During the decades of litigation over his vast estate, the incentive to prove a genealogical connection to him was enormous.  I'm not going to rehash the history of the litigation here because, ultimately, it's of no genealogical importance, except to note that Timothy NOLAN-HOPKINS, adopted son of Mark's widow, Mary (SHERWOOD) HOPKINS, succeeded in claiming part of the estate.  What's important to appreciate is that during those decades of litigation, bogus pedigrees were concocted in an effort to gain financially from his estate — some were the result of innocent, but genealogically incompetent, wishful thinking, while others were deliberately fraudulent.  Some of these pedigrees still exist, some in online databases, some in print, and some in the memories and among the keepsakes of families who once longed, or perhaps still long, to prove a connection.  And among these, one bogus connection appears to be the most persistent.

The contention that most often rears its head, at least in emails to me, is the dispute over whether Mark HOPKINS was born in New York, the son of Mark HOPKINS & Anastasia Lukens KELLOGG — the same KELLOGG family of cereal fame — or whether Mark was born in North Carolina [some say Virginia], the son of Edward "Ned" HOPKINS & Hannah CROW.  The latter assertion is so easy to disprove, it confounds me that people persist in it so vehemently.  

Mark HOPKINS, railroad baron, died 29 Mar 1878 in Yuma, AZ.  His death was widely publicized, so it's date and place are not in dispute.  What the date means, for our purposes, is that the last census record of Mark HOPKINS will be found in 1870; and, indeed, we do find Mark HOPKINS living with his wife, Mary Frances SHERWOOD, in the 1870 census of Sacramento, CA. 

In his 1870 census record (see his family group sheet for the complete extraction), Mark's occupation is given as, "Treas^r R R Co," his personal property value is $8,655,780(!), his wife is Mary F., and they have no children.  The only people living with them are Timmy NOLAN, whom Mary later adopts, and a Chinese servant.  Can there be any doubt, whatsoever, that this household is that of Mark HOPKINS, Treasurer of the Central Pacific Railroad?  Any at all?  No, not the remotest.  So, isn't the fact that both Mark and Mary give their birthplaces in this census as "New York" sufficient proof, in and of itself, that Mark HOPKINS, railroad baron was the one born in New York, not the one born in North Carolina?  Need I go on?  Well, apparently so, because that census record has been on my web site for years and people still email me… 

These people argue that there were two Mark HOPKINSes in business in Sacramento in the mid-1800s, that the one from New York is a different person.  Well, forgetting for the moment that we've already proven that the railroad baron was born in New York, let's look at this "other Mark HOPKINS."

To begin with, there is only one Mark HOPKINS in the 1850, 1860, and 1870 censuses of California, not two.  If the one in the 1850 and 1860 censuses isn't the railroad baron in the 1870 census, then where was the future railroad baron in 1850 and 1860?  Nowhere that I can find.  In all three of these censuses, Mark gives his birthplace as New York, but we have better clues that these records all represent the railroad baron. 

We know from Mark's biographers that he entered the grocery business with E.H. MILLER in Sacramento (see Galloway 1959), and, sure enough, we find Mark in the 1850 census of Sacramento, occupation merchant, living with E.H. MILLER.  More importantly for our purposes, this same E.H. MILLER later became Secretary of the Central Pacific Railroad, affirming that Mark HOPKINS, merchant, in 1850 is the same man as Mark HOPKINS, Treasurer of the Central Pacific Railroad, in 1870.  Mark is unmarried in the 1850 census, but married in the 1860 census… 

Mark married in 1854 to Mary Frances SHERWOOD; and, as expected, we find "Mary F." living with Mark in the 1860 census of Sacramento, CA.  Also, as expected, they have no children.  How many census records does it take to prove he was born in New York?  Then there is the book… 

Catherine (FALLON) NOLAN, an Irish immigrant along with her husband, Patrick NOLAN, was briefly housekeeper to Mary (SHERWOOD) HOPKINS.  After the death of Patrick NOLAN in 1862, Catherine remarried and moved to St. Louis, leaving behind her son, Timothy NOLAN, to be raised by Mark & Mary HOPKINS.  Mary legally adopted Timothy, as an adult, after Mark's death.

Timothy NOLAN-HOPKINS spent years writing a genealogy of John HOPKINS, ancestor of Mark HOPKINS, and surely Timothy would have known where Mark was born and who his parents and other kin were.  If you're trying to prove a connection to Mark HOPKINS, you simply must consult this book.  It's available as a facsimile reprint from HigginsonBooks.com or via subscription to GenealogyLibrary.com.  There are mistakes in Timothy's book, as there are in any book attempting a large-scale genealogy.  He was not a professional genealogist, and the book is primarily a compilation of information gathered via personal correspondence, but surely the information about the man in whose home he grew up can be considered just short of first-hand.  Timothy's testimony, alone, should be sufficient to put an end to the debate, and he has Mark born in New York.

Family Group Sheet of Edward HOPKINS & Hannah CROW

Family Group Sheet of Patrick NOLAN & Catherine FALLON

Family Group Sheet of Timothy NOLAN-HOPKINS & Mary Kellogg CRITTENDEN