Individual research record
John Glasgow
c. 1756 – 1826-12-11
Glasgow-1146 · 1 mapped association
At a glance
Identity & family
Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.
- Birth
- c. 1756 · County Antrim, Ireland
- Death
- 1826-12-11 · Gilder's Creek, Newberry Co., S Carolina
- Parents
- James GlasgowsupportedMary (Crosier) Glasgowsupported
- Spouses
- Not recorded
- Children
- Absolom Glasgow
- Gender
- Male
- WikiTree
- Glasgow-1146
- Research clusters
- East Antrim/Kilwaughter cluster
- Mapped descendants
- 4
Comparison context
These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.
Naming sequence used by the parentage model
Known-position checks: 0 support · 0 conflict. Ordinals retain unnamed children and recognise reused names.
Relationship comparison
Potential parents or duplicates
Compare scored leads with the subject details above—not proof.
Possible fathers5 leads
Possible Father
Arthur GlasgowGlasgow-649
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-2070) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); subject lies more than 20 years from the candidate's known child-bearing period (−6; children may be missing); candidate already has another child named John Glasgow (Glasgow-2070) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
Jacob GlaskoGlasko-5
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Possible Father
James GlasgowGlasgow-1142
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James GlasgowGlasgow-2469
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James GlasgowGlasgow-2848
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- the same sex-aware parent-name position recurs independently in sibling households: Archibald Glasgow → James Glasgow; Robert Glasgow → James Glasgow; Wilson Crossier Glasgow → James J Glasgow (+9)
Deductions and cautions: a different father is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; concordant record transcriptions); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible mothers5 leads
Possible Mother
Bessie GlasgowGlasgow-1125
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–26 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Elizabeth GlasgowGlasgow-1232
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Possible Mother
Hannah GlasgowGlasgow-3289
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Helen GlasgowGlasgow-3513
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); candidate is recorded only outside the subject's birth country (−25); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Jane GlasgowUnknown-763421
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)
a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 6-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–16 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 49 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1799), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- same broad administrative area only (+1; not a locality match)
Deductions and cautions: a different mother is strongly supported (−30; Strongly supported; direct will transcription); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
How parent leads are calculated
Automated leads use birth surnames—not married surnames—as parental eligibility, role-specific biological age limits, bounded and approximate-date uncertainty, household chronology, specific time-aware localities, mapped distance, tenancy succession, migration destinations and sex-aware Scottish naming positions across generations. People already attached as the subject's parents stay in the identity summary and are excluded from this alternative-candidate list, regardless of relationship confidence. The main calibration uses clues available on disconnected profiles; existing parent and sibling links are retained as comparison context rather than treated as transferable evidence. Common ordered names and grandparent-to-child echoes receive a small non-zero weight, so a John or James match can support several independent criteria without producing a lead alone. Rare names, repeated bearers and bundles across otherwise distinct branches receive substantially more weight according to catalogue frequency. An exact migration place is weighted by its rarity and repetition across both branches; a shared destination country is worth only one point. Extra weight is added only when at least three independent clue types converge: naming, locality, specific migration, household chronology or collateral networks. Sparse profiles retain a clearly labelled chronology-only fallback instead of disappearing. Countries, states, counties and research clusters do not count as a shared locality, and fallback, broad representative or kin-inferred coordinates are excluded from distance scoring. Shared descendant profiles are removed before branch-name comparison. A candidate already recorded as a parent-in-law is excluded. A confident or independently supported parent is treated as settled; uncertain and unassessed attachments remain open to alternative comparison. A different linked parent, an uncle/aunt or grandparent path, and a matching existing child profile prevent an alternative from being classified as a strong direct-parent lead until the underlying tree conflict or duplicate is resolved. Familiar forms such as Bessie are normalised. Surname remains an eligibility filter worth zero points.
Naming customs, shared farms and occupations are circumstantial. Children, spouses and collateral relatives may be missing, and tree-derived family networks are not independent evidence. Scores rank research leads; they do not prove parentage.
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-2291
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
- same death year (+15)
No indexed conflict
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
- same death year (+15)
- overlapping locality (+8)
Conflicts: No indexed conflict
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-1549
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 2 (+25)
- death years within 1 (+10)
unassessed father attachments differ (−5)
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 2 (+25)
- death years within 1 (+10)
Conflicts: unassessed father attachments differ (−5)
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-1657
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 10 (+10)
- shared recorded place (+20)
No indexed conflict
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 10 (+10)
- shared recorded place (+20)
Conflicts: No indexed conflict
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-3984
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
record-derived birth estimates differ by 92; retained without deduction
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 92; retained without deduction
Show 4 lower-scoring duplicate lead(s)
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-3990
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
record-derived birth estimates differ by 76; retained without deduction; uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 76; retained without deduction; uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-3959
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
record-derived birth estimates differ by 51; retained without deduction
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
Conflicts: record-derived birth estimates differ by 51; retained without deduction
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-1022
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 5 (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
death years differ by 26 (−18); uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 5 (+18)
- shared recorded place (+20)
Conflicts: death years differ by 26 (−18); uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Same-name candidate
John GlasgowGlasgow-159
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 5 (+18)
No indexed conflict
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- birth years within 5 (+18)
Conflicts: No indexed conflict
How duplicate leads are calculated
Dates are eligibility gates, not merely deductions: chronologically impossible people are excluded. Dates, places, spouses, parent certainty and children's profiles and names are then compared. A high score is a prompt to inspect records, not a merge recommendation.
Open only what you need
Research & records
Latest case researchThe current conclusion from the durable research case file.Updated
Current conclusion
John was born about 1756, not 1765: his Gilders Creek stone says that he died 11 December 1826 aged 70. James Glasgow's will directly calls John his son, gives him fifty acres, and entrusts him with Robert and Mary in supporting the younger children. Mary's 1822 will independently calls John her son.
No record found names John's wife. Absolom remains a plausible son, but the relationship is not yet direct. The 1820 Newberry return records a three-person John Glasgow household. Its age distribution is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom, but the schedule does not name anyone except the household head.
No additional son of John has been identified. Hiram Glasgow is not a candidate: the 1837 will of Mary, widow of Wilson Glasgow, directly calls Hiram her son. John's lack of an indexed estate packet means that Absolom's 1834 estate and the 1837 guardianship of his children are the best remaining records for proving John's descendant line.
Glasgow-2291 is a duplicate of John, not another relative. It has the same name, approximate birth, exact death date and Newberry place, and cites the Gilders Creek memorial for this man. It has no attached family that would add another descendant line.
Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Profile-stated birth: County Antrim, Ireland
County Antrim — exact locality unproved
One-Tree export profile fields are search leads, not sources. Attached parent profile(s): Glasgow-1144, Crosier-512.
Source and mapping detail
WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-1146
No sufficiently specific citation match found.
Precision: County-level representative point
Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)
Source findings
| Source | Finding | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| James Glasgow's will, dated 17 October 1775, proved 13 July 1793 | Calls John a son, gives him fifty acres, and charges Mary, Robert and John with supporting the younger children. | Direct relationship evidence in a derivative transcription. |
| Mary Glasgow's will, dated 5 April 1822, proved 14 October 1822 | Calls John “my son” and gives him management of her property. | Direct relationship evidence in a derivative transcription. |
| 1820 Newberry census, p. 135 | A John Glasgow household of three appears beside other Glasgow households. The unnamed age structure is compatible with John and Absolom. | Direct household evidence; it does not prove relationships. |
| Gilders Creek Cemetery | John died 11 December 1826 aged 70; Absolom died 6 February 1834 aged 35. | Direct age/death evidence from published stone transcriptions; no relationship wording reported. |
| Newberry estate index | Hiram administered Absolom's estate in 1834 and became guardian of “J L & others” in 1837. No estate is indexed for John. | Proves fiduciary roles, not Hiram's relationship to Absolom or John. |
| Mary, widow of Wilson Glasgow, will | Directly calls Hiram Mary's son. | Excludes Hiram as a proposed son of John unless an otherwise unsupported duplicate Hiram existed. |
| Glasgow-2291 | Same 1756–11 December 1826 Newberry identity and Gilders Creek memorial; no family attached. | Duplicate of Glasgow-1146. |
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.9 claims
Documented or strongly supported
John Glasgow was son of James Glasgow
James's will calls John his son; the equity case lists John among James's children.
John Glasgow was son of Mary (Crosier) Glasgow
Mary's 1822 will calls John “my son”; the equity family schedule is concordant.
Working hypotheses and conflicts
No claims in this category have been formally assessed.
Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.4 open
Which records prove the subject's identity across events?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
Which original or indexed records identify the parents?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: A contemporary record explicitly identifying the parent or parents.
Which spouses and children are directly supported by records?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
What conflicts or same-name conflations must be resolved?
No current conclusion recorded.
Missing bridge: Not specified
Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.8 sources
Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.
- derivative "Gilders Creek Cemetery" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, transcription for John Glasgow (accessed 12 August 2026).
- derivative "Will of James Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215937id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book A, p. 194; will dated 17 October 1775 and proved 13 July 1793 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- derivative "Will of Mary Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101104164512id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_MaryWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book H, pp. 489–490; will dated 5 April 1822 and proved 14 October 1822 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- unknown 1820 United States census (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200120unit/page/n146/mode/1up), Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 135, John Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 120 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- derivative "Will of Mary, wife of Wilson Glasgow" (), transcription of Newberry Will Book N, p
- derivative "Probate court general index to estates, 1785–1949" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), entries for Absolom Glasgow, estate 1069, and J. L. Glasgow and others, estate 1901 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- tree_only WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-1146
- derivative James's will
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced
WikiTree profile information
Glasgow-1146
John Glasgow
Updated 2026-08-19
Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20
WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot
Glasgow-1146 was captured 2026-08-19T09:47:48+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2026-08-19.
Profile location claims
| Event | Date | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth | — | County Antrim, Ireland | WikiTree profile field |
| death | — | Gilder's Creek, Newberry Co., S Carolina | WikiTree profile field |
Immediate relationship snapshot
| Relationship | Person | WikiTree ID | Dates and places returned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parents | James Glasgow | Glasgow-1144 | 1731-05-24 · Kilwaughter, Larne, County Antrim, Ireland · 1793-00-00 · Newberry, South Carolina |
| Parents | Mary Glasgow | Crosier-512 | 1737-00-00 · Ireland · 1822-10-10 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Children | Absolom Glasgow | Glasgow-1145 | 1799-00-00 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States · 1834-00-00 · Laurens, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Robert Glasgow | Glasgow-1983 | 1763-00-00 · Ireland · 1835-01-17 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Archibald Glasgow | Glasgow-2304 | 1769-00-00 · 1818-07-22 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Wilson Crossier Glasgow | Glasgow-1982 | 1772-00-00 · Kilwaughter, Larne, County Antrim, Ireland · 1817-09-11 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States |
| Siblings | Margaret Kinard | Glasgow-3977 | 1773-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
| Siblings | Rachel McCrackin | Glasgow-3978 | 1775-00-00 · 0000-00-00 |
Profile categories
Estimated_Birth_Date Glasgow Name Study Glasgow_Name_Study
Record-bearing passages
- Biography John Glasgow was born about 1756. His exact birthplace has not been proved. The estimate comes from his Gilders Creek gravestone, which records that he died on 11 December 1826 aged 70. "Gilders Creek Cemetery" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, transcription for John Glasgow (accessed 12 August 2026).
- John was a son of James Glasgow and Mary Crosier. James's will, dated 17 October 1775, gave his “well beloved son, John Glasgow” fifty acres. James also directed Mary, Robert and John to support his younger children from the profits of the land. "Will of James Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215937id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book A, p. 194; will dated 17 October 1775 and proved 13 July 1793 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- Mary's will, dated 5 April 1822, independently called John “my son” and entrusted him with the management of her property during her lifetime. "Will of Mary Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101104164512id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_MaryWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book H, pp. 489–490; will dated 5 April 1822 and proved 14 October 1822 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- John headed a three-person household in Newberry District in 1820. Its age distribution is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom Glasgow, but the schedule does not name anyone except the household head. 1820 United States census (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200120unit/page/n146/mode/1up), Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 135, John Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 120 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- John died on 11 December 1826 and was buried at Gilders Creek. Research Notes No inspected record names John's wife.
- Absolom Glasgow, born about 1799, is attached as John's son. The 1820 household is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom, but it does not name the younger people and therefore does not itself prove the relationship. No additional son of John has been identified.
- Hiram Glasgow should not be added as another son. The will of Mary, widow of Wilson Glasgow, directly calls Hiram her son. "Will of Mary, wife of Wilson Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215757id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book N, p. 1; will dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838 (accessed 12 August 2026).
- Hiram administered Absolom's estate in 1834 and became guardian of “J L & others” in 1837. "Probate court general index to estates, 1785–1949" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), entries for Absolom Glasgow, estate 1069, and J. L. Glasgow and others, estate 1901 (accessed 12 August 2026). These fiduciary roles show a close family connection but do not make Hiram John's son.
- John Glasgow represents the same man. That profile repeats the approximate 1756 birth, exact 11 December 1826 death and Newberry identity, and cites the Gilders Creek memorial for this John. It has no attached relatives that belong to a separate family. Sources *
Profile source citations
- "Gilders Creek Cemetery" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, transcription for John Glasgow (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
- "Will of James Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215937id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book A, p. 194; will dated 17 October 1775 and proved 13 July 1793 (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
- "Will of Mary Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101104164512id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_MaryWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book H, pp. 489–490; will dated 5 April 1822 and proved 14 October 1822 (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
- 1820 United States census (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200120unit/page/n146/mode/1up), Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 135, John Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 120 (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
- Research Notes No inspected record names John's wife. Absolom Glasgow, born about 1799, is attached as John's son. The 1820 household is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom, but it does not name the younger people and therefore does not itself prove the relationship. No additional son of John has been identified. Hiram Glasgow should not be added as another son. The will of Mary, widow of Wilson Glasgow, directly calls Hiram her son. "Will of Mary, wife of Wilson Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215757id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book N, p. 1; will dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838 (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
- "Probate court general index to estates, 1785–1949" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), entries for Absolom Glasgow, estate 1069, and J. L. Glasgow and others, estate 1901 (accessed 12 August 2026). source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography John Glasgow was born about 1756. His exact birthplace has not been proved. The estimate comes from his Gilders Creek gravestone, which records that he died on 11 December 1826 aged 70. "Gilders Creek Cemetery" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, transcription for John Glasgow (accessed 12 August 2026). John was a son of James Glasgow and Mary Crosier. James's will, dated 17 October 1775, gave his “well beloved son, John Glasgow” fifty acres. James also directed Mary, Robert and John to support his younger children from the profits of the land. "Will of James Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215937id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book A, p. 194; will dated 17 October 1775 and proved 13 July 1793 (accessed 12 August 2026). Mary's will, dated 5 April 1822, independently called John “my son” and entrusted him with the management of her property during her lifetime. "Will of Mary Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101104164512id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_MaryWill.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book H, pp. 489–490; will dated 5 April 1822 and proved 14 October 1822 (accessed 12 August 2026). John headed a three-person household in Newberry District in 1820. Its age distribution is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom Glasgow, but the schedule does not name anyone except the household head. 1820 United States census (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200120unit/page/n146/mode/1up), Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 135, John Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 120 (accessed 12 August 2026). John died on 11 December 1826 and was buried at Gilders Creek. Research Notes No inspected record names John's wife. Absolom Glasgow, born about 1799, is attached as John's son. The 1820 household is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom, but it does not name the younger people and therefore does not itself prove the relationship. No additional son of John has been identified. Hiram Glasgow should not be added as another son. The will of Mary, widow of Wilson Glasgow, directly calls Hiram her son. "Will of Mary, wife of Wilson Glasgow" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215757id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html), transcription of Newberry Will Book N, p. 1; will dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838 (accessed 12 August 2026). Hiram administered Absolom's estate in 1834 and became guardian of “J L & others” in 1837. "Probate court general index to estates, 1785–1949" (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm), entries for Absolom Glasgow, estate 1069, and J. L. Glasgow and others, estate 1901 (accessed 12 August 2026). These fiduciary roles show a close family connection but do not make Hiram John's son. John Glasgow represents the same man. That profile repeats the approximate 1756 birth, exact 11 December 1826 death and Newberry identity, and cites the Gilders Creek memorial for this John. It has no attached relatives that belong to a separate family. Sources *
Raw WikiTree biography markup
{{Estimated Date}}
[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]
== Biography ==
'''John Glasgow''' was born about 1756. His exact birthplace has not been proved. The estimate comes from his Gilders Creek gravestone, which records that he died on 11 December 1826 aged 70.<ref name="Gilders">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm "Gilders Creek Cemetery"], Newberry County, South Carolina, transcription for John Glasgow (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref>
John was a son of [[Glasgow-1144|James Glasgow]] and [[Crosier-512|Mary Crosier]]. James's will, dated 17 October 1775, gave his “well beloved son, John Glasgow” fifty acres. James also directed Mary, Robert and John to support his younger children from the profits of the land.<ref name="JamesWill">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215937id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_JGlasgowWill.html "Will of James Glasgow"], transcription of Newberry Will Book A, p. 194; will dated 17 October 1775 and proved 13 July 1793 (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref>
Mary's will, dated 5 April 1822, independently called John “my son” and entrusted him with the management of her property during her lifetime.<ref name="MaryWill">[https://web.archive.org/web/20101104164512id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_MaryWill.html "Will of Mary Glasgow"], transcription of Newberry Will Book H, pp. 489–490; will dated 5 April 1822 and proved 14 October 1822 (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref>
John headed a three-person household in Newberry District in 1820. Its age distribution is compatible with John, a wife and [[Glasgow-1145|Absolom Glasgow]], but the schedule does not name anyone except the household head.<ref name="Census1820">[https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200120unit/page/n146/mode/1up 1820 United States census], Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 135, John Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 120 (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref>
John died on 11 December 1826 and was buried at Gilders Creek.<ref name="Gilders" />
== Research Notes ==
No inspected record names John's wife.
[[Glasgow-1145|Absolom Glasgow]], born about 1799, is attached as John's son. The 1820 household is compatible with John, a wife and Absolom, but it does not name the younger people and therefore does not itself prove the relationship. No additional son of John has been identified.
Hiram Glasgow should not be added as another son. The will of Mary, widow of [[Glasgow-1982|Wilson Glasgow]], directly calls Hiram her son.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20101124215757id_/http://lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html "Will of Mary, wife of Wilson Glasgow"], transcription of Newberry Will Book N, p. 1; will dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838 (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref>
Hiram administered Absolom's estate in 1834 and became guardian of “J L & others” in 1837.<ref>[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/estates1785-1949/22.htm "Probate court general index to estates, 1785–1949"], entries for Absolom Glasgow, estate 1069, and J. L. Glasgow and others, estate 1901 (accessed 12 August 2026).</ref> These fiduciary roles show a close family connection but do not make Hiram John's son.
[[Glasgow-2291|John Glasgow]] represents the same man. That profile repeats the approximate 1756 birth, exact 11 December 1826 death and Newberry identity, and cites the Gilders Creek memorial for this John. It has no attached relatives that belong to a separate family.
== Sources ==
<references />
* {{FindAGrave|33531774}}