[Granville-Hough] 9 Jan 2010 - Possible Incestuous Marriage

[Trustees for Granville W. Hough]

Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 06:35:34 -0800
From: Granville W Hough <gwhough at oakapple.net>
Subject: Possible Incestuous Marriage - 9 Jan 2010.

    Why does this interest us?  Probably because it was so rare.  I knew
of no other case in Smith County. As farmers, we all knew the dangers of
inbreeding and the sometimes freakish results.  We routinely destroyed
any part of a litter which looked abnormal, and we particularly checked
inbred litters.  We expected something like that to happen in cases of
incest, that is the freakish results..
    Now, as I understand Martha Miller's version of the events, it
sounds about
like Chuck Barry's rock tune, central theme, "She say she don't, I know
she do.."
As I follow it, the legal father of the bride tells the prospective
son-in-law, "No, you can't marry my daughter, because you are my son and
her half brother."  Then, when confronted, the mother of the daughter
and prospective bride says: "It's really all right because this man, my
husband, you call your father, is not your father at all and is no
relation to you.  Therefore, you are not related to the young man you
want to marry.  Go ahead!"
    If true, the boastful Lothario who started the trouble really got
his comeuppance.  It's really worthy of a TV drama.  In fact, I saw a
history of Jewish families who had resorts in the New York mountains;
and this apocryphal story was told each year by Yiddish-speaking
entertainers.   So some such event was legendary in cultures far removed
from Sullivan's Hollow.
    I'd say this does prove there was a marriage thought by some to be
incestuous, but denied by others who had every reason to know the truth.
To be remembered 100 to 150 years later in different families suggests
it was discussed rather widely at the time. My best guess as to names is
that it was a McAlpin who wasn't to an Ainsworth who wasn't.  Which was
male and  female, I don't know.  Lacks don't seem to fit into it.  Maybe
there was another surname we haven't identified.  I do know that the
Lacks mentioned were said to be first cousins to the McAlpins I knew,
and they were remarkably similar in appearance.  So much for that.
    What seem to be factual are:
   1. Elizabeth McAlpin had young children for whom census records do
not list a father, but recorded as McAlpins.
    2. Jasper County newspaper records indicate that her husband, John
McAlpin,
was murdered in 1845, after the family had moved into Smith County near
old Taylorsville.  As a widow, Elizabeth McAlpin then moved her family
into a community north of Mize.  (Incidentally, my finding a record of
an overseer McAlpin, without family, could be a misreading of the
census, or it could be another McAlpin not involved.)
    Conclusion:  Any suspected incestuous marriage probably included one
of the younger children of Elizabeth McAlpin, and those children did not
necessarily have the same father.
    Because of the drama, I like Martha's version.  yDNA testing of
descendants would clear up any doubts.  With my regards,
Granville.