Van Rensselaer Hancock: A Death on the Border

A Union soldier’s life and death on the Kansas–Missouri border, reconstructed through records and context

Van Rensselaer Hancock’s story begins with his father, Warren Hancock, whose life carried the family from Ohio into Missouri. Warren’s path is documented in land records, census entries, and probate files… but his son’s story takes us into a very different chapter of American history.  Click here to go Warren Hancock's story.

An imagined Union Artillery Camp

A Different Kind of War

The Civil War is often remembered through its largest battles… Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh. But for many soldiers, the war was not fought on those famous fields. It was fought in smaller, scattered conflicts… places where the lines between armies were less clear, and the danger was constant. Van Rensselaer Hancock, the son of Warren Hancock, was one of those soldiers.

Service in the 2nd Kansas Battery

He served in the 2nd Kansas Battery, a Union artillery unit organized in 1862 at Fort Scott, Kansas. Unlike the large eastern armies, this unit operated in the Trans-Mississippi region, where the war along the Kansas–Missouri border was defined by instability, movement, and frequent small engagements. Soldiers in this area faced not only organized Confederate forces, but also guerrilla fighters who carried out raids and ambushes across the countryside.

Among those involved in this type of warfare were men like Jesse James, who, before becoming widely known, served as a Confederate guerrilla in Missouri. While there is no evidence connecting him to the specific action in which Hancock was killed, he was part of the same kind of conflict that shaped the region.

By 1863, the borderlands between Kansas and Missouri had already seen years of violence. Union troops moved frequently to guard supply lines, escort trains, and maintain control of key positions. Opposing them were smaller, mobile groups of fighters who knew the terrain and often struck without warning. It was in this setting that Van Rensselaer Hancock lost his life.

Loss and the Family Left Behind

A published history of Kansas records that Corporal Van Rensselaer Hancock of the 2nd Kansas Battery was killed on May 18, 1863. A widow’s pension application adds further detail, stating that he died near Baxter Springs, Kansas, “being killed by the enemy in an action between the rebels under Gen Livingston and Major Ward of the 12th Kansas Volunteers.”

A more detailed account from the history of the battery helps clarify what happened that day. In May 1863, a detachment associated with the 2nd Kansas Battery was sent into Missouri as part of a forage expedition—gathering supplies for the unit. While near Sherwood, Missouri, this group was attacked by a larger force of Confederate guerrillas under a leader identified as Livingston. The Union detachment resisted as long as possible but was ultimately forced to retreat in the face of a superior force.

The engagement resulted in several casualties. Among those killed was Corporal Van Rensselaer Hancock. Others were also killed or captured in the same action, and the attackers seized supplies and livestock belonging to the unit. This was not a large, named battle, but a brief and deadly encounter typical of the fighting in that region.

At the time of his death, Van Rensselaer Hancock left behind a young family. Records show three children: George S. Hancock, born October 25, 1857; John R. Hancock, born August 7, 1860; and Mary Elizabeth Hancock, born June 3, 1863—born just weeks after her father was killed.

A War Beyond the Famous Battlefields

This kind of fighting defined much of the war west of the Mississippi. Unlike the large, organized battles in the east, the conflict here often took the form of sudden attacks, scattered engagements, and constant uncertainty. Soldiers could be sent on routine tasks—like gathering supplies—and find themselves in the middle of a fight for their lives.

Later that same year, in October 1863, the region around Baxter Springs would see one of its most well-known events, the Baxter Springs Massacre, when guerrilla forces attacked Union troops in a surprise assault. Hancock’s death occurred months earlier, but in the same landscape of ongoing violence that made such events possible.

Van Rensselaer Hancock did not die in a famous battle. His name appears instead in a casualty list, a pension record, and a brief account of a skirmish in Missouri. But those records tell us enough.

What the Records Tell Us

They show that he was part of an active Union force operating in a dangerous region. They show that his death came in direct conflict with enemy forces. And they show that his service placed him in the kind of fighting that defined the Civil War along the Kansas–Missouri border.

For his family, the loss was no less real because the battle was small.

And for us, his story is a reminder that the Civil War was not only fought in the places we remember… but also in the many places we don’t.

Sources

• U.S. Pension Records, Widow’s Application of Lucinda Hancock
  Statement describing the death of Van R. Hancock, killed 18 May 1863 near Baxter Springs, Kansas, in action involving Union forces under Major Ward and rebels under “Gen Livingston.”
  Statement listing children: George S. Hancock (b. 25 Oct 1857), John R. Hancock (b. 7 Aug 1860), Mary Elizabeth Hancock (b. 3 June 1863).
• History of the State of Kansas, by A.T. Andreas (Chicago: A.T. Andreas, 1883)
  Section on the Second Kansas Volunteer Battery, listing Corporal Van Rensselaer Hancock as killed, 18 May 1863.
• History of the State of Kansas, edited by William G. Cutler (1883)
  Military section describing the Second Kansas Volunteer Battery, including the 18 May 1863 action near Sherwood, Missouri, and naming Van R. Hancock among those killed.
• Historical Marker Database (HMDB), Fort Scott, Kansas Civil War marker entries
  Used for contextual understanding of military activity and conditions in the Fort Scott and Baxter Springs region during 1863.
• Historical Marker Database (HMDB), Baxter Springs Massacre marker (6 October 1863)
  Used for contextual understanding of continued violence in the same region later in 1863.

Warren Hancock: When the Trail Doesn’t Lead Further

Interpretive illustration of Hancock family life in the 1840s

A Quiet Chapter in the Hancock Family Story

There is a certain hope in family history research that every line will lead somewhere… a new generation, a new place, a new discovery. But not every line does.

Uriah Hancock and his wife, believed to be Lucy Leach, had a family in the early 1800s. Most of their children were likely born in New York before the family moved west into Ohio, where both were deceased by 1840. Of their children, three can be identified with confidence: 

• Warren Hancock, 
• Van Rensselaer Hancock, (click here for Van R's story)
• Derusia Hancock (spelling is uncertain.)

Each began in the same place, but their stories did not all continue in the same way.

Van Rensselaer Hancock, the line that leads to me, married Lucinda Parrish in Hancock County, Ohio, and they had three children: Jeremiah, Eliza, and Delilah. He later moved west into White County, Indiana, where he spent the remainder of his life, dying before 1877, with Lucinda following by 1882. 

Derusia Hancock married Jeremiah Wolford in Hancock County, Ohio. No children have been identified from this marriage based on current records, and further research is planned.

Warren Hancock appears in the records at the same time and place as his brother. In 1828, he and Van Rensselaer purchased land in Hancock County, Ohio through the Tiffin Land Office, and in 1829 Warren married Melinda Bates. By 1830, he was living in Delaware Township with his wife, and in 1834 Warren and Melinda sold land to Van Rensselaer, showing a continued connection between the brothers. 

After that, Warren moved on. By 1835, he had acquired land elsewhere in Ohio, and by 1840 he was living in Missouri. In Henry County, he continued purchasing land and building his life. He and Melinda had three sons: Joseph, Van Rensselaer, and George W. Hancock. The name Van Rensselaer carried into the next generation. Warren’s son Van Rensselaer Hancock died during the Civil War in 1863 while serving in the Second Kansas Battery.

Warren Hancock died before May 1848 in Henry County, Missouri, leaving no will. His estate was handled through the court, where his children were named as heirs, and his youngest son George was still a minor at the time. His land was divided, his older sons had already sold their interest, and only George retained a portion. George W. Hancock can be followed forward, eventually dying in Michigan in 1921, his death record confirming his parents as Warren Hancock and Melinda Bates. Warren’s line has not revealed anything new about his ancestors, yet he still matters

Warren Hancock’s life is still part of the story--part of my story. He was there at the beginning of settlement in Hancock County, Ohio. He moved west as so many did, and he owned land, raised a family, and built a life that can still be traced in the records. Even if his line does not lead further back, it anchors part of the journey, and without that part, the rest of the story is incomplete.

Sources

• Hancock County, Ohio, Deed Records, Warren Hancock and Melinda Hancock to Van R. Hancock, 16 Sept 1834; recorded 17 Nov 1834.
• U.S. General Land Office Records, Warren Hancock land patents, Hancock Co., OH (1829); Williams Co., OH (1835); Henry Co., MO (1843, 1845).
• U.S. General Land Office Records, Warren Hancock and Van Rensselaer Hancock land entry, Tiffin Land Office, Ohio, 10 June 1828.
• 1830 U.S. Census, Hancock County, Ohio, Delaware Township, Warren Hancock household.
• 1840 U.S. Census, Rives County, Missouri, Springfield Township, W. Hancock household.
• Henry County, Missouri, Probate Records, Estate of Warren Hancock, letters of administration dated 13 May 1848.
• Saturday Morning Visitor (Warsaw, Missouri), 17 June 1848, administrator’s notice for estate of Warren Hancock.
• Henry County, Missouri, Circuit Court Records, partition of estate of Warren Hancock, naming heirs Joseph, Van Rensselaer, and George W. Hancock.
• Michigan Death Certificate, George W. Hancock, 12 Oct 1921, Allegan County, Michigan.
• History of Hancock County, Ohio, pioneer accounts referencing Warren and Van R. Hancock (various editions, late 19th–early 20th century).
• Andreas, A.T., History of the State of Kansas (1883), entry for Second Kansas Volunteer Battery, listing Van Rensselaer Hancock.

George Peterson: An Orphan’s Tale

From Peterson to Monaghan: The Life of a Missouri Orphan in the American West

Early Life and Family Loss

https://www.bestplaces.net/comments/city/missouri/nevada

George Peterson’s early life began in the Peterson family, but it quickly became defined by loss and separation. He was born on 1 January 1891, the son of John Robert Peterson and Mary Thompson. By February of 1897, he was living in Nevada, Missouri with his parents and two younger brothers: Robert, about three years old, and Roy, an infant only a few weeks old.

In the winter of that year, the family’s circumstances collapsed. Newspaper accounts from Nevada describe John and Mary Peterson as recently arrived, sick, and in desperate condition. On 11 February 1897, John Peterson died of pneumonia. The following day, Mary Peterson also died. In the span of just two days, the three boys—George, Robert, and Roy—were left without parents.

For a short time, the children remained together under the care of Joseph Wiswold and his family. This appears to have been a temporary but meaningful period of stability. The boys were kept together and cared for locally while efforts were made to determine what would become of them. At least one report suggests that George formed a strong attachment during this time, and his later removal from that household was difficult for him.

As the situation developed, the children were gradually separated. Families in the community stepped forward to take in the younger boys. Robert, still very young, was placed with another family, and the infant Roy was also taken in. George, however, was older—about six years old—and no permanent home was secured for him in Nevada. While his brothers found placements, George remained without a long-term solution.

Because no local family took him in, George was ultimately sent to the Children’s Home Society of Missouri. On 29 June 1897, he was taken to St. Louis. The following day, he entered the Society’s care. This moment marks a turning point in his life. Unlike his brothers, who were absorbed into families in the community, George’s path led him into an institutional system designed to place children in homes across a wider region.

Life with the Monaghans

On 29 June 1897, George Peterson, age six, was taken to St. Louis through the Children’s Home Society of Missouri. The next day he entered the Society’s care. Within a few weeks, on 19 July 1897, he was placed with John H. and Stella Monaghan in St. Joseph, Missouri. That placement changed the rest of his life.

Within a few weeks, on 19 July 1897, George was placed with John H. and Stella Monaghan in St. Joseph, Missouri. He was the last of the three brothers to be placed, and his route there had been different from theirs. While Robert and Roy entered new homes more directly, George’s journey passed through loss, temporary care, separation, and finally the Children’s Home Society before reaching the Monaghan household.

The official record appears to be that George was never legally adopted. Even so, the Monaghans took him in and raised him as their own, and over time he lived as their son in every practical sense. By the 1900 census, he was in their household and recorded as George Monaghan. Yet his identity was not entirely settled in the records of his youth. In the 1910 census, he appeared again as George D. Peterson. That shift is hard not to notice. It suggests that his early years in the Monaghan household were not always simple or stable, even if the records do not explain every reason why.

The Children’s Home Society papers hint at some of that difficulty. In 1903, George was described as “rather unruly,” and the Monaghans decided to “keep him.” A 1908 letter shows that concerns about his behavior had not entirely gone away. One can only wonder what those years felt like for a boy who had lost his parents, lost the Wiswold household that had first sheltered him, and then had to build a new life in another family while carrying memories of the old one. The records do not let us fully into his mind, but they do leave the impression of a boy whose childhood was not easy.

The Monaghans’ life also moved westward, and George’s life moved with them. By 1905, John H. and Stella Monaghan were connected to Plains, Montana through family there. George later appears in that Montana world as well. At one point in 1908, he was living with Rev. C. L. Cone in Plains, Montana. This was not an isolated name in the record. Cone was a real and established figure in the community, and his appearance in George’s story shows that George’s youth involved more movement and more uncertainty than a simple census entry might suggest.

Meanwhile, back in the broken Peterson family, George’s older half-sister Nancy Jane Peterson Harper was trying to piece together what had become of her brothers. In 1910, Nancy wrote publicly in hopes of finding them. Her letters are moving because they show both love and confusion. She knew her parents had died in Nevada. She knew the children had been scattered. She found Robert, but George remained out of reach, and at times even the family’s understanding of what had happened to him was incomplete. That long separation helps explain why George’s identity later became so fully Monaghan. While Robert was eventually drawn back into family contact, George seems to have remained outside that circle.

A life unfolding

By 1912, George was still in Sanders County, Montana. A few years later, he stepped into adulthood in a more formal way when he registered for the World War I draft. On that card, filed in Montana in 1917, he identified himself as George Monaghan. He gave his birth date as 1 January 1893 and his birthplace as Oklahoma. Like other later records, that card preserves the identity he had come to live under, even if not every early-life detail on such records can be trusted without question. What matters most is that by this point George was speaking for himself, and he was doing so as Monaghan.

On 14 December 1917, George enlisted in the U.S. Army at Fort George Wright, Washington. He served overseas from 16 February 1918 until 7 February 1919 and was honorably discharged on 13 March 1919. His service took him far from the fractured circumstances of his childhood, and like so many men of his generation, the war became part of the shape of his adult life.

By 1920, George was living in the Clark Fork area of Bonner County, Idaho, working in the cedar trucking industry. He was then single and on his own, no longer a boy being moved from one household to another, but a man trying to build a living in the rough economy of the inland Northwest. The work was hard, practical work, the kind that fit the country he had come to know.

George married more than once. On 13 May 1926, he married Nellie Foster in Walla Walla, Washington. That marriage did not last. By 15 January 1929, George, then listed as a widower residing in Plains, Montana, married Alda Jernberg in Pend Oreille County, Washington. Alda was herself a widow. This second marriage seems to have brought more stability, at least for a time. In the 1930 census, George was in Flathead County, Montana, working as a truckman in the lumber industry. That same year, on 17 December 1930, his son, George Davis Monaghan Jr., was born in Columbia Falls, Montana.

The records also show George in a father’s role beyond his biological son. Alda had a daughter, Inez, who came to be known as Inez Monaghan. Her later marriage record identified George Monaghan as her father. Whatever the legal structure of the household, Inez evidently saw George in that role. That detail matters because George himself had lived a life shaped by foster care, informal adoption, and chosen family. In adulthood, he became part of that same kind of family reality for someone else.

The 1930s find George in a pattern that is recognizable throughout his adult years: movement, labor, and reinvention. The obituary written at his death later summarized these years in broad strokes, and while not every early-life detail in that obituary can be accepted at face value, much of the later outline fits the documentary record. He worked in trucking and logging country, moved through Montana, Washington, and Idaho, and built his life in places shaped by timber, mining, and hard work. By 1940, he was living in Lemhi County, Idaho, where he was listed as a miner. That kind of work was physically demanding and often uncertain, but it was part of the economy of the places where he had settled.

Sometime before 1945, George’s marriage to Alda ended. The exact personal story is not preserved in the records at hand, and it would be unfair to force one. Still, the record of multiple marriages suggests that domestic stability may not always have come easily to him. A man whose early life was marked by separation, loss, and unsettled identity may have carried some of that difficulty into adulthood. That is not a conclusion the records state outright, but it is hard not to wonder about it when reading his life as a whole.

On 23 July 1945, George married Grace Manfull in Seattle, Washington. Grace would be the wife named on his death certificate seven years later. By 1950, George was living in Salmon, Lemhi County, Idaho, with Grace and his son George Jr. The 1950 census shows a man nearing the end of his life, no longer working, rooted at last in one place after many years of movement across the inland West.

George died on 18 April 1952 in Salmon, Idaho. His death certificate named him George Monaghan and listed John Monaghan and Isabelle Davis as his parents. Read in isolation, that record would tell a different beginning than the one preserved in the newspapers and Children’s Home Society records. But the difference does not need to be treated as a contradiction in a harsh sense. George was born into the Peterson family, yet he was raised in the Monaghan household. John H. and Stella Monaghan were the parents who took him in, gave him a home, and shaped the identity under which he lived the rest of his life. The death record reflects the family he knew as his own. The earlier records preserve the beginning he did not keep.

His obituary, like the death certificate, told his story entirely as George Monaghan. Some details were inaccurate or compressed, especially in the telling of his childhood. But the broad truth of his later life remains. He served in World War I. He worked in the Northwest. He married, raised a family, and made his home in Idaho. He was buried in Salmon Cemetery on 23 April 1952.

George’s life is compelling not because every detail is neat and settled, but because it is not. He belonged to two family stories. He began as George Peterson, the child of John Robert Peterson and Mary Thompson, orphaned in Nevada, Missouri in 1897. He lived and died as George Monaghan, the son in practice of John H. and Stella Monaghan, a veteran, laborer, husband, and father in the American West. Both truths belong together.

His story is, in many ways, an orphan’s tale. But it is not only that. It is also the story of a child who survived repeated upheaval, of a boy whose identity was shaped by loss and placement, and of a man who made a life under the name of the family who raised him. The records leave room for questions, and some of those questions may never be fully answered. But they also leave us with something clear and deeply human: George’s life was not defined only by what he lost. It was also defined by what he endured, what he became, and the family he carried with him in the end.

Newspaper Sources

• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 11 Feb. 1897 – Death of John R. Peterson
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 12 Feb. 1897 – Death of Mary Peterson
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 18 Feb. 1897 – Children’s Home Society involvement
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 20 Feb. 1897 – Relatives in Arkansas request children
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 27 Feb. 1897 – Children in care of Wiswold family
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 22 Mar. 1897 – Plans to place children
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 29 June 1897 – George Peterson taken to St. Louis
• The Plainsman (Plains, Montana), 7 July 1905 – Monaghan visit to Plains, Montana
• Anaconda Standard (Anaconda, Montana), 14 May 1908 – Rev. C. L. Cone article
• Nevada Daily Mail (Nevada, Missouri), 6 Dec. 1910 – Nancy Peterson Harper searching for brothers
• Fort Scott Monitor (Fort Scott, Kansas), 7 Dec. 1910 – Nancy Peterson Harper letter
• Salmon, Idaho newspaper (1952) – Obituary of George Monaghan

Other Sources

Institutional Records

• Children’s Home Society of Missouri records (1897–1908), including intake, placement, and case notes

Census Records

• 1900 U.S. Census – Buchanan County, Missouri
• 1910 U.S. Census
• 1920 U.S. Census
• 1930 U.S. Census – Flathead County, Montana
• 1940 U.S. Census – Lemhi County, Idaho
• 1950 U.S. Census – Lemhi County, Idaho

Military Records

• World War I Draft Registration Card (1917)
• U.S. Army service record (1917–1919)

Marriage Records

• 13 May 1926 – George Monaghan & Nellie Foster (Walla Walla, Washington)
• 15 Jan. 1929 – George Monaghan & Alda Jernberg (Pend Oreille County, Washington)
• 23 July 1945 – George Monaghan & Grace Manfull (King County, Washington)

Birth Record

• 17 Dec. 1930 – George Davis Monaghan Jr. (Flathead County, Montana)

Death and Burial

• Death Certificate – George Monaghan (18 April 1952, Salmon, Idaho)
• Burial – Salmon Cemetery (Lemhi County, Idaho)

Additional Records

• 1912 Sanders County, Montana (Noxon precinct record)
• Stella Monaghan estate record (George named as heir)

Family Correspondence

• Letter from Nancy Peterson Harper to Mrs. Martin Peterson (7 November 1912)

A Tale of Three Sources: Weighing the Evidence for Rodden Thompson

 Weighing a County Biography, a Pension Record, and DNA Evidence

Click on Image to enlarge

There is a certain point in family history research where the question becomes simple… but the answer does not. For me, that question is this: Are Blackburn Thompson and Lucretia Lawson the parents of my great-great grandfather, Rodden (or Roden) Thompson?

At first glance, the answer seems within reach. There are records. There are names. There are even connections across multiple sources. But when those sources are examined closely, they do not align perfectly. Instead, they present three competing perspectives that must be weighed carefully.

The County Biography (A Son’s Statement… Through Another Voice)

A biographical sketch of Andrew J. Thompson, a proven son of Blackburn Thompson and Lucretia Lawson, states that he was one of ten children. This is important. 

Andrew J. Thompson was a biological son. He would have had direct knowledge of his family structure. Of the three sources considered here, this is the closest to the family itself.

However, his statement comes to us through an 1889 county history. That introduces a limitation we cannot resolve:

• Was Andrew quoted directly?
• Was his statement summarized by the author?
• Did the editor condense or alter the wording?

We simply do not know. So while this source strongly suggests that Blackburn and Lucretia had ten children, it remains a second-hand publication of a first-hand claim.

Click on Image to enlarge

The Pension Record (Detailed… but Based on Memory)

A War of 1812 pension record for Blackburn Thompson includes an affidavit from Zachariah and Nancy Lewallen, dated 12 February 1873 in Madison County, Arkansas.

In that affidavit, they list the children of Blackburn and Lucretia as: 

    *A.G. Thompson,
    *Harmon Thompson, 

    *B.M. Thompson, 

    *Milly Thompson, 

    *Annie Thompson,

    *Sarah Thompson, 

    *Lucretia Thompson, 

    *Nancy Thompson, and 

    *Martha Thompson.

This is a valuable list… but it comes with clear boundaries. The Lewallens state that they knew the family from about 1838 to 1855 in Campbell County, Tennessee. They also specify that these were the children “whom we have known.” That phrasing matters.

Their testimony is:

    *Based on personal acquaintance

    *Limited to a specific time period

    *Given approximately 18 years after that acquaintance ended

This is not a complete family record. It is a memory-based account of the children they personally knew. It is also notable that they list nine children… while the county biography states there were ten.

DNA Connections (Modern Evidence… with Limits)

Click on Image to enlarge

The third piece of evidence comes from DNA. There are genetic connections between descendants of Rodden Thompson and descendants of individuals identified as children of Blackburn and Lucretia.

This suggests that:

• Rodden is connected to this family line
• The connection is biological, not just circumstantial

However, DNA has its own limitations:

• It does not specify exact relationships on its own
• It cannot identify parents without supporting documentation
• It works best when combined with traditional records

DNA supports a connection… but it does not independently prove that Blackburn and Lucretia were Rodden’s parents.

What the Evidence Actually Supports

When these three sources are considered together, several things become clear:

• Blackburn Thompson and Lucretia Lawson had a family with multiple children.
• Andrew J. Thompson (their son) stated there were ten children.
• The Lewallen affidavit identifies nine children known to them between about 1838 and 1855.
• DNA evidence supports a biological connection between Rodden Thompson and this family.

What is not proven:

• That Rodden Thompson is explicitly named in any record as their son
• That the list of children in either source is complete
• That all children of Blackburn and Lucretia are currently identified

A Working Conclusion

At this stage, the evidence suggests that Rodden Thompson could belong to this family.

His birth (1813, Tennessee) places him in the correct time and location. His later presence in Arkansas aligns with the migration pattern of Blackburn and Lucretia’s known children. DNA evidence supports a biological connection. But no single record directly names him as their son. For that reason, this remains a supported but unproven hypothesis.

Why This Matters

It would be easy to take one of these sources… especially the county biography or the pension affidavit… and treat it as complete. But doing so risks building a conclusion on incomplete or filtered information.

Instead, this case is a reminder:

• A number (like “ten children”) is not proof on its own
• A list of names is not necessarily complete
• Memory, publication, and interpretation all shape the records we use

Good genealogy does not choose the easiest answer. It follows the evidence… even when the answer remains just out of reach.

Sources:

Northwest Arkansas Historical Association. History of Benton, Washington, Carroll, Madison, Crawford, Franklin, and Sebastian Counties, Arkansas. Chicago: Goodspeed Publishing Co., 1889. (Biographical sketch of Andrew J. Thompson).

War of 1812 Pension File for Blackburn Thompson, W.O. #8311, W.C. #6314; affidavit of Zachariah and Nancy Lewallen, 12 February 1873, Madison County, Arkansas; Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Autosomal DNA results and match analysis from AncestryDNA, including shared matches and descendant clustering among individuals connected to the Blackburn Thompson family.