetic evidence supported the theory that Thomas and Mary were brother and sister.

Who was sister Mary and what light could she shed on the Kirks' parentage?

Born in 1774, Mary was just four years older than Thomas. On September 26, 1797, a marriage bond in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia) recorded that a "marriage is suddenly intended to be solemnized between the above-bound Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk."

1797 Marriage Bond for Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Even before the genetic link between Thomas and Mary was identified, the marriage bond was curious because of the surety, John Beard.

Why was John Beard serving as the surety instead of the bride's father or a brother? What relationship was he to her?

John Beard had lots of overlap with Thomas Kirk's history. He would later surface in Brooke County, Virginia, and eventually make his way to Licking County, Ohio where he sold Thomas 100 acres in 1812.

Furthermore, published genealogies and a DAR application state that the maiden name of John's wife Margaret was Kirk. I've long speculated that, if Margaret was related to Thomas Kirk, she was most likely an aunt due to her age. Born in 1758, she was twenty years older than Thomas.

Was John Beard serving as the surety on Mary Kirk's marriage bond because he was her uncle?

Berkeley County, (West) Virginia Under Scrutiny

Mary (Kirk) Geiger was clearly a person of interest, and her marriage in Berkeley County made the area prime investigative real estate.

Given that a male Kirk did not serve as the surety for her marriage bond, I wondered if Mary's father had died before her 1797 nuptials requiring a maybe-uncle John Beard to fill the role.

Beginning with that year and working backwards, I explored the surviving records now digitized on FamilySearch for any Kirks.

First up were the land deeds, which date to 1772.

On April 9, 1773, an indenture was made "between the Honourable George William Fairfax Esquire of the one part and Joseph Kirk of the County of Berkeley Farmer of the other part..." Joseph Kirk leased 100 acres that, in that year, was located in Norborne Parish in Berkeley County, (West) Virginia.

1773 Lease for Lives between George William Fairfax and Joseph Kirk
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

In the margins of the indenture, the agreement was classified as a "Lease for Lives" with the following stipulations:

"To have and to hold the said land promises to the said Joseph Kirk his heirs or assigns for and during the natural lives of him the said Joseph Kirk, John Kirk his brother and Joseph Olive son of Joseph Olive yielding and paying unto the said George William Fairfax his certain attorney heirs executors administrators or assigns yearly and every year on the fifteenth day of September the rent or sum of three pounds ten shillings current money of Virginia..."

1773 Lease for Lives between George William Fairfax and Joseph Kirk
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Failure to pay the rent would result in George William Fairfax having legal authority to occupy and regain full ownership and possession of the land.

In her book Locating Your Roots: Discover Your Ancestors Using Land Records, Patricia Law Hatcher wrote that the lease for lives concept was widely used in the Northern Neck of Virginia. Hatcher explained that these agreements were "really a land grant, but its language is that of a lease. With a lease, technically the land still was the property of the proprietor (who was trying to retain his right to quitrents or taxes)."

The record's identification of Joseph Kirk's brother John was a great genealogical gem. They were the only enumerated Kirks owning land in late 18th century Berkeley County. Land tax records, beginning in 1782 record Joseph paying tax on the 100 acres leased from Fairfax.

1787 Land Tax List for Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Sometime between the 1787 and 1788 tax lists, Joseph Kirk died. The 1788 enumeration includes his name, but also the initials "Exrs".

1788 Land Tax List for Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

This peculiar abbreviation follows his name on the next nine years of land tax lists. In 1795, the abbreviation was spelled out: "Executors".

Was Joseph's name still appearing in land tax records because of the terms of the Lease for Lives, which, in the event of Joseph's death, assigned the lease to his brother John Kirk and Joseph Olive?

Personal Property Tax Lists

Owning or leasing real estate in the 1700s seemed like a rarity. Perhaps more Kirks would show up in Berkeley County's personal property tax lists.

Beginning in 1783, the tax lists enumerated just two Kirks: Joseph and John. In that year, Joseph paid tax on 3 horses and 4 cattle. John paid tax on 2 horses and 1 cattle.

Both men appeared on the 1784 personal property tax list with the same amount of livestock. However, I couldn't find either man on the 1785 list.

In 1786, only John Kirk appeared in what would be his last appearance on the tax list. He was enumerated with no livestock. Did the Kirks fall on hard times?

Where was Joseph? Did he actually die earlier than the 1787-1788 range suggested by the land tax lists? Joseph's last appearance in the personal property tax list in 1784 expands the window of his death to 1784-1788.

In the 1787 personal property tax list, a new Kirk emerges: Sarah Kirk. She continued to appear intermittently in the personal property tax lists for 1788, 1792, and each year 1794 through 1799. She was the only Kirk enumerated. In 1799, her name was followed by the notation "Rich Lands" and she was enumerated with 2 horses.

1799 Personal Property Tax List, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Was Sarah the widow of Joseph or John? Without a probate record, I don't know. Berkeley County probate materials are digitized on FamilySearch, but are frustratingly only viewable from a designated library or research center.

The Makings For A Reverse Genealogy Case Study

In a recent blog, Amie Bowser Tennant, wrote about using the reverse genealogy approach to break through genealogical brick walls: instead of tracing your ancestors backwards to a brick wall, develop a theory, identify a person of interest, and work their tree forward in time to see if it meets your known pedigree.

Collectively, the DNA, land, and tax records have provided me a cast of characters with the right surname, in the right place, at the right time, and teed me up for a strong reverse genealogy case study.

Since they were the only Kirks recorded in Berkeley County's paper trail, Joseph, John, and Sarah are prime research targets.

It's eyebrow-raising that Joseph Kirk was deceased before the 1797 nuptials of Mary Kirk. Was he her father and his absence from the marriage bond was because he was dead?

John Kirk's disappearance from the tax lists means we can't rule out that he also pre-deceased the 1797 marriage. Maybe he was Mary's father. Or maybe her uncle, and his passing meant that the bondsman role fell to John Beard. Or maybe he was the John Kirk that appeared with Thomas Kirk in the 1799 Brooke County tax list. If that's the case where was he between 1786 and 1799?

I need a probate package for Joseph, John, or Sarah to help me piece together the family relationships.

Do you see what I mean? Answers are within reach.

I feel strongly that I'm almost through. Just one more whack and I may finally crack the Kirk family mystery wide open. I'm salivating at the thought of finding an estate settlement that names the heirs of Joseph or John. Could they include a daughter Mary and maybe just maybe a son, Thomas Kirk?

Virginia Is For Lovers: Finding Thomas Kirk In His Father-In-Law's Hometown Tax Records

For 15 hours over two rainy days, I researched my heart out at Salt Lake City's famed Family History Library.

I stared at digitized records on computer screens until I was bleary-eyed, and trawled through enough miles of microfilm to circle the earth, twice.

Slowly, my steadfast research surfaced exciting new details integral to my chief genealogy obsession: my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

An Exciting Discovery
On Saturday, with a few short hours before closing time, I made an exciting discovery - a collection of tax records that spanned 1797 into the early 1800s.

"Tax records?" I hear you asking with a yawn.

Admittedly, tax lists don't sound that exciting, but, I believe these particular documents account for five previously unaccounted years of Thomas Kirk's life. Five!

Furthermore, these records position him, for the first time, in the state of Virginia, corroborating the birth location given by his children to census enumerators in 1880 and 1900.

Thomas and his wife Sarah Bonar were early settlers in Licking County, Ohio. An 1806 Licking County tax record was, before this weekend, the earliest known record for Thomas. It indicated that the Kirks were in the Buckeye State by 1805 (the year the 1806 record assessed).

My speculative pre-Ohio timeline for Thomas went something like this:

• Born in Virginia in 1778, 
• Married Sarah Bonar in about 1804 (perhaps in Brooke County, Virginia or maybe Belmont County, Ohio), and 
• Their first child, my fourth great-grandfather Vachel Kirk, was born in Ohio in 1805.

Thomas' exact birth location in Virginia or any of his whereabouts before his arrival in Ohio were a mystery. I feared records of his pre-Ohio movements might have been destroyed during the Civil War.

On Saturday night, I walked away from the library's hallowed stacks with five new records that just might fill in missing years in the timeline of Thomas Kirk's life and give my research new avenues of pursuit.

Snooping Around His Father-In-Law
One of my primary research goals for this trip was to examine land, tax, and probate records for Brooke County, Virginia (now West Virginia).

Sarah Bonar's parents William and Jane (McCulloch) Bonar lived in Brooke County. According to the Bonar Genealogy, compiled by Dorothy Elizabeth Rine Brown, "Brooke Co was referred to as the 'wilderness' by frontiersmen" and William Bonar was documented as one of the county's early "home-seekers."

Brown wrote that the Bonars spent their entire lives in the county: "Here on their plantation William and Jane lived and died and reared a family of four sons and six daughters." Among those daughters was Sarah, Thomas' soon-to-be wife.

Surely Thomas Kirk would eventually bound onto the scene in Brooke County. How else was he going to meet and marry Sarah? The question was would he stick around long enough to leave his mark on the paper trail.

Brooke County's personal property tax lists, dating to 1797, survive and are available online.

I opened the first record and began my review of names. The lists are in alphabetical order by surname.

I quickly found Sarah's father William Bonar on the 1797 tax list, but there were no Kirks enumerated that year.

1797 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

I moved on to the 1798 tax list. Again, there was William Bonar yet no Kirks.

I loaded up the 1799 tax list. William Bonar was there as expected, but there were some new names under the Ks. Making their first appearance in the records were three Kirks. One of them was - drum roll, please - named Thomas!

1799 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

In addition to Thomas, the list included a John Kirk and a Caleb Kirk.

The first column in the tax list denoted, "White above 16". All three Kirks have a mark in this field.

The fourth column (the only other field with a notation) tracked the number of "Horses, Mares, Colts & Mules." John Kirk had none and, accordingly, was assessed no personal property tax. Both Thomas and Caleb Kirk had one and were each assessed a 12 cent tax.

The relationship, if any, between Thomas, John, and Caleb is unknown. Research needs to be done on the identities of these other two men.

Curiously, neither John nor Caleb were names that my Thomas Kirk gave to any of his sons, initially suggesting to me that they were not family names and raising some doubts about a familial relationship between the three men. But, alas, the tax records provide no answers on this front and only raise more questions. It remains interesting that three men surnamed Kirk appeared in the same county in the same year.

Over the next four years, Thomas Kirk was enumerated in Brooke County's personal property tax lists.

In 1800, Thomas and John Kirk were enumerated one after the other. John still didn't own any horses, but Thomas now owned two and paid a 24 cent tax. Caleb Kirk disappeared from the tax list entirely.

1800 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

In 1801 and 1802, Thomas and John Kirk appeared again - the only Kirks enumerated those years. In both years, Thomas paid a 24 cent tax for his two horses. John still did not own a horse.

1801 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

1802 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

In 1803, both men were enumerated for the fifth year in a row. However, John's personal fortunes were finally on the upswing. He now owned two horses, like Thomas, and was assessed a 24 cent tax (congratulations?!).

1803 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

In 1804, the year after Ohio became the 17th state to join the United States of America, Thomas Kirk was on the move. He no longer appeared in the tax list, although John Kirk remained with his two horses.

1804 Brooke County (West) Virginia Personal Property Tax List

John Kirk disappeared from Brooke County's personal property tax list the following year in 1805; himself now on the move.

Inference Is All I Have
How do I know that the Thomas Kirk enumerated in the Brooke County personal property tax lists between 1799 and 1803 is my fifth great-grandfather?

I don't, definitively.

The records simply don't afford me the luxury of a clear-cut answer.

However, when I triangulate this information with other research and family lore, the appearance of a Thomas Kirk in this particular area during this particular time is certainly eyebrow raising.

Just consider the facts:

• My Thomas Kirk married Sarah Bonar in about 1804.
• A Thomas Kirk appeared in Sarah Bonar's home county between 1799 and 1803.
• A Thomas Kirk disappeared from that county in 1804, the same year family lore speculates he married Sarah and moved across the Ohio River to Belmont County, Ohio.

This Thomas Kirk was simply in the right place at the right time.

I have also reviewed Brooke County's land tax records for this time period. It's noteworthy that Sarah Bonar's father, William Bonar, appeared on those lists and paid tax for sizable amounts of acreage. However, no men surnamed Kirk appeared on those lists. Thomas' absence from these lists doesn't strike me as unusual. He was a young man of 21 just starting out in the world. He would need to amass some fortune before he could purchase land.

Perhaps Thomas and Sarah saw greater opportunity for their new family in the wilderness of Ohio where vast amounts of land lured young pioneers with promises of wealth. That narrative would fit with known Kirk family and American history.

Pulling At Threads, Stitching a Research Path Forward

I would be remiss if I didn't also flag that among the tax lists were two other men who played a role in the story of Thomas Kirk:

• John Beard, who was married to a Margaret Kirk and sold Thomas Kirk 100 acres in Licking County, Ohio in 1812, was enumerated on Brooke County's tax lists beginning in 1798.
• Hugh Ford, who was married to Ann Kirk - an alleged sister to my Thomas Kirk, appeared on the tax lists from 1797 to 1802.

Hugh and Ann (Kirk) Ford moved to Belmont County, Ohio. Did Thomas and Sarah (Bonar) Kirk follow them there before continuing on to Licking County?

Although no marriage record has surfaced for Thomas and Sarah in either Brooke or Belmont counties, perhaps an 1804 tax record survives for Belmont County that enumerates Thomas Kirk.

Oh the possibilities! With new clues at hand, the sleuthing continues with renewed vigor. 

What A Tangled Web Genealogy Weaves

Digging and prying into my fifth great-grandfather's ancestral origins keeps turning up curious clues.

I've uncovered a sticky web of connections that link a cast of characters to my ancestor, Thomas Kirk. Each player not only shares the Kirk surname, but also a slew of ties that bind them and hint at a likely family relationship - perhaps even siblingship.

There are four persons of interest in this tangled web: 

1. Margaret (Kirk) Beard
2. Mary (Kirk) Geiger
3. Ann (Kirk) Ford
4. Vachel Kirk.

Margaret (Kirk) Beard: With no corroborating documentation, some genealogies claim that Margaret was an older sister to Thomas Kirk. Born twenty years before Thomas, indeed she would be a much older sister. The large age gap doesn't preclude them from being siblings, but it seems more likely - to me - that they would be aunt and nephew (or cousins).

According to an unsourced published history (The Beard Family Genealogy: The Beard Family From Virginia to Ohio and West), "John Beard married Margaret Kirk who was born in Cork County, Ireland April 12, 1758 and who died July 7th 1850 in Ohio."

The Beards lived in Licking County, Ohio - where Thomas Kirk made his home - and are buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery - just steps from Thomas' final resting place.

In 1812, the Beards sold 100 acres in Licking County to Thomas Kirk.

Mary (Kirk) Geiger: Mary Kirk, born in about 1774, married Anthony Geiger in 1797 in Martinsburg, Virginia (now West Virginia). John Beard was named a surety (bondsman) on their marriage bond, linking the two couples.

Mary and Anthony also lived in Licking County, Ohio, and she is buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery just steps from the graves of the Beards and Thomas Kirk.

Several descendants of Thomas Kirk are autosomal DNA matches to descendants of Mary (Kirk) Geiger, confirming a genetic link that estimates the common ancestors to be the parents of Mary and Thomas - strongly hinting that they were siblings.

Ann (Kirk) Ford: Ann Kirk was born in 1777, and married Hugh Ford in 1800 in Brooke County, (West) Virginia. They eventually moved and settled in Licking County. 

They named one of their sons Vatchel Ford. The unusual first name was also the name Thomas gave to his eldest son.

In 1838, my Thomas Kirk moved from Licking Township to Monroe Township (both located in Licking County). His new farm was south of the Fords who also lived in Monroe Township. In 1847, following Thomas' death, the Probate Court appointed Hugh Ford to appraise the value of Thomas' estate.

In The Genealogy of the Ford Family, a letter from their son Hugh Ford Jr. - who consulted a family bible in the possession of his sister - noted that Ann Ford was the daughter of Joseph Kirk. Of the cast of characters, this is the only one to have a parent named by an immediate family member who would be best positioned to know. Descendants of Mary Geiger often allege - without documentation that I've seen - that her father was also a Joseph Kirk.

If naming conventions are of import, it's worth noting that Thomas Kirk, Margaret Beard, Mary Geiger, and Ann Ford all named a son Joseph.

Vachel Kirk: Vachel Kirk was born in 1783 and settled in Butler County, Ohio. His unusual first name was the same that Thomas gave to his eldest son (and Ann Ford gave to one of her sons). 

Vachel's eldest son was named Thomas Kirk.

A living direct male descendant of Vachel Kirk is a close Y-DNA match to nearly a dozen direct male descendants of Thomas Kirk, confirming a shared paternal ancestor.

Untangling the Family Web

I could continue to trip over these similarities forever trapped in this web, but if I could just identify autosomal DNA matches between Thomas Kirk's descendants and those of each of these characters then I could begin to assign familial relationships. 

Of course, the priority would be linking to Ann (Kirk) Ford because she's the only one with a named parent.

The challenge, of course, is twofold: 

First, finding the descendants who have DNA tested. 

Second, hoping that enough autosomal DNA has carried through the many generations and still appears in test results in a sizable enough amount to identify matches.

Neither is an easy task, but when has unraveling a centuries-old genealogy mystery ever been easy? But the stakes have never been higher. Untangling this web may be the only key to revealing Thomas Kirk's family and ancestral origins.

Rent To Own: A Land And Tax Record Quandary

With no surviving Ohio censuses from 1800 or 1810, locating and tracking the movements of Thomas Kirk was a challenge.

Fortunately, land and tax records filled the records gap, and helped me pinpoint my fifth great-grandfather's location.

But the records also raised an interesting question about property ownership, which may hint at a family relationship between grantor and grantee.

The Land Indenture
During a visit this month to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, I found a copy of the January 1812 land indenture between John and Margret Beard (grantors) and Thomas Kirk (grantee).

Thomas paid the Beards $175 for 100 acres in Licking Township, Licking County, Ohio. The property was "situated in the fourth section, first township and twelfth range United States Military lands..."

January 1812 Land Indenture Between John and Margret Beard and Thomas Kirk

This land purchase - Thomas' first documented acquisition in Licking County - indicated that he was in the area by 1812.

Could I refine my timeline and determine whether he was in the area before the land indenture? Area tax records did exactly that.

Tax Trails
Thomas appeared in the County's 1812 tax records, indicating he was in the area in 1811.

1812 Licking Township, Licking County, Ohio Tax Record

Curiously, Thomas paid $1.00 tax for 100 acres in Range 12, Township 1, and Section 4 - the exact same land description for the property he bought from the Beards. The tax record also attributed original ownership of the land to a man named Samuel Dick.

John Beard appeared in the same tax record, paying $1.96 tax for 196 acres in the same area - Range 12, Township 1, and Section 4. The land's original proprietor was also identified as Samuel Dick.

What was not specified for either plot of land was the specific lot number. My theory is that John Beard owned many acres in the range, township and section - all of it originally owned by Samuel Dick. John sold a portion - 100 acres - to Thomas in 1812.

But how long had Thomas Kirk lived on the land, and was he living on the land prior to ownership as merely a renter or guest of relatives? The records have me stumped.

Ownership vs. Rentership
Thomas appeared on the same land in Licking County's 1811 tax records. In the record's column denoting the type of title, his ownership was marked as "deed".

What does that mean? Did he in fact own the property prior to the 1812 land indenture, or was he renting to own?

1811 Licking Township, Licking County, Ohio Tax Record

Thomas appeared in Licking County's tax records each year back to 1809, living on the same land, with the title consistently noted as a "deed".

In fact, Thomas was on the same property several years earlier, pre-dating the existence of Licking County, which was formed in 1808 from Fairfield County.

Fairfield County tax records in 1808, 1807, and 1806 showed Thomas paid taxes for 100 acres of land in Licking Township: Range 12, Township 1, Section 4.

The 1806 tax enumeration is among my most prized genealogy finds because it is the earliest record I've found for Thomas Kirk. It suggests that he was in the area by 1805.

1806 Licking Township, Fairfield County, Ohio Tax Record

In 1806, John Beard paid taxes on 300 acres for property located in Range 12 and Township 1. This  confirmed my theory that he owned a larger portion of land in the area, and may have split it into smaller tracts and sold it for profit.

For the record, FamilySearch has digitized Fairfield County's land grantor and grantee indexes (dating to 1804), but I don't see John Beard, Samuel Dick, or Thomas Kirk mentioned in relation to the property in question.

The Family Deal
What should I make of Thomas paying taxes between 1806 and 1811 for land that he officially purchased in 1812?

Was it possible that he was renting to own?

Or was it possible that family cut him a good deal and allowed him to live on the land with the understanding that he pay taxes?

Some family histories state that John Beard's wife was Margaret Kirk (born in 1758), and there is speculation that she was a sister or aunt to Thomas Kirk (born in 1778). I have not been able to find documentation to corroborate this theory.

Would a family relationship matter when it came to matters of tax and ownership? Or did land ownership laws of the time stipulate that property residents - regardless of ownership status - were liable for the taxes?

Any tax and land specialists out there who can weigh in?

The Family History Library's Digitized Archives Expand Records Access

In June 2017, FamilySearch announced that it was discontinuing its microfilm distribution service by summer's end.

The action was taken because of the "significant progress made in FamilySearch's microfilm digitization efforts and the obsolescence of microfilm technology."

When I first started my family history research, I relied heavily on microfilms shipped from the Granite Mountain vault.

Just exactly how much progress have they made in digitizing their records?

Digitized Records Expanded Access
This past weekend, I was in Salt Lake City and took advantage of the Family History Library's expanded Friday night hours.

During this visit, I trawled through a few reels of microfilm. But just a few.

I was pleased to find that a growing number of the databases that I routinely review on microfilm have now been digitized.

For example, I discovered that many land records for Licking County, Ohio have been digitized. This includes the January 1812 indenture between John and Margret Beard and my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

Why is this so exciting?

Up until this point, I had only seen a typed transcription of the original record. Thomas is my primary genealogy focal point - the target of my exhaustive research. I'm trying to get my hands on every single surviving record he created during his early 19th century lifetime.

At this phase in my research, it's pretty rare for me to uncover handwritten records related to Thomas. Yet the Library's digitized collections surprised me.

The excitement of this discovery is amplified by the fact that I could access this record remotely; the Library's digitized records were expanding accessibility. My home office is essentially a branch of the Family History Library, and I'm a librarian happy to report for duty!

I traveled to Salt Lake City to conduct research that could only be done on site, but I'll now travel home with more research awaiting me and the capability to do so. That's a good problem to have.

The Ties That Bind: A Sister Undercover

My fellow blogger Janice Harshbarger (and maybe cousin) turned me on to a possible clue that may help me solve one of my most pressing genealogy mysteries: who were the parents of my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk and what were their ancestral origins?

Thomas Kirk was born in 1778 in, most likely, Virginia, and settled in Licking County, Ohio where he died in December 1846. There's little documentation that sheds light on his pre-Ohio existence or the identities of his parents.

Janice commented last fall that she had a Mary Geiger in her tree whose maiden name was Kirk. Mary lived with her husband Anthony in Licking County at the same time as my Thomas (check out Janice's blog on Anthony and Mary Geiger).

Could Mary be Thomas' sister, Janice wondered?

DNA Clues Me In
About this same time, a DNA match appeared on Ancestry for an older Kirk cousin whose kit I administer. This match - estimated to be a 4th to 6th cousin - had a tree that included (drum roll, please) Mary Kirk Geiger.

Fourth to sixth cousins would share third to fifth great-grandparents. In this particular scenario, if Thomas and Mary were siblings, their parents would be fifth great-grandparents to both DNA testers.

Could there really be something to this theory that Mary was a relative to Thomas? The genetic match seemed to reinforce Janice's conjecture.

Bond. Marriage Bond
The most curious bit of evidence, though, is a marriage record for Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk. Their marriage bond, dated September 27, 1797 in Martinsburg, Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia), indicated that "a marriage is suddenly intended to be solemnized between" them.

The bond was between Anthony Geiger and John Beard who was the surety (bondsman). Typically, these bonds were made between the groom and a family member of the bride - not always the father - sometimes a brother or uncle.

Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk marriage bond with John Beard as surety.

The name John Beard means something to my Thomas Kirk research. 

A John Beard lived in Licking County in the early 19th century, was married to a Margaret Kirk (relationship, if any, unknown), and sold my Thomas 100 acres of land in Licking County on January 25, 1812.

Land deed between John and Margaret (Kirk) Beard and Thomas Kirk.

In the written record, John Beard links Mary (Kirk) Geiger and my Thomas Kirk.

Is it too much to infer a familial link existed? If one did, what type of relationship? Were they siblings? The DNA match is for a relatively distant relationship, and autosomal DNA becomes less reliable for each preceding generation.

But the clues keep stepping over themselves suggesting the two individuals were somehow connected.

Was Mary a sister to Thomas and, as a result of the ravages of time, that relationship is now undercover?

The search is heating up. This new cast of characters - Mary (Kirk) Geiger and John Beard - hold great potential for helping me surmount one of my most impenetrable brick walls.