A number of theories have floated around in family trees and histories, both published and on the internet, for several decades. None offer much if anything in the way of proof. Researchers of this family have been relying on oral history and intuition to reach the conclusions they want. To them, ANY answer appears to be better to them than NO answer at all, even if their answer doesn't make a lot of sense. Some have been quick to proffer one theory, and another researcher won't like everything about it, and so they'll alter slightly to fit what they believe is a more acceptable narrative. Both will then act as if their theories are factual rather than, well, THEORIES. Then still other researchers were so offended by the circumstances put forth for these previous theories that they went in a completely different direction to satisfy their need for the Sain portion of their tree to look right and proper and like most other branches of their tree.
If this all sounds confusing, that’s because it is. I'm not delving into the specifics of each of these theories right away because I want to get to them one by one. But unlike most researchers of this family before me, I am adding this disclaimer from the beginning: this is my THEORY of the Sain parentage. It cannot currently be satisfactorily proven, though I believe it COULD be EVENTUALLY. I am NOT claiming that anything said from here is the final, end-all be-all answer to our primary question. But unlike other researchers, I can offer evidence that supports my theory, including evidence that was not yet available when the previous theories were shared. All I can ask is that those who read this approach it with an open mind. If necessary, re-read the theories of the four brothers' parentage yourself right now before going any further here and recognize that there are never any primary (or even secondary) SOURCES listed for ANY of the information they report. There is one exception, where one theory (the one I believed for years because it offered sources) DOES offer sources, but as I will lay out here, the researcher misread or misinterpreted these sources and did not look at all the available information that would have disproved their interpretations.
So to reiterate, I am going to explore all the previous theories of the four Sain brothers' parentage, then I am going to explore all of the available SOURCES and RESOURCES we have, and give my own conclusion. This will be my THEORY, and you are willing to deem it reliable or not based on your interpretation of the information I present.
Who Are the "Four Sain Brothers"? And Why Do We Think They Are Brothers?
The Four Sain Brothers are Samuel Austin Sain, Elisha Reynolds Sain, Noah Webster Sain, and Thomas Sain. They all four appear in records at the same time for the first time in 1850. Previously, the eldest of the four, Samuel, could be found in the 1840 Census, and Elisha and Noah are listed on their marriage records, in 1842 and 1840, respectively.
They never appear in a single record or document together as a group. In fact, none of the four of them ever appear in records together one on one. As far as I can tell, there has been no satisfactory documentation linking the four of them as brothers beyond intuition and guess-work. In the aforementioned 1850 Census, they all four appear in DIFFERENT COUNTIES, in TWO different STATES. It's not like they were all living next door to one another. None of them left a will or other document naming their brothers; none of them were named as brothers in someone else's will or other record. So where did we even come up with the idea that these four men who are in four different places in the 1850 Census, the first time all four appear anywhere at once (by name), are brothers? Just the fact that they have the same last name and no one knows where else they belong?
I truly don't know the answer to "How were these four grouped together in the first place?" And I don't know even now if they should be. I can explore the circumstantial and now genetic evidence that exists that may tie them together, but NOTHING is definitive purely because of the LACK of records and primary sources.
So what could tie these four men together? Besides having the same last name, of course. They are roughly 9 years apart in age, certainly close enough to realistically be siblings; it's not like we're talking about 30-40 year age gaps. Three and possibly four of them were born in the same state. Samuel Austin Sain reported in 1850 that he was born in North Carolina. In 1860, he reported he was born in Tennessee. It's difficult to say which is true. The other three consistently reported their states of birth as Tennessee. So whether or not Samuel was born in NC or TN, it is reasonable to assume that if there were a question as to which he was born in, he likely came to Tennessee at a very young age. So then we can conclude that the four of them were in Tennessee at the same time during at least some portion of their infancies, childhoods, or formative years.
From there, it is easy to ascertain that there are relatively few Sain households in Tennessee in 1820, when at least two and possibly three of these men had already been born; Thomas was the youngest, born in 1824. In fact, "relatively few" is an underestimate; there are presumably two, and we can only find one. There is only Sain household we can find in the 1820 Census that can be satisfactorily proven to be a Sain. We also know that a John Michael Sain/Sane got married in Greene County, TN in 1819, but we cannot find him in the 1820 Census. There are others transcribed as "Sane" who are actually "Lane", an important distinction that will later a play a definitive role in disproving one of the theories of the brothers' parentage. That ONE definitive Sain household in the 1820 Census of Tennessee is that of Daniel Sain.
Daniel Sain is a primary figure in all of the theories of the Sain brothers' parentage. In them, he is always either their grandfather, step-grandfather, or great uncle. I think it's interesting that none of these theories conclude that Daniel was their father. A number of family trees online do--in fact the vast majority of online trees [incorrectly] have Daniel as their father. I am not going to speculate about why in all the theories of the boys' parentage they don't consider Daniel the most viable candidate, because I agree that he is NOT their father. But I do think it's interesting how this isn't widely considered a viable idea given that he did father at least three children in the same timeframe that the three oldest "brothers" were born.
So given that there is only one Sain household in Tennessee enumerated on the 1820 Census, and barring the theory that there were others that were not enumerated (other than John Michael) or that are hiding due to mistranscription, we can safely conclude that if all the boys were born (or spent their infancy) in Tennessee between 1815-1824, they are almost certainly linked to Daniel one way or another. This is also a given in the fact that virtually all persons in the United States with the surname Sain apear to connect back to Daniel's father Casper Zirn, a surname that was changed to Sain, one way or another. But specifically due to the lack of other Sain families in Tennessee during the time that these boys were born, we can believe that there is a connection between them one way or another.
Before delving into what that connection might be, we still need to determine why these boys are believed to be brothers. We have stated their similar backgrounds and shared connection to Daniel (one way or another) but that is all they have in common at this point. Why connect them as brothers?
The first connection I can make is not the most solid but it is one of the few we have to go on. The "third brother" was Noah W. Sain. We don't have a definitive record proving his middle name. But we do have the fact that the "second brother", Elisha Reynolds Sain, named his fourth son Noah Webster Sain. Noah was not a terribly common name, and throw in the shared middle initial and it would appear that perhaps Elisha named his son after his brother. It also appears that Elisha's son Noah was born right around the time of the death of the elder Noah. We know he died between 1850-1860. Family trees have him dying about 1855, no source provided, and the younger Noah was born about 1854. It could be coincidence, or the naming could be a tribute to a recently-deceased brother.
There is also the interesting fact that both Elisha and Noah named their first sons William H. Sain. Elisha's son is William Houston Sain. It is not clear if this was also the middle name for Noah's son. Unfortunately, numerous genealogies have confused the two men because of their similar ages (both born in 1842) and shared names. Many attach William Houston Sain as the son of Noah, but this not accurate. I have laid out the case against this idea here: http://thesaltofamerica.blogspot.com/2015/07/william-h-sain-of-newton-county-arkansas.html
Unfortunately, you can only put so much stock in similar naming patterns and shared names. There are no other crossovers in the names of the brothers' children except that Thomas also names a son William H. Sain and three of the four use the common name Thomas as either a first or middle name.
Next, we can look at geography. Elisha never lives anywhere near the other three "brothers" as an adult. He goes from Shelby County, Alabama, to Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, to Mississippi to Arkansas. None of the other three left Tennessee as far as we know. Those three were living in adjacent counties for the years we have them in the Census. In 1850, Samuel, Noah, and Thomas are in Warren, Cannon, and Coffee counties, respectively; these three counties border each other. Noah dies before 1860, and Samuel and Thomas are again in Warren and Coffee counties, respectively. Then Samuel died and Thomas lived out his days in Coffee County. So these three at least did all reside in the same region of Tennessee at the same time, not spread across to different corners of the state. The aforementioned Daniel also resided in Warren County up until his death in 1850.
At this point, we have laid out all of the provable links these men could have had to each other through the few records and documentation that are available to us. As you can see, it's not much to go by. Fortunately for us, in recent years, genetic genealogy has flourished and millions of people have had their DNA tested and shared their family trees to compare. Using DNA samples from four first cousins in my family (my great uncle and his three first cousins, two of whom are half-siblings to one another) I have been able to look through their DNA matches to reach other conclusions.
The genetic link between the descendants of Samuel Austin Sain and Elisha Reynolds Sain is irrefutable. Their collective descendants match each other frequently and relatively closely. It is a relative certainty that Elisha and Samuel were either full or half-brothers. Their descendants match too closely for that not to be the case. Interestingly, absent from the DNA matches of my four Elisha Reynolds Sain descendants (all four of whom are his 2nd great grandchildren) are any descendants of Noah W. Sain or Thomas Sain. Not ONE of their matches at any level from Extremely High to Moderate report themselves as descendants of these two. That doesn't mean there aren't any; there could be matches that are descendants of Noah or Thomas but don't have family trees shared. But among the DNA matches that report themselves to be Sain descendants from whatever family, none of them are descendants of Thomas or Noah.
Again, you can't read too far into that for a variety of reasons. Perhaps relatively few of their descendants have been tested. Perhaps they have been tested on sites other than Ancestry.com where my four were tested. Or perhaps their genetic links have disappeared through recombination and they simply no longer share DNA, as is the case with 50% of fourth cousins. If Elisha and Thomas/Noah were brothers, my four testers would be 4th cousins or possibly half-fourth cousins to the 2nd great grandchildren of Thomas/Noah, so there is a good statistical chance they wouldn't share any autosomal DNA with one another. It is also possible that the Samuel Austin Sain descendants we DO match have their own matches that are descendants of Thomas/Noah but not to my bunch. Or other Elisha Reynolds Sain descendants that match Thomas/Noah descendants, but our particular branch doesn't. There are numerous possibilities so it's not worth delving into too heavily here. But I can conclude, that based on what data I do have, my own family's DNA DOES indicate that Elisha and Samuel were brothers or half-brothers, but DOES NOT prove that he or they were siblings to Noah or Thomas.
Of the four, I am fairly satisfied tying Samuel, Elisha, and Noah as brothers based on the genetic and circumstantial evidence presented here. The one I am least satisfied with is Thomas. I haven't seen anything that really ties him to the others. There is, however, some anecdotal evidence in the form of some oral history that does appear to tie him as a sibling to these three, but I will have to expand on that further on. I just wanted to say, if only for my own sake, that of the four, I find Thomas to be the most suspect as far as considering him to be one of the four brothers.
Daniel Sain & His Family
Next, I think it's important to explore what is believed to be the most firm link between the four brothers that we can identify: Daniel Sain. Whether he is their grandfather, step-grandfather, adoptive father, great uncle, or some mixture of these relationships will be explored further on. But before we reach that point, I do think that outlining what we know of Daniel and his family and exploring what few records we have of them will help us when it comes to piecing together a connection between Daniel and the brothers.
Daniel Sain was born in Rowan County, North Caroline in 1780 to Casper Zirn and Rosanna Mocke. At some point, likely between 1790 and 1800, he married a woman who in some ways is as much of an enigma as our Sain brothers. In the three records we have that definitively show her name, none of them line up. In the 1850 Census, she is Mary. In the 1860 Census, she is Margaret. On her headstone dated 1863, she is Martha. I am inclined to go with the name that her children went to the trouble of having etched onto her headstone for eternity: Martha. So I will refer to her as such, but am acknowledging that she could have a different first name and this could be her middle name, or even one of multiple middle names. She is also referred to as "Patty" or "Patsy" in oral histories, which is usually a nickname for Martha, so this is the name I prefer to use for her.
No death records for any of their purported children have been found, and no marriage record for Daniel and Martha has been found, so it is important to note that no definitive record exists proving her maiden name.
[Louder for the people in the back!]
NO DEFINITIVE RECORD EXISTS PROVING HER MAIDEN NAME.
That said, there is circumstantial evidence indicating that her maiden name was possibly Davis; this assertion is largely, if not solely, based on her son Klineberry's middle name being Davis. She was born approximately 1774 in Pennsylvania. The 1850 Census gives that year, and her age at her death in 1863 was "about 90 years" according to her headstone, so while disregarding the 1860 Census that says she was born about 1766, we can safely believe she was born about 1774. That means she was about 6 years older than her husband Daniel. So some have said that Davis could possibly be even a first married name rather than a maiden name, but there is no proof of either.
All that is believed--not known, but believed--is that a POSSIBLE, THEORETICAL, UNPROVEN grandchild of Daniel and Martha MIGHT POSSIBLY, THEORETICALLY, MAYBE have had the middle name of Davis. That's it. That is all that I can find as far as the reasoning for giving Martha the maiden name Davis. It's that a man listed in records as "L. B. D. Sain" was really named "Little Berry Davis Sain", and he might have been the grandson of Daniel and Martha, and so Martha's maiden name might have been Davis. Not a lot to go on, is it? Really makes you question a lot of what is reported in genealogies on the Sain family, or it does for me.
Because of a lack of marriage record, we are also not clear on whether this was a first or second marriage for either Daniel or Martha. Martha being roughly 6 years older than Daniel begs the question as to whether he was her first husband or not, but it is certainly not a given. No proof of a first marriage or children by a first marriage has been located.
An interesting fact about Daniel that more firmly connects him to two of the four brothers is his profession. A general merchandise account book from an A. Nesbitt in Mocksville, NC gives several entries for Daniel Sain from December, 1815 to August, 1816. Most of those entries specify his profession: blacksmith. This was a trade typically passed through families. One of Daniel's sons was also a documented blacksmith, and two of the four brothers were as well: Samuel and Elisha. Daniel's son Basil, and those two brothers were all listed as engaging the blacksmith trade in the 1860 Census.
Samuel and Elisha's DNA ties them together. Their professions tie them together. Samuel can be tied to Warren County where Daniel resided. And all three can be tied by their shared profession. These facts further indicate that there is indeed a close connection between the brothers and Daniel, but it's matter of working out what the connection is. I think the starting point is to outline Daniel's family, and then examining his household's census records.
There have been eight people identified as the children of Daniel Sain that I am satisfied with attaching to him. There is another supposed child linked to them that I am more concerned about; he is more likely a grandchild. And the likelihood exists that was at least one more child in this family whom has not been satisfactorily identified.
Because he left no will and courthouse fires led to the loss of records that could determine relationships, we have a lot of guesswork in this family. But the following children can be linked to Daniel through some early church records and a satisfying amount of circumstantial evidence:
1. Ira Casper Sain - Born 1802 in North Carolina. I am not satisfied with proof that his first name was Ira, but the 1860 Census at least indicates his first name started with "I", listing him as I. C. Most records call him Casper. He is in Warren County in the 1830 and 1840 Censuses, and his age and birthplace fit as a child of Daniel.
2. Klineberry Davis Sain - Born 19 Dec 1805 in North Carolina. Source of date of birth and name comes from the records of the Heidelberg Church or Old Dutch Meeting House in what was originally Rowan County and is now Davie County, NC. He appears to be living in 1820, but it is unclear what happened to him after that. He is NOT the Little Berry D. Sain of Texas, whom I will discuss below.
3. Debitha "Tabbie" Sain - Born 25 Mar 1809. Died before 1850 Census. Source of date of birth and name comes from aforementioned records of the Heidelberg Church. Across the board, her children report her birthplace as Tennessee, but this church record proves she was born in North Carolina. To be fair, it appears she died before the oldest child in the family was more than roughly 15 years old, so her children may not have known her well enough to know her place of birth. She married Joseph Rhea. They resided in Grundy County, Tennessee. The death certificate for Frank Rhea, born 1842, gives his mother's name as Tabbie Sain. Joseph Rhea's, born 1840, death certificate gives his mother's maiden name as Sain. These death certificates and their proximity to Daniel Sain, who is buried in Grundy County, indicates that Tabbie was the daughter of Daniel. Having not seen the original record itself, I am not convinced that the church record entry for her birth doesn't say "Tabitha" rather than "Debitha", or that we're not looking at some other deviation of the spelling, as "Tabbie" is more logically a nickname for "Tabitha" than "Debitha", but that is purely speculation.
4. George Mumford Sain - Born 30 Apr 1811. Died before 1850 Census. Usually listed as "George Mumford" or "Munford" Sain. Listed as "Mumford Sain" in the aforementioned Heidelberg Church records, which is the source of his date of birth. He is in Warren County in the 1840 Census as George M. "Saine", listed on same page as Casper. His wife is widowed by the 1850 Census. His proximity to Casper and shared surname indicates he likely was Daniel's son. Church record book proves he was born in North Carolina. It should also be noted that it is possible neither "Mumford" or "Munford" are correct middle names; a son of Sarah Maletta Sain Henry (see number 4) was George "Mumphrey", which is close enough to the other two names to call into question whether that might have been George's actual middle name. Again, like with "Debitha"/"Tabitha" we could be looking at some sort of deviation, but that is only speculation.
5. Sarah Maletta Sain - Born 29 Aug 1814 - Died 4 Jan 1896. She was born in North Carolina. She is the first of these four that has an identified and legible headstone. She was the wife of John R. Henry and mother of 12 or more children. Fortunately, that means that numerous documents exist showing her maiden name as Sain even though a marriage record does not exist. In 1850, the family can be found in Coffee County, TN. They then went to Howell County, MO, where most of the family settled for generations. Her son Nimrod B. Henry's 1897 marriage record in Oklahoma gives her maiden name as Sain. The death certificates of her sons Samuel H. Henry (1921), Daniel C. Henry (1910), George M. Henry (1926), James G. Henry (1928), and Mary J. Henry Barnett (1936). Oddly, her son Thomas's death certificate (1931) gives her maiden name as Hale but given what all his brothers' records state, this can be disregarded as an error by the informant. And in an important non-coincidence, one of Sarah's sons was closely connected with one of the sons of Elisha Reynolds Sain. Nimrod Bailey Henry and Noah Webster Sain both lived in the tiny community of Brinton in Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma in the early 1900s. They both also lived in Garvin County, Oklahoma, and are buried just a few miles apart, one just north of tiny Lindsay, Oklahoma, and the other just south of Lindsay. This pair were clearly aware of their mutual kinship. The odds of the two of them ending up in Brinton, Oklahoma at the same time and then ending up in Lindsay, Oklahoma at the same time and NOT being close kin, considering their parents' origins, are astronomical.
6. Basil Gaither Sain - Born about 1814 in North Carolina. Some believe he was a twin to Sarah, and based on their census records that does seem possible, but no headstone or record giving his precise date of birth exists so it has not been proven. Basil appears in census records for Warren County in 1840 and 1850, Coffee County in 1860, and Bedford County in 1870. There really is no argument about whether or not Daniel is Basil's father; it is certainly a match.
7. Nimrod B. Sain - Born 22 Feb 1817 - Died 4 Oct 1902. Born in North Carolina. The second of Daniel's children to have an identified and legible headstone. Like with Basil, there really is no argument against applying him as the son of Daniel. Many given him the middle name "Booe" but I have seen no documentation of that middle name; Booe is a maiden surname of some of their North Carolina Sain kin. Nimrod can be found in either Grundy or Coffee counties in all his census records.
8. Margaret Sain - Born about 1820. Margaret is listed under a number of different names online, including Margarita Sain, Ritter Sain, and Margaret Martha Sain. Some give her the maiden name of Kane, but that is likely a mistranscription of Sane. She married James Kelton and can be found in Warren County in 1850 with four children between the ages of 2-11. In 1860, she can be found in Williamson County, IL, now the mother of two additional children. By 1870, her husband is still in Williamson County, IL, but he is now widowed and the parent of two additional daughters. Most of these children have been traced as far as they can and either died before death certificates were prominent or else they haven't been located. The oldest child in the family, William Kelton, died in 1924; his death certificate does not give his mother's name. The second-youngest child, Sarah, however, has her mother's maiden name as "Sain" on her 1932 death certificate. To be fair, the informant gave her mother's given name as "Nancy", so it is to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it does point to Margaret being a Sain and she was from Warren County at one point. It appears a record somewhere in William Kelton's life indicates his mother's maiden name was Kane/Sane, based on online genealogies, but I have not identified which record that might be. I don't know where the names "Margarita", "Ritter", or "Martha" came from; the two census records say simply Margaret, no middle initial or nickname. Finally, the census records give conflicting ages. The 1850 says she was born about 1812, and the 1860 says she was born about 1820. Daniel Sain's 1820 and 1830 Census records indicate the latter age of about 1820 is more likely given that he has two daughters between the ages of 10-15 in 1830, one of them being Sarah.
As I said, there is an 8th/9th child often linked to this family of whom I am not at all convinced: a man named Little Berry D. Sain. The biggest issue is that his information appears to have become combined with his "supposed" father, the aforementioned Klineberry Davis Sain. Little appears in several records, but not enough records for researchers to really get a line on who he is. In 1867 in Rusk County, Texas, he registered to vote as Little B. Sain. So we know his name was Little. Family histories give his full name as Little Berry Davis Sain. In 1870, he is listed simply as "B. Sain". The death certificate for his son William L. Sain gives his father's name as "Berry Sain", so I am satisfied giving him the name Little Berry D. Sain, as his name appears with the two middle initials in several records, but I have yet to see proof of what the "D" stood for. Just because Klineberry's middle name was Davis does not definitively mean Little's middle name is also Davis. Why not Daniel, for instance, the likely grandfather? The point is, "D" could stand for any number of names and without documentation, there is no proof.
The earliest record I find of Little is a marriage record in 1850 in Rusk County, Texas. He has not been located in the 1850 Census. The 1860, 1870, and 1880 Censuses all three across the board indicate he was born about 1828 in Tennessee. Now the fact he was born in Tennessee in 1828 and we have established that the only Sain family of record in Tennessee at that time were Daniel and his children does indicate a connection between L. B. D. Sain and Daniel Sain. Unfortunately, scouring the names of Little B. D. Sain's children does not give any clues to his parentage.
Again, what is strange is that many Sain genealogies treat Klineberry and Little Berry as two separate individuals, usually as father and son, but then others combine their two records to form one person. It is bizarre, to say the least. One of the primary (and by primary, I mean popular/well-known/oft-used, rather than being an actual primary source with compiled factual documents) sources of information on this family is a book called "Sain Clan of Middle Tennessee" by Charles H. Sain, now deceased. The book can be found complete digital format here: https://www.grundycountyhistory.org/s/Sain-Clan-of-Middle-TN.pdf
In a discussion on the topic of the Klineberry/Little Berry quandary he states:
"Is Klineberry Davis Sain born in 1805 in North Carolina and Little Berry Davis Sain found in TX in 1860 the same person? The question is up for discussion."
Let's stop there. No. No, it is not up for discussion. A man born in 1805 in North Carolina is not going to appear in Census records indicating he was 23 years younger and born in another state. They are different people. There should be no debate. But because Mr. Sain decided to make family trees and charts that combined these two men's identities and raise a question of them being the same person, countless Sain genealogies will forever incorrectly reflect that these two men are one and the same. They are not. Barring a grand conspiracy where the Census takers in 1860, 1870, and 1880 all looked at a man who was 55, then 65, then 75, but ALL LIED and said he was 32, 42, and 52 in those years...then they are not the same person. No question. End of debate. If your genealogy shows Klineberry Davis Sain, son of Daniel, married four women in Texas and died there in 1882, your genealogy is incorrect.
Mr. Sain continues: "I will leave [unto] the reader to decide. However, to ensure covering Little in this report I elected to list him as a child of Kline. (Note: the German word Kline means Little or Small in English). According to tradition among the middle Tennessee Sain clan, Kline when a teenager went to Texas with a neighbor, Larkin Cason or Caton and family, later eloping, marrying one of Larkin's daughters."
We'll stop here again. Firstly, I'm not sure Mr. Sain did leave it unto the readers to decide. The way he repeatedly listed Little as the son of Klineberry or combined the two men's information indicated he was convinced one way, and being as experienced a genealogist as he was, he would have known most casual genealogists would look at the information as he presented it and accept it, regardless of him later off-handedly stating "I will leave it unto the reader to decide." In general, I think Mr. Sain put together a very nice booklet with a lot of excellent information. But in this regard, as well as in regard to the history of the four brothers, I think he did fellow researchers a disservice.
I do appreciate the point Mr. Sain makes by pointing out that Kline means "little" or "small" in German. This strongly indicates that Little Berry is indeed connected to the Daniel Sain clan. But as Kline's son? I do not believe so. I appreciate his wanting to include Little Berry in this family history, but there were other sensible ways to do so rather than haphazardly guessing that he may be the son of Klineberry, of whom there is no evidence that he ever married, had children, or even lived to full adulthood. I will discuss further where I believe Little Berry fits in as it ties directly into how the Four Brothers fit in, but first I want to finish debunking the Klineberry/Little Berry issue.
Mr. Sain as good as destroyed his own theory that the two men could be one and the same when he reported on the oral "tradition" of the middle Tennessee Sain clan. Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821. At that time, Mexico allowed organized immigration from the United States to Texas. By 1834, over 30,000 non-Hispanic white people were in Texas. [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Texas] Church records prove that Klineberry was born in 1805. So his teenage years would have been from 1818 to 1824. If he had gone to Texas then, he would have been among its earliest settlers. And perhaps he did; I cannot prove otherwise. But if Klineberry did move to Texas, it would not have been in his teens or even his twenties; based on the information Mr. Sain provides, the earliest age Klineberry would have moved to Texas would have been age 33, which does not line up with him moving "when a teenager".
However, Mr. Sain's assertion that Klineberry moved to Texas holds little water. He traces the Larkin Caison family from Warren County, TN in 1820, to Madison County, TN in 1830, and Madison County again in 1838 when Larkin sells a plot of land there. He then falsely asserts that Larkin Caison is found in Texas in the 1840 Census. There are no U. S. Census records for Texas in 1840. Texas was not a state until 1845, so a Census was not conducted there. He is correct in asserting that the 1850 Census indicates his two youngest children were born about 1838 and about 1839-40 in Texas, so they were likely there by 1840, but this family does not appear in the 1840 Census in any state.
He further asserts that Larkin's 1830 household in Madison County enumerates a male aged between the ages of 20-30. This is correct, and no record indicates he had a son that age. Mr. Sain asserts this man could be Klineberry; and yes, he could be. We are not given the names of individual household members beyond the head of household. So I cannot dispute that the 20-30 year old man "could be" Klineberry. But I ask you: If Little Berry is his son, why isn't there a male under age 5 in the same household? There isn't one. I think that is worth noting if you are going to assert that Little is the son of Kline.
Finally, Mr. Sain asserts that Little Berry D. Sain marries a daughter of Larkin Caison. This is correct. In 1850, L. B. D. (not K. B.) Sain married Sarah Jane Caison. Little does not appear in the 1850 Census, but by 1860 he is residing with the former Ms. Caison and their children. He is listed as 32 years old, rather than Klineberry's age of 55 at that time were he still living. Now, I do wonder if a ring of truth could be found in the "oral history" cited by Mr. Sain. I wonder if Little Berry, as a teenage boy (he would have been a teen from the years 1841-1847) went to Texas, having been connected with the Caison family by the Sain family's familiarity with them when they were fellow Warren County, TN residents. Little then married Sarah Jane Caison, Larkin's daughter. In this form, I can agree that the oral history may be accurate. But it was not Klineberry who ventured to Texas as a teen, nor was it Klineberry that married a daughter of Larkin Caison. As far as I am concerned, there is no discernible link between Klineberry Sain and Larkin Caison beyond the fact that their children married each other.
So, who then is Little Berry's father? I believe there is only one true candidate: I. Casper Sain, son of Daniel and brother of Klineberry.
Let's examine the candidates logically--this is presuming that Little's FATHER is a Sain, and not his MOTHER. (And assuming he wasn't adopted.) This is important because again, tying Klineberry into this family directly involves tying in the "Four Brothers".
Daniel Sain in 1828 - He is 48 years old, and Martha is over 50. Despite what some bad family trees will say, women having children in their 50s is exceedingly rare. I believe we can safely rule out Daniel and Martha as the parents. Also, Daniel's 1830 Census household does not have any males under 5.
I. Casper Sain - 26 years old in 1828. The only other Sain man to head his own household in Tennessee in 1830 besides his father. And what's that on his household's enumeration that year? Why, a male under 5! Golly gee, I wonder who that could be! (This is sarcasm, but truthfully, there actually is a question as to who it could be, as I will discuss later on.)
Klineberry Davis Sain - He appears to be enumerated in his father's 1820 household, but that is not certain because again, we don't get the names of household members other than the head. After that, there is no trace of Klineberry. I presume Klineberry to have died between 1820-1830. If he was alive, he would have been 21 in 1828 when Little was born. Old enough to have a child, to be fair, so technically can he be ruled out as Little's father? No, he cannot.
George Mumford Sain - 17 years old in 1828. Safe to rule out.
All of Daniel's other sons are too young to have fathered a child in 1828, as were all of the "Four Brothers". So based on the information we have, the MOST LOGICAL answer to the question of Little Berry D. Sain's parentage is that his parents were most likely I. Casper and Susanna Rhea Sain. Their next oldest son, George, was not born until 1833. And if we're looking at naming patterns, it would appear that Casper named his first son Little in tribute to his first brother, and his second son George in tribute to his second brother. That is not a given, but it is worth noting.
Now that we have worked out who Daniel's sons are or aren't, we can re-direct our attention to the Four Brothers. As previously mentioned, we can be confident that the brothers are attached to Daniel in some way, but it's a matter of working out how. I think our next goal should be to further analyze the data available to us and work out the most logical conclusion. We can then compare that conclusion to the working "theories" abound about who the brothers could have been.
Where Do the Four Brothers Fit?
The four brothers reported their dates and places of birth as follows:
1. Samuel Austin Sain - Born about 1817 in North Carolina. Some Sain family histories give his date of birth as 11 Nov 1815; no source cited. Similarly, sources give his date of death as 11 May 1862, but no source cited. He appears to have died between 1860-1870, but no proof of these precise dates.
2. Elisha Reynolds Sain - Born 13 Jan 1818 in Franklin County, Tennessee. Date of birth comes from headstone; place of birth comes from Civil War records.
This record is important because it is the only record of any of the four brothers specifically stating the county in which they were born. We know Daniel Sain was still in North Carolina by Nimrod's birth in 1817, the same apparent year and place Samuel was born. We do not definitively know when Daniel arrived in Tennessee, or if he lived or stayed in another county there before settling in Warren County by 1820. Franklin and Warren counties are separated only by Coffee County.
3. Noah Webster Sain - Born about 1819 in Tennessee, per the 1850 Census.
4. Thomas Sain - Born 14 Apr 1824 in Tennessee. His date of birth comes from his headstone; state of birth from Census records.
Now that we have established their respective ages and places of birth, we can examine whether they fit in the households of Daniel Sain and his kin according to the Census. We will look at each Sain man in this family's household from 1820-1840 and identify who each enumerated person likely is. For the most part, I will not include the age of the head of household or his spouse unless it is relevant.
Daniel's 1820 Census:
5 males under 10: Basil, Nimrod, Elisha, Noah, Samuel
1 male 10-15: George (age given as 10, though actually 9 y/o)*
1 male 16-18: Klineberry (age given as 16, though actually 15 y/o)*
1 male 16-25: Casper (age given as 19, though actually 18 y/o)*
2 females under 10: Sarah and Margaret
1 female 10-15: Tabbie
1 female 16-25: UNKNOWN
*This identification of the enumerated persons in this household works if we assume George, Klineberry, and Casper were all enumerated as a year older than they were. Since we know Klineberry's and George's dates of birth precisely from church records, we know they were 9 and 15 in 1820, but it would appear their ages were given as 10 and 16.
At age 18 (or possibly even 17, depending on when in 1802 his birthday fell), Casper should have been enumerated in the 16-18 category, but was put in the 16-25 category that should have been left for a male 19-25. BUT if it IS Casper who was enumerated as the 16-18 year old, that bumps everyone down a year, meaning one of the three brothers would not be accounted for. That scenario would indicate that Noah was born in 1820, rather than 1819; we only have the one census to go by, after all, so that is theoretically possible.
In THAT scenario, there would be an UNKNOWN male aged 16-25 in the household. This possibility is noteworthy. That 16-25 year old might not be Casper. The possibility is intriguing to say the least if we are considering who might be the father of the Four Brothers.
Daniel's 1830 Census:
Scenario 1
2 males 10-14: Nimrod and Noah/Elisha/Samuel (though Samuel actually 15)
1 male 15-19: Basil or Samuel
1 male 20-29: George (though actually 19)
1 female 20-29: UNKNOWN or Tabbie
Scenario 2
2 males 10-14: Nimrod and Basil (though Basil actually 16)
1 male 15-19: George
1 male 20-29: Klineberry
1 female 20-29: UNKNOWN or Tabbie
Scenario 3
2 males 10-14: Nimrod and Basil (though Basil actually 16)
1 male 15-19: Samuel
1 male 20-29: George (though actually 19)
1 female 20-29: UNKNOWN or Tabbie
Clearly, there are several possibilities when it comes to identifying who was in Daniel's 1830 household, and they all indicate that at least two and possibly three of the four brothers are missing--and maybe all of them.
If George was properly enumerated, he would be the 15-19 year old male. That would mean Klineberry was likely the 20-29 year old male. In turn, that would then mean that even though Basil was 16, he was enumerated as a 10-14 year old male along with Nimrod. That scenario would mean NONE of the four brothers were in Daniel's 1830 household.
Since I do think Klineberry was deceased, I think Scenario 1 is the most likely. Though George was 19, I think he was enumerated as a 20 year old. Then the male 15-19 would either be Basil or Samuel, but more likely Basil. That would make Nimrod one of the 10-14 year old males, and the other would be one of the four brothers. It's impossible for us to know which. Notice that there is no room in this household for Thomas, who would have been in the 5-10 age range. Was he in a household somewhere with his unaccounted for brother(s)? We have no way of knowing for sure, but...
Casper's 1830 Census:
1 male under 5: Little
1 male 15-19: Samuel or Basil
1 male 20-29: Casper
Casper does have a 15-19 year old male in his household. He did not have a son in this age range at this time. That male was most likely either his brother Basil, or Samuel. Your guess is as good as mine as to which is which.
At this point, it is noteworthy to consider again why I think Little is the male under 5. Casper had a son named Andrew. Some genealogies give Andrew's year of birth to be between 1825-1830. I think this is due to an Andrew Laine appearing in the 1850 Census in Warren County who was in that age range. But that man was a mulatto, and while Laine could have been a deviation of Sain(e), he does not fit as Casper's son.
Casper's son Andrew is usually listed as Andrew Jackson Sain due to his widow's Confederate Pension application to the state of Tennessee listing him as such. His middle initial was certainly J. I believe he either had two middle names, or his middle name was Joseph. No Andrew appears in Casper's households, but the 1850 and 1860 Censuses give us a son named Joseph, born about 1840-1842. Then in 1870, we have an A. J. Sain born about 1841 in Coffee County where the rest of Casper's family is. These men are almost certainly one and the same, meaning Andrew Jackson was Andrew Joseph, or perhaps Andrew Jackson Joseph. In 1880, he claims to have been born about 1835, but that is not likely based on his previous Census records. In short, Casper did not have a son named Andrew born prior to 1830; at the VERY earliest, one could assert he had one by 1835 if you trust the 1880 Census above all others, but otherwise there is no reason to believe the male under 5 in Casper's 1830 household is anyone but Little.
...or is there? There is a potential extra answer that would add another thick layer of mystery to this family. And logically speaking, it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out, so therefore I believe it should be given. Unlike Mr. Sain in his "Sains of Middle Tennessee" book and other Sain family historians in later years, I am not afraid to lay out all the possible answers in fear one might conflict with the one I think is most likely true. There is so little proof and documentation in how all this family ties together that the only logical and proper thing to do is to lay out ALL possibilities, then allow yourself or others to support or detract from each theory in turn. Ignoring a feasible theory because it doesn't align with what your records have said or what "oral history" says borders on a lie. If you don't have proof that Feasible Scenario 1 is a fact, then don't pretend that Feasible Scenario 2 is not a possibility.
As we know from previous Census records in this family (and probably most families that genealogists have researched), ages are not always properly recorded. That being a fact, and another fact being that we don't have proof of who either of these men's fathers were, we should consider this: If his reported age was off by a year, why couldn't the young male in Casper's household be Thomas? How do we know Thomas was the fourth brother? Why couldn't Little Berry Sain be the fourth brother? True, his age would have to be misreported again in 1840 to be enumerated as a 10-14 year old in Casper's household, but then again, researchers have also encountered ages and years on headstones to be incorrect.
Nothing is certain when it comes to this family, but Thomas has seemed like the odd man out to me for a long time. If I had been looking at this family objectively without previous Sain historians' input, and combined that with DNA evidence and name coincidences, I don't know that I would be inclined to include Thomas as a fourth brother at all. I think I would have decided there were three brothers, Samuel, Elisha, and Noah, and I would not have known where to throw Thomas in. I don't know why Little Berry was so quickly tied to this family as a son of Klineberry, but the same quick assumptions were not made for Thomas or the other brothers.
Do I think it is likely Thomas is the son of Casper, and is the boy enumerated in this household? No, I don't. I think the chances are minimal at best. But it is interesting to consider, and to wonder why earlier Sain historians were so quick to tie Little Berry to this family, but just as quick to try to distance the Four Brothers from the same family (this assertion will be expanded upon later when we explore the different theories given by Sain historians to explain the Four Brothers' parentage). But on the same note, what makes Little Berry being the son of Klineberry more likely than THOMAS being the son of Klineberry? Maybe Thomas is absent from Sain households in 1830 and 1840 because he was living with his mother or her family. Why couldn't Thomas be the son of Klineberry, who it appears died between 1820-1830, the same timeframe in which Thomas was born? If Little Berry "fits" so well in the minds of Charles Sain and others (even though he doesn't), why does Thomas not fit?
I am still operating under the assumption that there were in fact FOUR brothers, but it IS worth noting the possibility that other than birthplace, little ties Thomas to this family. I think the possibility that he is the son of Klineberry (or even the son of Casper by a previous/unknown marriage/relationship) has an equal percentage of likelihood as any of the "Four Brothers" theories. One theory cannot be deemed more plausible than the others in this case, so again, I think it is worth mentioning the various possibilities as well as questioning the reasoning and motives of previous Sain researchers.
Now, back to Census records:
All 1840 Censuses in Warren County
Daniel's 1840 Census:
1 male 15-19: Thomas
1 male 20-29: Nimrod, or possibly Elisha/Noah**
Casper's 1840 Census:
2 males under 5: Daniel, and UNKNOWN (possibly Andrew if he was born in 1840 rather than 1841, as indicated by 1850 Census)
1 male 5-9: George
1 male 10-14: Little
George's 1840 Census:
3 males under 5: His sons
Basil's 1840 Census:
1 male 20-29: Self
Samuel's 1840 Census:
2 males 20-29: Self and either Elisha/Noah, possibly Nimrod**
If all of these identifications are true, then either Elisha or Noah are missing from these households. Thomas appears to be the 15-19 year old male in Daniel's household. Then there are two 20-29 year old males between Daniel's and Samuel's households that could be any two of three men: Nimrod, Elisha, and Noah. It seems most likely that Nimrod is with his father, and either Elisha or Noah are with their brother, Samuel. Since we know Elisha is in Alabama by his 1842 marriage and Noah is still in Tennessee in 1850, smart money says Elisha is already in Alabama or elsewhere, and Noah is with Samuel. But there is no way for us to be certain.
These Census records indicate a few things. They strongly indicate that the Four Brothers (and Little) are indeed connected to the Daniel Sain family. At one time or another between 1820-1840, all of them can be accounted for in one of the Sain households of Daniel or his progeny. There are gaps that can be explained by a number of explanations: as middle-to-late teenagers whose parents were likely deceased by that time, in 1830 the three eldest brothers were likely working on other farms or for other families.
These boys knew things we didn't about their households. If their father was a Sain, then we don't know their mother, and they could have been with their mother's family. If their mother was a Sain, they have known who their father was or fathers were, and they may have been with those families. Or they may have simply been away at school or working for other households as young orphaned boys would. We don't have any way of knowing with certainty; all we can do is examine the evidence we have.
Our next step in reaching a conclusion to this mystery is to explore all of the potential scenarios of their parentage. "Oral history" in the Sain family provides some theories that have small variations from one another. Other theories have been expounded upon by other researchers over the years. And still other possible scenarios exist that have not been openly discussed. I have narrowed these down to five theories, some widely shared and accepted, and others apparently not considered. I will now present each one with as little bias as I can. We can then explore genetic evidence, and I will give my final conclusion as to which theory I think it most plausible, but importantly I will always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.
Other Sain researchers have given their THEORIES and ORAL HISTORIES as if they were FACT; they're not factual unless documented. They are hearsay or they are convenient answers to mysteries with no verifiable solutions. The FACT is we probably NEVER know the complete truth. But please continue examining the resources that I have presented, then go over each theory and what remaining evidence there is before coming to what you believe is the most plausible answer.
Theories on the Sain Brothers' Parentage
There have been several theories of the brothers' parentage proffered by various Sain researchers over the years.
Theory 1: Originally, researchers seemed comfortable placing the brothers as sons of Daniel and Martha Sain. They appeared to fit in their 1820 household, more or less, and there was no other Sain family in Tennessee in which to put them. You'll still find that the majority of online trees on Ancestry.com and elsewhere list them as sons of Daniel Sain.
And it does beg the question--why couldn't they be? Why could Martha, like many women of that time, have had a quick succession of children? It would be Sarah and Basil in 1814, Samuel in 1815, Nimrod in 1817, Elisha in 1818, Noah in 1819, and Margaret in 1820. That would be a LOT of children over such a small time, granted, but that number would include a set of twins. Essentially, that would be six births in seven years for seven total children. I have more than one example in my tree of a woman having four births over a seven year period, but six would be a lot. However, that's not to say that this is an unrealistic idea, because I do have one ancestress in my tree that is documented as having six children in six births over seven years, and having five in six years on another occasion. (Grace Holland Radford, my 4th great grandmother, had six children from 1865-1872, five more from 1880-1886.)
I don't know what eventually led researchers to discount the theory that the brothers were not Daniel's sons, but rather his grandsons (one way or another). Oral history likely played a factor. This was before the advent of genetic genealogy, so they did not use DNA to rule out Daniel as the father. It could have been a number of things, but most Sain researchers that do not copy and paste from other trees like most Ancestry users have concluded that Daniel was not the father of the four brothers. For what it's worth, I agree with them, but only because of information that has come to light since genetic research has been available to armchair genealogists. Before that, there really was no substantial proof one way or another proving that the brothers were or weren't Daniel's sons.
Theory 2: This is the most common theory of the bunch, but it has some variations. In a nutshell, a woman or daughter of Daniel and Martha to some degree had four sons by four men. The variations come in the form of the relationships between the mother and Daniel.
The most common theory appears to be that this unknown woman, who is usually called Betsey or Patsy (but there is no proof of either name outside oral history--but for the sake of making it easier to reference the woman, I will refer to her by the name Charles Sain applied to her--Betsey) was the daughter of Daniel's wife Martha from a previous marriage. Her being 6 years older than Daniel has led some to speculate, without proof, that she was previously married prior to her union with Daniel. It is believed by those that toe this line that Betsy lived with the Sains, had the four boys, and named them after their respective fathers.
Samuel Austin and Elisha Reynolds were documented members of the same community as Daniel Sain. Noah Webster was not; he was the man who originally adapted Webster's Dictionary, which has become the modern-day Merriam-Webster Dictionary. The name Thomas could be for any number of men in the community. Some descendants of Thomas have applied the middle name Finneran to him, but there is absolutely no proof of this name. Not one document even indicates that he had a middle initial at all, much less that he had a middle initial beginning with F, or that his middle name was "Finneran".
Another variation of this same theory are that Betsey was the oldest biological daughter of Daniel and Martha. There is no real reason for people to prefer the "she was Martha's but not Daniel's" version of the theory, except, I suspect, social prejudice against a woman perceived to be unclean or unworthy because she supposedly bore four children out of wedlock with different men. I think some holier-than-thou researchers decided they could not stand the idea that she was a biological Sain because she was tantamount to a "scarlet woman"; Elisha Reynold and Samuel Austin were, after all, married to other women when the Sain brothers by the same name were born, so if they were the fathers, it became "that means Betsey was a WHORE and I am NOT related to a whore!" That is, I believe, what led to the third variation of this theory: that the boys were not biological relatives of the Sains at all, but were adopted when their mother died or took ill. There are those among the Sain descendants that believe the Four Brothers have no Sain blood at all, and I believe it all comes back to Puritanical ideas that it would be shameful to be related to a woman who bore four children out of wedlock by four different men--if, indeed, she even did!
Yet another variation is that Betsey/Patsy was Martha's sister and not a Sain at all. This reasoning is again based on Daniel being "so highly respected" in his community that he "would not tolerate" the "behavior" of Betsey/Patsy if she were his daughter, therefore researchers still want to distance themselves from this woman and the brothers, so they claim the brothers' mother is another relative. The only circumstance in which this would work is if the oral history in Thomas Sain's family that he was raised by an uncle is accurate; that would leave open the possibility that one of the brothers' (if Thomas is a brother) parents were a sibling of EITHER Daniel or Martha. I will expand on that oral history later.
Again, there has been no firm proof one way or another whether Betsey (again, maybe not even her name) was Martha's daughter, Daniel and Martha's daughter, or some unrelated woman the family took in. Not until the last few years, anyway, with DNA research being able to shed some light on the question. We will get into that evidence further on, but I ask you not to let your moral, religious, or other ideas cloud your reasoning and logic; just because a woman may have had four children with four men out of wedlock does not make her unworthy of being a member of your tree. Do not write her off and distance yourself from her because of perceived indiscretions that occurred two centuries or more before your birth, therefore clouding your logic when it comes to seeing who she really was. I promise Gladys from the church choir won't find out if indeed you are related to Betsey, or if she or anyone does, I'm fairly certain you will not be condemned to hell for it.
Here are the most common written explanations of the brothers' parentage that fall into this "Theory 2" category:
I. The "Oakleaf" explanation is the most commonly found explanation of the boys' parentage. It originates here: http://oakleaf-family.com/getperson.php?personID=I1957&tree=Oakleaf. This researcher compiled multiple correspondences and message board posts about the Four Brothers and specifically Elisha Reynolds Sain's parentage into the notes section of their family tree website. It was copied and pasted into an Ancestry.com "story", where over 130 Sain researchers have added it to their tree. These notes include the following [all excerpts from Oakleaf post italicized, with certain portions bolded and underlined by me for emphasis]:
"The last four children listed on this family are, according to family records, the illegitimate children of Daniel's dau (Miss Sain). It is said that Samuel's father was a Mr. Austin...Elisha Reynolds Sain's father was a prominent man in the community named Elisha Reynolds who was married and had a wife and family of his own. Thomas Sain was the son of a Mr.
Finley from Virginia - who was a well-known horse trainer visiting that area. These children cannot be sealed to their parents so they are being sealed to their grandparents, Daniel Sain and Martha Davis, along with their mother, Miss Sain (RIN-887).
...
Submitter: Mary Ann Holder Subject: Re: Debitha/Tabbie Sain Message: First of all, the information I have on Tabbie Sain comes from a manuscript by Charles H. Sain, C.J.Sain, and Mrs. Zela Sain McBride. My mother obtained a copy at a Sain family reunion--I don't know when it was compiled, but it is referenced with census and land deed data and appears so far to be quite accurate. My connection is through Samuel Austin Sain. There is some confusion as to his parentage. He grew up in the Daniel Sain home as did his three brothers. It is theorized that the four boys were actually the sons of Patsy Davis--a daughter of Daniel's wife from a previous marriage who also lived in the home of Daniel and Patty Davis. Samuel and his brothers may have been adopted by Daniel. The only scrap of info in the manuscript which mentions Tabbie is this.
...
***I UNDERSTAND FROM THE LATEST RULINGS THAT IF CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENT A CHILD FROM BEING SEALED TO ITS NATURAL PARENTS, THAT IT CAN BE SEALED TO GRAND- PARENTS OR OTHER RELATIVES.
IN THIS CASE, THE MOTHER OF FOUR SONS (MISS SAIN, CHILD #1 OF DANIEL SAIN AND MARTHA (PATTIE) DAVIS WAS NEVER MARRIED AND SHE LIVED IN HER PARENTS HOME AND HER FOUR SONS WERE REARED BY HER
PARENTS AS THEIR CHILDREN. THE MOTHER'S WORK HAS BEEN DONE (MISS SAIN) AND SHE HAS BEEN SEALED TO HER PARENTS.
THE LAST FOUR NAMES ON THIS FAMILY GROUP SHEET ARE THE ONES I AM CONCERNED WITH. THE SECOND SON, ELISHA REYNOLDS SAIN (#11) WAS MY GREAT GRANDFATHER. I'VE NO PROOF OF THEIR FATHER'S NAMES. THESE MEN GREW TO HONORABLE MANHOOD AND WERE PARENTS OF LARGE FAMILIES AND I'VE HAD MOST OF THEIR WORK DONE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SEALING TO PARENTS. IF IT IS POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE THEM SEALED TO THE GRANDPARENTS
...
My grandmother, [redacted--source was a great granddaughter of Elisha], said that Elisha was an illigitimate child, his biological mother was adopted. His grandparents, (Martha was her mother's name) Davis was the mother's last name. He was sealed to his parents. They knew who his biological father,
Father was Elisha Reynolds. But not sealed to him, but to his parents.
Elisha Reynolds was a wealthy man in town who had an invalid wife, who apparently visited Martha Davis's daughter. She had several illitgitamit children and named them after the fathers.
...
Regarding Elisha Reynolds Sain, he and his three brothers, Samuel Austin Sain, Noah Sain, and Thomas Sain were possibly the step-grandsons of Daniel Sain and were raised by him and his wife Mary Martha "Patty" Davis. Some theorize that Patty's daughter from a previous marriage, Patsy was the mother of the four boys. They appear in Daniel's household in tallies prior to 1850 when they show up by name. -- Mary Ann Holder"
***Note that this appears to be a person from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints attempting to register their Sain lineage with the church records. I have had folks contact me to ask if this is a reflection of some sort of formal record or document, but it is not.
You'll see that there is no consistency whatsoever as far the brothers' mother being Martha's daughter, Daniel and Martha's daughter, or an adopted daughter. But this just being a compilation of a researcher's notes on the matter, I don't think it was ever intended to spread to over 130 researchers not wanting to do their own research on the matter. I do not fault the Oakleaf website's author. These were his notes for his own family tree and family website. But these theories being spread aimlessly around Ancestry has caused mass confusion.
One of the comments on the Ancestry "story" reflects the additional variation of this explanation:
"Do you think Daniel would name his son after his wife's first husband as theorized in Sain Family History? According to several sources, Daniel was an upstanding member of the community, so do you think he would tolerate Patsey's behavior as as theorized (that the four brothers had four different fathers and they were out of wedlock)? It seems more logical that Martha and Patsey are sisters and had the same father with surname of Davis and that Klineberry "Davis" was named after his grandfather."
At face value, there is nothing wrong with this, except that again, it detracts from the position that Betsey/Patsy was the daughter of Daniel Sain, with everyone hung up on the name "Davis". There is no proof Martha's maiden name was Davis. My uncle Archibald DODSON Napier? His mother's maiden name was CARTER. My 2nd great grandfather John GRADY Auston? His mother's maiden name was EPPS. My 2nd great grandfather Albert MONROE Marks? His mother's maiden name was BENNETT. If a person's middle name is a surname, it does NOT prove it is their mother's maiden name. In my case, that is true; my mother's maiden name is Vaughan, but it cannot be assumed to be the case across the board. Sometimes a name is just a name. It could be a neighbor, a cousin, a politician (anyone have any Francis Monroes or Thomas Jeffersons in their family?!), or even a first name. I knew a boy named Davis growing up; stop assuming that if a child's middle name is a surname, it must be the mother's maiden name. Does it happen? Yes. Is it the case across the board? No. So don't hang your hat on it.
So again, all of these different theories float around the internet without consensus or real thought having been put into what it all means. By and large, the majority of these theories are rooted in two publications from the aforementioned Charles H. Sain with differing versions of the theories, as you'll see here. .
II. The aforementioned "Sain Clans of Middle Tennessee" was originally issued by Charles H. Sain, but I have not found what year it was released. It was later re-released in 2000 by Howard B. Sain.
From Charles's original version, page 36: "From several reliable sources it was learned that Patty Davis had a daughter prior to marrying Daniel Sain. It is confirmed this daughter's first name was Betsey: She and the four boys she later bore - Samuel Austin Sain, Elisha Reynolds Sain, Noah W. Sain, and Thomas Sain - were all adopted by Daniel. It is known she died before 1830 in Daniel's house and was buried in the Sain Family Cemetery.
...A descendant of Thomas Sain provided Charles H. Sian with some folklore. The story is as follows:
"Thomas Sain's mother died when he was quite young - just under 6 years old. My mother related to me that he lived in the home of his uncle, but when I received your first letter the name of Casper came vividly back to me.
My mother has told me many times how her father, when he was a very young child, found some rusty coat apples and took them to his mother who was ill. When he came to her bedside, she did not respond to his offer of the rusty coat apples. He was distressed and went to his Grandmother, "Pattie"? Sain, who was probably in the kitchen, and reported to her: "I have brought Mother these apples, but she won't wake up." Whereupon, his Grandmother began to weep, for she knew her daughter was dead. Thomas Sain, a most sentimental person, never forgot the rusty coat apple tree. The one he gave my Mother is still standing in the yard of our old homestead near Thaxton."
...[After discussion of Daniel's household Census records.] His son, Ira Casper, had married and lived 20 families from Daniel. There were seven people in his house-three less than 5 years old, one between 5 and 10 years old, and two between 20 and 30 years old. Ira Casper had not been married long enough to have that many children. Betsey died circa [1826] leaving four sons. It is known that Ira Casper took some of Betsey's boys from Daniel's house. Betsey's son, Tom Sain, was raised by Casper."
Let's start with the last paragraph. No, that Census record does not show a MALE child between the ages of 5-10, it shows a male between the ages of 15-20 and a FEMALE between ages 5-10. Unlike Charles, I am happy to provide proof of this assertion:
See the red marks. So there is no indication that Tom lived with Casper. As I previously stated, I think it's likely that the 15-20 year old male is either Casper's brother or else Samuel, one of the OTHER brothers, but not Tom, who would have been 7. The rest of Charles's section on Tom is fine, but I take issue with him not naming the source of this family "folk lore". I also ask why that admitted "folk lore" could not have been interpreted another way? What if Tom WAS raised by an uncle? But what if that uncle was DANIEL? Why not? If we're to accept this folklore as truth in any way, we have to accept the possibility of alternate interpretations, no matter how vividly the name Casper came back to unnamed source. I will explore the "uncle" possibility further on in this essay.
III. As I said above, I don't know what year Charles H. Sain's "Sain Clan of Middle Tennessee" was published. I don't know if it was before or after 1976, but in 1976 he published the "Sain Family History". Here, he provided more details on the four brothers than he did in "Sain Clan of Middle Tennessee", so I am inclined to think "Sain Family History" came second, but I really have no way of knowing. (See how I admit it if I don't know for sure or if I am operating on assumption or theory? I know some other Sain researchers who could give that a try...) My own kind of snarky thoughts and additions are added in brackets; I hope they will help give you pause when considering that this research is the basis for the majority of dialogue on the brothers' parentage floating around the internet.
On Page 14 of "Sain Family History", he writes: "Emerging in 1850 census were four brothers - Samuel Austin Sain, Elisha Reynolds Sain, Noah Sain and Thomas Sain. [How do you know they were brothers?] This was the first time they appeared in their family groups. On certain censuses, by tallies, they appeared on census records in houshold[s] of Daniel and Ira Casper which indicated they were reared in homes of Daniel and Ira Casper. More research is needed to definitely determine their history. [No kidding.] They have become known as the 4 brothers to the writer.
From several reliable sources [How about naming these reliable sources for us?] it was learned that Patty Davis had a daughter prior to marrying Daniel Sain. [Either provide sources or this is a rumor/myth/theory not a fact.] It is believed this daughter's first name was Patsy. She and her four sons were adopted by Daniel. It is known that she died before 1830 in Daniel's house. [How is it known?]"
So again, this is one of the variations of the second theory and one of the most prominent--if not THE most prominent. Stating that the brothers' mother was a daughter of Daniel's wife Martha by a previous marriage is the prevalent and popular version of the theory. But as you can see here...we have no idea of its origins. Who are these sources? How can we gauge how reliable they are if they are not identified? We can't, and therefore these theories cannot be trusted because they cannot be independently verified.
Theory 3: In an apparently valiant attempt to remove the Four Brothers from the stigma of having been born of an unwed mother, a new theory popped up about 10 years ago on Ancestry.com. Noticeably better-written and apparently better-sourced than the various "mother was a harlot" theories, this theory stated that the four brothers were the children of relatives of Daniel and Martha Sain. Like the previous theory, it was stated the boys were the sons of a Patsey who was either the daughter of Martha from a previous marriage, or a sister to Martha. The father, however, was said to be a George Sain, a nephew of David Sain.
Daniel had a brother named Joseph Sain whom the author wrote it was "widely accepted" had had a son named George that had "died young". No proof was offered as to why it would be "widely accepted" because there are no records of a George Sain being linked to Joseph in any way. It would have to be more "oral tradition" that created this link. It is true that after Joseph Sain died, his wife and some children did relocate to Tennessee, becoming the third confirmed Sain clan in the state after those of Daniel and John Michael. The wife and two children of Joseph Sain are buried in Hardeman County, TN, which is several counties west and south of Warren County.
To be fair, this theory would in a way square nicely with the oral history that Thomas Sain was raised by an uncle. It would point to Daniel being the great uncle of the boys rather than Casper being the uncle. The author of this theory is a nice woman and capable genealogist and I do not wish to disparage her. I will post the theory in whole and then provide supplemental information that will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The theory was originally shared to Ancestry.com on 6 Sep 2009 and has been attached to more than 35 Sain family trees.
Brief History of George and Patsey Davis Sain
George and his wife Patsey Davis were married in North Carolina sometime before 1815 when their first child, Samuel Austin, was born. By early 1818, they were living in Tennessee where their second son, Elisha Reynolds, was born. The family settled in an area of Tennessee near Viola where they joined the Blue Springs Baptist Church of Christ. They both became members by experience (BE), Patsey on the "2d Sat. in Sept. 1820" (9 Sep 1820) and George "2d. Sat. in Feb. 1821" (10 Feb 1821). George was a respected member and was tasked, frequently, to take care of church related issues. During the next few years, they had two more sons, Noah Webster and Thomas. Their four sons are believed named after respected friends of George and Patsey who were prominent in the area. Early North Carolina Census and Tennessee tax records for 1812 list a Samuel Austin. Elisha Reynolds and Thomas Sain are believed to be named after church members named Elisha Reynolds (both Sr and Jr.) and Thomas Stroud, a church deacon. Noah Webster Sain is believed to be the namesake of Noah Webster, an individual who was instrumental in establishing early county boundaries in Tennessee. Another member of George and Patsey's church was "little Sarah" who would eventually marry their son, Samuel Austin Sain. In addition to "little Sarah," other members were her father, Samuel Powell, her maternal grandmother, Isabelle Jeffreys Clark, and her grandfather, Deacon Isham Clark. After the death of Isabelle, Isham lived with his granddaughter and her husband, Sarah Pope and Samuel Austin Sain. At a later date, two of George’s first cousins (and their future wives) also became members of the church. They were the sons of George’s uncle, Daniel. B. G. (Basil Gaither) Sain and his wife, Elizabeth Stubblefield, and George Mumford Sain and his wife, Margaret Stroud. Margaret was the daughter of the afore mentioned Deacon Thomas Stroud. Several others by the name of Powell, Clark, and Davis were listed as members; however, the relationship, if any existed between George and Patsey, was not pursued. The last recorded tasking for George was on the "2d Sat. in Dec. 1830" (11 Dec 1830). A later entry states that Patsey was "deceased, Aug. 1831."
They died leaving their four young sons, frequently referred to as the "four brothers," to be raised by Daniel Sain, a member of the first Grundy County Court held at Beersheba Springs, and his wife, Mary Martha Davis Sain. Daniel was George’s uncle and brother of Joseph Sain. Although it is widely accepted that Joseph had a son named George who died young, he was not named in his father’s will for reasons unknown. After Joseph died, George’s mother and several of his siblings relocated to Tennessee, settling in the area around Viola, Tennessee. George’s mother, Mary Magdalena Booe Sain, his sister, Eva Sain Cheshire, and brother Daniel Booe Sain are all buried in the Old Salem Cemetery in Hardeman County, Tennessee.
Many family members believe that George’s wife, Patsey Davis, may have been the daughter of Mary Martha Davis Sain, by a previous marriage, and the step-daughter of Daniel Sain. It seems more likely that Patsey and Mary Martha were sisters, or otherwise closely related, whose maiden names were Davis. This is based, primarily, on the fact that Mary and Daniel named one of their sons Klineberry "Davis" Sain. It seems more likely they would name him after his grandfather rather than after Mary’s former husband.
As all genealogy researchers know, the handwriting and spelling of our early ancestors lead to different interpretations and, therefore, different perceptions. The above information is an honest effort and is based on knowledge of family history and research using the following sources: US Census Records, the Sain Family page, Tennessee cemetery and tax listings on the internet; Family Trees on Ancestry.com.; McMinnville at a Milestone (1810 - 1960), Walter Womack; Heritage of Warren County TN — 2006; The Blue Springs Baptist Church of Christ on Hickory Creek, Warren County, TN, Minute Books 2 and 3 (1819 - 1858), and Sain Family History (provided by John T. Mason, III) compiled by Charles H. Sain, C. J. Sain, and Mrs Zela Sain McBride, undated.
The primary source of information for this theory is the records of the Blue Springs Baptist Church of Christ, an early Warren County, TN church. Believing this theory and wanting to independently verify its accuracy, I sought out said records. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they did not reflect the information presented here.
As the author of Theory 3 writes in the final paragraph "the handwriting and spelling of our early ancestors lead to different interpretations and, therefore, different perceptions". This is well-stated and accurate. And this happens relatively often in the Sain family, where "Lane" and "Laine" are read as "Sane" and "Saine" due to some writers' cursive S's and L's looking very alike. That appears to have been the case in this situation, where the author read "Sain" when it properly was "Lain", or more accurately, "Layne". Here are typed versions of some of the Blue Springs Baptist records in question.
Now some may still question whether Lain really could be Sain if looking at the handwritten records. However, there is a definitive record "set in stone", so to speak, that proves that this couple were not Sains, and that is their still-surviving original headstones. George died in 1848, and Patsey in 1831. They were originally buried at the Blue Springs Cemetery, but their grandchildren had them re-interred at the Viola Cemetery in the late 1940's or early 1950's.
So unfortunately, this proves definitively that George and Patsey "Sain" did not exist, at least not in the capacity that they would be the parents of the Four Brothers. Records of George's sons Wyatt and Leonard Layne, as well as their other children, can easily be located. Perhaps Joseph did have an undocumented son named George, but that George was not the father of the Four Brothers. And perhaps Martha had a sister or daughter named Patsey, but it was not this woman, whose maiden name was Prater and given name was Martha, so she shared a name with Martha Sain and was even born the same year, so these two women were neither sisters nor mother-daughter.
Theory 4: There isn't much to this theory, but all possibilities should be explored. As previously stated, the identification of Daniel Sain's 1820 Census household looks like this.
Daniel's 1820 Census:
5 males under 10: Basil, Nimrod, Elisha, Noah, Samuel
1 male 10-15: George (age given as 10, though actually 9 y/o)
1 male 16-18: Klineberry (age given as 16, though actually 15 y/o)
1 male 16-25: Casper (age given as 19, though actually 18 y/o)
2 females under 10: Sarah and Margaret
1 female 10-15: Tabbie
1 female 16-25: UNKNOWN
If you can accept at face value that Casper, Klineberry, and George were all three enumerated as being a year older than they really were, then there is no issue with this identification. But if you think it odd they would give incorrect ages for their three oldest sons, then it might give you pause. If we operate under the conflicting assumption that the boys were NOT misenumerated, then that would mean George is in the under 10 group, Noah was not born yet (again, we only have one census that says he was born in 1819, so 1820 is just as possible), Klineberry is 10-15, and Casper is 16-18. That would leave an unknown male in the 16-25 age range.
If we then operate under the assumption that that male is closer to 24-25, it would not be unrealistic for him to have fathered Samuel in 1815 at age 19-20. Then we could also assume that the unknown 16-25 year old woman was his wife.
Is this not possible?
At face value, it would seem so. However, a descendant of Elisha Reynolds Sain claims (though I cannot independently verify this claim because I have not viewed the data myself) that her uncle with the surname Sain, a direct male descendant of Elisha, had a Y-DNA test done. She stated that the results reveal "that he is not a Sain descendant but related to the Griffin and Stoud families who lived near and married into the Sain family. There is about a 70% chance that they share a common ancestor 4 generations back which would be the father of E.R. Sain."
This would indicate that barring an adoption (or what if Martha had a SON from a first marriage instead of daughter?) that the sons of Daniel were enumerated in the wrong age ranges that there probably was not an unknown son. The results would further indicate that one of the variations of Theory 2 is most likely correct. If Daniel or one of his sons, brothers, or biological nephews were the father (at least of Elisha) then Y-DNA would reflect that. But since the Y-DNA indicates the father belonged to one of the Sains' neighboring families, more than likely we are looking at a female Sain that bore the Four Brothers.
I think it is also fair to give the benefit of the doubt to the unknown mother. Existing marriage records for Tennessee (or North Carolina where Samuel was born) are scarce or missing. There is a possibility that Ms. Sain or whoever she is may have been married, perhaps even more than once, but that after her death for whatever reason the boys' took their maternal surname. It is not out of the realm of possibility, so it is worth mentioning. Is it likely or probable? No. But is it feasible? Yes, so I think it is worth mentioning in order to give the Brothers' mother some benefit of the doubt.
Theory 5: Based on evidence I have already brought forward, I would like to propose an additional possibility. I remain unconvinced that Thomas Sain was a 4th brother. As previously stated, DNA indicates the link between Elisha and Samuel. Elisha naming his son Noah indicates a possible connection to Noah. I am satisfied linking the three as brothers. Thomas I am less convinced of. Despite numerous descendants, none of them appeared among the DNA matches for my Sain branch of the family. Perhaps via recombination they just did not end up inheriting the same strands of DNA from the potentially mutual mother of Elisha and Thomas. After all, you will only match 50% of your fourth cousins, and you'll match fewer and fewer of your more distant cousins. It does not mean you aren't technically related, it just means you don't share autosomal DNA.
So I'm going back to the un-sourced oral history in Thomas's lineage that says he was raised by an uncle. Perhaps he really was raised by Casper but was not living with him for the 1830 or 1840 Censuses. I wasn't there, so I can't say. It does appear though that Thomas was living with Daniel in 1840. If we lend even minimal credence to this un-sourced oral history, could we not conclude that Daniel could be Thomas's uncle? Then he would potentially be a cousin and not a brother to the remaining three of the Four Brothers. I think this possibility has to be considered until DNA can disprove it. Additional DNA testing would certainly help.
We should also keep in mind that "uncle" does not always mean biological uncle. If we are to lend credence to some oral history, perhaps some should be lent to other oral history as well. Perhaps Martha Sain did have a sister or other relative that had Thomas, who was then raised by his biological aunt Martha and uncle by marriage, Daniel. I consider that a valid possibility as well, but further DNA testing is needed.
With the information I have, I cannot definitively determine if Thomas was one of the Four Brothers or where he might fit in. But with the DNA evidence I do have, I think I can determine who the mother of the Three/Four Brothers were. I believe the data I have conclusively points to ONE variation of Theory 2, and all but rules out the other variations.
DNA Evidence - Who is the mother of the Four Brothers?
My family has provided DNA samples for three first cousins who are all 2nd great grandchildren of Elisha Reynolds Sain, and therefore 3rd great grandchildren of his parents, and 4th great grandchildren of their parents. This is about as far back as you can trust DNA matches with autosomal DNA. Most other descendants of Elisha's grandparents will be 4th-6th cousins to my group. As stated, you will only match about 50% of your fourth cousins, and that percentage decreases rapidly with each successive generation.
This is a helpful chart I use frequently, created by DNA Detectives, that can help one determine two person's genetic connection based on how many centimorgans they share.
You'll see in the bottom section where it states that 50% of fourth cousins will not share DNA. For this reason, a 4th first cousin in my cluster was removed because he apparently did not inherit as much Sain DNA as his counterparts, including his own half-sister. His DNA proves he is a 1st cousin and half-sibling to the others in our cluster, but he had only two DNA matches to Sain descendants that were "Good" or higher outside of mutual matches to Elisha Reynolds Sain and Samuel Austin Sain descendants. He matched plenty of those Sains, but they are not relevant to what I am trying to prove here. What we need to prove is if we are related to Sains other than ones descending from the Four Brothers. Dale's sister matches plenty of them, but Dale does not, so Dale's results were not factored in.
The remaining cluster members are my great uncle Ronnie, his first cousin Jurhee (Dale's half-sister), and their first cousin Jimmie. They each descend from three children of Sarah Olive Sain, daughter of Samuel Daniel Sain, son of Elisha Reynolds Sain. I scoured their DNA matches on Ancestry.com for matches that met two criteria:
1) Had family trees indicating they descend from the Sain family, but NOT from the Four Brothers. There were many matches that descended from Samuel Austin Sain and Elisha Reynolds Sain, but I did not count those
2) Matched at a confidence level of "Good" or higher. All "Moderate" and "Low" matches, of which there were many, were ignored. Only matches with 16 shared centimorgans or higher were considered relevant
Ultimately, I found 5 matches that met that criteria for Ronnie, 9 for Jurhee, and 4 for Jimmie. Of those, there was one person whom all three of the cluster matched. There was another user that matched Ronnie and Jurhee, but not Jimmie. Three of Jurhee's matches were submitted by a single user, indicating they are all from the same family and cluster. Ronnie matched one of those, but not the other two. Finally, two of Ronnie's matches that did not match Jurhee or Jimmie, were submitted by the same user, indicating they are also from the same family/cluster.
So overall, my three matched to fifteen total different DNA samples at the "Good" or "High" confidence level whose family trees indicated they were Sain descendants from outside the Four Brothers.
I wanted to see if there might be a margin of error for these results. Fortunately, I have tested so many family members I have access to many results. My cluster of three were all from the same generation (born between 1930-1950). I have access to the results of 14 other people outside this family who were also born between 1930-1950. None of them are documented or assumed Sain descendants. I went through their results to find how many Sain DNA matches each one had that were "Good" confidence or higher. Since I match all of these people, I did not count myself. I also did not count Ronnie among the number for his maternal first cousin's matches because we know their mutual DNA is from their shared grandparents. Finally, I did not factor in whether these matches were to descendants of the Four Brothers or not. Simply ANY Sain in their family tree counted.
What I found was:
Median: 3
Mean: 2.6
Mode: 3
The highest number was 9. The lowest number was 0, which occurred three times. If I removed both the highest and lowest results (one of the three 0s), the Mean fell to 2.3 but the rest remained the same.
From these results (which is admittedly not a large sample at 14) we can surmise that the average American-born person born between 1930-1950 to American parents will likely end up with about 3 matches to self-reported Sain descendants at the "Good" confidence level or higher. I did not verify how accurate the trees of these matches were. And again, some of these matches could have been to descendants of the Four Brothers, but I did not divide the matches between Four Brothers and non-Four Brothers.
To me, this indicates as many as 3 Sain DNA matches COULD be coincidences and they could be matching from an alternate undetermined mutual family line. I am trying to be as transparent as possible with these results, so I am putting it out there that it is a feasible possibility that at least some matches to persons with Sain lineage could be matches not due to Sain DNA, but from another branch of family.
That said, I think the results largely speak for themselves. Of the 15 self-reported Sain descendants my cluster matched at "Good" or higher, 11 of them were confirmed descendants of Daniel. Two were descendants of Daniel's brother Joseph, and one of his brother Peter.
That 15th match, now that one is interesting. So we're going to pause the Brothers' parental debate to ask another question...
...Was There a Fifth Brother?
Or a fourth brother if like me you have doubts about Thomas (Doubting Thomas, HA!). Since I can't prove Thomas was not a brother, and based on his birthplace and locale he was at least a member of the same family, I'll stop with the Three/Four Brothers comments. But our cluster's DNA matches brought to my attention a 5th man that I am considering could be another brother. He is probably too old to be a son of one of Daniel's sons, so his addition raises more questions than it answers. But if the other "Brothers" can be pinpointed in their various locations in 1850 and it can be decided they must be brothers because no one knows where else they fit, then why not this man?
William Sains, as his name is spelled in the 1850 Census, was born about 1821 in...Tennessee. And his profession in 1850? Blacksmith. Yes, another Sain blacksmith born in Tennessee. He almost has to be connected to Daniel's family, but how? In the 1850 Census he can be found in Dade County, Georgia. Like his possible brother Noah, he died before the 1860 Census, so all we have is the one Census record to account for his age and birthplace. As previously established, there were NO other Sain families in Tennessee in the early 1820s except Daniel's and John Michael's; Daniel was, of course, a blacksmith, and John Michael's sons in the age range of William have already been identified as John and Jacob. So a Sain who was a blacksmith and born in Tennessee in the early 1820s must fit in somewhere, but I have no idea where.
William was brought to my attention because his descendant matches my cousin Jurhee at a "High" level, and when combing for Sain descendants, I found this match. This user and Jurhee would be 1/2 Fourth Cousins if William and Elisha Reynolds Sain were half brothers, so 35/2 centimorgans would fit. Because William's family spells their surname "Saynes" and "Sains" or some other variation ending in S, William would not have even come to my attention if it weren't for the DNA match.
And while Mr. Charles Sain's work has to be taken with a grain of salt, as I have proven earlier, when he is not pushing unsourced theories as though they are fact, he does present points that I agree with. He points out that while we don't know of any other Sain families in Tennessee in the early 1820s or earlier, by 1830 and later and there were other Sain families in Tennessee, and he makes what I believe to be an accurate point regarding the variations in spellings of Sain. From his Sain Family History (1976), page 17:
"While trying to trace our family history more than one false lead was followed at no small expense and for a considering amount of lost time. Questions were raised that the answers will probably never be known.
The origin of many family groups have not been determined. Jacob Sain of Lincoln County, previously referred to as living to age of 99, had two sons, John and Joseph, in Knox County, Tennessee in 1830. Joseph on 1880 census listed his father's birth place as Germany. These two families used names William and John in every generation. Another John Sane was in Cocke County, Tennessee. He was born about 1800 in North Carolina. His place in our history has never been determined.
In the past, as in the present, our name has been spelled in various ways - Sain, Saine, Sane, Sains, Sein, Seen. This should not deter anyone as the writer gets correspondence everyday from people that try to make spelling our name difficult."
It is in within the realm of possibility that we should be looking harder at brothers John and Joseph Sain of Knox County, or maybe John Michael Sain, but all of these men were from different areas of Tennessee, one far east and one far west, while all the other Sain men we've been discussing can be traced to central Tennessee, hence their being referred to as the "Sain Clan of Middle Tennessee".
A descendant of William Sains/Saynes who has been working on this family for decades can tie her ancestor William to Warren County and apparently to Samuel Austin Sain, further indicating the two could be brothers or were certainly at least cousins. Glenda Thacker reports locating the following record in Warren County, Tennessee:
1840 Nov 19 - Inventory of William Wilson mentions one note for $2500 on Sam'l Sain and Wm. Saine due 25 Dec 1841 to be paid in blacksmith work. A second note (#8750) on them due December 25, 1842.
This indicates there was a William Sain who was a blacksmith living in Warren County in the early 1840s. How many blacksmith William Sains could there be? Not many I'm guessing. So while this is far from definitive, I think the option that William is a 5th brother (there does appear to be a gap between Noah in 1819/1820 and Thomas in 1823 after all) should be strongly considered. Would that mean William is the other adult male living with Samuel in the 1840 Census, rather than one of the other brothers? That seems possible as well, especially if he were born in 1820 rather than 1821 (we only have one census to go by, after all) meaning he would fall into the 20-29 age category.
William's ties to this family don't really have any bearing on the parentage of the Four (now Five?) Brothers, but it adds another interesting wrinkle to what is already an incredibly complicated family to piece together.
DNA Evidence - Continued
My cluster of three's 11 matches to self-reported descendants of Daniel Sain is the key to all of this. What do these results tell us?
They are all in the "Good" range, with the highest at 29.6/2 and the lowest at 16.1/1. As the aforementioned DNA Detectives chart shows, all of those matches fall in the "Other Distant Cousins" category. Here are the matches listed out (including the one user, "TTG", who matches all three members of the cluster, and the one, DM, who matches two of them), with usernames altered for privacy reasons, listed from highest match to lowest in the following format:
User - Match - Amount of Shared DNA - Child & Grandchild of Daniel - # of Generations Removed from Grandchild
TTG - Ronnie - 29.6/2 - George M. to George T. - 5 Generations
H1 - Jurhee - 27.3/2 - Sarah to Thomas - 3 Generations
TTG - Jimmie - 24.4/3 - George M. to George T. - 5 Generations
DM - Ronnie - 22.7/2 - Basil to Louisa - 3 Generations
RH - Ronnie - 20.1/1 - Sarah to George - 4 Generations
TTG - Jurhee - 20/1 - George M. to George T. - 5 Generations
DJ - Ronnie - 18.1/1 - Sarah to John - 4 Generations
TBR - Jurhee - 18.8/2 - Sarah to Nimrod - 4 Generations
DM - Jurhee - 17.9/1 - Basil to Louisa - 3 Generations
JH - Jurhee - 17.2/1 - Sarah to James - 3 Generations
AB - Jurhee - 17/1 - Basil to William - 4 Generations
GM - Jurhee - 16.5/1 - Basil to Louisa - 4 Generations
TJ - Ronnie - 16.2/2 - Sarah to John - 6 Generations
JM - Jurhee - 16.1/1 - Basil to Louisa - 3 Generations
Important notes:
- DM, GM, and JM are all from the same immediate family but not the same person. A fourth user, BM, administers all of their accounts
- Jimmie matched three additional Sains that did not descend from Daniel; two from his brother Joseph, and one from Peter. I am chalking that up to the margin of error at this point because of the lack of matches between Jurhee and Ronnie to non-Daniel descendants, at least in the "Good" range. There are many in the "Moderate" range, but I did not delve into those.
- It is noteworthy that not only are there matches to descendants of three of Daniel's children (Sarah, George, and Basil), but to descendants to five different children of Sarah. This indicates we are seeing a genuine genetic connection and not coincidences that can be chalked up to the margin of error.
So now the question finally becomes: Would we have matches to so many Daniel Sain descendants if the brothers' biological mother was not related to Daniel? Almost certainly not. This proves definitively, in my opinion, that the Brothers' mother was a sibling to the children of Daniel and Martha Sain.
Now if the brothers' mother were a HALF sibling to the Sain siblings, would we have all these matches just from the shared DNA inherited from Martha? I don't think so.
Let's take a look at three of our matches from different children of Daniel: TTG to Ronnie, H1 to Jurhee, and DM to Ronnie.
IF the mother of Elisha Reynolds Sain were a sibling to George Mumford Sain, then Ronnie and TTG (who remember, is the only one we've found who matches Jurhee and Jimmie as well at the "Good" confidence range) would be 5th cousins once removed. Already that is pushing the odds pretty heavily on whether Ronnie and this person would match at all. If we match only 50% of our 4th cousins, then we probably match roughly 25% of our 5th cousins. Add another generation of removal, and I would say there is at best a 10-15% chance of Ronnie having a DNA match to one of his 5th cousins once removed. To then split that connection in half meaning Ronnie and TTG are HALF 5th cousins once removed, I think the odds decrease to less than a 5% chance. If they shared DNA at all, the chances of them sharing nearly 30 cm over 2 segments would be extremely slim.
Though a closer relationship, the same logic can be applied to Jurhee and H1. IF the mother of Elisha were a sibling to Sarah Sain Henry, then Jurhee and H1 would be 3rd cousins once removed. If we were to split that into a HALF 3rd cousin once removed, again we'd be playing with a very small probability that they would shared nearly 28 cm over 2 segments inherited exclusively from Martha. Or if you think the mother was Martha's sister, then that would make them 5th cousins once removed, which like Ronnie to TTG is a relationship that already has a less than 15% chance of being established by DNA. It could happen, but we're playing with low probability.
Now think logically what your chances would be of that low probability playing out among ALL of the above DNA matches to Daniel and Martha Sain's children. If you want to assume the Brothers' mother is a HALF sibling or a 1st cousin to those children, then you are slicing the odds of a "Good" confidence level match between these individuals significantly every time. Odds and probability would win out. Our cluster of three collectively matching 11 different direct descendants of Daniel Sain and our unknown ancestress being only a HALF sibling or a 1st cousin to that collection of descendants is very slim. In my opinion, laughably slim.
That being the case, I believe the unknown mother of the Three/Four/Five Brothers, whether her name is Betsey or Patsy or something else entirely, was a biological daughter of Daniel and Martha Sain. I believe she was a full sibling to Daniel and Martha's children. If Martha had a previous marriage and child by that marriage, and asserting either without proof would be folly, the Brothers' mother is not that person. I don't believe the 2nd great grandchildren of Elisha Reynolds Sain would genetically connect so closely to the descendants of Sarah, George, and Basil Sain as closely as they do if that were not the case.
I am open to alternate interpretations of the data presented here. I am not really open to alternate baseless theories based on oral history without a reliable named source. I am open to being proven wrong. But I believe at this time, based on the information available to us, that my conclusions are sound. There are still many questions to try to get a better answer to. Was Thomas one of the brothers? Or was William? So were there five? Could Little Berry fit anywhere else? These are questions that may or may not be answerable, but as genetic genealogy advances occur, perhaps we can get better answers over time.
If relevant new information comes to light, I will add it to this post, even if it directly conflicts with my conclusion. My research is not above reproach and I am not afraid to admit it. But when I believe my evidence-based claims to be logical, sensible, and correct, I will defend my position and present my evidence the way I did here. No nameless, source-less oral history-based information here, just honest, objective interpretations of the data available to me. If anyone has any additions, comments, or corrections--especially if you want to have a response from me--email me at the address on the right in my bio instead of leaving an anonymous comment without a way for me to reply.
I just found this blog! I haven only skimmed it, and I cannot wait to thoroughly read all this! I am a decent ant of Samuel Daniel Sain, and I have been trying to figure out who Elisha Reynolds is, because I believe he is the father of Elisha Reynolds Sain. I read that the four brothers were illegitimate sons of Daniel Sain’s daughter. What I read said that Elisha Reynolds was a prominent married man in the community. Thank you for posting this!
ReplyDeleteNancy Sain Mabry
Sorry for the typos in my last comment.
ReplyDeleteNancy