When Sources Mislead: The Case of William S. Nafus
If you’re like me, you build your family tree on sources. But what happens when those sources provide misleading or even contradictory information?
As I’ve been researching the descendants of my 4th great-grandfather, William S. Nafus (1774–1852), I discovered that I had recorded his birth as occurring in England, with an immigration date of 1781. This detail didn’t come from just one source—it came from two.
Two Biographies, One Storyline: Born in England
The first mention comes from an 1897 biographical sketch about William’s son, A.W. Nafus, through William’s second wife, Mary Clabaugh. This account clearly states that William was born in England and came to America in 1781:
“William Nafus, his father, was a native of England, born in 1774, came to America in 1781, and died about 1852. He settled upon a farm in Wyandot County, Ohio…”
— Commemorative Historical and Biographical Record of Wood County, Ohio (Chicago: J. H. Beers & Co, 1897), pp. 1222–1223. Archive.org
A second biography, published over a century later in 1998, echoes this same origin story:
“William Nafus (1774) was a native of England and came to America in 1781…”
— Seneca County Ohio History & Families, Turner Publishing, p. 323. Submitted by Trevor Graham. Seneca County Digital Library
Both biographies are confident in their claims. And until recently, so was I.
But the Census Tells a Different Story
Eventually, I asked myself: Why am I accepting this England narrative without question?
The 1850 U.S. Census—one of the most contemporaneous documents we have—lists William S. Nafus as born in New York. This conflicts directly with the “born in England” narrative.
Land records support the census: William owned property in New York before migrating to Ohio. That fact, combined with his family’s proximity to other New York settlers, adds weight to the idea that he was native to New York—not an English immigrant.
DNA and Colonial Ties: A Different Heritage Emerges
According to collaborative trees on FamilySearch and Geneanet, William S. Nafus descends from Cornelius Nefjes (1744–1817) and further back to Johannes Nevius III, part of a well-documented Dutch lineage from New Amsterdam.
The book Joannes Nevius, Schepen and Third Secretary of New Amsterdam tracks descendants of Johannes Nevius III down to Cornelius Nefjes but does not list Cornelius’s children—leaving a gap where William might belong.
Despite this, AncestryDNA ThruLines connects me to Cornelius Nefjes as a 5th great-grandfather, offering genetic support to the idea that William S. Nafus descended from early Dutch settlers, not recent English immigrants.
There’s even a WikiTree profile for Cornelius “Nephew”, who may have been William’s brother. But so far, no definitive documentation links William to any siblings or parents.
The Gap Between Paper and Proof
At this time, there’s no known FamilyTreeDNA or GEDmatch project confirming this Nafus/Nevius line. And without solid records connecting William to Cornelius, the paper trail remains incomplete.
Still, when weighing the evidence:
- ✅ Census records say New York
- ✅ Land ownership points to New York
- ✅ DNA suggests Dutch colonial roots
- ❌ Biographies written decades after William’s death say England
The balance tips strongly away from the England origin story.
Conclusion: A Reminder to Revisit Assumptions
This case illustrates why we must question even long-held beliefs if they rest on shaky ground. While two published biographies insist that William S. Nafus came from England, both the 1850 census and DNA evidence point to New York and a deep colonial heritage.
It’s a reminder to all genealogists: No matter how many times a story is told, we owe it to our ancestors—and ourselves—to dig deeper.
If you descend from the Nafus / Nevius / Nefjes line, I’d love to compare notes and DNA connections. Leave a comment or contact me through Heartland Genealogy.