Re: Mary Polly Flack b1801 Rutherford Co NC
Yes, I'm familiar with the court record in the Bridges to the Past volume.As for the Heritage volume quotes, I think you should be very skeptical.If you can find primary sources which document that John Flack participated in the establishment of Brittain Pres. Church, that his first wife was named Jane Porter or that he and William Flack were in Rutherford by 1760 (actually it was Anson until 1762, then Mecklenburg, then Tryon, then finally Rutherford) I'd like to see them.It is true that there was a Wm. Flack who entered land in Mecklenburg/Tryon/Ruth. (on Camp Crk.) in 1768.However, while it has always been supposed that Wm. and John were brothers, I cannot even find a primary source for this widely assumed relationship (though they were clearly related because John Flack's children by his first wife selected Wm. as their guardian following the death of John Flack in 1792).I might add also that the 1751 birthdate assigned to John Flack can be attributed to the Bucks Co. PA nonsense.
As for the questions you had, the only known wife was his first, Mary Polly Porter, whom he married in 1796 (the Flacks were indeed quite close to the Porters).The marriage bond does survive.However, my grandfather, Ralph R. Flack, maintained that he married two more times (and so did Ivarea Flack following him).Also, according to my grandfather, Polly Porter's father was Robert Porter.I'm afraid I haven't done much work on the second and third generations of the Rutherford Flacks, so for now we'll just have to assume my grandfather was right (but you have every right to be a skeptic!).I would guess that Polly Flack Nanney's mother was Polly Porter Flack, but I don't know.I see no mention of a wife in his will, so if Andrew Flack was married 3 times he outlived all of them.
As for the documentation of the relationship between Mary Nanney and Andrew Flack, the rejected 1865 Andrew Flack will (see Ruth. court minutes for Jan., 1865) refers to a daughter named Mary C. Nanney to whom Andrew willed three slaves.By the way, since the will was brought before the court in Jan., I think it is quite possible that Andrew could have died in late 1864 (at least anytime following Fall court, 1864, and before Winter term, 1865).So maybe we should give his death as ca. 1865.Certainly Ivarea's contention that he took the Loyalty Oath following the War must be incorrect.
Yes, indeed, the Porters.I will only say that I think that if you can figure out where the Porters came from, there's at least a chance you will be able to solve the problem of John Flack's origins.The problem is that Porter is a common surname, and there are a lot of Wm., James & Robert Porters.The Porters preceded the Flacks in Tryon and they were prominent during the Revolution.Col. Wm. Porter I believe donated land for Brittain Church (maybe when it was moved from the original site, I can't remember) and he commanded a company of Rutherford men at King's Mountain; I believe he also represented Rutherford in the Gen. Assembly for many years (check Griffin for all this).Clearly he and John Flack were among the leading men of Rutherford during the decade following the revolution.
As I believe I wrote in my previous post, John Flack was a JP (justice of the peace) during the revolution (1781).The JPs presided over the county court and had a great deal of power.There are records that both he and Wm. Flack provided livestock, supplies, etc., to the militia (I suppose associated with the King's Mountain campaign).There is no evidence that he fought at King's Mountain or otherwise took up arms.However, I think (though I'm not sure) that you may be able to join the DAR on a civil official (i.e., if you're interested in that stuff!).
I hope to be writing up my research on the early Flacks soon.It will be much more detailed than this (and referenced!).I'll send you a copy if you like.Let me hear from you cousin!Regards, Tim