MCCAIN-L Archives

Archiver > MCCAIN > 2005-06 > 1118873833

From: "JLP" <>
Subject: RE: [MCCAIN] Alexander McKean 1690s
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:17:13 -0500
In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180

No takers? (on my direct question) OK, I'll try to answer it myself,
because I think it illustrates the muddled mess we've created.

I think the fable that Alexander was the father of the Marsh Creek
McCains comes from the Waxhaw McCains, and they do have a legend that
their Hugh was the son of an Alexander. As long as they thought they
were closely related, and descended from, the Marsh Creek McCains,
then I suppose everyone in the Marsh Creek clan could jump on that
band wagon and claim they, too, were descended from Alexander. But I
think the DNA results - if I remember it correctly - says the Waxhaw
and Marsh Creek McCains are closely related but not that closely. And
even if the DNA said they were, there's another BIG problem.

It has been postulated that the Marsh Creek boys came from three sons
of an Alexander McCain: Alexander (who settled just below the state
line in MD), Hugh who died in 1748, and Robert who died in 1789 (and
I, for one, am not buying this theory yet). See the problem? There
can't be two Hugh's - both sons of Alexander! - one who went to the
Waxhaws, and one who died in Marsh Creek in 1748.

Each of those Marsh Creek sons had a son named Hugh, any one of whom
could be the Hugh who went to the Waxhaws, but somehow we seem to have
accounted for all of them: Alexander's Hugh (and other sons) went to
NC in the 1770s, that Hugh settling in Caswell Co.; Hugh's son Hugh
(and brother Alexander) migrated south in the late 1770s; and I'm
supposing that Robert's son Hugh stuck around Marsh Creek. So we're
back to the question of where did the Waxhaw McCains come from?

If we postulate that BOTH the Marsh Creek McCain tribe, AND the Waxhaw
McCains, had an immigrant progenitor named Alexander, then you can be
sure they weren't brothers. What? Does this suggest that there were
cousins (and uncles and nephews) on that boat? Where are all these
other McCains in our accounting, and why aren't they even being

If the immigrant ancestors of the two tribes, above, were NOT BOTH
named Alexander, then which one was? Whose legend is correct? If
either of them was...

And if you back up even more to get a bigger picture, there's the
problem of the Robert McKean family and his ancestors - the one who
signed the Declaration of Independence. I don't even want to go

Then we need to consider the evidence that there were apparently
several lines of "late comers" who didn't come to America that early,
but whose DNA also closely matches. This would suggest that not all
the sons of the patriarch, or patriarchs, who made the first boat,
came with the family, i.e., it was not a single family that picked up
lock-stock-and-barrel and immigrated to the colonies, and eventually
went through Marsh Creek. Only those stubborn legends which seem to
be having a hard time a-dying would suggest that scenario.

I'd give anything if that supposed passenger list of the fabled 149
families who made the first boat were to surface. That would
definitely go a long way to straightening this out. But short of that
the next best possible place to look is in dusty old records from
Chester County, PA, where you can be pretty sure that all these
McCains landed, and lingered for a while, before moving on to their
destinations. Church records of the very early Presbyterian churches
in the area of present-day Chester, and eastern Lancaster, counties
would probably contain something. But these have not been published
and are probably only accessible by doing diligent research in the PA
Archives, or with the Donegal Presbyterian records - which I think are
in Philadelphia.

Dare I say it again? The sooner we let go of the legends and start
looking at the solid evidence and the big picture (instead of just the
myopic "my family"), and allow some new facts to get injected into the
picture, after first finding them, the better off we'll all be.


-----Original Message-----
From: JLP [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:11 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: [MCCAIN] Alexander McKean 1690s

I sure wish someone else would get in the questioning frame of mind.
But here I go again...

Does anyone really know the given name of our assumed McCain immigrant
ancestor? Why does "everyone" assume that it was "Alexander"? Why
not "Hugh" or "Robert" or "John"? (But I will concede that odds are
good that it's one of those four, and more likely to be "Hugh" or
"Alexander" given the popularity and perpetuation of those names
through the generations).


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul McKean [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [MCCAIN] Alexander McKean 1690s

Barra: I have it that "my" Alexander (6th Great G.F) was born in 1680
N.Ireland, but I have also seen 1663 in Scotland ?????????
Apparently one
of his two (the second I think) Adams wives was born in 1680. Not
help, sorry. PFM 6/15/05

>From: "McCain" <>
>Subject: [MCCAIN] Alexander McKean 1690s
>Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:07:45 -0500
>what would be the approximate birth and death date on an Alexander
>He would have been born in County Antrim we know, if before 1690 I
>likely have him in some records.
>==== MCCAIN Mailing List ====
>To unsubscribe from the McCain List: Send email to
> with the word un- subscribe( substitute

>-D-if you have the digest mode) in the body of the message.
>New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your
>at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn

==== MCCAIN Mailing List ====
To Contact McCain-List Manager:

Beulah Reeves McCain

Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:

This thread: