Looking Back, Moving Forward-A Year of Research on "Our Roots, Our Stories: The Search for Family"

2025 Research Reflections

In 2025, my family history blog became less about isolated discoveries and more about disciplined research, storytelling, and learning how to live with unanswered questions. Early in the year, much of my focus centered on the Mezo family…migration, tragedy, surname origins, and the human stories behind ship voyages, separation, and loss. Those posts helped me establish a rhythm of blending documented facts with historical context, especially when records were sparse or incomplete.

As the year progressed, my attention broadened beyond one surname. I explored orphan stories, lost siblings, and fragmented families, often returning to the theme of absence…what happens when records fall silent and people disappear from view. These posts reflected a shift in my thinking. Instead of rushing to conclusions, I began documenting the search itself, treating uncertainty as part of the story rather than a failure of research.

Midyear posts leaned more heavily into community history and social context. Whether examining frontier figures, early American conflicts, or daily life in places like Illinois and Ohio, I worked to place my ancestors inside the world they inhabited, not apart from it. Mapping neighborhoods, tracing name variants, and examining patterns of migration became just as important as tracing bloodlines.

By late 2025, the blog had clearly matured into a research journal as much as a narrative space. Posts about recurring names, disputed relationships, missing probate files, and conflicting records showed a more cautious, evidence-driven approach. Rather than trying to solve every mystery, I focused on sorting fact from fiction, documenting what the records actually say, and explaining why certain assumptions needed to be challenged.

Looking back, 2025 wasn’t about volume. It was about developing better habits as a researcher…slowing down, asking better questions, and learning to let the evidence lead. Averaging three posts a month proved sustainable and meaningful, and it confirmed that steady progress matters more than ambitious but unrealistic goals.

2026 Blog Goals

For 2026, my goal is simple but intentional: one post per week. Not to rush research, but to keep momentum, document the process as it unfolds, and continue building a transparent, evidence-based family history record. Even shorter posts, research notes, or focused questions count. The goal isn’t perfection…it’s consistency.

When the Same Names Keep Appearing: What Jury Duty Reveals About Early Ohio Communities

Following John Morehead through the court records of 1805–1806

Purpose statement: This post explores how early Ohio jury records can illuminate the everyday lives, social networks, and geographic stability of our ancestors, using John Morehead’s repeated jury service as a case study in reading records for context rather than conclusions.

How juries really worked in early Ohio

If you picture jury duty in 1805 looking anything like it does today, the records quickly correct that assumption. In the first years of Ohio’s statehood, juries were not drawn from a large, randomized population. Instead, county officials such as sheriffs and court officers selected jurors from a small pool of eligible men…adult white male residents who paid taxes or owned property and were known locally to be of good character. Counties were sparsely populated, court terms were frequent, and travel was slow. As a result, jury panels were assembled locally from men living near the courthouse, and courts often relied on those who were readily available during a given term. Seeing the same names appear again and again was not a flaw in the system…it was how the system functioned.

Why John Morehead keeps showing up

John Morehead on Jury duty (AI generated)

Against that backdrop, John Morehead’s repeated jury service between July 1805 and July 1806 becomes less surprising and far more informative. Court minutes show him serving on multiple juries across at least four separate sessions in just over a year. These were not marathon trials or a single ongoing case, but a mix of civil suits, criminal indictments, and an appeal (see below.) The pattern suggests a man who lived close enough to the county seat to be regularly available, met the property and residency requirements for service, and was trusted by court officials to do the job. This does not point to legal training or special authority, but it does place John Morehead squarely within a small circle of dependable householders who quietly kept the local court system running.

Reading jury lists through a FAN lens

When records stop short of explicitly naming relationships, genealogists often turn to the FAN principle…Friends, Associates, and Neighbors…to better understand an individual’s social environment. I was first introduced to this approach through genealogy education on YouTube, and it has become especially useful when working with early court records like jury lists. When John Morehead’s jury service from 1805–1806 is viewed through this lens, patterns begin to surface. He repeatedly served alongside the same group of men, including 

• Samuel Gates, 
• David Gates, 
• John Edwards, 
• Thomas Wardner, 
• Peter Barrack, 
• Herman Moore, 
• William Kitsmiller, 
• James Duncan, and 
• John Robinson. 

Court Day (AI generated)

The repetition of these names across multiple court terms points to a small, stable civic circle drawn from the same geographic area. These men were not randomly paired, and they were not necessarily related. Instead, they form a snapshot of the local community in which John Morehead lived, worked, and was known.

What a jury FAN snapshot makes possible

This kind of jury-based FAN snapshot does more than describe a moment in time…it creates a roadmap for future research. For example, 

• Tax lists can help determine whether men such as Gates, Wardner, Moore, Edwards, and Morehead were assessed in the same districts, suggesting close physical proximity. 
• Land records may reveal them as neighbors, witnesses, or successive buyers and sellers of the same parcels. 
• Church or meeting records can add another layer of connection by documenting who worshiped together, moved together, or shared community obligations, and in this case they are especially relevant because John Morehead is already known to have been part of a church community by at least 1809.
• Probate files are also worth close attention, as men trusted for jury service frequently served as estate appraisers, witnesses, or administrators. 
• Finally, tracing whether these same names later appear together in another county can help distinguish coordinated migration from coincidence.

Why this matters

Early court records rarely tell stories outright. Instead, they leave trails…names repeated, roles reused, and communities quietly revealed through routine civic work. John Morehead’s jury service does not answer every genealogical question on its own, but it anchors him in place and time and surrounds him with a definable group of associates. In research where direct evidence is scarce, that kind of context is not filler…it is foundation.

Cases that John Morehead served

1. July 1805: Robert Peatt vs. Abraham Funk, John Morehead served on the jury in the civil case of Robert Peatt vs. Abraham Funk, and the jury found for the defendant (Abraham Funk). (Fairfield, Ohio, United States records, images, FamilySearch, images 111, 132, 732, 742; Image Group Number 116200818.)
2. July 1805: The State of Ohio vs. Reuben Ross (larceny). John Morehead served on a jury for an indictment for larceny in the case The State of Ohio vs. Reuben Ross, and the jury found the defendant not guilty of the crime alleged in the indictment. (Fairfield, Ohio, United States records, images, FamilySearch, images 111, 132, 732, 742; Image Group Number 116200818.)
3. November 1805: Jacob Wiseman vs. John King (appeal). John Morehead served on the jury in an appeal case, Jacob Wiseman vs. John King, and the jury found for the defendant. (Fairfield, Ohio, United States records, images, FamilySearch, images 111, 132, 732, 742; Image Group Number 116200818.)
4. July 1806: John Meeks vs. Timothy Sturgeon (false imprisonment). John Morehead served on the jury in John Meeks vs. Timothy Sturgeon, labeled “False Imprisonment,” and the jury found the defendant not guilty. (Fairfield, Ohio, United States records, images, FamilySearch, images 111, 132, 732, 742; Image Group Number 116200818.)

Sources:

Fairfield, Ohio, United States records, images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-M793-8D3M?view=explore : Dec 28, 2025), images 111, 132, 732, 742; Image Group Number 116200818.

Alfred Byron Sears, History of the Courts and Lawyers of Ohio (Cleveland: The Century History Company, 1905), sections on early county courts and jury selection.

Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2nd ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), chapters on early American courts and local jury practices.

Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, 3rd ed. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2015), discussion of associational evidence and FAN methodology.

Paul Finkelman, ed., Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties (New York: Routledge, 2006), entries on “Jury Service” and “Grand Jury” in early America.

AI-generated illustration created by the author using artificial intelligence as an interpretive aid to visualize early 19th-century Ohio court and community settings based on historical research; not a depiction of an identified individual, jury, or courthouse.

Building a Family Branch with Records and DNA…And Knowing Where the Limits Are

What Documentation, Genetics, and Caution Can (and Can’t) Tell Us at the 4th–5th Great-Grandparent Level

Purpose statement
The purpose of this post is to explain how documentary research and DNA evidence are being used together to reconstruct an early Morehead family group in Fairfield County, Ohio, while clearly outlining the strengths, limits, and cautions required when working several generations back.

------------------------

About my Morehead Research

My Morehead research focuses on an early Ohio family that settled in Fairfield County in the early 1800s before spreading into Putnam and Van Wert Counties. Like many families of this period, the Moreheads reused given names (like Calvin, Alexander, John, Thomas) across generations and left few records that explicitly state relationships. This has required a careful, evidence-based approach that relies on land records, probate files, court documents, and, more recently, DNA evidence to test and refine family connections.

When people hear that I’m using DNA in my family history research, they often assume it provides quick, definitive answers. The reality is much more nuanced. DNA is a powerful tool, but it works best when paired with careful documentary research…especially when working several generations back.

My current focus has been reconstructing a branch of the Morehead family in early Fairfield County, Ohio. At this depth in time, no single record or DNA result can stand alone. What has worked instead is letting documents establish the framework and allowing DNA to either support that framework or, just as importantly, fail to contradict it.

Starting with records, not trees

The foundation of this research has always been documentation. Land records, guardianship bonds, probate files, court cases, and early marriages all place several Morehead men together in the same county, at the same time, interacting legally and socially. From those records, a sibling group begins to emerge: Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin Morehead.

Only after assembling that documentary picture did I turn to DNA. This order matters. DNA works best when it is used to test a hypothesis rather than create one from scratch.

One important boundary I’ve maintained is how I treat other people’s online trees. Trees can be helpful for clues…but they are not evidence. Dates, relationships, and even entire family groups copied from one tree to another may reflect assumptions rather than proof. In this project, trees are treated strictly as hints that must be confirmed through records or supported by DNA patterns.

What DNA has confirmed so far

DNA has already provided a meaningful success. I’ve confirmed genetic connections to descendants of Thomas Morehead, who documentary evidence strongly suggested was a brother of my ancestor Alexander. That confirmation didn’t come from a single match, but from consistent clustering…multiple matches pointing back to the same family line.

This is exactly where DNA shines. It doesn’t replace records, but it can independently reinforce conclusions drawn from them. When documentation and DNA point in the same direction, confidence increases significantly.

DNA has also begun to suggest there is a Sarah Morehead in this family. This Sarah who was married in Fairfield County in the early 1800s, most likely belongs to this same sibling group. The evidence here is still emerging, and I’m treating it cautiously, but the pattern is promising.

Understanding the limits at the 4th–5th great-grandparent level

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned is that DNA silence is not evidence of absence.

At the level of a 4th or 5th great-grandparent, autosomal DNA inheritance becomes unpredictable. Segments are broken up each generation, and it is entirely possible…even common…for a legitimate ancestor to leave no detectable DNA in a given descendant. This means that a person not appearing in DNA tools like ThruLines (ancestry.com) does not mean they don’t belong in the family tree.

For example, Calvin Morehead is well supported by documentation as part of this sibling group, even though DNA connections to his line have not yet surfaced. They may appear in a future update, or they may never appear at all. Either outcome is normal at this depth.

Because of this, DNA must be used carefully. It is supportive when present, but neutral when absent. It should never override solid documentary evidence simply because a genetic connection hasn’t yet been detected.

Why this combined approach matters

Using records and DNA together creates balance. Records provide structure, context, and chronology. DNA provides an independent check that can strengthen or, at times, challenge assumptions. Neither works as well alone as they do together.

Most importantly, this approach keeps conclusions honest. Hypotheses are clearly labeled. Assumptions are acknowledged. And claims are limited to what the evidence actually supports.

This branch of the family tree is still a work in progress, but it’s being built carefully…one document, one DNA connection, and one tested hypothesis at a time.

Sources and Further Reading
“How Just ONE DNA Match Can Help You Find Missing Ancestors,” YouTube video presentation, accessed [your date], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOpnTS-OTs4

When Records Suggest More Than They Prove

Searching for Rachel Cook When Proof Is Elusive

Purpose statement

The goal of this post is to walk through an unresolved family connection using original records, showing how probate and estate papers can suggest close relationships without directly proving them.

The Question That Started the Search

One of the challenges I keep running into in early Ohio research is not a lack of records, but an abundance of tempting connections that stop just short of proof. The Cook and Morehead families in Fairfield County are a good example of this, and the estate of John Cook provides an important window into that problem.

My ancestor Alexander Morehead married Rachel Cook in Fairfield County, Ohio, on 3 January 1815. By 28 November 1826, Rachel was deceased, and Alexander married Delilah Pickens, making Delilah his second wife (and also my ancestor). During the years between those marriages, Alexander and Rachel had several children together. Their names are Winton, Emanuel, Lorena, Elijah, Rebecca, Thomas, and possibly another son who has not yet been firmly identified in surviving records. These children later appear in guardianship records, which suggests that Rachel’s death left minor heirs requiring court oversight. That circumstance raises a reasonable question: Did Rachel inherit property or financial interests that needed to be protected for her children?

What John Cook’s Will Actually Tells Us

This question naturally led me to the estate of John Cook. John Cook died in Fairfield County in late 1825. His will and estate records show a typical early nineteenth-century farming household, carefully structured to provide for a surviving spouse while also distributing property among children and grandchildren. His wife, Mary, was granted lifetime use of the house, household goods, livestock, and annual provisions of grain, meat, flax, and firewood, reflecting both her dependence on the farm economy and her central role in household production. After her death, the remaining property was to be sold and divided among the next generation.

John Cook named several children in his will, and one of these was Rachel Cook. It seems natural to ask whether this Rachel Cook was the same Rachel Cook who married Alexander Morehead. As you will see, this question cannot be answered by the will alone.

John Cook states in his will that his sons William and Isaiah were to receive land and farm property, while his daughters Mary, Eleanor, and Rachel were named as heirs to shares of the remaining estate. Two daughters, Rebecca and Catharine, were already deceased by the time the will was written, and their children, although unnamed, were heirs in their place. At first glance, it is easy to assume that the daughters listed without surnames were unmarried. I initially fell into that trap myself. But the will itself does not support that conclusion. The deceased daughters are identified only by their given names, yet they clearly had children. This makes it clear that the absence of a husband’s surname does not indicate marital status. It simply reflects how the will was written. As a result, the presence of a daughter named Rachel Cook in John Cook’s will cannot be dismissed on the basis that her husband is not named.

When Records Suggest Connection Without Proof

What the probate records do show, however, is that Alexander Morehead, along with Thomas and Calvin Morehead, appears repeatedly in John Cook’s estate papers in ways that go beyond a single appearance at an estate sale. My current research hypothesis is that Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin Morehead were brothers who moved from Pennsylvania with their parents and settled in Fairfield County, Ohio. The John Cook estate records place Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin Morehead among a small group of individuals who interacted with the estate through deferred payments, balances, and continued settlement rather than simple cash purchases. Their repeated appearance across multiple phases of the estate suggests that they were known, trusted participants in John Cook’s economic and social circle rather than casual or one-time buyers. In early nineteenth-century rural Ohio, this level of engagement typically reflects established relationships within a local farming community, often involving long-term neighbors, business partners, or extended family connections. While these records do not identify a specific familial relationship between the Cook and Morehead families, they provide important contextual evidence that the two households were closely connected within the same working and social network.

This kind of evidence is useful, but it has limits. It suggests proximity, trust, and familiarity. It does not, by itself, prove parentage or inheritance. That distinction matters. John Cook’s will and probate records stop short of naming a specific family relationship. They do not explicitly state that Rachel Cook, wife of Alexander Morehead, was John Cook’s daughter. They provide context, not proof. I have seen many family trees connect individuals to parents or siblings based on assumptions that feel reasonable but are not supported by documentation. Once those assumptions are repeated often enough, they become very difficult to undo. Correcting them can take years of careful explanation, documentation, and patient communication with other researchers, an outcome I work hard to avoid.

I often think of this process like a criminal investigation. If investigators decide too early who the suspect is, they may begin ignoring evidence that points elsewhere or even evidence that exonerates that person entirely. Genealogical research can fall into the same trap when we become more invested in a conclusion than in the evidence itself. My goal is to avoid putting future researchers in that position by clearly separating what the records say from what I suspect might be true.

For now, the John Cook estate records strengthen the case that the Cook and Morehead families were closely connected in Fairfield County during the years when Alexander and Rachel were raising their children. They confirm that John Cook had a daughter named Rachel, and they show sustained interaction between the two families at the household and economic level. What they do not yet provide is the one document that would definitively place Rachel Cook, wife of Alexander Morehead, as John Cook’s daughter. Until that document is found, the connection remains a carefully stated hypothesis rather than a conclusion, and that is exactly where it belongs.

Sources:

Fairfield County, Ohio, Probate Court, Estate of John Cook (Liberty Township), will dated 30 March 1825, proved 29 December 1825; including will, executors’ bond, inventory, appraisal, estate sale, and settlement records; Fairfield County Probate Records; FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org), digital images.

AI-generated images used as interpretive illustrations to represent probate records and the research process. These images are not reproductions of original documents.

Chasing a Probate That Never Existed: Rethinking John Webb’s Final Years

When newspapers answer the question probate records could not

Purpose Statement
This post documents my search for John Webb’s probate record and explains how newspaper and land records revealed a different ending to his story than I initially assumed.

----------

For a long time, I was convinced I knew how John Webb’s story ended. I had his tombstone. It gave me a name, a clear death year, and a burial place. From there, I did what genealogists are trained to do next: I went looking for a probate record. If I knew when and where he died, surely there would be an estate file waiting somewhere nearby.

That search became relentless.

I checked probate indexes repeatedly. I widened county boundaries. I searched neighboring jurisdictions. I followed courthouse reorganizations and record losses. Over and over, I came up empty. What bothered me most was that John Webb was not an obscure figure in the family story. I knew a great deal about him already, largely through the biographical sketch of his son, John P. Webb. That biography outlined John Webb’s earlier life, his migrations, and his role as a father. It gave shape to the man, even if it did not describe his death in detail.

Because of that, the missing probate felt like a loose thread I could not ignore.

What I did not know, and what I had completely missed, was that John Webb’s story did not end where I thought it did. I had no idea that he spent part of his final decade in Kansas.

That realization did not come from a probate file at all. It came from newspapers.

An obituary published in 1880 revealed that John Webb had settled in Smith County, Kansas, in the early 1870s and had taken a homestead several miles north of town. This was a major shift in my understanding. The John Webb I thought I knew, the man anchored to earlier states and earlier generations, had quietly moved west late in life. When his health failed, he left Kansas and returned to Missouri, where he died at his son’s home. That explained why the tombstone placed him there, but it also explained why my probate searches had been so unfocused. I had been looking for the end of a story without knowing its final chapter.

Even more telling was a later court notice from Kansas, published several years after his death. It referenced John Webb as deceased, named his son John P. Webb, and addressed “unknown heirs.” The case involved foreclosure on land John Webb had mortgaged shortly before his death. What stood out was not just the land, but the legal language. There was no executor. No administrator. No estate being represented. The court proceeded by publication, a clear signal that no probate had been opened to resolve the property.

Suddenly, the absence of a probate record made sense.

Part of the newspaper notice

The court notice shows that John Webb had mortgaged his Kansas land shortly before his death and that the debt remained unresolved years later. Rather than appearing in a probate file, the issue was addressed through foreclosure proceedings. In the course of researching this question, I came across explanations of nineteenth-century probate practice that I had not previously considered. Those explanations helped me understand that when land was mortgaged late in life and later resolved through foreclosure, a formal probate proceeding did not always follow.

The mortgage itself involved what seems like a small sum. The original amount, $41.75 in 1880, with a smaller balance still unpaid years later, would be roughly equivalent to about $1,300 today when adjusted using Consumer Price Index (CPI) estimates. Rather than prompting a full estate administration, the unresolved debt appears to have been handled directly through foreclosure.

What began as a frustrating search for a missing record turned into something more valuable: an explanation for why the record does not exist.

This experience has been a reminder of how easily assumptions can shape our research paths. I assumed John Webb stayed where he had lived most of his life. I assumed probate was inevitable. I assumed the tombstone told the whole story. It did not. The newspapers did not just add color. They corrected my framework.

For now, I am setting this question down. I understand John Webb’s final years better than I did before, even without a probate file to point to. Sometimes the work is not about finding one more record, but about recognizing when the evidence already in hand has answered the question in a different way.

Sources

Modern dollar equivalent calculated using CPI-based historical inflation estimates from MeasuringWorth.com, where one U.S. dollar in 1880 is approximately equal to $30–$35 today.

Smith County Pioneer (Smith Center, Kansas):

• Obituary of John Webb, published 14 May 1880.
• Legal notice regarding foreclosure proceedings against John P. Webb and the unknown heirs of John Webb, deceased, published 13 February 1885.
• Both articles accessed via Newspapers.com.

A Fortunate Find in Fairfield County: The Morehead Guardianship Bonds

What a cluster of 1830 court records reveals about family, responsibility, and connection.

AI-generated image of three Morehead brothers,
an interpretive illustration.

Purpose statement

The purpose of this post is to document and reflect on a rare group of guardianship bonds from Fairfield County, Ohio, dated 21 October 1830, and to explain why their survival and internal consistency matter for evaluating the working hypothesis that Alexander, Calvin, and Thomas Morehead were brothers and sons of an older John Morehead.

_______________

Some records feel routine when you first open them. Guardianship bonds are often filed away under that category… legal paperwork, routine legal language, names repeated from one page to the next. But every so often, a small cluster of documents quietly changes the shape of a family story.

Guardian bond for Abetha Weston Morehead

That’s what happened when I came across a set of guardianship bonds dated 21 October 1830 in Fairfield County, Ohio. On the same day, Alexander Morehead was appointed guardian for several minor children. Each bond follows the same formal structure, yet together they do far more than appoint a guardian. They place Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin Morehead side by side, repeatedly, in a legal setting that demanded trust, financial responsibility, and close association. These were not casual appearances. Guardianship bonds required sureties who were willing to be legally and financially accountable for the proper care of a child’s estate.

Guardian bond for Elijah Morehead

What makes these records especially striking is their completeness. Rather than a single isolated bond, this is a coordinated set… multiple children, the same guardian, the same sureties, executed on the same day. That kind of preservation is rare. Too often, early probate material survives in fragments, leaving researchers to guess at relationships from scattered clues. Here, the court records speak clearly about guardianship, residence, and who stood behind whom when legal responsibility mattered.

There’s also an element of sheer good fortune in finding them intact. These documents survived nearly two centuries of local record-keeping and handling. I imagine many similar bonds across Ohio never made it this far. Their survival allows us to see a family moment frozen in time, not through later recollection or compiled histories, but through legal action documented at the time.

Guardian bond for Emanuel Morehead

These bonds don’t answer every question. They don’t spell out relationships beyond what the law required, and they leave room for further research. But they do something just as valuable. They anchor the Morehead family firmly in Fairfield County in 1830. These bonds show who took responsibility, who lived close by, and offer a rare, clearly dated glimpse of how this family handled loss and legal obligation.

Sometimes progress in genealogy doesn’t come from dramatic discoveries, but from finding the right records, together, at the right moment. These guardianship bonds are one of those quiet finds… and I’m reminded how fortunate it is when the paper trail holds just long enough to let us see it.

Guardian bond for Rebecca Morehead

I came across these guardianship bonds while searching other Fairfield County, Ohio records for my Morehead ancestors and related families. Specifically John, Alexander, Calvin and Thomas Morehead.  John Morehead appears as the older figure in the area, while Alexander, Calvin, and Thomas Morehead appear repeatedly in close association. Alexander is my direct ancestor, and Calvin and Thomas appear alongside him often enough to suggest a close family connection. At present, my working hypothesis is that Alexander, Calvin, and Thomas were sons of John Morehead and brothers to one another. While no single record states this outright, the cumulative evidence weighs more in favor of that conclusion than against it, and these guardianship bonds add an important piece to that broader picture.

Guardian bond for Thomas Morehead

Genealogical research often lives in tension between scarcity and abundance. In some cases, relationships must be inferred from a handful of scattered references; in others, a rare set of records like these guardianship bonds offers an unusual level of clarity while still demanding careful interpretation. Even when documents appear generous in what they reveal, they require restraint, context, and patience, reminding us that understanding family connections is rarely about finding a single answer and more often about weighing evidence thoughtfully over time.

Sources

• Fairfield County, Ohio, Probate Estate Case Files, guardianship bonds for minor children of Alexander Morehead, dated 21 October 1830; Clerk of Courts; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org), image group 106285354.
• A surety was a person who legally guaranteed that another individual would fulfill an obligation required by the court. In early 19th-century guardianship bonds, sureties were financially responsible if a guardian failed to properly manage or account for a minor’s property or inheritance. Serving as a surety placed one’s own property at risk and reflected a level of trust, responsibility, and standing within the local community. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/surety

Before the Records Settle: John Morehead and Susan Porter

Migration, Memory, and Family Formation on the Ohio Frontier

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this post is to examine the early Morehead family in Fairfield County, Ohio, in order to better understand the parentage of Alexander Morehead and his wife Delilah Pickens, as well as the relationships among Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin Morehead. By integrating family tradition, tax records, guardianship proceedings, and published biographies, this study seeks to clarify family structure and address repeated misidentifications in existing trees.

John Morehead belonged to a generation shaped by movement until they found their permanent home in Ohio. He and his wife, Susan Porter, stand at the beginning of a family whose early history unfolded along the interior edge of American settlement. The family origins are said to begin in Maryland, but known documentation suggests Pennsylvania as John Morehead’s state of origin. By the time John Morehead began his own household, the pull was westward.

AI generated image

Family tradition preserved a story of the journey that carried the Moreheads into Ohio. John traveled across the Appalachian Mountains leading a single pony, the family’s possessions balanced carefully on its back. Susan rode the animal with an infant, while two other small children were carried in a long tow-linen sack she had made herself and slung across the pony. When the load shifted during the journey, the balance had to be adjusted to keep the children from slipping. The trip was remembered as one made through wilderness, over long distances, with little margin for error. One of the children on that journey was Calvin Morehead. The other two are understood from later records to have been Thomas and Alexander, who entered Ohio with him as part of the same young family.

By the early years of the nineteenth century, John Morehead had settled in Fairfield County, Ohio. There he appears not only in biographical recollections but in the ordinary records of local government. Tax lists place him in the county alongside Thomas, Calvin, and Alexander, all appearing within the same civic framework. These records show the three sons coming of age in the same place and time as John, participating in the economic life of the county under his roof or within his orbit. All three sons married in Fairfield County: Thomas married Elizabeth Good; Calvin married Susanna Good; and Alexander married first Rachel Cook and later Delilah Pickens. Fairfield County became the place where the family took root, no longer moving as a single unit but beginning to branch.

The bonds among the three sons remained visible as they entered adulthood. After the death of Alexander Morehead’s first wife, legal responsibility for his minor children fell not to distant relations but to Thomas and Calvin. In guardianship proceedings, they appeared repeatedly as sureties and guardians, stepping into formal roles that reflected trust, proximity, and close kinship. These records place Thomas and Calvin not only beside Alexander but actively supporting him, a pattern more consistent with a sibling relationship than with more distant kin such as cousins, though the latter cannot be entirely ruled out.

As time passed, John Morehead no longer remained fixed in Fairfield County. Later accounts state that he moved on to Putnam County, Ohio, continuing a pattern of gradual westward relocation that marked the family’s story from the beginning. By that point, his sons were established in Fairfield County as men in their own right.

John Morehead and Susan Porter do not survive in the record as fully drawn individuals. Instead, they are known through movement, through association, and through the actions of their children. Their story is carried forward in tax lists, court records, and a single remembered journey, all pointing to a family shaped by travel, responsibility, and settlement on the early Ohio frontier.

 Sources

1. “Deaths: Troy Centenarian Passes,” Wathena Times (also published as the Friday Troy Republican), Wathena, Doniphan County, Kansas, 28 March 1924, obituary of John Morehead.
2. Fairfield County, Ohio, tax records (multiple years), listing John Morehead with Thomas, Calvin, and Alexander Morehead.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio, guardianship records relating to the minor children of Alexander Morehead, naming Thomas and Calvin Morehead as guardians or sureties.
4. Portrait and Biographical Record of Mercer and Van Wert Counties, Ohio (Chicago: A.W. Bowen & Co., 1896), pp. 781–782.
5. “John Morehead,” Genealogical and Biographical Record of North-Eastern Kansas (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1900), pp. 467–468.
6. 1860 U.S. census, entry for Calvin Morehead, reporting birthplace as Pennsylvania (as shown in user-supplied census image).

Sorting Fact from Fiction in the Morehead Family

A Researcher’s Look at Untangling Generations of Repeating Names

Purpose Statement: This post examines early Ohio and Pennsylvania records to determine whether an older John Morehead was the father of my ancestor, Alexander Morehead, using only documented evidence.

AI-generated artwork representing the early Fairfield County landscape.

When you spend time in early Ohio and Pennsylvania records, you start to hear echoes. The same names repeat across generations and counties: John, Alexander, Calvin. These echoes are part of the Morehead story, and they are also the reason this research has taken patience, careful reading, and more than a few returns to the same documents. My goal has been simple: identify the parents of my fourth great-grandfather, Alexander Morehead, using only what the records truly support. The first step was to set aside online trees and begin fresh with evidence.

My current focus is on the older John Morehead, the man whose name keeps appearing in the earliest Fairfield County, Ohio records and who may hold the key to placing my own line in the right generation. His name appears alongside Alexander, Thomas, and Calvin in Fairfield County during the early 1800s, suggesting a family group moving through the same community at the same time. The elder John may have come from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (1790 census), and by 1801 he is in Fairfield County purchasing land with Barnabas Golding. He shows up again in Fairfield County court documents in the years that follow, and by 1850 he is in Putnam County, age eighty-five, still recorded as born in Pennsylvania. It is records like these that have led me to consider that he may be the patriarch of my own line, though that is something I am still testing carefully against the evidence.

County histories add another layer to the picture. I've discovered that county histories can be useful, but they often mix documented facts with family recollections, so every detail should be verified against primary records. The few regarding my Morehead clan suggest relationships that I can explore as I collect primary sources. One detail is the mention of an older John Morehead whose wife is identified as Susan Porter. No marriage record has been found to support this claim, but it provides a lead to pursue rather than relying on chance discoveries.

1830 Fairfield County guardianship bond for Emanuel Morehead.

One significant record I found while searching for Moreheads in Fairfield County, Ohio is a set of guardianship bonds dating from 1830. These documents involve my ancestor, Alexander Morehead, who was appointed guardian for his own children after the death of their mother, Rebecca Cook. Thomas and Calvin Morehead appear as sureties on these bonds. My early hypothesis is that Thomas and Calvin may be Alexander’s brothers, though this is something I am still working to confirm.

This is the heart of the challenge. Many names, many counties, and many overlapping lifespans can make it easy to merge the wrong individuals together. Part of good genealogy is resisting that temptation. Another part is learning when a document belongs to the right person and when it belongs to someone else entirely. With the Moreheads, every new record forces a fresh look at the structure of the family.

For my research, the central question remains: was the elder John Morehead the father of my Alexander? The available evidence leans in that direction. John appears in Pennsylvania and then in Fairfield County at the right time for him to be part of Alexander’s earlier family circle. The movements of other Moreheads—such as Thomas and Calvin—from Fairfield into Putnam County match the same pattern I see in Alexander’s records. Still, this conclusion needs direct confirmation, and that is the focus of my ongoing work.

What I have right now is a growing body of records that place these individuals in the same time, the same places, and the same family networks. Guardianship records, land purchases, court appearances, county histories, and census entries each offer small pieces that, taken together, start to clear the fog.

This Morehead research is far from finished. But each document brings the echoes into sharper focus, and slowly, a single voice begins to stand out—my Alexander, walking the same ground as the others but leaving a path that was his alone. The work now is to keep following it, one verified record at a time.

Sources Referenced in This Blog Post

• 1790 U.S. Census – Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Used to establish the earliest known appearance of an older John Morehead.
• Fairfield County, Ohio Land Purchase (1801) – John Morehead & Barnabas Golding
• Fairfield County Recorder
• FamilySearch digital images
• Shows John Morehead purchasing the east half of Section 17, Township 18, Range 17.
• Fairfield County, Ohio Court Records (1804–1807)
• Fairfield County Court Memorandum Books
• FamilySearch digital images
• Place John Morehead, and sometimes Alexander, Thomas, or Calvin, in Fairfield County in the early 1800s.
• 1850 U.S. Census – Putnam County, Ohio. Shows an elderly John Morehead, age 85, born in Pennsylvania, living in Putnam County.
• Guardianship Bonds for the Children of Alexander Morehead (1830)
• Fairfield County Clerk of Courts
• FamilySearch digital images
• Documents Alexander as guardian of his own children after the death of his first wife, Rebecca Cook, with Thomas and Calvin Morehead as sureties.
• County Histories (Specific Passages Used.) These were referenced for contextual clues, not treated as stand-alone proof. All require corroboration, per your warning in the post.
• Genealogical and Biographical Record of North-Eastern Kansas (1900)
• Mentions the elder John Morehead and his wife, Susan Porter
• Provides migration clues and family structure that require further verification
• Putnam County (Ohio) Histories and Atlas Entries
• Mention Sarah (Morehead) Crawfis
• Identify her parents as Calvin Morehead and Susanna Good
• Help clarify what family information belongs to the Good line and what belongs to the Moreheads

 

A Reputation on Trial: Delilah Pickens Morehead and the Fight for Her Good Name

Slander Case: Alexander and Delilah Morehead v. Jonathan and Sarah Norris

Purpose Statement: Here is a court case that reminds me why I do this work…to learn not only who my ancestors were, but what their lives were like in the moments that never make it into charts or written histories.

Fairfield County, Ohio, 1831–1832

The gossip spreads

In the fall of 1831, Alexander and Delilah Morehead filed a slander lawsuit in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas against Jonathan Norris and his wife Sarah. Their attorneys, Ewing and Stanberry, requested that the court summon the Norrises to appear and answer the claim. The sheriff personally served Jonathan and Sarah Norris with the summons on October 10, 1831, and the case was held over to the next term.

Delilah hears of the gossip

Later that year, on November 28, 1831, the Morehead's attorneys filed a formal written declaration explaining the basis of their case. In that document, they stated that Delilah was a woman of good reputation and moral character, known among her neighbors as chaste, decent, and respectable. They asserted that before the slander occurred, Delilah had never been suspected of immoral behavior of any kind.

The declaration then described the actions attributed to Sarah Norris. According to the complaint, Sarah made false and malicious statements about Delilah in the presence of others. These statements took an incident involving the men at a public house and used it to attack Delilah’s personal character. Sarah was accused of telling others that Delilah had an immoral sexual reputation and of calling her a prostitute. The complaint stated that these accusations harmed Delilah’s good name, caused her public embarrassment, and damaged her standing among neighbors and respectable citizens of Fairfield County. The Moreheads sought one thousand dollars in damages for the injury done to Delilah’s reputation.

Waiting for the verdict

On March 12, 1832, Jonathan and Sarah Norris appeared in court through their attorneys, Irwin and Stanberry, and formally denied all of the accusations. They entered a plea of not guilty and requested a jury trial.

Both parties appeared in court that same day, and a twelve-man jury was selected 

The Jury deliberates

and sworn. After hearing the case, the jury found Jonathan and Sarah Norris guilty of slander in the manner described in the Moreheads’ written declaration. They awarded Alexander and Delilah Morehead forty-five dollars in damages. The court entered judgment in favor of the Moreheads for that amount, along with court costs totaling twenty-eight dollars and thirty-seven and one-half cents.

The judgment was certified by Judge Frederick Grimke, who presided over the case. 

___________________________________________________

Even though this slander case took place nearly two centuries ago, reading it today adds a dimension I don’t always expect when I’m deep in old court books. Sometimes following an ancestor’s trail takes you through dusty corners of history—unopened records, stalled leads, and plenty of dry figures on faded pages. But then something like this surfaces, and suddenly the people behind the documents come into focus.

It’s a reminder that gossip has always carried the power to wound. Delilah’s reputation mattered in her community, just as ours matter today, and the Moreheads’ willingness to take the matter to court shows how deeply words can cut when they are repeated, twisted, or spoken in the wrong company.

For me as a researcher, moments like this bring depth and color to the family story. They offer a glimpse into personality, conflict, fear, and resilience…things that rarely appear in a census column or probate inventory. It also underscores how early-nineteenth-century life was far from quiet or predictable; communities were close-knit, reputations were fragile, and a single rumor could echo far beyond the moment it was spoken.

Learning this about Alexander and Delilah helps me see them not just as research subjects, but as real people who struggled, defended themselves, and tried to maintain dignity when publicly misrepresented. And in a way, discoveries like this keep the work from ever feeling dry.

Sources

Fairfield County, Ohio. Court of Common Pleas. Court records, 1831 to 1833. Slander case: Alexander Morehead and Delila his wife vs. Jonathan Norris and Sarah his wife. Pages 38 to 39. FamilySearch. “Fairfield, Ohio, United States records,” image group 115937731. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHJ-57MX-B48S (accessed 26 November 2025).

Fairfield County, Ohio. Court of Common Pleas. Court records, 1831 to 1833. Second docket reference to the same slander case. FamilySearch. “Fairfield, Ohio, United States records,” image group 007758618. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C911-QZ24 (accessed 26 November 2025).

Fairfield County, Ohio. Court of Common Pleas. Clerk’s office and summons entries relating to Alexander and Delila Morehead. FamilySearch. “Fairfield, Ohio, United States records,” image group 115937731. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHN-57MX-Y6QJ (accessed 27 November 2025).

All images in this post were created using AI based on historical themes and do not depict real people or actual scenes from the 1830s. They are included only to help readers visualize the setting and atmosphere of the documented events. These illustrations should not be interpreted as literal representations of Alexander and Delilah Morehead, Jonathan and Sarah Norris, or any other individuals involved in the historical record.

Where Faith Held a Colony Together: The Swedish Church on the Christina

Tracing my Peterson family’s beginnings in Delaware’s oldest surviving church

Reconstruction of Fort Christina, the Swedish settlement established in 1638 on the Christina River.
The church was later built on part of the old fort site.

When the Swedish settlers arrived along the Delaware River in the 1600s, they brought with them little more than their faith, their work ethic, and a determination to build a new community. Long before Wilmington became a city, these families raised a small stone church on the site of their first fort at Christina. That church, known today as Holy Trinity or Old Swedes Church, has stood for more than three centuries as both a house of worship and a witness to the passing generations.

Engraving of “Swede’s Church, Wilmington, Del.,” by John Sartain, in Elizabeth Montgomery, Reminiscences of Wilmington, in Familiar Village Tales, Ancient and New (Philadelphia: T.K. Collins Jr., 1872). Public domain, image restoration by Steve Peterson, 2025.

Elizabeth Montgomery, writing in Reminiscences of Wilmington, in Familiar Village Tales, Ancient and New (1872), tells how the early settlers from New Jersey would row their boats across the river on Sunday mornings, tying them to the tree roots along the Christina shore before going inside for worship. The simple act of pulling up their boats and gathering under one roof became a weekly ritual of faith and fellowship. For a people far from their homeland, this church was not just a place to pray, it was a lifeline to identity and community.

Illustration of Swedish settlers arriving by boat to attend services at Old Swedes Church, based on accounts from Elizabeth Montgomery, Reminiscences of Wilmington (1872). Artistic reconstruction, 2025. Public domain for research and illustrative purposes.

For genealogists, this little stone church remains one of the most valuable sources for tracing families in the region. Before Delaware kept consistent civil records, the church’s baptism, marriage, and burial entries were the only written proof that a person had lived, loved, and died there. In these pages, faith and recordkeeping merged, preserving family ties long after paper and ink should have faded.

Among those early entries are the names of John Peterson and Ruth Pyles, who were married at Old Swedes on July 9, 1773. A year later, their son Robert Peterson was born January 28, 1774, and baptized there on November 11, 1774. The handwriting is simple and clear—“Robert Son of John & Ruth Peterson born Janry 28th baptizd Novr 11th 1774.” That single line quietly links one Delaware family to a story stretching back to the first Swedish pioneers who built the church nearly a century before.

The original church record for Robert’s baptism reads, “Robert Son of John & Ruth Peterson born Janry 28th
baptizd Novr 11th 1774.” (Records of Holy Trinity [Old Swedes] Church, Wilmington, Delaware, 1697–1773.)

Today, the church still stands near the original site of Fort Christina, where the first Swedish settlers landed in 1638. Its stone walls, hewn from local blue granite, have outlasted every generation that once filled its pews. The river no longer runs as close as it did in their time, industrial growth and land reclamation have reshaped the shoreline, but in 1774, the Peterson family would have found themselves only steps from the water’s edge.

“Map of Wilmington as of 1772, with the addition of original tracts, Indian trails, and land marks,” Delaware Public Archives. Public domain. The letter “A” marks the Swedish Church (Old Swedes) south of the Christina Creek.

To walk through the churchyard today is to move through time, to stand where boats once tied to trees and where voices once rose in hymns of gratitude. For those of us tracing our roots, the Old Swedes Church reminds us that faith and recordkeeping often worked hand in hand to preserve what civil institutions had not yet begun to keep: the record of a life.

Primary and Historical References

• Montgomery, Elizabeth. Reminiscences of Wilmington, in Familiar Village Tales, Ancient and New. Philadelphia: T.K. Collins Jr., 1872. Public domain. Available online: Archive.org

• Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church Records. Records of Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church, Wilmington, Del., from 1697 to 1773. Translated from the Original Swedish by Horace Burr. Wilmington: Historical Society of Delaware, 1890. FamilySearch Film #004254887. Public domain.

• Map of Wilmington as of 1772. Delaware Public Archives. Public domain.
  (Marked “A. Swedish Church” for Holy Trinity, located south of Christina Creek.)
  Available via Delaware Public Archives – Historic Maps

• Christina Conservancy. “History of the Christina River.” Discover the Christina.
  https://www.christinaconservancy.org/discover-the-christina/christina-history/

• Delaware Division of Historical and Cultural Affairs. History of Fort Christina Park.
  https://history.delaware.gov/fort-christina/

• Records of Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church, Wilmington, Delaware, 1697–1773. Translated from the Original Swedish by Horace Burr. Wilmington: Historical Society of Delaware, 1890. Entry for Robert Peterson, born January 28, 1774, baptized November 11, 1774. FamilySearch Film #004254887. Public domain.

---

Modern Interpretive and Genealogical References

• The Family History Guide. “The Value of Church Records in Family History.” The Family History Guide Blog.
  https://www.thefhguide.com/blog/the-value-of-church-records-in-family-history/

• MyHeritage Blog. “What Church Records Can Reveal About Your Ancestors’ Lives.” (June 2025).
  https://blog.myheritage.com/2025/06/what-church-records-can-reveal-about-your-ancestors-lives/

• Old Swedes Foundation. “History of Holy Trinity (Old Swedes) Church.”
  https://oldswedes.org/history/