“Alexander DNA Results” 

Descendants of Alexander families  

who resided in Washington County, Virginia, in 1780 

By Floyd L. Owsley 

 

Updated May 22, 2017 

 

Recent DNA results associated with the Alexander DNA Project indicate that the Alexander men, whose families lived in Washington County, Virginia around 1780, are very closely related.  

 

There were five Alexander men who served in the Battle of King’s Mountain Campaign and resided in the Green Spring area of Washington County near the city of Abingdon. They were James Alexander (1740-aft1799), Jeremiah Alexander (1763-1847), Joseph Alexander, Oliver Alexander (1740-c1812), and William Alexander (c1749-1838). There was an Ebenezer Alexander (c1750-c1824) who also lived in Washington County during this same time period. He may have also served in the Battle of King’s Mountain Campaign. Family research reveals that these Alexander men had earlier migrated from Pennsylvania to Augusta County, Virginia, before moving to Washington County, Virginia. Later they moved from Washington County, Virginia, to Blount and Knox counties in east Tennessee. Jeremiah moved on to Alabama. Oliver died in Maury County, Tennessee, while William died in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Ebenezer settled and died in Hopkins County, Kentucky.  

 

Some researchers believe that all of these Alexander men were brothers and/or half brothers. They are believed (by this writer) to have been sons of Joseph Alexander (c1712-aft1778) or John Alexander (c1714-aft1772). Both resided in Augusta County, Virginia in 1770. Joseph and John are believed (by this writer) to have been sons of James Alexander “the Carpenter” of Cecil County, Maryland, and his wife, Mary Steele. James Alexander “the Carpenter” (1685-1717/18) was a son of Samuel Alexander (1657-1733) and his wife, Mary Taylor.  

 

More information on my Alexander family research can be found at the following websites: 

William Alexander “American Patriot”:  

http://owslfl.tripod.com/williamalexander/william-alexander.html

My Family Database at Rootsweb World Connect: 

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=OWSLFL&I11.x=25&I11.y=5

 

Direct male descendants of Ebenezer Alexander, James Alexander, Jeremiah Alexander, Oliver Alexander, and William Alexander have submitted to DNA testing with Family Tree DNA. Their DNA test results are posted on the Alexander DNA Project website:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ALEXANDER-Y-DNA

  

DNA Participants (Washington County, VA sub-group): 

Participant #32959 – Direct male descendant of Jeremiah Alexander (1763-1847) 

Participant #124982 – Direct male descendant of William Alexander (c1749-1838) 

Participant #66445 – Direct male descendant of William Alexander (c1749-1838) 

Participant #135620 – Direct male descendant of William Alexander (c1749-1838) 

Participant #136219 – Direct male descendant of Oliver Alexander (1740-c1812) 

Participant #148918 – Direct male descendant of James Alexander (1740-aft1799) 

Participant #207980 – Direct male descendant of Jeremiah Alexander (1763-1847) 

Participant #213781 – Direct male descendant of Ebenezer Alexander (c1750-c1824) 

Participant #222176 – Direct male descendant of William Alexander (c1749-1838) 

Participant #441377 – Direct male descendant of Ebenezer Alexander (c1750-c1824) 

Participant #233722 – Direct male descendant of Ebenezer Alexander (c1750-c1824) 

Participant #N102033 – Direct male descendant of Ebenezer Alexander (c1750-c1824) 

Participant #259898 – Direct male descendant of James Alexander (1740-aft1799)

Participant #656984 – Direct male descendant of James Alexander (1740-aft1799) 

Participant #641298 – Direct male descendant of Jeremiah Alexander (1763-1847) 

 

 

Based on the DNA results, all of the above participants have been placed in the (Seven Brothers, Two Sisters: Ireland to MD) “7+2” group in the Alexander DNA Project. All of the members of the Washington County, Virginia sub-group differ from others in the “7+2” group at marker 390, where there is a 25 instead of 24, showing a one-step mutation. This clearly places them in a category by themselves. This one-step mutation must have occurred at or before the birth (est. 1715) of the father of these  “brothers.” Family Tree DNA considers marker 390 a slow moving marker, which rarely ever changes. With all of the supporting evidence identifying these Alexander as possible brothers, the difference at marker 390 (25 instead of 24) is extremely relevant and clearly distinguishes them from the rest of the “7+2” group. (NOTE: This writer strongly believes the mutation at marker 390 occurred with the birth of James Alexander “the Carpenter” in 1785.)       

 

Participant #32959 (descendant of Jeremiah Alexander through his grandson, Jason Carson Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 67 marker test. He had one-step mutations at three more markers, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. They were markers 439, 459a, and 572. One of these is considered a fast moving marker, while the other two are considered slow moving markers. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that these other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant.     

 

Participant #207980 (descendant of Jeremiah Alexander through his grandson William Asiel Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test.  Along with the one-step mutation at marker 390, he had a one-step mutation at one other marker. It was at marker 439. He did not have the one-step mutation at marker 459a, as did the other descendant of Jeremiah. Since he didn’t complete the 67 marker test, he wasn’t tested for marker 572. Marker 439 is considered a fast moving marker. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the mutation at marker 439 occurred somewhere during the early generations leading down to the participant. (NOTE: Participant #207980 is no longer a member of the Alexander DNA Project. Therefore, his DNA results no longer show up up on the Alexander DNA Project website.)

 

The DNA results for Participant’s #124982 and #66445 (descendants of William Alexander through his son David L. Alexander) were exactly the same. Both are descended from two different sons of Hugh C. Alexander, son of David L. Alexander. Both participants completed the Y-DNA 67 marker tests. Along with the one-step mutation at marker 390, both had three-step mutations at marker GATA H4, and a one-step mutation at marker 570. Marker 570 is considered a fast moving marker. It is believed the three-step mutation was actually a very rare single occurrence. Based on the results of Participant #222176, it has been determined that the mutations at marker GATA H4 and marker 570 occurred with the birth of William’s son, David L. Alexander, or David’s son, Hugh C. Alexander. It also provided more proof that the three-step mutation at marker GATA H4 was definitely a single occurrence.   

 

Participant #222176 (descendant of William Alexander, through his son Joseph Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had mutations at two more markers, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. He had a one-step mutation at marker 446c and a one-step mutation at marker 385b. Both marker’s 446c and 385b are considered fast moving markers. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the two other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant. Participant #222176 did not have the three-step mutation at marker GATA H4 or the one-step mutation at marker 570 as the other two descendants of William Alexander. This reveals that these mutations (marker GATA H4 and marker 570) occurred with the birth of William’s son, David L. Alexander, or David’s son, Hugh C. Alexander. The other two descendants of William Alexander were descended from two different sons of Hugh C. Alexander, son of David L. Alexander, son of William Alexander. The DNA results also provide more evidence of Joseph Alexander as having been a son of William Alexander. Another researcher strongly believed that Joseph Alexander was a son of James Alexander of Roane County (now Loudon County), Tennessee. The DNA results of Participant #222176 do not match closely with the DNA results of the descendants of James Alexander. Without a doubt, Joseph was a son of William Alexander and Anne Laird.    

 

Participant #136219 (descendant of Oliver Alexander, through his son Ebenezer Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 67 marker test. He had mutations at two more markers, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. He had a two-step mutation at marker 449 and a one-step mutation at marker 385b. Both marker’s 449 and 385b are considered fast moving markers. It is believed the two-step mutation was actually a very rare single occurrence. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the two other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant. 

 

Participant #135620 (descendant of William Alexander, through his son, James Alexander “born c1786) completed the Y-DNA 67 marker test. Along with the one-step mutation at marker 390, he had a one-step mutation at only one other marker. This was at marker 576, which is considered a fast moving marker. One may conclude that this single mutation occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant. (NOTE: This James Alexander was married to Matilda Kilpatrick in 1808 in Maury County, TN. His father is now believed to have been William Alexander.)(NOTE: Other family researchers have James Alexander “born c1786” noted as a son of Matthew Alexander, son of Daniel and Prudence Alexander. Two direct male descendants of Daniel Alexander have already been tested. They are Participant’s #92049 and #107952. They do not have the one-step mutation at marker 390. Therefore, DNA results do not seem to support this relationship.) 

 

Participant #148918 (descendant of James Alexander through his son, Joseph Alexander “1766-1851”) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had only a single one-step mutation at marker 390. Joseph Alexander’s wife was Elizabeth McReynolds. Most Alexander researchers have Joseph listed as a son of Hezekiah Alexander and Mary Sample. Other research reveals he was a son of James Alexander who lived in Washington County, Virginia in 1780. James is believed to have been a twin brother of Oliver Alexander. Two direct male descendants of Hezekiah Alexander have already been tested. They are Participant’s #68134 and #94136. They do not have the one-step mutation at marker 390. The DNA results for Participant #148918 definitely supports the research, which shows Joseph Alexander (1766-1851) as having been a son of James Alexander (1740-aft1799) who lived in Washington County, Virginia in 1780.    

 

Participant #213781 (descendant of Ebenezer Alexander of Hopkins County, Kentucky, through his son William Patton Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had only a single one-step mutation at marker 390. His test results were exactly the same as Participant #148918, descendant of James Alexander (1740-aft 1799). Some researchers believed that Ebenezer was possibly a son of James Alexander of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, while others speculated that he was a brother to Oliver Alexander and his twin brother, James Alexander. The DNA results for Participant #213781 definitely support the belief that Ebenezer was a brother to Oliver Alexander and his twin brother, James Alexander (1740-aft1799).    

 

Participant #441377 (descendant of Ebenezer Alexander of Hopkins County, Kentucky, through his son John Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 111 marker test. He had a mutation at only one other marker, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. He had a one step mutation at marker Y-GATA-A10, which is considered a slow moving marker. His first 37 markers are exactly the same as participant's #148918 and #213781. While some of the other brothers also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the one other mutation occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant.   

 

Participant #233722 (descendant of Ebenezer Alexander of Hopkins County, Kentucky, through his son Joseph Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had mutations at two more markers along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. He had a one step mutation at marker 288 and a one step mutation at marker 576. Marker 388 is considered a slow moving marker, while marker 576 is considered a fast moving marker. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the two other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant. 

 

Participant #N102033 (descendant of Ebenezer Alexander of Hopkins County, Kentucky, through his son Joseph Alexander) completed the Y-DNA 12 marker test. His first 12 markers were exactly the same as Participant #233722. Along with the one-step mutation at marker 390, he also had a one-step mutation at marker 388.   

 

Participant #259898 (very likely a descendant of James Alexander, through his son, Thomas Alexander "1770/1780-aft 1830") completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had one-step mutations at four more markers, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. They were markers 458, 459a, 437, and 575. Two of these are considered fast moving markers, while the other two are considered slow moving markers. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that these other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant.


Participant #656984 (descendant of James Alexander, through his son, Thomas Alexander "1770/1780-aft 1830") completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had a mutation at only one other marker, along with the one-step mutation at marker 390. He had a one step mutation at marker 385, which is considered a fast moving marker. His first 37 markers are exactly the same as participant's #148918, #213781, and #441377, except for the one-step mutation at marker 385. While some of the other participants also had a few mutations, all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that the one mutation at marker 385 occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant.   


Participant #641298 (descendant of Jeremiah Alexander, through his grandson, Jeremiah Alexander 1824-1864) completed the Y-DNA 37 marker test. He had two two-step mutations at two more markers (449 and CDY), along with one-step mutations at marker 390 and 439  All but one of these markers are considered fast moving markers. While some of the other “brothers” also had a few mutations, almost all occurred at different markers. Therefore, one may conclude that these other mutations occurred somewhere during the generations leading down to the participant.


The DNA results for the above fifteen participants revealed that all belong in the (Seven Brothers, Two Sisters: Ireland to MD) “7+2” group in the Alexander DNA Project. This writer doesn’t believe it is just a coincidence that all fifteen participants have the one mutation at “slow-moving” marker 390. It is known that all five ancestors of the above participants resided in Washington County, Virginia in 1780. This writer considers this fact, along with the DNA results, as credible evidence that these Alexander men were closely related to each other and possibly brothers. 

 

As to my knowledge, none of the other members of the (Seven Brothers, Two Sisters: Ireland to MD) “7+2” group have this same mutation at marker 390.