NEW DNA EVIDENCE DISCOVERED: Male line (Y-DNA) testing has been performed on three 4g grandsons (K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna) and one other cousin (G. Mahanna) of James W. Behanna during 2018 and 2019. That testing shows conclusively that James' more recent cousins were part of the Mahanna family of Greene County, Pa. and Washington County, Pa. The family had migrated from Delaware to Pennsylvania around 1800. One or more of the family had emigrated from Ireland as a member of the McMahon family in the late 1600's or early 1700's. Cousins include Cornelius (Neely) Mahanna (1814-1880) and Walker Mahanna (1823-1880) of Greene Co., Pa. Further DNA testing and research continues.
The Delaware state relative of James Behanna is John Mahanna. EACH of the three DNA tests show a 98% probability that James Behanna and John Mahanna were brothers. John Mahanna was enumerated in the Mispillion Hundred Township, Kent County, Delaware, US census in 1800. He lived one or two miles south of Dover, Delaware. Another Mahanna, R. Mahanna was enumerated in the 1810 census in Little Creek Township, which is located 5 miles north of Dover. R. Mahanna headed a household which consisted of 4 "whites" and 8 "others". Subsequent census's show no trace of any member of this family of 12! Little Creek Township is the neighborhood where the Durham family lived from 1700 on. Most likely, James Behanna, John Mahanna and R. Mahanna were brothers. An anti-miscegenation law, making interracial marriage illegal, was passed in Delaware in 1807. This may have been the reason for James Behanna's name change and move to Pennsylvania!
FamilyTreeDNA provides several thousand "surname Groups", (Jones, Smith, O'brien, etc, etc,etc). Any tested individual can apply to any group. If his DNA is a match to the group, he is accepted into that group. Cousins K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna were accepted into the McMahon group, which has 392 members. Further, they formed a new subclade, consisting of them, G. Mahanna, Frank Mahon and P. O'Mahony. The entire DNA list of 392 members can be found here, "https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mcmahon?iframe=yresults". Use the browser search "Find in page" for the word "Behanna" to quickly scroll down to the Irish Sea subclade.
Many Ancestry.com family trees list James Behanna as descending from the Behenna family of Cornwall, England. This is incorrect. James Behenna was born in Veryan, Cornwall, England in 1788, the son of Joshua Behenna and Margaret Gommo Behenna. He later married Elizabeth Davies in Veryan and died there in 1854. Full details, including historical records on all of the Cornwall Behenna's, can be found on Familysearch.org.
And then there is the matter of the "Behanna" surname and the strange spellings thereof by many census takers and tax collectors! James shows up on 17 census and tax documents that were written during his lifetime. His surname was spelled 10 different ways. It was only spelled "Behanna" 1 time. Up to, and including, the 1850 census, the "Behanna" surname appears on the US census's another 8 times. It was not spelled "Behanna" once. The assumption has been that this is simply a case of "bad spelling" by enumerators and tax collectors. The "bad spelling" idea has a couple of major problems: it requires that all of the tax collectors and census takers couldn't spell Behanna AND that James couldn't spell Behanna - for his entire lifetime. Not likely! An alternate theory has some profound implications.
Later U.S. census's (1830 and beyond) document eight children of James and Sarah Behanna by name. More children may have passed away before making it into the census. The eight documented ones are James Behanna b. abt. 1806, Henry Behanna b. 1808, Benjamin J. Behanna b. abt. 1810, Sarah Behanna b. abt. 1812, Alexander Behanna b. abt. 1818, David S. Behanna, b. abt. 1819, Margaret Behanna b. abt. 1820 and John S. Behanna b. abt. 1825. Other children referred to in various family trees include George, Mary and Abraham. Elizabeth b. 1810, is often cited, but she is probably Elizabeth Degarmo Behanna b. abt. 1810, wife of James Behanna, Jr. Charles is also often cited. He is probably a grandson, not a son, of James and Sarah.
The following can be gleaned from the Washington County tax duplicates with a high degree of certainty: James was never a wealthy man. He never owned property and was probably a tenant farmer. No last will and testament has surfaced for James. The data further suggests that the family started out very poor, then improved and then took a turn for the worse in the years just before James' death. General indications of wealth in their times were as follows: first, a family would own one or more cows to supply milk and cheese, second, a horse to pull the family wagon (think of a family going to Sunday morning church in a rural area), and third, a family would own sheep to supply wool. Ownership of land and house was also a major measure of wealth. In James' case, he owned only one cow from 1804 to 1813 (2 cows in 1805), no horses and no sheep. That was all in rural Pike Run Township. When the family showed up in Fallowfield Township in tax year 1815/1816, they were taxed on 2 horses, 2 cows and 1 dog, reaching a high of 2 horses, 2 cows and 2 dogs in 1819/1820. By 1823/1824, it was 1 horse (crossed off), 1 cow and 1 dog. In James' last year, 1824/1825, it was down to only 1 cow. For reasons unknown, in the second year of being a widow (1827/1828), Sarah was taxed on 1 dog, 1 horse, 2 cows and 2 yoke of oxen. There were two other indications of the family's financial hardship: in 1817, James was marked as having 3 children between the ages of 12 and 5, and then his name was crossed off. That probably indicated that he later became able to pay for their schooling. In 1824/1825, David and Alexander Behanna were listed as "poor children of James Behanna".
Further insight can be gained by viewing the demographics for the area where James lived: Pike Run Township and Fallowfield Township. The county seat of Washington Borough can be used as a local urban population center for comparison. All data is from the 1820 census and the 1817 Melish-Whiteside map. Washington Borough had an area of 3.4 square miles containing 269 households. That gives a population density of 80 households per square mile. The occupations of those households were as follows: 0% agriculture, 19% commerce and 49% manufacturing. Pike Run Township was 60 square miles containing 307 households for a population density of 5 households per square mile. Pike Run occupations were as follows: 57% agriculture, 0% commerce and 26% manufacturing. Fallowfield Township was 38 square miles containing 312 households for a population density of 8 households per square mile. Fallowfield occupations were as follow: 64% agriculture, 5% commerce and 28% manufacturing. The occupation listed for the James Buhany household in same 1820 Fallowfield Township census was "agriculture". The occupations of the 20 nearest neighbors of James gives a "close-up" look at his neighborhood. Occupations of those neighbors were 14/20 agriculture, 1/20 commerce and 7/20 manufacturing, very similar to the township as a whole. In fact, Fallowfield and Pike Run Townships were very similar, with Pike Run being just a bit less densely populated. The dominant occupation was farming. Neither the 1810 or the 1820 census lists whether the head of household owned or rented the land. That data is only available in the 1798 direct tax list. Pike Run had 140 households enumerated in that direct tax list. Only 18% were rentals and 82% were owner occupied. Fallowfield had 153 households with 13% rentals and 87% owner occupied.
In the 1820 census, James was enumerated next door to one Rebecca Crawford. She was the estranged wife of the notorious William Crawford, who resided five households away from James. William Crawford was hanged in 1823 for the 1821 murder of his own son. A document titled, "The Trial for Murder of William Crawford", authored by Robert A. Ford has been published. It gives an excellent account of the life of farmers in James Behanna's community.
The upshot of all this info is that James was a subsistence tenant farmer with virtually no chance of improving his station in life. James was born at the outset of the American Revolution, not a prosperous time in the 13 colonies. He lived, and farmed, thru the time of the War of 1812, which again was not a prosperous time for American colonists, particularly farmers. Note that 1816 was "the year there was no summer", so there were widespread crop failures. James then died a poor farmer in 1826 or 1827 at the approximate age of 52. His legacy was his children. James is buried near wife Sarah in Horseshoe Baptist Cemetery. A family member observed a headstone there in the 1960's with the inscription, "James Behanna 1840", legible but difficult. The headstone no longer exists and the Baptist church with the cemetery records burned down many years ago. And so it goes!
The Delaware state relative of James Behanna is John Mahanna. EACH of the three DNA tests show a 98% probability that James Behanna and John Mahanna were brothers. John Mahanna was enumerated in the Mispillion Hundred Township, Kent County, Delaware, US census in 1800. He lived one or two miles south of Dover, Delaware. Another Mahanna, R. Mahanna was enumerated in the 1810 census in Little Creek Township, which is located 5 miles north of Dover. R. Mahanna headed a household which consisted of 4 "whites" and 8 "others". Subsequent census's show no trace of any member of this family of 12! Little Creek Township is the neighborhood where the Durham family lived from 1700 on. Most likely, James Behanna, John Mahanna and R. Mahanna were brothers. An anti-miscegenation law, making interracial marriage illegal, was passed in Delaware in 1807. This may have been the reason for James Behanna's name change and move to Pennsylvania!
FamilyTreeDNA provides several thousand "surname Groups", (Jones, Smith, O'brien, etc, etc,etc). Any tested individual can apply to any group. If his DNA is a match to the group, he is accepted into that group. Cousins K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna were accepted into the McMahon group, which has 392 members. Further, they formed a new subclade, consisting of them, G. Mahanna, Frank Mahon and P. O'Mahony. The entire DNA list of 392 members can be found here, "https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mcmahon?iframe=yresults". Use the browser search "Find in page" for the word "Behanna" to quickly scroll down to the Irish Sea subclade.
Many Ancestry.com family trees list James Behanna as descending from the Behenna family of Cornwall, England. This is incorrect. James Behenna was born in Veryan, Cornwall, England in 1788, the son of Joshua Behenna and Margaret Gommo Behenna. He later married Elizabeth Davies in Veryan and died there in 1854. Full details, including historical records on all of the Cornwall Behenna's, can be found on Familysearch.org.
And then there is the matter of the "Behanna" surname and the strange spellings thereof by many census takers and tax collectors! James shows up on 17 census and tax documents that were written during his lifetime. His surname was spelled 10 different ways. It was only spelled "Behanna" 1 time. Up to, and including, the 1850 census, the "Behanna" surname appears on the US census's another 8 times. It was not spelled "Behanna" once. The assumption has been that this is simply a case of "bad spelling" by enumerators and tax collectors. The "bad spelling" idea has a couple of major problems: it requires that all of the tax collectors and census takers couldn't spell Behanna AND that James couldn't spell Behanna - for his entire lifetime. Not likely! An alternate theory has some profound implications.
Later U.S. census's (1830 and beyond) document eight children of James and Sarah Behanna by name. More children may have passed away before making it into the census. The eight documented ones are James Behanna b. abt. 1806, Henry Behanna b. 1808, Benjamin J. Behanna b. abt. 1810, Sarah Behanna b. abt. 1812, Alexander Behanna b. abt. 1818, David S. Behanna, b. abt. 1819, Margaret Behanna b. abt. 1820 and John S. Behanna b. abt. 1825. Other children referred to in various family trees include George, Mary and Abraham. Elizabeth b. 1810, is often cited, but she is probably Elizabeth Degarmo Behanna b. abt. 1810, wife of James Behanna, Jr. Charles is also often cited. He is probably a grandson, not a son, of James and Sarah.
The following can be gleaned from the Washington County tax duplicates with a high degree of certainty: James was never a wealthy man. He never owned property and was probably a tenant farmer. No last will and testament has surfaced for James. The data further suggests that the family started out very poor, then improved and then took a turn for the worse in the years just before James' death. General indications of wealth in their times were as follows: first, a family would own one or more cows to supply milk and cheese, second, a horse to pull the family wagon (think of a family going to Sunday morning church in a rural area), and third, a family would own sheep to supply wool. Ownership of land and house was also a major measure of wealth. In James' case, he owned only one cow from 1804 to 1813 (2 cows in 1805), no horses and no sheep. That was all in rural Pike Run Township. When the family showed up in Fallowfield Township in tax year 1815/1816, they were taxed on 2 horses, 2 cows and 1 dog, reaching a high of 2 horses, 2 cows and 2 dogs in 1819/1820. By 1823/1824, it was 1 horse (crossed off), 1 cow and 1 dog. In James' last year, 1824/1825, it was down to only 1 cow. For reasons unknown, in the second year of being a widow (1827/1828), Sarah was taxed on 1 dog, 1 horse, 2 cows and 2 yoke of oxen. There were two other indications of the family's financial hardship: in 1817, James was marked as having 3 children between the ages of 12 and 5, and then his name was crossed off. That probably indicated that he later became able to pay for their schooling. In 1824/1825, David and Alexander Behanna were listed as "poor children of James Behanna".
Further insight can be gained by viewing the demographics for the area where James lived: Pike Run Township and Fallowfield Township. The county seat of Washington Borough can be used as a local urban population center for comparison. All data is from the 1820 census and the 1817 Melish-Whiteside map. Washington Borough had an area of 3.4 square miles containing 269 households. That gives a population density of 80 households per square mile. The occupations of those households were as follows: 0% agriculture, 19% commerce and 49% manufacturing. Pike Run Township was 60 square miles containing 307 households for a population density of 5 households per square mile. Pike Run occupations were as follows: 57% agriculture, 0% commerce and 26% manufacturing. Fallowfield Township was 38 square miles containing 312 households for a population density of 8 households per square mile. Fallowfield occupations were as follow: 64% agriculture, 5% commerce and 28% manufacturing. The occupation listed for the James Buhany household in same 1820 Fallowfield Township census was "agriculture". The occupations of the 20 nearest neighbors of James gives a "close-up" look at his neighborhood. Occupations of those neighbors were 14/20 agriculture, 1/20 commerce and 7/20 manufacturing, very similar to the township as a whole. In fact, Fallowfield and Pike Run Townships were very similar, with Pike Run being just a bit less densely populated. The dominant occupation was farming. Neither the 1810 or the 1820 census lists whether the head of household owned or rented the land. That data is only available in the 1798 direct tax list. Pike Run had 140 households enumerated in that direct tax list. Only 18% were rentals and 82% were owner occupied. Fallowfield had 153 households with 13% rentals and 87% owner occupied.
In the 1820 census, James was enumerated next door to one Rebecca Crawford. She was the estranged wife of the notorious William Crawford, who resided five households away from James. William Crawford was hanged in 1823 for the 1821 murder of his own son. A document titled, "The Trial for Murder of William Crawford", authored by Robert A. Ford has been published. It gives an excellent account of the life of farmers in James Behanna's community.
The upshot of all this info is that James was a subsistence tenant farmer with virtually no chance of improving his station in life. James was born at the outset of the American Revolution, not a prosperous time in the 13 colonies. He lived, and farmed, thru the time of the War of 1812, which again was not a prosperous time for American colonists, particularly farmers. Note that 1816 was "the year there was no summer", so there were widespread crop failures. James then died a poor farmer in 1826 or 1827 at the approximate age of 52. His legacy was his children. James is buried near wife Sarah in Horseshoe Baptist Cemetery. A family member observed a headstone there in the 1960's with the inscription, "James Behanna 1840", legible but difficult. The headstone no longer exists and the Baptist church with the cemetery records burned down many years ago. And so it goes!
NEW DNA EVIDENCE DISCOVERED: Male line (Y-DNA) testing has been performed on three 4g grandsons (K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna) and one other cousin (G. Mahanna) of James W. Behanna during 2018 and 2019. That testing shows conclusively that James' more recent cousins were part of the Mahanna family of Greene County, Pa. and Washington County, Pa. The family had migrated from Delaware to Pennsylvania around 1800. One or more of the family had emigrated from Ireland as a member of the McMahon family in the late 1600's or early 1700's. Cousins include Cornelius (Neely) Mahanna (1814-1880) and Walker Mahanna (1823-1880) of Greene Co., Pa. Further DNA testing and research continues.
The Delaware state relative of James Behanna is John Mahanna. EACH of the three DNA tests show a 98% probability that James Behanna and John Mahanna were brothers. John Mahanna was enumerated in the Mispillion Hundred Township, Kent County, Delaware, US census in 1800. He lived one or two miles south of Dover, Delaware. Another Mahanna, R. Mahanna was enumerated in the 1810 census in Little Creek Township, which is located 5 miles north of Dover. R. Mahanna headed a household which consisted of 4 "whites" and 8 "others". Subsequent census's show no trace of any member of this family of 12! Little Creek Township is the neighborhood where the Durham family lived from 1700 on. Most likely, James Behanna, John Mahanna and R. Mahanna were brothers. An anti-miscegenation law, making interracial marriage illegal, was passed in Delaware in 1807. This may have been the reason for James Behanna's name change and move to Pennsylvania!
FamilyTreeDNA provides several thousand "surname Groups", (Jones, Smith, O'brien, etc, etc,etc). Any tested individual can apply to any group. If his DNA is a match to the group, he is accepted into that group. Cousins K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna were accepted into the McMahon group, which has 392 members. Further, they formed a new subclade, consisting of them, G. Mahanna, Frank Mahon and P. O'Mahony. The entire DNA list of 392 members can be found here, "https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mcmahon?iframe=yresults". Use the browser search "Find in page" for the word "Behanna" to quickly scroll down to the Irish Sea subclade.
Many Ancestry.com family trees list James Behanna as descending from the Behenna family of Cornwall, England. This is incorrect. James Behenna was born in Veryan, Cornwall, England in 1788, the son of Joshua Behenna and Margaret Gommo Behenna. He later married Elizabeth Davies in Veryan and died there in 1854. Full details, including historical records on all of the Cornwall Behenna's, can be found on Familysearch.org.
And then there is the matter of the "Behanna" surname and the strange spellings thereof by many census takers and tax collectors! James shows up on 17 census and tax documents that were written during his lifetime. His surname was spelled 10 different ways. It was only spelled "Behanna" 1 time. Up to, and including, the 1850 census, the "Behanna" surname appears on the US census's another 8 times. It was not spelled "Behanna" once. The assumption has been that this is simply a case of "bad spelling" by enumerators and tax collectors. The "bad spelling" idea has a couple of major problems: it requires that all of the tax collectors and census takers couldn't spell Behanna AND that James couldn't spell Behanna - for his entire lifetime. Not likely! An alternate theory has some profound implications.
Later U.S. census's (1830 and beyond) document eight children of James and Sarah Behanna by name. More children may have passed away before making it into the census. The eight documented ones are James Behanna b. abt. 1806, Henry Behanna b. 1808, Benjamin J. Behanna b. abt. 1810, Sarah Behanna b. abt. 1812, Alexander Behanna b. abt. 1818, David S. Behanna, b. abt. 1819, Margaret Behanna b. abt. 1820 and John S. Behanna b. abt. 1825. Other children referred to in various family trees include George, Mary and Abraham. Elizabeth b. 1810, is often cited, but she is probably Elizabeth Degarmo Behanna b. abt. 1810, wife of James Behanna, Jr. Charles is also often cited. He is probably a grandson, not a son, of James and Sarah.
The following can be gleaned from the Washington County tax duplicates with a high degree of certainty: James was never a wealthy man. He never owned property and was probably a tenant farmer. No last will and testament has surfaced for James. The data further suggests that the family started out very poor, then improved and then took a turn for the worse in the years just before James' death. General indications of wealth in their times were as follows: first, a family would own one or more cows to supply milk and cheese, second, a horse to pull the family wagon (think of a family going to Sunday morning church in a rural area), and third, a family would own sheep to supply wool. Ownership of land and house was also a major measure of wealth. In James' case, he owned only one cow from 1804 to 1813 (2 cows in 1805), no horses and no sheep. That was all in rural Pike Run Township. When the family showed up in Fallowfield Township in tax year 1815/1816, they were taxed on 2 horses, 2 cows and 1 dog, reaching a high of 2 horses, 2 cows and 2 dogs in 1819/1820. By 1823/1824, it was 1 horse (crossed off), 1 cow and 1 dog. In James' last year, 1824/1825, it was down to only 1 cow. For reasons unknown, in the second year of being a widow (1827/1828), Sarah was taxed on 1 dog, 1 horse, 2 cows and 2 yoke of oxen. There were two other indications of the family's financial hardship: in 1817, James was marked as having 3 children between the ages of 12 and 5, and then his name was crossed off. That probably indicated that he later became able to pay for their schooling. In 1824/1825, David and Alexander Behanna were listed as "poor children of James Behanna".
Further insight can be gained by viewing the demographics for the area where James lived: Pike Run Township and Fallowfield Township. The county seat of Washington Borough can be used as a local urban population center for comparison. All data is from the 1820 census and the 1817 Melish-Whiteside map. Washington Borough had an area of 3.4 square miles containing 269 households. That gives a population density of 80 households per square mile. The occupations of those households were as follows: 0% agriculture, 19% commerce and 49% manufacturing. Pike Run Township was 60 square miles containing 307 households for a population density of 5 households per square mile. Pike Run occupations were as follows: 57% agriculture, 0% commerce and 26% manufacturing. Fallowfield Township was 38 square miles containing 312 households for a population density of 8 households per square mile. Fallowfield occupations were as follow: 64% agriculture, 5% commerce and 28% manufacturing. The occupation listed for the James Buhany household in same 1820 Fallowfield Township census was "agriculture". The occupations of the 20 nearest neighbors of James gives a "close-up" look at his neighborhood. Occupations of those neighbors were 14/20 agriculture, 1/20 commerce and 7/20 manufacturing, very similar to the township as a whole. In fact, Fallowfield and Pike Run Townships were very similar, with Pike Run being just a bit less densely populated. The dominant occupation was farming. Neither the 1810 or the 1820 census lists whether the head of household owned or rented the land. That data is only available in the 1798 direct tax list. Pike Run had 140 households enumerated in that direct tax list. Only 18% were rentals and 82% were owner occupied. Fallowfield had 153 households with 13% rentals and 87% owner occupied.
In the 1820 census, James was enumerated next door to one Rebecca Crawford. She was the estranged wife of the notorious William Crawford, who resided five households away from James. William Crawford was hanged in 1823 for the 1821 murder of his own son. A document titled, "The Trial for Murder of William Crawford", authored by Robert A. Ford has been published. It gives an excellent account of the life of farmers in James Behanna's community.
The upshot of all this info is that James was a subsistence tenant farmer with virtually no chance of improving his station in life. James was born at the outset of the American Revolution, not a prosperous time in the 13 colonies. He lived, and farmed, thru the time of the War of 1812, which again was not a prosperous time for American colonists, particularly farmers. Note that 1816 was "the year there was no summer", so there were widespread crop failures. James then died a poor farmer in 1826 or 1827 at the approximate age of 52. His legacy was his children. James is buried near wife Sarah in Horseshoe Baptist Cemetery. A family member observed a headstone there in the 1960's with the inscription, "James Behanna 1840", legible but difficult. The headstone no longer exists and the Baptist church with the cemetery records burned down many years ago. And so it goes!
The Delaware state relative of James Behanna is John Mahanna. EACH of the three DNA tests show a 98% probability that James Behanna and John Mahanna were brothers. John Mahanna was enumerated in the Mispillion Hundred Township, Kent County, Delaware, US census in 1800. He lived one or two miles south of Dover, Delaware. Another Mahanna, R. Mahanna was enumerated in the 1810 census in Little Creek Township, which is located 5 miles north of Dover. R. Mahanna headed a household which consisted of 4 "whites" and 8 "others". Subsequent census's show no trace of any member of this family of 12! Little Creek Township is the neighborhood where the Durham family lived from 1700 on. Most likely, James Behanna, John Mahanna and R. Mahanna were brothers. An anti-miscegenation law, making interracial marriage illegal, was passed in Delaware in 1807. This may have been the reason for James Behanna's name change and move to Pennsylvania!
FamilyTreeDNA provides several thousand "surname Groups", (Jones, Smith, O'brien, etc, etc,etc). Any tested individual can apply to any group. If his DNA is a match to the group, he is accepted into that group. Cousins K. Behanna, V. Behanna and W. Behanna were accepted into the McMahon group, which has 392 members. Further, they formed a new subclade, consisting of them, G. Mahanna, Frank Mahon and P. O'Mahony. The entire DNA list of 392 members can be found here, "https://www.familytreedna.com/public/mcmahon?iframe=yresults". Use the browser search "Find in page" for the word "Behanna" to quickly scroll down to the Irish Sea subclade.
Many Ancestry.com family trees list James Behanna as descending from the Behenna family of Cornwall, England. This is incorrect. James Behenna was born in Veryan, Cornwall, England in 1788, the son of Joshua Behenna and Margaret Gommo Behenna. He later married Elizabeth Davies in Veryan and died there in 1854. Full details, including historical records on all of the Cornwall Behenna's, can be found on Familysearch.org.
And then there is the matter of the "Behanna" surname and the strange spellings thereof by many census takers and tax collectors! James shows up on 17 census and tax documents that were written during his lifetime. His surname was spelled 10 different ways. It was only spelled "Behanna" 1 time. Up to, and including, the 1850 census, the "Behanna" surname appears on the US census's another 8 times. It was not spelled "Behanna" once. The assumption has been that this is simply a case of "bad spelling" by enumerators and tax collectors. The "bad spelling" idea has a couple of major problems: it requires that all of the tax collectors and census takers couldn't spell Behanna AND that James couldn't spell Behanna - for his entire lifetime. Not likely! An alternate theory has some profound implications.
Later U.S. census's (1830 and beyond) document eight children of James and Sarah Behanna by name. More children may have passed away before making it into the census. The eight documented ones are James Behanna b. abt. 1806, Henry Behanna b. 1808, Benjamin J. Behanna b. abt. 1810, Sarah Behanna b. abt. 1812, Alexander Behanna b. abt. 1818, David S. Behanna, b. abt. 1819, Margaret Behanna b. abt. 1820 and John S. Behanna b. abt. 1825. Other children referred to in various family trees include George, Mary and Abraham. Elizabeth b. 1810, is often cited, but she is probably Elizabeth Degarmo Behanna b. abt. 1810, wife of James Behanna, Jr. Charles is also often cited. He is probably a grandson, not a son, of James and Sarah.
The following can be gleaned from the Washington County tax duplicates with a high degree of certainty: James was never a wealthy man. He never owned property and was probably a tenant farmer. No last will and testament has surfaced for James. The data further suggests that the family started out very poor, then improved and then took a turn for the worse in the years just before James' death. General indications of wealth in their times were as follows: first, a family would own one or more cows to supply milk and cheese, second, a horse to pull the family wagon (think of a family going to Sunday morning church in a rural area), and third, a family would own sheep to supply wool. Ownership of land and house was also a major measure of wealth. In James' case, he owned only one cow from 1804 to 1813 (2 cows in 1805), no horses and no sheep. That was all in rural Pike Run Township. When the family showed up in Fallowfield Township in tax year 1815/1816, they were taxed on 2 horses, 2 cows and 1 dog, reaching a high of 2 horses, 2 cows and 2 dogs in 1819/1820. By 1823/1824, it was 1 horse (crossed off), 1 cow and 1 dog. In James' last year, 1824/1825, it was down to only 1 cow. For reasons unknown, in the second year of being a widow (1827/1828), Sarah was taxed on 1 dog, 1 horse, 2 cows and 2 yoke of oxen. There were two other indications of the family's financial hardship: in 1817, James was marked as having 3 children between the ages of 12 and 5, and then his name was crossed off. That probably indicated that he later became able to pay for their schooling. In 1824/1825, David and Alexander Behanna were listed as "poor children of James Behanna".
Further insight can be gained by viewing the demographics for the area where James lived: Pike Run Township and Fallowfield Township. The county seat of Washington Borough can be used as a local urban population center for comparison. All data is from the 1820 census and the 1817 Melish-Whiteside map. Washington Borough had an area of 3.4 square miles containing 269 households. That gives a population density of 80 households per square mile. The occupations of those households were as follows: 0% agriculture, 19% commerce and 49% manufacturing. Pike Run Township was 60 square miles containing 307 households for a population density of 5 households per square mile. Pike Run occupations were as follows: 57% agriculture, 0% commerce and 26% manufacturing. Fallowfield Township was 38 square miles containing 312 households for a population density of 8 households per square mile. Fallowfield occupations were as follow: 64% agriculture, 5% commerce and 28% manufacturing. The occupation listed for the James Buhany household in same 1820 Fallowfield Township census was "agriculture". The occupations of the 20 nearest neighbors of James gives a "close-up" look at his neighborhood. Occupations of those neighbors were 14/20 agriculture, 1/20 commerce and 7/20 manufacturing, very similar to the township as a whole. In fact, Fallowfield and Pike Run Townships were very similar, with Pike Run being just a bit less densely populated. The dominant occupation was farming. Neither the 1810 or the 1820 census lists whether the head of household owned or rented the land. That data is only available in the 1798 direct tax list. Pike Run had 140 households enumerated in that direct tax list. Only 18% were rentals and 82% were owner occupied. Fallowfield had 153 households with 13% rentals and 87% owner occupied.
In the 1820 census, James was enumerated next door to one Rebecca Crawford. She was the estranged wife of the notorious William Crawford, who resided five households away from James. William Crawford was hanged in 1823 for the 1821 murder of his own son. A document titled, "The Trial for Murder of William Crawford", authored by Robert A. Ford has been published. It gives an excellent account of the life of farmers in James Behanna's community.
The upshot of all this info is that James was a subsistence tenant farmer with virtually no chance of improving his station in life. James was born at the outset of the American Revolution, not a prosperous time in the 13 colonies. He lived, and farmed, thru the time of the War of 1812, which again was not a prosperous time for American colonists, particularly farmers. Note that 1816 was "the year there was no summer", so there were widespread crop failures. James then died a poor farmer in 1826 or 1827 at the approximate age of 52. His legacy was his children. James is buried near wife Sarah in Horseshoe Baptist Cemetery. A family member observed a headstone there in the 1960's with the inscription, "James Behanna 1840", legible but difficult. The headstone no longer exists and the Baptist church with the cemetery records burned down many years ago. And so it goes!
