I have been researching the Kerley family on and off for several decades. I have operated on the assumption that all of the Kerleys who were living in the United States between 1750 and 1800 were related if: (1) they were living in the South or Mid-West (i.e., basically south of the Mason-Dixon line), (2) most of their names were consistent with the naming patterns of my verified Kerley ancestors, and (3) they lived in close proximity to other Kerleys. This is what I call my "One Great Family" theory. I recognize that this theory may not be valid, and that there may have been any number of unrelated Kerley families who immigrated to America in the latter half of the 1700's. But, given the relatively small number of Kerley families in America during these years, their use of common names and the closeness of their residences I feel somewhat confident in proceeding on the basis that they were all related. Until proven to the contrary, that is basis on which I have proceeded.
This project has, like most genealogy research, been very frustrating at times. Four problems generated much of this frustration. First, there simply aren't very many records dealing with colonial and early America. In the colonial era, records were kept only sporadically. What few records survived to this day are often only fragmentary and are often inconsistent with each other. Thus, many of the conclusions drawn here are based on educated guessing derived from isolated fragments and other tantalizing tidbits of information.
Second, many family researchers have, over the years, contributed bits and pieces to this story. Many of these researchers had access to limited data and records, and they - not surprisingly - ended up making mistakes. Some of these mistaken theories have been passed on down through the years and have become accepted, in many quarters, as fact. Many of these theories, however, cannot withstand even the most simple tests of common sense or logic. For example, some of these theories have people having children way past their child-bearing years, or people living too long or showing up in multiple locations at the same time. It is rather easy to disprove these theories.
In this respect, the Internet has been both a blessing and a curse. The curse component is the ease with which inherently “bad” data is widely circulated. Information on the Web is perceived by many to be reliable and is often not questioned by overly-optimistic researchers. These “researchers” then pick up that data, insert it into their own works, and thus perpetuate the error(s). In this respect, I urge you to seriously question every scrap of data that you see on the Internet about the Kerleys (including everything on this site).
The blessing component of the Internet is the ease that it provides to verify (or in many cases, dismiss) theories. On-line access to records makes it extremely easy to look at original records, examine handwriting, and track movements of people from decade to decade. In a matter of minutes I can now pick out a person, find him or her in a particular census and then track him/her either forward or backward. All in all, the benefits of the Internet certainly outweigh its disadvantages.
Third, our family showed little creativity when it came to naming their children. They seemed to really like just a select, few names, particularly in the first few generations of their domicile in America. Names like William, Henry, James, John and Daniel among the males and Elizabeth, Hannah and Mary among the females were common in virtually every Kerley family throughout the late 1700's and early 1800's. There were often 7 or 8 people with identical names living at the same time. For example, in 1821 there were at least 9 different William Kerleys alive:
(1) William (born about 1756) living in Smith/Macon TN (65 years old)
(2) William (born in 1786) living in Smith/Macon Co. TN, (35 years old)
(3) William (born in 1820) living in Smith/Macon Co. TN, (1 year old)
(4) William (born in 1808) living in Smith Co., TN, (13 years old)
(5) William (born in 1783) living in Burke Co., NC., (38 years old)
(6) William (born in 1799) living in Bledsoe Co. TN. (22 years old)
(7) William (born in 1761) living in Madison Co., KY (60 years old)
(8) William (born in 1782) living in Madison Co. KY, (39 years old) and
(9) William born in 1799 probably living in Kentucky. (22 years old)
Thus, it is sometimes very difficult to determine to whom a particular record refers. This is especially true since my theory is that all of these Williams were related to each other.
Finally, transcription errors are common in published materials. In many cases, due to very poor handwriting, it was (and still is) almost impossible to distinguish between, for example, a Kerley and a Kerby, or between a Kerly and a Kirby. Even after closely scrutinizing census records of persons I am absolutely sure were Kerleys, I have on many occasions been puzzled by the sloppy handwriting or the imprecise spelling. If I had such difficulty (and I have spent years tracing family movements and family relationships, and thus was fairly confidently what the record was supposed to say), then it should not be surprising that transcribers who did not have such familiarity with our family would make mistakes. I am certainly not criticizing the brave souls who undertook the arduous task of recording those ancient records for posterity, but I simply want to warn everyone about the perils of relying on transcribed records.
The key point here is that printed transcripts of original records are often unreliable. A separate examination of the original record is almost always in order. Examining a name in context is always helpful. For example, when looking at a census record, examine the surrounding entries and check out the other family members.
Despite these challenges, this project has been extremely enjoyable. To uncover the story of one's heritage -- to discover just how you came to be who you are -- is a journey every person should take.
Because of the lack of adequate proof, in many cases, I have made educated guesses as to the relationship among certain groups of Kerleys. Each such "guess" is clearly identified as such, and is certainly susceptible to challenge and correction. I am always open to new data and information. If you have data to corroborate (or disprove) anything contained on this site, please contact me. Your input will be valued.