The Narrative and the Newspaper

        My biological great-great-great grandfather Joel Layfayette Melson (1841-1906)

   (Authors note: Sometimes the details of one's family history simply have to be told.)

                                               As always unapologetically unedited.

I DON'T REALLY go here that much. It isn't that I shouldn't or don't need to. It's more that my 'privilege,' however humble in origin, has usually sought to keep me away. Recently though, when my sister asked me about the expression "Free White People" on an old census doc I was taken aback to give her the best answer I could. While it was easy enough to Google some form of an answer for that phrase on the 1830 census, getting her a personal answer about what it means regarding our own family history has proven to be a little more difficult. Getting my sister the right answer meant that I would need to take another look at my family's association with the enslavement of other people.

As a whole, our family's "privilege" has remained intact through the centuries. Oh, believe me, we weren't "woke" in 1776 any more than we were in 1850 or '60 - or for that matter any more than we are in 2025. (I'm not necessarily faulting us. It's just who we are.) However, in light of this, we can take some very false pride in knowing that the name of our ancestor John H.O. Record appears just above those of the black servants in both censuses (for 1850 and 1860) indicating our ancestors' indentured status as not much more than slaves. We can take an additional measure of false pride in that the census records are for "East New Market," and Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland," making our ancestors contemporaries and young lads, who, (in a reduced agrarian and tidewater population) were boys who probably had knowledge of and surely passed Miss Harriet Tubman on the streets. (East New Market was a prominent point on the Underground Railroad and Miss Tubman was from Cambridge, Dorchester County.) 

Above: 1860 U.S. Federal Census for the household of Stephen and Rebecca (Carroll) Andrews of Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland showing the [indentured] "John Reckards" and his brother George. They are shown adjacent to the two household Black servants.

                       

                         Above: Ms. Harriet Tubman of Dorchester County, Maryland

However, as I looked through the branches of both sides of my family tree, I found that for the most part, my ancestors were too poor, too religious, and largely too northern to have actively participated in the enslavement of other people. I don't doubt that they possessed all the biases and prejudices of the times, but I find no indication that most of them ever had the means "to own" anyone. This isn't to excuse anything, nor is it meant to judge them. Nor does come as some form of relief to know that "we" as a whole didn't generally contribute to the cruelty of slavery past our inherent participation in cultural mores or indirect economics. We don't get a pass here. We have in our family tree all the trappings of prejudice. You have only to consider "Uncle" Luke Schoolcraft, the famous "Negro impersonator" on my mother's side of the tree to let you know that being too poor or too religious or too northern didn't always apply.                 

However, in light of my sister's opening of Pandora's Box, I wanted to look a little further. I wanted to see just how close slavery did come to us. I wanted to know which one of our nearest ancestors had owned slaves, and well, to see what I could learn about the situation or circumstances. In doing so, I figured I wanted "the most near" and not "the most distant." As I mentioned, I am not writing this to judge them, only to get as close to slavery as possible. In my mind judging someone from 1750 makes little sense - but a clarification of judgment makes more so for say, 1860. 

Fortunately, I had trouble locating much of anyone who owned slaves on either side of my family tree. 

That is at least until I came across the name Thomas Melson.

Much of what I have recently learned about the Jones/Melson clan can be summed up anecdotally in this short essay written by my biological great-great-great grandfather, Joel Lafayette Melson. Below is his account of the Melson family history. It is an account that contains several embellishments that as of yet cannot be proven or can be labeled as genealogical fiction. Still, J.L.'s account gives us a good timeline of this branch of the family's entry into the New World. It is an account that also takes us back to that same name - that of Thomas Melson.           

     (And through Joel Lafayette Melson our relationship with Thomas Melson - his grandfather.)           

As they were by and large Virginians, the Melson family looks to have been associated with enslaved people early on. Interestingly enough, The Melsons are mentioned "by surname" in published slave narratives, most notably in the narrative of a slave named Solomon Bayley. Here he writes about how he had to purchase his wife from her master, "Brother Melson," but that he never seemed to be able to finish "paying for her." It is an interesting and well-written story of one man's truth and journey.

                               

A Narrative of Some Remarkable Incidents: The Life of Solomon Bayley (1825)  

The Melsons are also mentioned elsewhere, in the newspapers of the day:

The Norfolk Post, Norfolk Virginia, August 15, 1865

So as you can see, while the narrative and the newspapers do not mention our direct ancestors, it's pretty safe to say that these likely agnate branches of our Melson branch of the family tree (and thus our kinfolk) were well-versed in the practice of slavery. 

Now most of you won't know the name "James Melson Jones" - that is unless you've been stuck reading too many of my previous posts about locating him. James Melson Jones is my biological great-grandfather, the father of my paternal grandmother Katheryn (Ogle) Record (1914-1993). We've only recently discovered J.M. Jones through DNA connections, but it is here that I have found our most enduring connection to slavery - that's within the surname of "Melson" and our Melson ancestry. From this branch of the family tree, I was able to bring slavery unbearably close. 

As mentioned, this connection was via Thomas Melson (1788-1876).

My biological great-grandfather, James Melson Jones 1885-1966

The Melsons were very much connected to the Dents. The Dent Family was a wealthy Tidewater family in Maryland and Virginia and has given rise to notable people like First Lady Julia Boggs Dent, the wife of Ulysses Grant. The Dents were southern in their thinking, and by and large, it appears so was the Melson family. Our ancestor Thomas Melson mentioned above married Elizabeth Dent, and it is from them that we trace our most recent connection to slavery. I will include a brief pedigree chart from us to Thomas and Elizabeth (Dent) Melson. Below, is a biography of their son (and our direct ancestor) John Dent Melson that gives you a little background about their lives. 

Thomas Melson was a slaveholder. He did not hold vast numbers of slaves as the Dent family likely did. The census records record he and Elizabeth as having "one slave" in 1820, 1830, (not found in 1840) "two slaves" in 1850, and again, one in 1860, in Bedford County Virginia. 

I think the most disturbing image for Thomas is the 1820 census whereby he lists he has one slave, a girl, [listed] under the age of fourteen. It makes me wonder, was she a legatee? Was this girl a survivor of another "family" slave or a "recent purchase?" It makes me sick to think of this. I'm hopeful that Mrs. Melson just needed a maid and that the girl was well cared for. 

Right.

    

I think the last entry for Thomas Melson, that of the 1860 Slave Schedule where it shows he "owns" a forty-year-old unnamed man really shows the progression of the family in time - from needing a maid for Mrs. Melson to needing a manservant for an aging family. Needless to say, by 1870, there is no mention of any slaves or indeed of any black servants. I wanted to know though, Who was this slave? Sadly, I haven't been able to find out. As difficult as it is for enslaved people to trace their ancestry, it can be nearly as difficult for people like us to try and look back too and see just who these people were that our ancestors had enslaved. 

I thought I might find a Will for Thomas Melson, but Thomas lived until 1876 so any chance of a Will naming a former slave is probably negligible. By this time too, the Melson family had moved from Confederate Virginia to Confederate-sympathizing Missouri, so likely the Black manservant died by this time. I wondered: Was the "fourteen-year-old female slave of 1820 the mother of the forty-year-old man of 1860?" I really didn't expect to find out much about this legacy of slaves from the girl of 1820 or the forty-year-old man in 1860, but I admit, I would have at least liked to have found something as simple as a name.

I will no doubt keep looking though. I will return here from time to time to check stock of our spiritual ancestry and to see if down the line, there isn't some genetic tie between us, that is the Melson family, to a descendant of an enslaved person. The forty-year-old man, the fourteen-year-old girl...there is a story here in this line. I feel it.

As for the Melson family itself...The name Melson with all its sordid and curious past lives lives on. Below is a picture of my father's first cousin, Michael Melson Jones (1939-2016).                 

BY ALL ACCOUNTS, Michael Melson Jones seems to have been a good guy. I wonder if he knew about his (our) family's slave-holding history. I wonder if he had seen an account of slavery in an old newspaper or if he had ever read the old narratives.

I wonder if they all can rest easily or truly in peace.

I'm betting that somewhere a fourteen-year-old girl can't.

☮

       

                  

   

 

 Proving Thomas              

(Authors note: Sometimes in family history people get lost along the way. The job is to find them, and to tell their story if only for a wee bit.)

As always, unapologetically unedited...

 As I've started to parse out the different branches of my grandmother Gertrude (Burson) Record's side of the family tree, one of the more interesting stories I have encountered is the somewhat strange and bittersweet tale of a Revolutionary War soldier, an ancestor of mine by the name of Thomas Kent. Thomas was my great-grandmother Gertrude's alleged great-great-grandfather, so yes, I've had to go back a year or two to tell his story and attempt to connect the dots. Not to get lost in the mix of how he connects to me or to any of the rest of the story, I have added a screenshot below to better give you an idea of the genealogy:

Above: Pedigree chart from Gertrude (Burson) Record to Thomas Kent

Thomas Kent's connection comes through the marriage of his daughter "Susannah" to George Burson. Sadly, evidence of this marriage is largely anecdotal and appears to have been passed down by word of mouth rather than documented with vital records. George Burson certainly did marry a woman named "Susannah," as reflected on old land deeds, notably in Columbiana County, Ohio where "this story" takes place. However, if she was "Susannah [Kent] daughter of Thomas Kent who married George Burson" more work needs to be done.

Thomas Kent is reputed to have lived to be 103 years old.    

  

Much of the information we have about Thomas Kent comes from his 1833 application for a Revolutionary War pension (see cropped image above). The pension application "records" him in the first person telling about his life, where he was born, where he lived, and when he served. It follows his story from Prince William County, Virginia, through Loudon County, Virginia, and further to Columbiana County, Ohio. The pension application doesn't tell us the names of his wife or his children. Thus far, I am aware that no LW&T or other document has been found confirming the names of his wife or children. Family trees state that Thomas Kent had seven children, with another account referring to two of his children as simply "unnamed."  

However (and this is where it gets tricky) there is no daughter named Susannah.     

      

     Above: My descent through their son Thomas Burson who married Harriett Reeves begins here.

For the sake of argument and history, and based on the 1932 book History of the Burson Family, we will assume that Susannah was indeed a "Kent." Whether or not she was the "daughter of Thomas Kent" and further, if so, that she is the same daughter [Susannah] who married George Burson we can only infer. We can prove based on his pension statements that " a Thomas Kent" lived in [Fairfield township] Columbiana County, Ohio, (born in the year 1746 per his pension application) and is listed in the 1830 census. He is the correct age to be Susannah's father in the cemetery records that state "Susannah, wife of George Burson" was born in 1776.                                 

                              

To supplement this, we can prove that "a George Burson" lived in Elkrun Township, Columbiana County, Ohio in 1830. He is the right age to be the "George Burson who married Susannah" and his wife is the right age to be "Susannah" the alleged daughter of Thomas Kent.                           

We also see that the distance between the Kents and the Bursons of Columbiana County, Ohio in 1830 is negligible even by 1830 standards:          

While it seems like we have made a good that "Susannah, daughter of Thomas Kent, married George Burson" we haven't and at this point and maybe we never will. There is one thing left though that might help our assertion that the old Burson Genealogy is correct. At the bottom of the pension application for Thomas, where he is asked the names of the men who can attest to his military service and his character in telling the truth, there, at the bottom of the application are several of the Burson men. Most notable though, is the name of, George Burson.

While not proven, Thomas Kent has perhaps inadvertently named his son-in-law George Burson (and husband of his daughter Susannah) to attest to his statements!       

 Here is a transcription of the "Interrogations" for the RW pension application of Thomas Kent:

                           

                     

So while we haven't proven it, we have certainly added to the evidence in favor. I don't know about you, but at this point, I'm pretty comfortable calling Susannah, George Burson's wife, Thomas Kent's daughter.

But if you thought this was where the story ended, you might be mistaken. You see, somehow along the way, we managed to lose our ancestor Thomas Kent. Only in 2004 was it discovered that Thomas Kent's grave had been labeled as belonging to someone named "Benjamin Kent" and that the grave, incorrectly named, had also been abandoned for one hundred and fifty years or better.             

                               

    Our relationship to, and the story of our ancestor Thomas Kent, has been mislabeled and lost in time. In closing, I should mention that my Ancestry.com DNA profile matches 42 other people who also claim descent from Private Thomas Kent, late of Columbia County, Ohio.

103 years old!

Rest in peace, Grandfather.

⚐

                         

                  

                      

 

                             

Harriett and the Clockmaker   

     As always, unapologetically unedited...                        

        Believed to be Harriett (Reeves) Burson

(Author's note: This post is straight-up family history, and, like a wise woman once said, "Nothing is more boring than somebody else's family history." This is a "reasoning account" - and a work in progress. Reader beware. :)

                       

Such is the story of Harriett and the clockmaker.

I've always wondered about Harriett. The poor gal has stuck around tethered to the not-so-distant branches of my family tree for many years. Her name, noted without detail as "Harriet Burson," is perhaps first recorded by my Grandmother Katheryn Record in the family album she bought on sale at the Sprouse Reitz back in about '65. The details must have been more than scant. My grandmother didn't have much more than a name to etch in that old book when it came to Harriett. 

By way of introduction, "Harriet/Harrietta/ Harriett Reeve/Rieve/Reave/Reeves" (1809-1880) was my great-grandmother Gertrude (Burson) Record's paternal grandmother. Now Gertude's family, the Burson family, is pretty well recorded, or at least anecdotally so through History of the Burson Family published in 1932. However, as to the families of the women who married into them, women like that of Harriett Reeves', the author didn't go beyond the basics. Until recently, there hasn't been much to go on. 

                                              

Not long ago, and purely by chance, I confirmed the name of Harriett's father was a man called "Benjamin Reeves" and her presumed mother, a lady simply called "Ann"_____. Again by chance, I had managed to locate the Last Will and Testament of Benjamin Reeve's, which named "Harriett" and her husband Thomas Burson - my great grandmother Gertrude's grandparents. This helped me push "The Reeves" branch of my Burson Family back just a little bit further, mostly from Ohio into Pennsylvania via the 1880 census.

It has also helped that the Bursons and the Reeves families were largely devout Quakers, and the Mid-Atlantic Quakers kept great records. 

Still, going further back from Harriett's father Benjamin Reeves has been challenging. Benjamin is well noted in the Quaker records, but there hasn't been much of anything to connect him to his father, at least not until recently. This is likely an extrapolation based on presumed onomastic family ties, but a record has come to light that mentions the Reeves family at the Middletown, Columbiana County Ohio, Meetings, and is a record grouped together chronologically. Here, and next to the entry about Benjamin Reeves, his wife Ann, and daughter Harriett, is mention of Joshua Reeves, his wife Millicent (Carr) Reeves, and their family. Noting this, I wondered if I wasn't looking at Benjamin's father and mother. I wondered: Could Joshua and Millicent be Benjamin's parents?  Elsewhere, Joshua Reeves and Millicent Carr Reeves appear to be pretty well documented. 

Yet somehow it just didn't work. The timeline didn't work for Joshua to be Benjamin's father. 

It does work though for them to have (likely) been brothers.                          

Using this as a genealogical supposition, I followed the line back from Joshua Reeves as a presumed brother of Benjamin and uncle of Harriet (Reeves) Burson. Interestingly enough, family trees show Joshua's father documented as being named "Benjamin Reeves, Sr." And while there is much work left to do to support this line, it was here where things were starting to take shape. 

I found birth records for both Joshua Reeves and Benjamin Reeves and found that both men were both were taxed in Columbiana County, Ohio in the year 1809 - Joshua was listed on page 20, Benjamin on page 19.

Based off of the submitted family trees and other secondary sources, (and the birth and tax records for both Joshua Reeves and his brother Benjamin)  they are the sons of Bejmanin, Sr, and his wife Rachel Tyler. Normally, these records wouldn't carry a great deal of genealogical weight. However, given the first record above showing both Joshua and Benjamin (and of course our heroine Harriett Burson too) all at the same Middleton Meeting House in Columbiana County, Ohio leads me to believe that if these two Reeves men were not in fact brothers they were very likely kinsman. Then there is the repetition of the name "Benjamin." While it is a common name, the fact of its repeated use in this instance gives this working theory more credence. 

Per Guilford College Library: "recrq" – received (into membership) by request, rather than by transfer of membership from another Friends Meeting.

The 1805 notation in the record for Joshua Reeves stated that he came from the "Mt. Holly" meeting house - is in New Jersey. The 1814 note for Benjamin Reeves states that she was received at the Middleton Meeting in Columbiana County, Ohio by "recrq." This is a Quaker term that means Benjamin was brought in "by request" possibly by another member, his brother Joshua. (The use of this acronym seems fluid by design.)

All of this lends to the theory that the men were brothers, however, transcripts of Benjamin Reeves Sr.'s LW&T don't name a son, Benjmain, Jr - though birth records certainly show he had one. Benjamin Sr. died in 1802. Benjamin, Sr. does name his son Joshua. The two men, Ben Jr. and Joshua certainly had to have known each other. Given the small population of Middleton, Columbiana County, Ohio at the time the odds of their being two separate and distinct Reeves families living "next door" to each other and worshipping in the same Quaker church at the same time seems beyond remote.

I may be going out on a genealogical whim here, but these two men, if not brothers, were surely kinsmen of Benjamin Reeves, Sr.

   

   

MIDDLETON MEETING HOUSE

Columbiana, County, Ohio

It opened in 1803 but split in 1828 due to a division within the Quaker Church

In any event, Harriett's family and Joshua's worshipped at this same place, making it likely that Benjamin came west to join his brother Joshua. If this supposition holds true (and based on the Quaker records found so far) this means we can now trace the Reeves branch of the Burson family back to Benjamin Reeves, Sr, (1737-1801) and his wife Rachel Tyler (1733-1778). 

Now this Benjamin Reeves, Sr is an interesting guy. 

You see, he was a clockmaker.

And a pretty dam good one too. 

In fact, if you are feeling flush with cash, you can still buy one of his clocks today:

http://antiquesandfineart.com/dealers/item.cfm?id=443&pid=6432&pg=3

Or, if you are poor, just stop by the museum to see one of his clocks:

Pushing the boundaries back on this branch of the family has been serendipitous but also bittersweet. As you will see in the above Quaker record Harriett Reeves Burson was considered "dis mou" by her Quaker community. This means basically that she was "kicked out" for some reason or other. (It may simply be because of the rift that was happening within the Quaker Chruch in 1828)  The true reason was likely because she married outside of the Quaker faith, though this may not be the exact reason either, as the Bursons themselves were certainly Quakers. 

To compound the serendipity here is the fact that Joshua Reeve's eldest daughter Hannah, married a man named William Schooley - The Schooley family was also Quaker, and also one that Harriett's granddaughter Gertrude (Burson) Record's husband Frank Record was descended from.

While The Record Family itself does not appear to have been Quaker or of Quaker origins, their Mid-Atlantic roots co-mingled early on through their intermarriages to the Quaker families, like those of the Reeves, Bursons, Schooleys, and Kents who moved westward to Kansas through Ohio in a similar (and concurrent) migration pattern. I hope someday to have a better understanding of them all.

"All in good time."

END

Six Degrees of Benjamin Reeves 

as always, unapologetically unedited...

(Authors note: Sometimes, genealogy is like a game of Chinese Checkers scratched out on a chalkboard. You just go with what you've got and hope for the best.)

You know, like this:

(I → D) ∧ (I → (Y1 ∧ Y2)) ∧ (D → (Y1 ∧ Y2)) ∧ ((Y1 ∧ Y2 ∧ I) → B) ∧ (D → B) 

                                           ******

Nah, that's not him. That's not Ben.

Not that you were wondering about the guy in the pic - but I gotta tell ya that the dude shown above just isn't Benjamin Reeves (ca. 1761-ca.1851). That's because, the truth is, I don't really have a picture of Ben, and further, this whole post really isn't about old Ben at all... 

Say what??  

Nope. It's about how to get back to Ben, or whatever "degree of separation" it is that separates "us all" from him - Old Ben - or in the end, from each other. Sadly, the picture above is just as close an image of Benjamin Reeves as I could find or come up with, as well, Ben's been dead a long time. (Um, duh...) As near as I can tell, the guy in the picture is likely Ben's grandson Hiram Burson, my great-great-grandfather. What? Remember I said that genealogy could be a lot like Chinese Checkers? Well, maybe I should have said like a game of Horse Shoes instead. Horse Shoes on a chalkboard.

Egads.

                 

But my friends, correct picture or not, this is how you have "the first degree of separation" to him - the guy not in the picture - Benjamin Reeves.

What the Hell are you talking about now, Jeff? Do you ever shut the Hell up about this stuff?

Now it isn't that I don't have anything "all about Benjamin." Actually, I have something nearly better than an "almost maybe isn't" picture of someone I believe may possibly be a youthful image of his grandson Hiram via his daughter Harriet. (Did you get all that??:/) You see, I have Ben's Last Will and Testament. (Can you say how awesome is that? Normally, at this point I would be giving a shout-out for, "Winner, winner, chicken, dinner," but sadly that's not the case.)

                                     

Okay, I probably should just cut to the chase...

Remember, this isn't about Benjamin. (This time.) It's about how to "get there" (to Ben) genealogically speaking. And sadly again, at this point Ben's LW&T is useless, sort of like a finial at the top of the old grandfather clock. 

But as usual, I digress:

Let me introduce the control group. 

                                                     YE OLDE CONTROL GROUP

                               

I guess I had better first mention, Dan Wells. The control group above shows our shared DNA matches or the people that we are both related to. Any of you who might have reluctantly followed the story behind this will know that Dan and are curious cousins, to say the least. Dan and I are genetic acquaintances thrown into a curious combination of a homemade version of Who Do You Think You Are? and Finding Nemo at the same time. I met Dan through our "DNA match in common" on Ancestry.com. Dan has been on an incredible journey genealogically speaking. You may have heard me blather on that with a little bit of due diligence I was able to help Dan discover who his father had been "switched at birth" with as a baby back in 1943. (Now that was a wild one!) It helps too that Dan Wells is a pretty damn good guy interested in his ancestry and the past.

      

                               Dan and family

The curious thing about all of this though has been that Dan Wells is related to me through both my mother and father. But for all the genealogical cheese and crackers in me, I cannot figure the Flock out how.

             

Ah yes, back to the control group. (It sounds so official.:) 

So in light of this, (that is the quandary of my complex "cousin-try" to Dan) I decided to go back to Ancestry.com's DNA results and look at what other matches Dan Wells and I share "in common". In other words, I wanted to check out again who are/were we both related to?

This "control group" showed four matches in common between Dan and me. 

I share two maternal ancestors in common with Dan and two paternal ones. So I took another look at each one of these "slightly lacking and suck-ass" (excuse my language here) family trees that each member of the control group had submitted to see if there was anything that might come out in the wash, point me in a new direction, or genealogically speaking, fall out of the tree. Yuk. Yuk. I'm not trying to bag on anybody's family tree that they're working on. (Dan's is actually really, really well done) BUT some of these folks only take a DNA test to see if they're Finnish, Vulcan, or of Cro-magnon ancestry and stop at filling in the blanks or doing the damn work...

Again, I digress...

Starting with the two (X1 and X2) "maternal connections" I share with Dan, I wondered that since he and I were both related to say "X1" then who else was X1 and I related to? I took a look here and followed up with a look/premise maternal connection X2.

In a nutshell, I got nowhere fast on the maternal matches. 

Sorry, mom, no luck here.

On to the paternal matches.

Starting out with Dan and my shared match of Y1 and Y2 I repeated the same 'procedure." I wondered who else Y1 and I were related to while reasoning that it was "possibly likely" that Dan was related to that person in common too. (Hey, you gotta start someplace, right?)  This time, the results took on a different shape. The results said that my shared matches with Y1 and I had an ancestor in common. They said that our match showed we shared "six instances of matches" in common to, well, you guessed it, the same ancestor in common. 

Yeah, that guy not in the picture above. A guy you might have heard of before. I guy called:

"Benjamin Reeves."

So I tried it again with match paternal match in common Y2.

I got the same answer with six different folks.

I got six more "instances of matches" in common, to, well, of course, Benjamin Reeves.

So, to back the bus up here for a minute: I match to Dan Wells, and he and I both match to two people (Y1 and Y2) who between them both show that I match to "twelve instances of matches in common" to a common ancestor in:

Benjamin Reeves. 

Say what? Twelve?????

Does that mean Dan Wells is six degrees from Benjamin Reeves too? Heck, I'm still trying to figure it out. So in light of this, I decided to take advantage of AI and see what it thought of "my logic." I know this doesn't exactly give me "the proof" I need, but still, it's pretty cool to see my craziness aligned up "properly" if not curiously on the proverbial chalkboard. AI told me this:

"Now, we can translate the statements as follows:

1. I match to Dan Wells: I → D
2. I match to (Y1) and (Y2): I → (Y1 ∧ Y2)
3. Dan Wells matches to (Y1) and (Y2): D → (Y1 ∧ Y2)
4. (Y1), (Y2), and I match Benjamin Reeves: (Y1 ∧ Y2 ∧ I) → B
5. Dan Wells matches to Benjamin Reeves: D → B

Therefore, the expression of logic representing the given statements is:

(I → D) ∧ (I → (Y1 ∧ Y2)) ∧ (D → (Y1 ∧ Y2)) ∧ ((Y1 ∧ Y2 ∧ I) → B) ∧ (D → B)"

Dang, a real expression. My bullshit actually has an expression.

Don't you just love cheating on your brain by using AI?

Now Benjamin Reeves is my fourth great-grandfather. The ancestry algorithm defines Dan Wells as my likely third cousin once removed to a fourth cousin (both for my mother and dad to make things even more weird) which also fits with my relationship with again, Benjamin Reeves.

See what I mean?

The problem is I can't see where the Reeves family is related to Dan Wells - at all.

There is something here though - and not to beleaguer the point - but a good half of Dan's relatives come from Pennsylvania, and specifically, the counties around the area of Philadelphia. And would you just know it, Benjamin Reeves is also stated (in the 1880 census by his daughter Harriett Burson) to have been born in Pennsylvania. There is even some distantly anecdotal proof that the Reeves clan hailed from across the River in nearby New Jersey. The time frame is about the same too...but so hard to pin down. It's so close...and with these other twelve incidental matches shared in common from Ye Olde Control Group...

What the flock can it all mean?

                             

Ben's daughter Mrs. Harriett (Reeves) Burson -

(we think)

So yeah, as you are considering all this useless information, and as you consider that I spend way too much time pondering the ancestral natures of us all, consider that Ye Olde Control Group may have at least pointed me in the right direction of just how my most pleasant and erstwhile cousin Dan and I are related to each other. It seems like that, in this instance, Benjamin Reeves, (or perhaps one of his nephews or uncles) may have stepped out in the town and started a branch of our mutual families that we're never really going to be able to figure out. Did I mention that these people were all predominately Pennsylvania Quakers? 

Nothing like a bunch of randy-ass Quakers to churn up the cookie mix.

                     

Yeah, as far as "me and Benjamin Reeves" go, that might be the proverbial "six degrees of separation" from me to erstwhile Cousin Dan. 

Or, in simpler terms, it might just be how the old ancestral cookie crumbles. Wink!

Until next time.

☮