Hi Tami, Is this James Pate represented in the Pate DNA Project? I see that #143833 has James Pate b. c. 1818 in Kentucky as his most distant determined ancestor (currently #36 in list of Y-dna Results). Searching old posts on Pate-L, I found one relating to your James Pate that was of interest to me; the author of it questioned a possible relationship between your James Pate's line and the Pate line in Washington County, Illinois in the 1850s. Do you (or does anyone else on the list) know if that connection was ever disproved? It seems that it may have been from these posts: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/pate/2004-10/1097240749 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/pate/2004-10/1097181996 Unfortunately, the webpage mentioned in Chandra Dawson Martin's posts (listing Edward M. Pate) no longer exists--or, at least I cannot access it. If your James Pate is the James Pate represented in the Pate DNA Project by #143833, it looks like this is a distinct Pate line. Some of the Washington Co., IL, Pate descendants have tested out in the Edward Pate group. Best regards, April ---- [email protected] wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. New Researcher-James Pate b. 1818 KY (Tami Broadway) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:16:08 -0500 > From: Tami Broadway <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATE] New Researcher-James Pate b. 1818 KY > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I just started my family research in January of this year, and hit the wall already on James Pate. Looks like others have hit the same wall

Yes, that is my line. And I am shocked with the results. I expected James to be at least a cousin on one of the tested lines. I'm not sure which direction to go on the research now, but am probably wasting time doing much more online and trying to attach him to established Pate Family trees. Seems like the DNA would rule out any relationship with the IL/Edward group. I never found a traditional connection to them either, but I have not been doing this very long. On Sep 20, 2010, at 12:32 PM, April Johnson wrote: > Hi Tami, > > Is this James Pate represented in the Pate DNA Project? I see that #143833 > has James Pate b. c. 1818 in Kentucky as his most distant determined > ancestor (currently #36 in list of Y-dna Results). > > > ---- [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. New Researcher-James Pate b. 1818 KY (Tami Broadway) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:16:08 -0500 >> From: Tami Broadway <[email protected]> >> Subject: [PATE] New Researcher-James Pate b. 1818 KY >> To: [email protected] >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> I just started my family research in January of this year, and hit the > wall already on James Pate. Looks like others have hit the same wall > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Tami, and thanks for the reply. Just a suggestion--Maybe you could find another descendant from this James Pate (abt.1818 KY) to participate in the Pate DNA Project, and then you'd have more DNA to compare? I know that in my Pate line, a grandson (son of a daughter) was raised by his grandparents without any formal adoption process; but, he was given their surname (his mother's maiden name), Pate. Even though he has the Pate surname, his DNA would match his father's, who was not a Pate. Theoretically, he would not fit into one of the major Pate family lines, either, if you went only by DNA results. Best wishes in your continued research, April -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tami Broadway Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATE] James Pate abt. 1818 KY Yes, that is my line. And I am shocked with the results. I expected James to be at least a cousin on one of the tested lines. I'm not sure which direction to go on the research now, but am probably wasting time doing much more online and trying to attach him to established Pate Family trees. Seems like the DNA would rule out any relationship with the IL/Edward group. I never found a traditional connection to them either, but I have not been doing this very long. and the body of the message