Concerning Mary McPherson, 1812-1875

Dear Curator’s,

This plea for help concerns Mary McPherson, 1812-1875 …the spouse of Duncan McPherson Jr., 1808-1869.
When I initially began to research this couple a little over a year ago through Ancestry.com, as a very green undisciplined amateur researcher, as I turned my attention to Mary, I realized immediately that there were some decidedly untenable features to sorting out her identity beyond the obvious examples of a given name, and married surname.

First, I could not ascertain the existence of any historical record that either referenced her maiden name. I attempted to locate marriage record information between she and Duncan, and at that time, found nothing I believed compelling. Nor could I find anything through the extant sources for her daughter, Harriet Elizabeth McPherson, who is my gr. Grandmother X2. regarding a maiden name for her mother. Other Ancestry researchers also appeared equally stymied in their endeavors to identify her confidently. There just appeared a generous lack of information of reliable merit. Many simply and prudently left her unnamed and unknown on their tree’s. As my impasse grew, I had to confess my paltry certainties as being limited to:
• A family tradition that she and Duncan were both born in North Carolina but relocated to Orleans, Orange, Indiana no later than 1833,…
• Of her marriage to Duncan McPherson Jr., 1808-1869 prior to the birth of Harriet ‘Mary’ Elizabeth McPherson (Elrod) in 1833 Orleans, Orange, Ind.
• And that her given name according to the 1850 and 1860 Census’, was Mary.
• It should be noted that most researchers exhibited life-span dates very close to one another. The overwhelming date range was for birth of 1810+/- two years, and death = 1875.

There were some, who did identify this Mary McPherson, as Mary ‘Polly’ Dark 1810-1875. Yet, what I was not able to discover comfortably, were any source citations or records to support that contention. But it appeared to me, that there seemed a strong contingent that believed Mary ‘Polly’ Dark, and Mary McPherson were indeed, one and the same. Unable to resolve the matter for myself at that time, I elected to save as much plausible material to review again at a later date. I also recalled there to be, from my perspective, an additional nagging problem for a claim of identity as Mary ‘Polly’ Dark, but decided to leave Mary McPherson for another time.
Shortly after that, I did what I suspect many new researchers do…I courted more than one genealogy web site in my quest for seemingly otherwise hard-to-come-by ancestor details. In some instances, the gamble paid off and I was able to locate verifiable records I’d been previously unsuccessful with. In other respects, the enterprise caused far more headache than discovery. One such headache, circled me back around to the person of Mary McPherson.

In the public platform of FamilySearch (free membership), I had entered a few generations of my known family. FamilySearch has an unusual feature of record matching methodology, in that, if the ancestor name and life/death dates find a direct match, it not only confirms the record you’re searching, but it additionally builds out any lineage detail attributed to that person’s parents and ascending ancestry, as well as spouse name and their ancestry. In most cases, I believe this information is pursuant to user-provided genealogical input and user-provided pedigree resources. In other words, often unsourced and unsupported.

As I entered my information for Duncan McPherson, 1808-1869 and provided a spouse name of ‘Mary’, I was immediately rewarded (or so I thought) with record matches. Unfortunately, I accepted that match before scrutinizing the possible consequences. The ancestral information for Duncan was what I already had via Ancestry…..for his spouse however, the matching record showed as: Mary ‘Polly’ Dark 1810-1875. When I reviewed the attributed source-citations…..there were in fact, none. But certain I must be overlooking something painfully obvious, I left the new match in place without detaching Mary ’Polly’ Dark as perhaps I should have. A few weeks later, as I was working the Ancestry site, I also put Mary Polly as Duncan’s spouse – but did not attempt to research her lineage further – and left a cautionary note in her profile section for anyone following me. That was over a year ago.
It would not be until I began populating my Geni tree recently, that my headache returned with a vengeance….for which I now must ask your help.

As I actively began to transfer information from my PC to Geni, I came across Mary ‘Polly’ Dark. Knowing I was going to be on surgical hiatus for several weeks, I went ahead and transferred the data that FamilySearch (and some Ancestry researchers) preferred regarding the spouse of Duncan McPherson. Apparently, there are more than a few of us who have the same information. But what caught my attention this time, was that ‘nagging’ inconsistency I’d recalled earlier…..it pertains to the date of birth for Mary ‘Polly’ Dark of 1810/1812. Although she is clearly identified as the daughter of Thomas Dark, that simply cannot be. Thomas Dark’s lifespan dates are 1805-1849. Out of a sense of responsibility, I renewed my search for anything at all to either affirm, or deny Mary ‘Polly’ Dark as one and the same as Mary McPherson. And the reason, is because I believe there are other managers who would be affected by any deletion of Polly Dark and her ample ascending ancestry. But wait….it gets worse! In fact, I did find marriage records for Duncan McPherson of Cumberland Co. N.C. and a Mary Ann Parker for 1832. Seems very plausible. But that would seem to rule-out Mary Polly, right? But then right on the heels of that, I discovered a 1932 Chatham Co N.C. marriage record through FamilySearch for Duncan McPherson and Polly Dark. Completely bewildered, I felt the best I could do was to preserve both women’s information and appeal to higher powers. At present, I have placed Mary Ann Parker 1812-1875 as Duncan’s spouse, aka Mary McPherson. And I placed Mary Polly Parker as a sibling of Thomas Dark – thereby deleting no one, but equally, leaving very apparent, one Mary too many! Mary Polly Dark has ancestry with connections to others managers I’m sure, Mary Ann Parker does not.
I have copied every relevant source citation into each of their three Source tabs for your review. At this point, all I know is I may have unwittingly contributed to a mess that I feel very responsible for, and keenly aware of for future efforts. If you could please review:

Duncan McPherson Jr., 1808-1869
Mary Ann Parker 1812-1875
Mary Polly Dark 1810-

If anyone has information that clarifies this matter I would be very grateful. And as to how to proceed from this point going forward in terms of what to do with the family group provided courtesy of Mary Polly Dark, again I would be grateful. And yes, I do believe I have learned my lesson here. And I apologize in advance for any issues this may cause.

Joachim