Volume 1, Issue 1
Sons of Daniel Derryberry
Continued From Page 8
ever spelled. So, he started with the first known Derry- berrys in NC. The connection is pretty well proven by him and by Don Cross, and by DNA.]
He has concluded that Thomas [who was shown as son of Jacob and Christiana] and Michael who had pre- viously been shown as sons of Adam and Eve and that Elijah, who I had listed as not connected to any family, were actually sons of Old Daniel back in NC.
Here is his reasoning: " I'm sure my grouping of Thomas, Michael, and Elijah as sons of Daniel is contro- versial, as it does go against some traditions as you men- tion. However, I see no support for those traditions, and in fact I see support against them. On the other hand, I don't have documentation to back up my claims either, but I at least see circumstantial evidence, and I feel that's better than nothing. My guess is that the traditional placement of Thomas and Michael came about at some point when some family researcher ran across these men and could find no good place to put them, so attached them to the families that became "traditional."
"Michael and Elijah appear to have traveled a long way together, and my guess is that they are broth- ers. Both men ended up in Dunklin Co., MO by 1850, lived together in Perry Co., TN in 1840, and Michael is listed in Perry Co. in 1830 (Elijah was too young at that time to have his own household). I know of no connec- tion between Adam's family and Perry Co., TN. On the other hand, Daniel does seem to have lived there. In that case, why suppose that Michael was a son of Adam?
"In the absence of hard evidence, I always favor the simplest explanation for our observations as the best one. We could suppose that Adam had a son Michael, born when Eve was about 45, who was not listed in Adam's household, who later moved out of Maury Co. and joined Daniel's (or someone else's) son Elijah in Dunklin Co., MO. But why choose this complicated scenario over the simple one in which Michael and Daniel are brothers, and traveled together from Perry Co. to Dunklin Co.? If we believe that Michael was a son of Daniel, I can identify him in the 1820 census (in Daniel's household), 1830, 1840, and 1850. If we be- lieve that Michael was a son of Adam, where was he before 1850?"
To me it is pretty convincing. I do not know where I originally got the information that they were sons of Adam and Eve, it being so long ago. Now I ask if any- one has good proof that they were sons of Adam and Eve? If so, please let me know the source.
For the time being, I'm leaving it open for discus-
sion, but if no one has proof, I think they should be moved to Daniel.
~~~~~ Update commentary submitted by Bob G.
Derryberry on November 27, 2008.
I know that there are going to be some who disagree strongly to that which follows, but it looks like these findings are true.
It is amazing what can come from a clear slate and an analytical approach. That is where Brian Anton is coming from. He is a Dürenberger descendant, the one who encouraged the DNA that about 95% proves that we are Alsace based Dürenberger descendants. Brian was interested in proving the connection and was not burdened by Derryberry (or however spelled) family tradition on unfounded information passed down through the family. He started with a ‘clean slate’, working from the eldest known Derryberry and finding their descendants, rather than the traditional genealogy way of taking an individual and finding their ancestors.
Further, Brian is a trained research technician. He ferrets out facts and draws conclusions from those facts. His research has proven several errors in the two books that I assembled from family information fur- nished me by family members. I’m sorry that the errors are there, but I’m glad I got them into an assembled for- mat that created interest of others in our family his- tory. Genealogy is supposed to be an exact sci- ence. History does not always report true to fact. Thus, the books are family histories, not family genealogy.
Brian’s latest finding is one that Gloria Derryberry had found, but had not convinced me that it was right. Brian found the clues needed to prove the point and put them in a sequence that is hard to refute. That is that Harvey Jefferson Monroe Derryberry and Harvey M. Derryberry are two different persons. I’d had reser- vations about that which had been told to me about these men that claimed them as one person. Birth date was reported to be in 1827 and that he got a land grant in Texas for his participation in the Texas Revolution, which took place in 1836. It is highly unlikely that a 9 year old boy would have been in that fight. I’d thought that his birth date just got reported wrong. Trouble was that the date was right for Harvey Jefferson Monroe Derryberry from McNairy Co., TN and that Harvey M. Derryberry was the one who was in the Texas Revolu- tion. Harvey M. Was born about 1818, as indicated by
Continued on Page 10