Elijah Crouch
1770–c. 1825
✦ direct ancestor — Owen's 5×-great-grandfather · Crouch line
Life
- Born
- 1770 · Massachusetts
- Died
- about 1825 · Washington Co., Pennsylvania
Parents
Marriage & children
William E. Crouch (1792–1863)
Elizabeth Crouch (1795–c. 1825)
Samuel W Crouch (c. 1797–1855)
Nathan Crouch (1798–1865)
Elisha Crouch (1802–1883)
Stephen Crouch (c. 1806–c. 1859)
Joseph E. Crouch (1821–1907)
Timeline
- 16 Jan 1792MarriedMary Ellis — Washington, Tennessee, USA
Records behind this page
Unnamed source
Elijah Crouch (1770-1825) of Washington and McMinn Cos., TENNESSEE — the page this tree's gens 7-8 were copied from (read from the live site, controls run)
read the transcript
READ FROM THE LIVE SITE 31 Jul 2026, http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~crouch/genealogy/p3.htm, with controls on the same fetch: Crouch x245, Tennessee x11, Washington x14. "Elijah Crouch M, b. 1770, d. 1825. Father: John Crouch b. c 1727, d. c 1811. Mother: Sarah Barbury b. 1729, d. 1782. [grandfather] Joseph Crouch d. 1742. Birth*: Elijah Crouch was born in 1770 at VIRGINIA. He was the son of John Crouch and Sarah Barbury. Marriage*: Elijah Crouch married MARY ELLIS on 16 January 1792 at WASHINGTON, TENNESSEE. Death*: Elijah Crouch died in 1825 at McMINN, TENNESSEE. Family: Mary Ellis b. 1772" ⭐ FOUR OF THIS TREE'S VALUES MATCH THIS PAGE EXACTLY — Elijah 1770/1825, Mary Ellis b. 1772, Sarah Barbary b. 1729/30, and a John Crouch above him. That is a copy relationship, not a coincidence. ⛔ THE MECHANICAL CAUSE OF THE ERROR IS ONE WORD: 'Washington' was resolved to the WRONG STATE — Washington Co., PENNSYLVANIA instead of Washington Co., TENNESSEE. ⭐⭐ AND IT LOCATES THE FABRICATED JOINT: here SARAH BARBARY IS THE WIFE OF JOHN CROUCH (c.1727), an age-appropriate pair, and Elijah is THEIR son. This tree interpolates a 'Nathan Crouch b. 1750' between them and hands him a wife twenty years his senior. Independently, a search of the Somerset Co., Maryland records finds NO NATHAN AT ALL (control: 'Nathan' returns 1,066 hits in the same tax files). ⚠️ ELIJAH IS LISTED HERE WITH MARY ELLIS AND NO CHILDREN, and 'Benedict' appears nowhere on the site — so the Benedict->Elijah link was NOT inherited from this source; it was made separately, on a name. Mary Ellis is given NO DEATH DATE here, so this tree's d.1810 is unsourced, and a SECOND Mary Ellis (b. c.1765, wife of Edmund Bean) sits in the same compilation. ⚠️ THIS SOURCE IS A COMPILATION WITH NO CITATIONS. It proves what was copied. It does not prove the Tennessee facts.
Research notes
Working notes from the research, kept verbatim — what was read, what it proved, what stays open.
Research note · 31 Jul 2026
Audited 31 Jul 2026 — his first. ⛔ HE IS A TENNESSEE MAN, NOT A PENNSYLVANIA ONE. The compiled source this tree's data was copied from — 'Crouch and related Families from Washington County, TN' — states: born 1770 in VIRGINIA, son of John Crouch (c.1727) and Sarah Barbury (1729-1782); married MARY ELLIS 16 Jan 1792 at WASHINGTON, TENNESSEE; died 1825 at McMINN, TENNESSEE. ⛔ THE ERROR IS ONE WORD: 'Washington' resolved to the wrong STATE. ⭐ CONFIRMED FROM THE OTHER SIDE: there is NO Elijah Crouch in Washington Co., PENNSYLVANIA in 1810 — two independent transcriptions of that census agree across 5,601 head-of-household rows, with controls run — and he would have been 40 and a head of household. ⚠️ HIS 'MASSACHUSETTS' BIRTHPLACE IS UNSUPPORTED AND IS NOT EVEN THIS GRAFT'S FAULT: the 1790 census of Massachusetts holds FIVE Crouch/Croutch heads in the entire Commonwealth and no Elijah, and the source tree says VIRGINIA. Treat it as a third-hand data artifact, NOT a lead — the field was left unchanged only so the error stays visible. ⚠️ He is listed in that source with Mary Ellis and NO CHILDREN, and 'Benedict' appears nowhere on the site, so the link down to [112] was made separately on the strength of a name. Memo: ancestry/crouch-branch-research.md. ⛔ NOTHING WAS DELETED AND NO LINK WAS CUT: a negative removes support, it does not supply a replacement. Flags are 3=DISPUTED rather than 2=disproven because the case rests on a COMPILED WEBSITE plus census ABSENCES, not on a primary record naming someone else.
Elsewhere
This person on Ancestry (sign-in required)