Robert I don't think there has been ever any question of "a" John Couch from the SC region or Brunswick Nor do I doubt he is most likely from Ole Thomas line.Or no doubt on the Al line. Yes there are many 'Johns" There has to be a reasonable common link to Kentucky group 5 no doubt Our contention its not the "John" of Kentucky of which so many are attempting to challenge his pre 1806 wanderings in NC/Va/Pa When deeds, grants, and accounts have him in a set pattern and area. Myself I was a firm believer that john Couch was not married to a Mary Boon pre 1782 at one time. Till evidence surfaced, that indeed he was. Although No formal direct Boone lineage for her has been confirmed.And tons of rumors and lore has been dispelled and abated. Now you claim that I so adversely are adverse to internet research? I'm my original posts and intent, I merely say the internet is a "tool" not a documented line. Nor does "internet" validate a line nor a person. Although facts are indeed posted on the net, one has to wade through the countless tons of useless and wrong data. But never tell a person their "internet genealogy line is wrong" after all they found it on a "genealogy site" Many people make a mistake to post a line, then say info for such and such is "in my file".When you question the source, they refer to a link, linked to a link someone posted and still no SOURCE ! That is what I am so adversely against ! I have yet to see many if any post something that they claim is correct with a REAL source. I.E page xxx in NC archives or land grants for VA in xxx section Univ of Va. Or 2nd marriage book early Orange Co marriages page xxx. Thus a cross check can be made of the original source and true validated copies can be made. Internet research is only as good as the person posting it.... get my drift? If they cant give nothing more than a "link" to a page someone has published then be highly doubtful of it , TILL it can be sourced. If it cant trash it. The absolute main problem with Internet research is people posting non verified data !!!! Internet documentation is NOT source data if a quote from a official office is given. Internet documentation ONLY will not get one into the D.A.R/S.A.R or the S.O.C what it will do is provide in some cases the place the data CAN be obtained for verification. In the past I have provided some, links and places they can obtain original historical accounts and documentation. And places they can obtain original documents at cost... NOTE at cost. These people refuse to get original copies, thus choosing "free" info and that's where 95% of the problem comes into play. As I have said you do have a link "somewhere in group 5" What that tie is at this point is unknown. But I don't see relying totally on DNA, will reveal anything. No where at any time has anyone ever challenged a Thomas Couch nor his relation to a "John" Couch. In some cases census records are highly in accurate. Due to transcription problems, The qualifications of the person transcribing it how they verbatim exactly copy it or even spell it. Land Deeds: Just because Joe Blow is shown with a land deed for a given time frame don't mean they actually lived there !! In some cases it simply means they filed and was granted a grant. They could have moved on and in a majority of cases they had others 'prove" the claim/grant up. A form of sharecropping a grant, thus occupying a grant for a person via proxy. And it was commonly done. Lets face it 90% of people use solely census data... never going beyond that. Or someone else's Internet published line modified for their particular line. In conclusion What I would like to see , is if someone publishes a "file", line or tree at least give data for someone to cross check it and get the original files or verified copies And I know that wont be done. Why?? most people wont spend a dime on genealogy documents. They will spend money on CD,s from a funky genealogy site. That gets their info from highly questionable sources. Although they DO give census data on some sites. Its still not the same as original documentation. Again no one has questioned your Thomas/John Couch lineage.Nor the Brunswick line or the AL/SC line. But if one would publish say... John Couch of either Mary or Elizabeth line that he is from SC/Al.. I myself would ask for a place to obtain hard copy on that theory and I would contest that conclusion based on documentation that would be cross checked offsite Do I believe one person or site or list or DNA clearing house, should be the sole authority on the complexity of the Couch lines? Absolutely not ! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Couch, Robert H. " <rcouchauburn@mindspring.com> To: <COUCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 08, 1904 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [COUCH] Martin Couch Family in and around Leslie County,Kentucky > Let me say that my first records of John Couch Sr was provided from a > personal contact with a couple of researches that I have come to respect. > Their charts have been augmented with data that I have found in hard, data, > in libraries I have visite throughout the south. My hypothesis come from > first from primary sources from census and land records. I have a copy of a > handwritten document of the will Of Ole Thomas Couch of Enoree, SC. Thus I > have documented proof that his son John Sr and wife Mary are administrators > of that will probated in 1784. So, despite what any Kentucky Couch may say > there was indeed a Thomas Couch in Enoree, SC who had a son named John. > This does not deny any other John Couch anywhere. I have documented quite a > few throughout the south. > > Land records and census data around 1798 through 1800 prove, through > documentation, that John Couch lived in Greenville County, SC. Near him on > the north fork of the Saluda river were Drury, Benjamin, Thomas, and other > Couches seemingly related to the Couches of Enoree. > > I also have census records and land records documenting that a John Couch, a > John Couch JR and a Thomas Couch were in Madison County, AL as early as > 1808. John, John Jr and Thomas Couch were also counted in the Mississippi > Territory census of 1809. Land records there officially show these three > had adjacent 60 acres farms on Indian Creek in Madison County, Al (then MS > terr). All this is documented as well as anything else is documented. There > is no Doubt. > > > Then, 20 years into my research when I discoverd the internet and the mass > amount of information (and misinforamtion) that is contained on the > internet I have found and used internet dat to either verify, question or > negate the basic solid documented data that I have. I too have seen things > on the internet that I am prettu sure is not correct. Yet, the amount of > data availale is most helpful although not set in stone. No one would rely > only only on Internet data. > > Then comes the DNA tests. I do not know if the DNA data is absolutely > correct but I am again using it as a tool to test my hypotheses. Thus far, > many of those in Group 5 have led me to confirm my orginal speculation and > support my hypotheses. More data from DNA is supporting what I had in my > orginial hard, documented data. Yet, there is also DNA data that I am not > sure of and must investigate more throughly. I am now wrapped up in that > process. > > When Joyce and Bill Couch who confidently dismiss any claim I might have to > a relationship with a John Couch I must take their doubts seriously and seek > information to either confirm or deny their doubts. Yet, neither Joyce nor > Bill Couch have offered any proof that negates the docmented relationship to > a John Couch Sr. Like Bill Couch, I too question the hypothesis that Thomas > Couch in my line is indeed a son of John Couch Sr of Madison Co,AL and > Lawreenc County, Al. > > Yet, until I have documented proof I shall maintian my tenative hyposthesis > about my Couch relatives. I am not impressed with those who critize without > offering some documented proof through primary sources that will lead to my > abandoning my hypothesis. > > Let us seek the truth together without any smug, self rightous, have all the > answers so called expert genealogy expert. > > Somewhat disgusted, > > Robert H. Couch > > > > > Later, the internet that Windwalker is so adamant in belittling I have used > to either confirm or deny my original hypothesis. > ---------- > >From: "Windwalker" <windwalker@fastmail.fm> > >To: COUCH-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [COUCH] Martin Couch Family in and around Leslie County,Kentucky > >Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2004, 10:33 AM > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Joyce H. Reeves" <JoyceHouseReeve@webtv.net> > > > >Subject: Re: [COUCH] Martin Couch Family in and around Leslie > >County,Kentucky > > > > > >> Hey Robert, > >> Just a friendly reminder that "most KY Couches" are not confused > >> about who our ancestor was. "Most of us" are well aware that John, Sr > >> was the father of Martin, John, Mary/Polly, Nancy Ann and Sarah. James > >> and Austin I'm not too sure about. They could just as easily have > >> belonged to Joseph Couch of 1800 Ashe Co NC, aka "Montgomery" Joe, who > >> we think, but cannot prove 100% was brother of John. All available > >> evidence points to their having been brothers. > >> Just because John is no longer listed on the Couch website, as father > >> of Martin, does not mean we don't know who he was. I never understood > >> why he was removed in the first place. > >> Joyce > >============================================================ > >Addition: > >Joyce has made a important point. The "site" no longer lists Martin as being > >the son of John Sr of Kentucky. Nor is a close resemblance of the line being > >factually > >being depicted {Kentucky lineage}. This is due impart to "internet > >researchers" changing lines to fit their needs, without benefit of > >documentation and some solely relying on "DNA" results. Some of the most > >important research was done by JP Doward, although NOT without errors, But > >the basic Kentucky Lineage is intact. Others have followed the paper trail > >and found some wrong, but alot whole and intact. > >I agree with Joyce, that John and Joseph were indeed brothers or Father/Son > >as evidenced by the early land deeds in VA and NC. We have seen nothing > >documenting that John Couch of KY had been in or around SC , its our > >contention, that is a different Couch lineage.And research more or less so > >dictates that. DNA testing indeed has placed some in the Kentucky lineage > >direct, it also has dispelled and exempted some whom think they are of > >Kentucky lineage and have posted their lineage as correct. > >{See test results for group 5 and ones whom have failed linkage} > >It is highly possible a direct link is at hand for a Thomas Couch lineage, > >but I feel its more of intermarriage between clans, than direct. NOTE there > >is two distinct lineage's in Kentucky of the Couch Line.Those whom have > >direct people in the line and has been documented and those who don't, yet > >are placing their Couch ancestors in the line where they think "they fit". > >There are also ones mixing up the two lines cause they cant find where they > >fit and see a name and think its the one they are looking for. Then they go > >back to corrupt the original info/documentation or validate it incorrect. > >Be advised the Couchgenweb is mostly for southern lines of the Couch line. > >And Bill has limited info on the Kentucky Line except what is gleaned from > >others as correct {I.E no documented evidence is being given for anyone to > >modify a line beyond a internet file. > >Be highly careful in researching the Kentucky line and fully document every > >earliest member you can. Use the internet files ONLY as a clue and not as a > >source. > > > >Austin Couch: Son of Martin Couch:: > >There is also a Austin Couch Sr that has not been directly linked to the > >Kentucky Couch line. Although being researched he was in Kentucky in 1770 > >and being in the Indian Wars. He at one point settled at Limestone Kentucky > >{Maysville} and also Sandy River Kentucky.Some researchers have reported > >that he was at the battle of Pt Pleasant with a party of Longhunters. later > >documents indicate he settled in the Kanawha Valley for a time {Same > >timeframe as the Boones} and later crossed into NC via what's now Montgomery > >Co. > >In conclusion.... research your line on Kentucky carefully!!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >