Glasgow Surname Project

Individual research record

George Glasgow

1840-04 – c. 1915

Glasgow-2955 · 1 mapped association

South Carolina, United StatesNewberry, South Carolina, United States

At a glance

Identity & family

Tree links organise the family; documentary status still varies.

1Mapped records
2Close relations
5Evidence items
12Candidate leads
Birth
1840-04 · South Carolina, United States
Death
c. 1915 · Newberry, South Carolina, United States
Parents
Not recorded
Spouses
Emoline (Gilliam) Glasgow
Children
Boisey Glasgow
Gender
Male
WikiTree
Glasgow-2955
Research clusters
Worldwide One-Tree profile leads
Mapped descendants
3

Comparison context

These child positions and checks are the subject details used to rank possible parents below.

Naming sequence used by the parentage model

Paternal grandfather positionBoisey Glasgow (1901)
Maternal grandfather positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Maternal grandmother positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles
Paternal grandmother positionNot identifiable from dated child profiles

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.

Higher-signal leadReview carefullyWeak lead

Possible fathers5 leads

Automated fit37/100
Weak Lead
Dates1814–?Generation26 years age gapRecorded placesAbbeville, South Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Household · Local Sibling Birth · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
  • candidate's birth is 87 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 26-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 87 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate has only broad or undated birth-locality overlap: south (+6)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits within the candidate's overall child-bearing span (1838–1854) (+3; children are not tied to one spouse)
  • candidate has another child, Elizabeth F B Glasgow, born 2 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+6; possible sibling-household clue)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit29/100
Weak Lead
Dates1800–1869Generation40 years age gapRecorded placesNewberry, South Carolina, United States · Georgia, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 6Age · Household · Local Sibling Birth · Spouse · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: newberry south carolina united states (+10)
  • known spouse Elizabeth (Unknown) Glasgow had a bounded, possibly plausible maternal age (45) at the subject's birth (+3)

candidate's child Wilson Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-405) is also a plausible father in the subject's birth locality (−6; current tree places this candidate one generation farther back)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 40-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 101 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: newberry south carolina united states (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a known child was born within 5 years of the subject (+1)
  • candidate has another child, John F Glasgow, born 15 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 (45) at the subject's birth (+3)

Deductions and cautions: candidate's child Wilson Archibald Glasgow (Glasgow-405) is also a plausible father in the subject's birth locality (−6; current tree places this candidate one generation farther back)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible fathers
Automated fit28/100
Weak Lead
Dates1817–1868Generation23 years age gapRecorded placesSouth Carolina, United States · Newberry, South Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 4Age · Local Sibling Birth · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 84 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 23-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 84 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate has another child, Spencer Lafayette Glasgow, born 15 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+2; possible sibling-household clue)

Deductions and cautions: no known spouse has a plausible maternal age at the subject's birth (−6; an unknown spouse remains possible)

Automated fit27/100
Weak Lead
Dates1805–1846Generation35 years age gapRecorded placesLocation not supplied — profile holding pointIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 96 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 35-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 96 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • candidate and subject share the given name George (+5; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 61 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Automated fit16/100
Weak Lead
Dates1792–?Generation48 years age gapRecorded placesMidlothian — exact locality unprovedIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Same-Sex Generational Naming · Two-GenerationCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • possible 48-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 109 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • candidate and subject share the given name George (+5; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 61 public profiles)

locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Show complete scoring
  • possible 48-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 109 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • candidate and subject share the given name George (+5; weak direct parent-child name recurrence, 61 public profiles)

Deductions and cautions: locality comparison is unavailable because one or both profiles lack adequate place data (no deduction)

Possible mothers5 leads

Automated fit37/100
Weak Lead
Dates1794–1847Generation46 years age gapRecorded placesSouth Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Local Same-Spouse Child Window · Spouse-Specific Child Window · Two-Generation · Undated LocalitySame-spouse child windowJames GlasgowCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • possible 46-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 107 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • possible 46-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 107 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • subject's birth fits between children attributed to the same parental couple (1817–1855) (+6; other parent James Glasgow)
  • same-couple children Archibald C Glasgow (1817) and Spencer Leonidus Glasgow (1855) bracket the subject in the same specific birth locality (+10; strong household-placement clue, not proof)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit18/100
Weak Lead
Dates1795–1885Generation45 years age gapRecorded placesSouth Carolina, United States · Warrior, Jefferson, Alabama, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 5Age · Household · Local Sibling Birth · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • possible 45-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 106 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)

candidate's child Elizabeth Glasgow (Glasgow-2301) is also a plausible mother in the subject's birth locality (−6; current tree places this candidate one generation farther back)

Show complete scoring
  • possible 45-year parent-child age gap (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 106 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a marginal two-generation interval (+1)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)
  • a known child was born within 5 years of the subject (+1)
  • candidate has another child, John F Glasgow, born 15 years from the subject in the same specific birth locality (+2; possible sibling-household clue)

Deductions and cautions: candidate's child Elizabeth Glasgow (Glasgow-2301) is also a plausible mother in the subject's birth locality (−6; current tree places this candidate one generation farther back)

Show 3 lower-scoring possible mothers
Automated fit32/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1816–1876Generation24 years age gapRecorded placesSouth Carolina, United States · Randolph County, Illinois, United States · South CarolinaIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 85 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 24-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 85 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit32/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1815–?Generation25 years age gapRecorded placesSouth Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 86 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 25-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 86 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • candidate is associated with the subject's stated birthplace, but not by a reliable near-contemporary record (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Automated fit32/100
Chronology-Only Fallback
Dates1802–1863Generation38 years age gapRecorded placesNewberry, South Carolina, United StatesIndependent clue breadth · 3Age · Two-Generation · Undated LocalityCurrent relationshipNot currently linked as parent
Strongest signals
  • plausible 38-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: newberry south carolina united states (+10)
  • candidate's birth is 99 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)

No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

Show complete scoring
  • plausible 38-year parent-child age gap (+18)
  • candidate's birth is 99 years before the subject's earliest dated child (1901), a compatible grandparent-generation interval (+4)
  • same specific indexed locality despite wider place-label differences: newberry south carolina united states (+10)
  • same research cluster (+0; grouping is not kinship evidence)

Deductions and cautions: No indexed conflict; documentary proof still required

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

George GlasgowGlasgow-1590

Automated fit48/100
Similar Person
Dates1840–?PlacesPlaces not recordedParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • same birth year (+30)

No indexed conflict

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • same birth year (+30)

Conflicts: No indexed conflict

Same-name candidate

George GlasgowGlasgow-1404

Automated fit36/100
Similar Person
Dates1844–?PlacesAntrimParent comparisonNo shared parent is indexed
Why it may fit
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 4 (+18)

No indexed conflict

Full comparison detail
  • same first and last name (+18)
  • birth years within 4 (+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

Life and record timelineChronological mapped occurrences and their underlying sources.1 record
b. 1840

Profile-stated birthplace: South Carolina, United States

South Carolina, United States

One-Tree export profile fields are search leads, not sources; relationships are shown only where the export supplies parent links.

One-Tree profile leadunknown
Source and mapping detail

WikiTree profile export for Glasgow-2955

No sufficiently specific citation match found.

Precision: Country-centre fallback for profile locality

Evidence assessmentWhat is supported, uncertain or disputed in the current case model.3 claims
3Derivative
1Tree Only
1Unknown

Documented or strongly supported

No claims in this category have been formally assessed.

Working hypotheses and conflicts

No claims in this category have been formally assessed.

Research questionsOpen problems, missing bridges and the next records to inspect.0 open

No formal open question is recorded for this person.

Sources and provenanceStructured citations and source-quality classifications.5 sources
Technical profile and raw captureDataset metadata, machine dossier and captured WikiTree biography.Advanced

WikiTree profile information

Dataset: ONT_Glasco_2026-08-18T16_05.json · generated 2026-08-20

Machine-readable dossier

WikiTree biography, citations and relationship snapshot

Glasgow-2955 was captured 2026-08-07T09:54:35+00:00; WikiTree profile revision 2024-09-06.

Profile location claims

EventDateLocationStatus
birthSouth Carolina, United StatesWikiTree profile field
deathNewberry, South Carolina, United StatesWikiTree profile field

Immediate relationship snapshot

RelationshipPersonWikiTree IDDates and places returned
ChildrenBoisey GlasgowGlasgow-29561901-00-00 · South Carolina, United States · 0000-00-00
SpousesEmoline GlasgowGilliam-35641859-00-00 · Newberry County, South Carolina, United States · 1940-00-00 · South Carolina, United States · 1890-00-00

Profile categories

1880 US Census, Newberry County, South Carolina 1880_US_Census,_Newberry_County,_South_Carolina Newberry County, South Carolina Newberry_County,_South_Carolina USBH Heritage Exchange, Status Unknown USBH_Heritage_Exchange,_Status_Unknown

Record-bearing passages

  • Biography George was born in 1840. He passed away about 1915.
  • "I was born in Newberry County, South Carolina, Near Indian Creek above Jalapa. My mammy and pa was Charlie and Frances Gilliam. We belonged to Marse Pettus and Harriet Gilliam who had a big plantation. I married George Glasgow in the yard of Reid place.'
  • Interview: Emoline Glasgow was interviewed in Newberry, South Carolina by G. L. Summer as part of the Federal Writer's Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The results are made available by the Library of Congress. [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.142] Library of Congress - WPA - Slave Narrative - Emoline Glasgow - Vol. 14, South Carolina, Part 2; pages 134-135 images 138-139 of 350. Sources

  • "United States Census, 1900", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M3TD-8P9 : Thu Apr 11 17:56:44 UTC 2024), Entry for Geo Glasgow and Emaline Glasgow, 1900.
  • Uncertain: "South Carolina Deaths, 1915-1973", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9VV-8JK : Mon May 06 19:56:02 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow, 21 May 1915.

Profile source citations

  1. [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.142] Library of Congress - WPA - Slave Narrative - Emoline Glasgow - Vol. 14, South Carolina, Part 2; pages 134-135 images 138-139 of 350. source link 1
  2. "United States Census, 1880", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6SG-4FD : Mon Mar 11 00:57:06 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow and Emma Glasgow, 1880. source link 1
  3. "United States Census, 1900", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M3TD-8P9 : Thu Apr 11 17:56:44 UTC 2024), Entry for Geo Glasgow and Emaline Glasgow, 1900. source link 1
  4. Uncertain: "South Carolina Deaths, 1915-1973", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9VV-8JK : Mon May 06 19:56:02 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow, 21 May 1915. source link 1
Full captured biography text
Biography
George was born in 1840. He passed away about 1915.

George's wife Emoline Glasgow was interviewed about 1937 in Newberry, South Carolina about her life and her time as an enslaved person. 

 "I was born in Newberry County, South Carolina, Near Indian Creek above Jalapa. My mammy and pa was Charlie and Frances Gilliam. We belonged to Marse Pettus and Harriet Gilliam who had a big plantation. I married George Glasgow in the yard of Reid place.' 

Interview: Emoline Glasgow was interviewed in Newberry, South Carolina by G. L. Summer as part of the Federal Writer's Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The results are made available by the Library of Congress. [https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.142] Library of Congress - WPA - Slave Narrative - Emoline Glasgow - Vol. 14, South Carolina, Part 2; pages 134-135 images 138-139 of 350. 
Sources
* "United States Census, 1880", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6SG-4FD : Mon Mar 11 00:57:06 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow and Emma Glasgow, 1880.

* "United States Census, 1900", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M3TD-8P9 : Thu Apr 11 17:56:44 UTC 2024), Entry for Geo Glasgow and Emaline Glasgow, 1900.

* Uncertain: "South Carolina Deaths, 1915-1973", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9VV-8JK : Mon May 06 19:56:02 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow, 21 May 1915.
Raw WikiTree biography markup
[[Category:1880 US Census, Newberry County, South Carolina]]
[[Category:Newberry County, South Carolina]]
[[Category:USBH Heritage Exchange, Status Unknown]]
== Biography ==
{{African-American Sticker}}

George was born in 1840.  He passed away about 1915.

George's wife  Emoline Glasgow was interviewed about 1937 in Newberry, South Carolina about her life and her time as an enslaved person. 

    "I was born in Newberry County, South Carolina, Near Indian Creek above Jalapa. My mammy and pa was Charlie and Frances Gilliam. We belonged to Marse Pettus and Harriet Gilliam who had a big plantation. I married George Glasgow in the yard of Reid place.' 


Interview: Emoline Glasgow was interviewed in Newberry, South Carolina by G. L. Summer as part of the Federal Writer's Project of the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The results are made available by the Library of Congress. <ref>[https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.142] Library of Congress - WPA - Slave Narrative - Emoline Glasgow  - Vol. 14, South Carolina, Part 2;  pages 134-135 images 138-139  of 350.</ref>


== Sources ==
<references />

* "United States Census, 1880", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M6SG-4FD : Mon Mar 11 00:57:06 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow and Emma Glasgow, 1880.

* "United States Census, 1900", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M3TD-8P9 : Thu Apr 11 17:56:44 UTC 2024), Entry for Geo Glasgow and Emaline Glasgow, 1900.

* Uncertain:  "South Carolina Deaths, 1915-1973", , FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N9VV-8JK : Mon May 06 19:56:02 UTC 2024), Entry for George Glasgow, 21 May 1915.