In a message dated 9/20/99 8:48:16 PM EDT, alporter@bright.net writes: > Jeff, > Did someone else answer your question about Samuel Porter&Anna (Raines) > Porter? > If not I can search further. Confirm if you will. > > Lyman Thanks for the help offer. I think my books by Ely and Mitchell must have Samuel W. Porter confused with his son Samuel. They list several of Samuel W's children but say he married a Damron. Several Porters have told me their research shows that one of Samuel jr's wives was a Damron. If Ely and Mitchell are wrong about that, they could very well be wrong about Ruth Ann being Samuel W.s daughter. In Johnson County statistics there are several birth records for Martin B. Dixon's children that list the mother as Ruth Ann Ferguson. I haven't seen it yet, but I've been told that there is a transcription of the 1850 census in which the transcriber wrote "(Porter)" next to Ruth Ann's name. Ruth Ann's son (my Grandfather) was named Robert Porter Dixon, which suggests a Porter relation. Possibilities I've come up with: 1. Ruth Ann's maiden name is Ferguson and she married Martin B. Dixon (no Porter connection). 2. Ruth Ann is an illegitimate child of a Porter (maybe Samuel W. Porter) and ? Ferguson. 3. Ruth Ann's maiden name is Porter, and she married a Ferguson prior to Martin Dixon. Another researcher has promised to send me some early Johnson County census information on Ferguson's. I also joined the Ferguson Rootsweb list. Not sure where else to look. Thanks again Jeff Dixon