The best thing is to read the book and decide if you think maybe your ancestor fits into this family. The book is quite sketchy in many places, so it is still possible that your ancestor was connected to this family but that Marion T. didn't include him or her. He was writing the book while he was a working senator in Congress and without the aid of the Internet, so although he did do extensive research, again, you may be disappointed if you are looking for a specific ancestor. The most common names in the book (some repeated many times) are William, John, Philip, Basil, RIchard, Edward, Francis, Marion, Samuel, Isaac, for men - and Lucy, Mathilda, Elizabeth, Catherine, Mary, Irene, Martha. The most frequently discussed associated family names are: Redman, Drake, Marrs, O'Bannon, Cox, Dawson, Lemon(s), Tinsley. Others include: Bland, Scott, Jones, Atteberry, Pendergraft. Edward Bennett and Richard Bennett, both prominent in London and Virginia are also discussed along with their plantations, religious background, and so forth. No connection is claimed. The "Indian Massacres" of about 1620 and 1640 (not exact dates) are also discussed. These Bennetts served on both sides of the Civil War. Those in my line in Missouri were almost entirely Union. Any relatives left in Illinois would have been Union in all likelihood. Relatives in Kentucky probably were Confederate as would those still in NC or VA --none of the KY, ILL, NC, or VA cousins' descendants are enumerated upon. I have established some links to some Drakes (who married into the family) through the Missouri, Polk County website and to some Kentucky descendants of Basil Bennett and John Bennett of Virginia through the Bennetts Yahoogroups state groups. I haven't tried yet to contact the VA or IL Bennett newsgroups. Again, it is a relatively small book, but if nothing else, it may help you eliminate certain individuals who come up in your own research as not belonging to your particular grouping or, alternatively, verify that your research is in the right direction. No Yancey is listed. Could this be a transcription error on the part of a census taker or other scribbler? Or might it be a nickname? Nancy comes to mind. Also pronunciation affects the way people spelled names. My own relatives might spell the name Reynolds as Randles, for example, showing the tendency to leave some letters out and to transpose others. For those interested a google search on Ozark English and/or Appalachian English might be helpful to know what kind of morphs might be expected. Also, if any of your ancestors married into Native American tribes, they might be harder to trace. So far, I haven't located any in my direct line, but there are many Bennetts in the Lumbee Indians (a mixed group of Native Americans who claim ties to the Lost Colony of Roanoke, which, perhaps by coincidence and perhaps not had one "lost" colonist named Marke Bennet who was never found).Again, a google search will turn up the information. Other possibilities, some may not want to entertain, but are worth look at for history's sake, are Melungeons, mixed ethnic and "racial" groups throughout Appalachia. The name Bennett occurs in Brent Kennedy's landmark study Melungeons: Resurrection of a Proud People. Dr. Kennedy himself had Bennett Melungeon ancestors although he had been told he was Scotch Irish by his relatives despite their slightly dark skin. When I found out that there was a good chance the my Virginia and North Carolina and perhaps Kentucky and even Arkansas ancestors had slaves, I was curious to see if I could find any with the last name Bennett. There are. Hundreds and hundreds of them, mainly concentrated in the Deep South. Did some of the people take the name of their masters? It would seem so since there are still today many Black Bennetts. Were some of these "Mulattoes," as they were called back then if they were not entirely African in descent? Yes, if the Slave Schedules are correct. (See the 1860 Slave Schedule under Census at Ancestry.com, for example). Some of these may have married into tribes such as the Lumbee (Crotan) Native Americans or Cherokees or other groups. Others may have married into Melungeon groups or both. Some may have eventually "passed" for "white." In fact, this was the case with those Bennetts who married into the Driggers family, (Driggers was originally De Rodrigues, a Portuguese slave of mixed ancestry to begin with, possibly Sephardic, certainly part African). Today many Driggers who are black never heard of a white Driggers and Driggers who are white never heard of a black Driggers. And the Bennetts of the South were still considered white after intermarrying with them despite racist one-drop rules. There was also a family of Bennetts still actively involved in politics whose ancestor was officially adopted into the Cherokee tribe, married a Cherokee, had children, and rose into prominence as a chief and his relatives in leadership. His story is colorful. Look up Joseph Hardin Bennett on the Internet and read about how he married the daughter of Joel Mayes Bryan (or Joel Bryan Mayes). his ancestors are Sears, however, not Bennetts. All this gives one cause to ponder as we uncover history one ancestor at a time, record by record.