2. JAMES BARTLOW, is listed as "James Bucklow" in the 1830 Federal Census of Ohio, in Dayton, Montgomery County(p.177). There is a male, age 15-20 residing with James and Mahala, who is perhaps a younger brother or brother-in-law.

3. JAMES BARTLOW appears in Dayton,Ohio in the 1840 Federal Census, without children.

4. JAMES BARTLOW, in the 1850 census(p.103,1418/1418,Sep.9), is listed as a farmer in Wayne Twp.,Montgomery Co.,OH. James is 54(b.1796) and claims Kentucky as his birthplace. Mahala is 45(b.1805) and states she was born in Maryland.

5. JAMES BARTELOW, is listed on p.266(47/45,Jun.4) of the 1860 census, Wayne Twp.,(P.O.Taylorsville), Montgomery Co.,OH. He is listed as a farmer, age 62, b.KY., with wife, Mahala,53,b.MD. This was the last census in which he was found, suggesting he and Mahala may have died between 1860 and 1870.

EVALUATING ANCESTRY PROBABILITIES:

If James Bartlow's claim of being born in Kentucky is correct, it could suggest his father was either Benjamin or Johnson Barkelow, who followed their father, James Barkelow(1732-1796) to Springfield Twp.,Hampshire Co.,VA(now W.VA.) about 1790. Both Benjamin and Johnson were named in their father's will, dated 20 Aug 1796 and probated 16 Jan 1797. Benjamin Barkelow, who must have been in his late 30's at the time of his father's death, is not heard from again. Johnson Barkelow(c1762-1808) got involved in land speculation in Scioto Co.,OH in 1804-1806, but died suddenly in 1808, his probate occurring back in Hampshire County. Although it would have been protocol and highly logical for both Benjamin and Johnson to have sons named James, a connecting document has not come forth to establish which, if either, actually did.

Unlike Benjamin, whose descendants(if any) are completely unknown at this time, the descendants of Johnson Barkelow(d.1808) have been pretty much determined from several sources. His children: Edward(1783) m. Ruth Patton; Elizabeth(c1786) m.Ira Hitchcock; Susannah(1790) m. John Hannah; Benjamin(1797) m.1) Margt. Foster, m.2) Margt. Pallison; and Stout(1803)m.Polly Groves. As you can see, there is a "place" for James between Susannah and Benjamin. Because Johnson is a son of James Barkelow,Jr.(1732-1796), it would serve both protocol and logic to assume Johnson would honor his father and grandfather by having a son named James. It would also make sense for this James to be one of the older sons of Johnson, either the eldest or the next oldest. James Bartlow(1796-p1860) coincidentally fits that profile.

It just happens that we can't find a document specifically tying James Bartlow to Johnson Barkelow. Had James and Mahala raised several children, their given names would have provided useful argument. James could easily be the son of Johnson, and, it is my opinion he is either the son of Johnson or Benjamin. In the absence of a final disposition for Benjamin, it can't be assumed that he did not marry and have issue. Assuming Benjamin died without heirs could make it convenient to assign James Bartlow(1796-p1860) to Johnson Barkelow. If Benjamin's death without issue could be determined, it would, through process of elimination, leave almost no one else but Johnson as James Bartlow's father.