Individual research record
James J Glasgow
c. 1810 – ?
Glasgow-2738 · 1 mapped association
At a glance
Identity & family
Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.
- Birth
- c. 1810 · South Carolina, United States
- Death
- Not recorded · Place not recorded
- Parents
- Robert GlasgowuncertainNancy (Unknown) GlasgowuncertainWilson Crossier Glasgowcontradicted
- Spouses
- Mary Caroline (Thompson) Glasgow
- Children
- Edward Buchanan GlasgowEliza A GlasgowEmma C (Glasgow) BarnettFleming N GlasgowJames K P GlasgowJoseph P GlasgowThomas Taylor Glasgow
- Gender
- Male
- WikiTree
- Glasgow-2738
- Research clusters
- Descendants of James J Glasgow (c.1809)
- Mapped descendants
- 18
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 · 1 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
Robert GlasgowGlasgow-2298
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
- the nominal 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–30 years) (+4)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); 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 10-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–30 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 39 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- candidate has another child, Elizabeth Glasgow, born 13 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+2; possible sibling-household clue)
- known spouse Elizabeth (Unknown) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (15) at the subject's birth (+3)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Fleming +18 (1 public profiles; niece/nephew Fleming N Glasgow); Edward +12 (13 public profiles; niece/nephew Edward Buchanan Glasgow); Emma +12 (11 public profiles; niece/nephew Emma C (Glasgow) Barnett) (+42 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); 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)
Possible Father
James Thomas GlasgowGlasgow-803
- plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- known spouse Margaret (Morrow) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (17) at the subject's birth (+7)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 22-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 51 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
- candidate has another child, Jane Elizabeth (Glasgow) Burdette, born 8 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+4; possible sibling-household clue)
- known spouse Margaret (Morrow) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (17) at the subject's birth (+7)
- candidate and subject share the given name James (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 224 public profiles)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Possible Father
William GlasgowGlasgow-563
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- known spouse Rhoda Neely (Montgomery) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+7)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black in West Union, Adams, Ohio, United States within 1 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 32-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 61 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1803–1822) (+6; other parent Rhoda Neely (Montgomery) Glasgow)
- known spouse Rhoda Neely (Montgomery) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (31) at the subject's birth (+7)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Eliza +10 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Grace Glasgow, Eliza Jane (Glasgow) Nelson; +2 repetition bonus); Joseph +7 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph Montgomery Glasgow, Joseph Ellsworth Glasgow Sr; +4 repetition bonus) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Abbott +8 (+8 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black in West Union, Adams, Ohio, United States within 1 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
Isaac Wesley (Glascow) GlasgowGlascow-14
- plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- known spouse Dosha (Cannady) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (18) at the subject's birth (+7)
- candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); candidate's household recorded William Cooper Glasgow in Wake, North Carolina, United States within 3 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 53 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- weak broad-area overlap: carolina (+1; not a locality match)
- a known child was born within 3 years of the subject (+3)
- known spouse Dosha (Cannady) Glasgow had a plausible maternal age (18) at the subject's birth (+7)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Emma +12 (11 public profiles; subject branch: Emma C (Glasgow) Barnett; candidate branch: Emma Jane (Glasgow) Mills); Joseph +5 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph Dorris Glasgow, Joseph Harvey Brooks Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); candidate's household recorded William Cooper Glasgow in Wake, North Carolina, United States within 3 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Father
James M GlasgowGlasgow-193
- the nominal 11-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–21 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named James W Glasgow (Glasgow-2183) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- the nominal 11-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (16–21 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 40 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
- candidate and subject share the given name James (+4; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 224 public profiles)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Edward +14 (13 public profiles; subject branch: Edward Buchanan Glasgow, Edward Buchanan Glasgow; candidate branch: Edward Lincoln Glasgow; +2 repetition bonus); Lula +14 (5 public profiles; subject branch: Lula Mae Glasgow; candidate branch: Lula Estella Glasgow); Eliza +8 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Jane (Glasgow) McNeil) (+44 total including +8 multi-name bonus)
Deductions and cautions: a different linked father is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); parentage requires the approximate birth estimate to be early enough (no deduction); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate already has another child named James W Glasgow (Glasgow-2183) without a documented death permitting name reuse (−4; check whether the child profiles duplicate or conflict); no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible mothers5 leads
Possible Mother
Ruth GlasgowGlasgow-3999
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
- the nominal 8-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–18 years) (+4)
a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); 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 8-year gap is too small, but the approximate birth date permits a narrow biologically viable interval (15–18 years) (+4)
- candidate's birth is 37 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Fleming +18 (1 public profiles; niece/nephew Fleming N Glasgow); Edward +12 (13 public profiles; niece/nephew Edward Buchanan Glasgow); Emma +12 (11 public profiles; niece/nephew Emma C (Glasgow) Barnett) (+42 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); 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)
Possible Mother
Sarah GlasgowGlasgow-3042
- possible 16-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- possible 16-year parent-child age gap (+10)
- candidate's birth is 45 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
- a known child was born within 7 years of the subject (+1)
- candidate has another child, Archibald C Glasgow, born 7 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+4; possible sibling-household clue)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Emma +12 (11 public profiles; niece/nephew Emma Glasgow) (+12 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Possible Mother
Mary Caroline (Glasgow) WrightGlasgow-3226
- plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 54 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- candidate's sibling and niece/nephew network repeats names in the subject's descendant line (three rarest at most): Emma +12 (11 public profiles; niece/nephew Emma Glasgow) (+12 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): household chronology, locality, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Mary (McCracken) GlasgowMcCracken-3711
- candidate is already linked as parent of 2 exact subject sibling profiles (+20): Robert Glasgow, Ruth Glasgow
- plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- candidate is the spouse of the linked opposite-sex parent (+8; tree couple clue)
- plausible 33-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 62 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
- a known child was born within 8 years of the subject (+1)
- candidate has another child, Robert Glasgow, born 10 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+4; possible sibling-household clue)
- candidate is already linked as parent of 2 exact subject sibling profiles (+20): Robert Glasgow, Ruth Glasgow
- the candidate and the subject's linked father Wilson Crossier Glasgow are jointly recorded as parents of 2 exact sibling profiles (+14; strong couple-structure clue)
Deductions and cautions: a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Possible Mother
Rhoda Neely (Montgomery) GlasgowMontgomery-6593
- plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
- candidate's birth is 60 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black in West Union, Adams, Ohio, United States within 1 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); the subject's current profile explicitly says its birth details are unproved (score capped at 39)
Show complete scoring
- plausible 31-year parent-child age gap (+18)
- candidate's birth is 60 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1839), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
- subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1803–1822) (+6; other parent William Glasgow)
- uncommon given names recur in both otherwise distinct descendant branches: Eliza +10 (23 public profiles; subject branch: Eliza A Glasgow; candidate branch: Eliza Grace Glasgow, Eliza Jane (Glasgow) Nelson; +2 repetition bonus); Joseph +7 (39 public profiles; subject branch: Joseph P Glasgow; candidate branch: Joseph Montgomery Glasgow, Joseph Ellsworth Glasgow Sr; +4 repetition bonus) (+21 total including +4 multi-name bonus)
- uncommon spouse surnames recur across the subject and candidate branches: Abbott +8 (+8 total)
- 3 independent unlinked-profile clue types converge (+5): collateral network, household chronology, naming
Deductions and cautions: a different linked mother is explicitly uncertain (−6; an existing hypothesis still needs resolving); same country, but no indexed locality overlap (−10); candidate's household recorded Nancy Crockett (Glasgow) Black in West Union, Adams, Ohio, United States within 1 years of the subject (−12; no contemporaneous child is indexed in the subject's locality); 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
James GlasgowGlasgow-3129
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
- child given-name pattern overlaps: James
uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
- child given-name pattern overlaps: James
Conflicts: uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction)
Same-name candidate
James GlasgowGlasgow-2877
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction); uncertain mother attachments differ (no deduction)
Full comparison detail
- same first and last name (+18)
- same birth year (+30)
Conflicts: uncertain father attachments differ (no deduction); uncertain mother attachments differ (no deduction)
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
The FamilySearch attachment to Wilson Crossier Glasgow and Mary McCracken is contradicted by Wilson's estate records. Mary's 1837 will divides her property among seven children. The matching real-estate index names Mary with Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria in Wilson's estate; James is not listed. The original packet is still needed for its exact kinship wording, but the matching count makes James's omission material. The FamilySearch child list is demonstrably conflated because it also calls Fleming Bates Glasgow, born in 1823, a son of Wilson, who died in 1817.
James remains a plausible but unproved son of [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow]]. Robert's 1820 Giles County household had one boy aged 10–15, compatible with a James born about 1809/10, and James was later established in Giles County. No record yet names Robert as his father. The tested Y-DNA line reaches James and places his paternal line under R-FT20271, but it cannot identify his father without a documented comparison line.
A new paper-tree hypothesis can now be stated without treating it as proved. Robert's leading named father candidate is Archibald Glasgow-2304, whose 1800 Newberry household contained one otherwise-unidentified boy under ten. If both uncertain links are correct, James's line would run through Archibald to James Glasgow-1144 and the older Kilwaughter family. That would give a coherent place for the close Y-DNA relationship to Alexander Glasgow-951's Antrim line, but no record yet proves either James-to-Robert or Robert-to-Archibald.
Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
Big Y kit 1002232 tested pedigree
The documented tester pedigree reaches James J Glasgow; his attachment to Robert Glasgow-2769 remains uncertain and the DNA result cannot identify James's father.
Source and mapping detail
FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project Y-DNA results
No sufficiently specific citation match found.
Precision: State-level representative point
Case-file source findingsSource extracts and analysis regenerated from findings.md.1 section(s)
Source findings
| Source | Finding | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Mary Glasgow's 1837 will, Newberry Will Book N, p. 1 | Ruth received one-seventh; Mariah received one-sixth of the remainder; the residue went to Mary's “other five children.” Hiram was named trustee. | Seven children total: Ruth, Mariah and five others, including Hiram. Direct derivative will transcription. |
| Wilson Glasgow real-estate index, packet 1-13 | Lists Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria in Wilson's estate. | The widow plus seven apparent children match Mary's will count. James is absent; exact kin terms require the packet. |
| Newberry estate index | Wilson's 1817 estate was administered by John Glasgow; Mary was guardian for “Ruth & others” in 1820. | Confirms a minor-heir file, estate 646, box 27, package 57. Obtain it for explicit child names. |
| Gilders Creek Cemetery | Wilson died 11 September 1817; Mary died 23 March 1838. | Confirms Fleming, reportedly born 1823, cannot be Wilson's child. No James c.1809 is identified as their son. |
| 1820 Giles County census | Robert Glasgow's household contained one male aged 10–15. | Compatible with James, but the schedule names only Robert and does not prove a relationship. |
| 1848 Giles deed, Deed Book T, p. 211 | Noah Hancock conveyed James 100 acres in district 6; the deed says James already lived on the ridge and refers to an October 1845 title bond. | Directly establishes James in Giles County by 1845–1848. No relative named. |
| 1850 Giles deed, Deed Book U, p. 144 | James sold the same 100 acres to John Tornerlin. | Direct identity and residence evidence; no relative named. |
| 1860 United States census, FamilySearch record M6GF-RXZ | Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow were enumerated together. | Direct household evidence supporting the attached marriage; no parents are named. |
| 1800 Newberry census transcription | Archibald Glasgow's household included one male under 10. | Compatible with Robert-2769 as a missing son, but two uncertain generations separate this household from James J. |
Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.16 claims
Documented or strongly supported
No claims in this category have been formally assessed.
Working hypotheses and conflicts
James J Glasgow was son of Wilson Crossier Glasgow
Mary's will creates seven child-shares; Wilson's estate index lists seven apparent children—Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria—and omits James. The FamilySearch list also assigns Wilson a child born in 1823, six years after Wilson's death.
Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.0 open
No formal open question is recorded for this person.
Case-file priorities and cautions
Best next records
- Newberry guardianship 646, box 27, package 57, and real-estate packet 1-13,
to obtain explicit names and kin terms for all of Wilson's children.
- Giles County deeds and court minutes around James's 1845 title bond, looking
for Robert, Nancy or a sibling as bondsman, witness, neighbour or grantor.
- Pontotoc County probate, deeds and court minutes after James's 1860 census
appearance, especially any instrument signed by his adult children.
Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.10 sources
Source or provenance: quality describes the record layer, not every conclusion drawn from it.
- derivative Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book T, p. 211, Noah Hancock to James J. Glasgow, deed dated 9 November and registered 2 December 1848; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/), TNGenWeb.
- derivative On 6 April 1850 James sold the tract to John Tornerlin for $400. Joseph C. Rhea and James Anderson witnessed the deed. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book U, p. 144, James J. Glasgow to John Tornerlin, deed dated and registered 6 April 1850; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-james-j-glasgow-to-john-tornerlin-1850/), TNGenWeb.
- derivative "United States Census, 1860," database with images, FamilySearch (record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6GF-RXZ)), entry for Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow.
- original 1820 United States census, Giles County, Tennessee, Robert Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 124; original schedule, scan 21 (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up).
- derivative Newberry District, South Carolina, Will Book N, p. 1, will of Mary Glasgow, widow of Wilson Glasgow, dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html). The displayed recording date of July 1837 precedes execution and is evidently a transcription error.
- derivative Newberry County, South Carolina, real-estate packet 1-13, estate of Wilson Glasgow; index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/realestate.html), entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria.
- unknown Gilders Creek Cemetery survey (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary Glasgow.
- derivative "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm).
- tree_only FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), Y-DNA results, kit 1002232.
- tree_only FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project Y-DNA results
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced
WikiTree profile information
Glasgow-2738
James J Glasgow
Updated 2026-08-12
Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20
WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot
Glasgow-2738 was captured 2026-08-18T15:04:41+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2026-08-12.
Profile location claims
| Event | Date | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth | — | South Carolina, United States | WikiTree profile field |
Immediate relationship snapshot
| Relationship | Person | WikiTree ID | Dates and places returned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parents | Robert Glasgow | Glasgow-2769 | 1790-00-00 · South Carolina, USA · 1860-00-00 · Giles County, TN, USA |
| Parents | Nancy Glasgow | Unknown-658277 | 1785-00-00 · South Carolina · 1850-00-00 · Giles County, TN, USA |
| Children | Fleming N Glasgow | Glasgow-2739 | 1839-00-00 · Alabama, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | Eliza A Glasgow | Glasgow-2740 | 1843-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | James Glasgow | Glasgow-2741 | 1845-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | Thomas Taylor Glasgow | Glasgow-2742 | 1848-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | Emma C Barnett | Glasgow-2743 | 1852-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | Joseph P Glasgow | Glasgow-2744 | 1854-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Children | Edward Buchanan Glasgow | Glasgow-2736 | 1856-00-00 · Giles, Tennessee, United States · 1883-08-02 · Pulaski, Giles, Tennessee, United States |
| Siblings | John Glasgow | Glasgow-2770 | 1800-00-00 · South Carolina, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Siblings | Emma Glasgow | Glasgow-2771 | 1815-00-00 · South Carolina, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Siblings | Jessie M Glasgow | Glasgow-2772 | 1818-00-00 · Giles, Tennessee, United States · 1886-00-00 · Upshur, Texas, United States |
| Siblings | Priscilla Glasgow | Glasgow-2773 | 1822-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
| Spouses | Mary Caroline Glasgow | Thompson-109946 | 1813-00-00 · Tennessee, United States · 0000-00-00 |
Profile categories
Estimated_Birth_Date Glasgow Name Study Glasgow_Name_Study
Record-bearing passages
- Biography James J Glasgow was born about 1809 or 1810 in South Carolina. His exact birth date and parents have not been proved.
- By 1845 James was living on a ridge in the sixth civil district of Giles County, Tennessee, near Donahue Creek and the waters of Richland Creek. A later deed referred to a title bond executed by Noah Hancock on 7 October 1845. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book T, p. 211, Noah Hancock to James J. Glasgow, deed dated 9 November and registered 2 December 1848; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/), TNGenWeb.
- On 9 November 1848 Hancock conveyed the 100-acre tract to James for $300. The deed described it as the ridge on which James then resided. On 6 April 1850 James sold the tract to John Tornerlin for $400. Joseph C. Rhea and James Anderson witnessed the deed. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book U, p. 144, James J. Glasgow to John Tornerlin, deed dated and registered 6 April 1850; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-james-j-glasgow-to-john-tornerlin-1850/), TNGenWeb.
- James and Mary J Glasgow were enumerated together in the 1860 United States census. "United States Census, 1860," database with images, FamilySearch (record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6GF-RXZ)), entry for Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow. This record supports the attached marriage, but does not identify either spouse's parents. Research Notes Parentage James is attached as an uncertain son of Robert Glasgow. Robert's 1820 Giles County household contained one boy aged 10–15, compatible with James's estimated birth about 1809 or 1810. 1820 United States census, Giles County, Tennessee, Robert Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 124; original schedule, scan 21 (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up). James's later Giles County residence is also consistent with that placement. The census names only Robert, however, and neither Giles County deed names a parent or sibling. The relationship therefore remains uncertain.
- FamilySearch has also placed James among the children of Wilson Crossier Glasgow and Mary McCracken. The available estate evidence contradicts that placement. Mary's will gave Ruth one-seventh of her property, Mariah one-sixth of the remainder, and the residue to her “other five children,” establishing a total of seven children. Newberry District, South Carolina, Will Book N, p. 1, will of Mary Glasgow, widow of Wilson Glasgow, dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html). The displayed recording date of July 1837 precedes execution and is evidently a transcription error. The index to Wilson's real-estate packet lists Mary with Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria—the widow and seven apparent children. James is absent. Newberry County, South Carolina, real-estate packet 1-13, estate of Wilson Glasgow; index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/realestate.html), entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria.
- The same FamilySearch family also includes Fleming Bates Glasgow, reportedly born in 1823. Wilson's gravestone records his death on 11 September 1817, six years before Fleming's birth, showing that the online child list combines at least two families. Gilders Creek Cemetery survey (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary Glasgow.
- The Wilson and Mary hypothesis was therefore rejected. Robert remains the leading working father, but a probate, deed, Bible, obituary or other record naming the relationship is still needed.
- Robert's leading named father candidate is Archibald Glasgow. Archibald's 1800 Newberry household contained one male under ten who is not accounted for by his three gravestone-proved children. "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). Robert's estimated birth and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but the census does not name the child and no record yet calls Robert Archibald's son. Archibald is therefore only a possible grandfather of James. Y-DNA A tested direct paternal descendant line reported through James belongs to haplogroup R-FT20271. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), Y-DNA results, kit 1002232. This confirms James's broader paternal genetic cluster. It does not distinguish Robert from another man in that cluster as James's father. Sources
Profile source citations
- Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book T, p. 211, Noah Hancock to James J. Glasgow, deed dated 9 November and registered 2 December 1848; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/), TNGenWeb. source link 1
- On 6 April 1850 James sold the tract to John Tornerlin for $400. Joseph C. Rhea and James Anderson witnessed the deed. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book U, p. 144, James J. Glasgow to John Tornerlin, deed dated and registered 6 April 1850; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-james-j-glasgow-to-john-tornerlin-1850/), TNGenWeb. source link 1
- "United States Census, 1860," database with images, FamilySearch (record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6GF-RXZ)), entry for Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow. source link 1
- 1820 United States census, Giles County, Tennessee, Robert Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 124; original schedule, scan 21 (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up). source link 1
- Newberry District, South Carolina, Will Book N, p. 1, will of Mary Glasgow, widow of Wilson Glasgow, dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html). The displayed recording date of July 1837 precedes execution and is evidently a transcription error. source link 1
- Newberry County, South Carolina, real-estate packet 1-13, estate of Wilson Glasgow; index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/realestate.html), entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria. source link 1
- Gilders Creek Cemetery survey (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary Glasgow. source link 1
- "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). source link 1 source link 2
- FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), Y-DNA results, kit 1002232. source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography James J Glasgow was born about 1809 or 1810 in South Carolina. His exact birth date and parents have not been proved. By 1845 James was living on a ridge in the sixth civil district of Giles County, Tennessee, near Donahue Creek and the waters of Richland Creek. A later deed referred to a title bond executed by Noah Hancock on 7 October 1845. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book T, p. 211, Noah Hancock to James J. Glasgow, deed dated 9 November and registered 2 December 1848; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/), TNGenWeb. On 9 November 1848 Hancock conveyed the 100-acre tract to James for $300. The deed described it as the ridge on which James then resided. On 6 April 1850 James sold the tract to John Tornerlin for $400. Joseph C. Rhea and James Anderson witnessed the deed. Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book U, p. 144, James J. Glasgow to John Tornerlin, deed dated and registered 6 April 1850; transcription (https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-james-j-glasgow-to-john-tornerlin-1850/), TNGenWeb. James and Mary J Glasgow were enumerated together in the 1860 United States census. "United States Census, 1860," database with images, FamilySearch (record (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6GF-RXZ)), entry for Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow. This record supports the attached marriage, but does not identify either spouse's parents. Research Notes Parentage James is attached as an uncertain son of Robert Glasgow. Robert's 1820 Giles County household contained one boy aged 10–15, compatible with James's estimated birth about 1809 or 1810. 1820 United States census, Giles County, Tennessee, Robert Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 124; original schedule, scan 21 (https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up). James's later Giles County residence is also consistent with that placement. The census names only Robert, however, and neither Giles County deed names a parent or sibling. The relationship therefore remains uncertain. FamilySearch has also placed James among the children of Wilson Crossier Glasgow and Mary McCracken. The available estate evidence contradicts that placement. Mary's will gave Ruth one-seventh of her property, Mariah one-sixth of the remainder, and the residue to her “other five children,” establishing a total of seven children. Newberry District, South Carolina, Will Book N, p. 1, will of Mary Glasgow, widow of Wilson Glasgow, dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838; transcription (https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html). The displayed recording date of July 1837 precedes execution and is evidently a transcription error. The index to Wilson's real-estate packet lists Mary with Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria—the widow and seven apparent children. James is absent. Newberry County, South Carolina, real-estate packet 1-13, estate of Wilson Glasgow; index (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/realestate.html), entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria. The same FamilySearch family also includes Fleming Bates Glasgow, reportedly born in 1823. Wilson's gravestone records his death on 11 September 1817, six years before Fleming's birth, showing that the online child list combines at least two families. Gilders Creek Cemetery survey (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm), Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary Glasgow. The Wilson and Mary hypothesis was therefore rejected. Robert remains the leading working father, but a probate, deed, Bible, obituary or other record naming the relationship is still needed. Robert's leading named father candidate is Archibald Glasgow. Archibald's 1800 Newberry household contained one male under ten who is not accounted for by his three gravestone-proved children. "United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG) and public household transcription (https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm). Robert's estimated birth and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but the census does not name the child and no record yet calls Robert Archibald's son. Archibald is therefore only a possible grandfather of James. Y-DNA A tested direct paternal descendant line reported through James belongs to haplogroup R-FT20271. FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview), Y-DNA results, kit 1002232. This confirms James's broader paternal genetic cluster. It does not distinguish Robert from another man in that cluster as James's father. Sources
Raw WikiTree biography markup
[[Category:Glasgow Name Study]]
{{Estimated Date}}
== Biography ==
'''James J Glasgow''' was born about 1809 or 1810 in South Carolina. His exact birth date and parents have not been proved.
By 1845 James was living on a ridge in the sixth civil district of Giles County, Tennessee, near Donahue Creek and the waters of Richland Creek. A later deed referred to a title bond executed by Noah Hancock on 7 October 1845.<ref name="Deed1848">Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book T, p. 211, Noah Hancock to James J. Glasgow, deed dated 9 November and registered 2 December 1848; [https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-noah-hancock-to-james-glasgow/ transcription], TNGenWeb.</ref>
On 9 November 1848 Hancock conveyed the 100-acre tract to James for $300. The deed described it as the ridge on which James then resided.<ref name="Deed1848" /> On 6 April 1850 James sold the tract to John Tornerlin for $400. Joseph C. Rhea and James Anderson witnessed the deed.<ref name="Deed1850">Giles County, Tennessee, Deed Book U, p. 144, James J. Glasgow to John Tornerlin, deed dated and registered 6 April 1850; [https://tngenweb.org/giles/deed-james-j-glasgow-to-john-tornerlin-1850/ transcription], TNGenWeb.</ref>
James and '''Mary J Glasgow''' were enumerated together in the 1860 United States census.<ref name="Census1860">"United States Census, 1860," database with images, FamilySearch ([https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6GF-RXZ record]), entry for Jas J Glasgow and Mary J Glasgow.</ref> This record supports the attached marriage, but does not identify either spouse's parents.
== Research Notes ==
=== Parentage ===
James is attached as an uncertain son of [[Glasgow-2769|Robert Glasgow]]. Robert's 1820 Giles County household contained one boy aged 10–15, compatible with James's estimated birth about 1809 or 1810.<ref name="Census1820">1820 United States census, Giles County, Tennessee, Robert Glasgow household; NARA microfilm publication M33, roll 124; [https://archive.org/details/populationsc18200124unit/page/n21/mode/1up original schedule, scan 21].</ref> James's later Giles County residence is also consistent with that placement. The census names only Robert, however, and neither Giles County deed names a parent or sibling. The relationship therefore remains uncertain.
FamilySearch has also placed James among the children of [[Glasgow-1982|Wilson Crossier Glasgow]] and [[McCracken-3711|Mary McCracken]]. The available estate evidence contradicts that placement. Mary's will gave Ruth one-seventh of her property, Mariah one-sixth of the remainder, and the residue to her “other five children,” establishing a total of seven children.<ref name="MaryWill">Newberry District, South Carolina, Will Book N, p. 1, will of Mary Glasgow, widow of Wilson Glasgow, dated 28 November 1837 and proved 22 October 1838; [https://web.archive.org/web/20101124184247id_/http://www.lifesweaving.com/Glasgow/Paper_WilsonGlasgowWife.html transcription]. The displayed recording date of July 1837 precedes execution and is evidently a transcription error.</ref> The index to Wilson's real-estate packet lists Mary with Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria—the widow and seven apparent children. James is absent.<ref name="WilsonEstate">Newberry County, South Carolina, real-estate packet 1-13, estate of Wilson Glasgow; [https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/realestate.html index], entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary, Robert, Ruth, Naomi, Matilda, Hiram, Almina and Maria.</ref>
The same FamilySearch family also includes Fleming Bates Glasgow, reportedly born in 1823. Wilson's gravestone records his death on 11 September 1817, six years before Fleming's birth, showing that the online child list combines at least two families.<ref name="GildersCreek">[https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/gilders_creek_cem.htm Gilders Creek Cemetery survey], Newberry County, South Carolina, entries for Wilson Glasgow and Mary Glasgow.</ref>
The Wilson and Mary hypothesis was therefore rejected. Robert remains the leading working father, but a probate, deed, Bible, obituary or other record naming the relationship is still needed.
Robert's leading named father candidate is [[Glasgow-2304|Archibald Glasgow]]. Archibald's 1800 Newberry household contained one male under ten who is not accounted for by his three gravestone-proved children.<ref name="Archibald1800">"United States Census, 1800," Archibald Glasgow household, Newberry District, South Carolina, p. 75, NARA microfilm publication M32, roll 50; [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XHRC-7BG FamilySearch record XHRC-7BG] and [https://genealogytrails.com/scar/newberry/1800nbycensusG.htm public household transcription].</ref> Robert's estimated birth and South Carolina origin fit that slot, but the census does not name the child and no record yet calls Robert Archibald's son. Archibald is therefore only a possible grandfather of James.
=== Y-DNA ===
A tested direct paternal descendant line reported through James belongs to haplogroup R-FT20271.<ref name="FTDNA">[https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Glasgow?iframe=ydna-results-overview FamilyTreeDNA Glasgow Project], Y-DNA results, kit 1002232.</ref> This confirms James's broader paternal genetic cluster. It does not distinguish Robert from another man in that cluster as James's father.
== Sources ==
<references />