Jane Gillham

From AbulWiki

This page is part of the Genealogy Research being done by Samuel Antonio Minter. It represents the best information I have at this time on this individual. This site is a Wiki open to be edited by anyone. If you see errors, or have additional relevant information, feel free to update this page. If you are not comfortable editing the page directly, please email me with the information at abulsme@abulsme.com. Thank you!


  • Date: 21 Apr 1773
  • Location: Bullocks Creek, Chester Co, South Carolina Colony, British Empire

Immediate Ancestors

Immediate Descendants

With John Minter

  • Martha Minter (b 20 May 1793 in Bullocks Creek, Chester Co, SC; married William Sherer on 23 Feb 1813)
  • Richard Isaac Minter (b 15 Feb 1795 in Chester Co, SC)
  • William Minter
  • John Thomas Minter (b 13 May 1800 in Chester Co, SC)
  • Mary Ann Minter (b 15 Mar 1804)
  • Jessee Jackson Minter (b 26 May 1806 in SC, d 16 May 1834)

Places Lived



  • Date: 24 Sep 1834
  • Location: Blairsville, SC, USA
  • Burial: Bullocks Creek Presbyterian Cemetery, York Co, SC

Biographical Information



  • Richard Isaac Minter is sometimes referred to as just Isaac Minter
  • Family search gives alternate marriage date of 18 Jan 1791
  • John Thomas Minter's birth date sometimes given as 11 May rather than 13 May
  • There are references to a Jane Gillham born in SC on 21 Apr 1773 who married John Minter but there is no information in any source about her parentage. There are also references to a Jane Gillham born in SC on 21 Oct 1773 that give her parents and siblings, but with no identification of any marriage to John Minter or anybody else. I can find no reference online that specifically links these "two" Jane Gillhams. I contend that these are actually the same Jane Gilham and there was just a transcription error on the month of birth sometime over the years. My reasoning is as follows:
    • South Carolina population in 1773 was about 250,000 (based on 1790 census so this is actually bigger than reality)
    • Live births were approximately 50 per 1000 population in the late 1700's (based on stat in "Encyclopedia of the New American Nation")
    • This gives about 12500 births in South Carolina in 1773.
    • About 6250 of those would have been girls.
    • About 3% of those would be named Jane (based on Given Names Frequency Project for 1801-1810 time period)
    • That gives us about 181 Janes born in South Carolina in 1773.
    • We need to multiply by the percentage of the whole South Carolina population that were Gilhams.
    • I have no idea what that number is. (If anyone has better insight on this step I would appreciate the input.) For now I will call it "G". (As a fraction, not a percentage, to avoid the factor of 100 everywhere.)
    • So the number of Jane Gillhams born in South Carolina in 1773 would be about 181*G.
    • Now, we know pretty confidently that John Minter's Jane Gillham was born April 21st.
    • We could figure out the odds of a second Jane Minter being born on October 21st specifically.
    • It would be 1-(364/365)^(181*G). This would be our lower bound on the odds. (Using math principles found on Wikipedia BIrthday Paradox page)
    • But... the hypothesis is that sometime in the last 233 years someone just transposed October for April in the Gillham family records.
    • In that case we don't care specifically about October 21st, but instead just the odds of a second person being born on ANY of the 21st other than April 2st.
    • That is because our hypothetical miscopier could have switched it with any of the eleven other months, not just October.
    • In that case our odds turn out to be 1-(354/365)^(181*G). This should be our upper bound on the odds.
    • This gives the chances of another Jane Gillham being born on the 21st of any other month besides April, given that our Jane Gilham was born on April 21st.
      • So lets run this with some possible values of G:
      • This shows the chances (X) of a second Jane Gillham being born on the 21st of another month, and therefore probably being an actual second Jane Gillham rather than the same person with the date miscopied.
        • Everybody in SC is a Gillham (G=1): 99.6%
        • 1 out of 2 is a Gillham (G=0.5): 93.7%
        • 1 out of 5 is a Gillham (G=0.2): 67.0%
        • 1 out of 10 is a Gillham (G=0.1): 42.5%
        • 1 out of 20 is a Gillham (G=0.05): 24.2%
        • 1 out of 50 is a Gillham (G=0.02): 10.5%
        • 1 out of 100 is a Gillham (G=0.01): 5.4%
        • 1 out of 200 is a Gillham (G=0.005): 2.7%
        • 1 out of 500 is a Gillham (G=0.002): 1.1%
        • 1 out of 1000 is a Gillham (G=0.001): 0.6%
      • Reversing the calculation... and solving for G...
      • G=log(1-X)/(181*log[354/365])
      • Plugging in a few numbers there...
      • As long as there are fewer Gillhams than 1 in 108 you have over a 95% chance that these two Jane Gillhams are the same Jane Gillham and not seperate people after all.
      • If there are fewer Gillhams than one in 552 then you have over a 99% chance that these are the same Jane Gillham...
      • (And even if there were so many Gillmans that 1 in every 8 people in SC was a Gllham, you'd still have better than even odds that this was the same Jane Gillham.)
      • One in 108 would mean that there were about 2300 people with the surname Gillham in South Carolina around the time of the 1790 census
      • One in 552 would mean that there were about 450 people with the surname Gillham in South Carolina around that time.
      • So, this all depends on the number of Gillhams in South Carolina in 1773... but if there were any less than 2300 or so, I'd feel really confidant betting that this is only one Jane Gilham, and someone just miscopied her birthday at some point (probably on the Gillham side... although all the math is the same if it was the reverse.)
    • References:
  • Some sources (even restricting to the sources that are positively connected to John Minter) use "Gilham" and some use "Gillham". I have used two L's as it seems to be more common, and it matches with the ussage of the Gillham tree that goes back from here.