This question came up so long ago that i'm not sure anyone is still interested, but it thought i would just chime in with a tiny factoid---Just because a surname is part of someone's name doesn't necessarily indicate that it was a family name. Sometimes they are honouring a famous person: George Washington Smith and Andrew Jackson Jones probably would not have Washington or Jackson ancestors. In the same way, some communities liked to honour the pastor or a religious author by bestowing his or her first and last names as given names to a new baby. Other times, a tragic loss of a young person in the community might result in a crop of young ones named after him--I saw this in 1828 when my gggg grandfather John Gunning was drowned in a shipwreck leaving his wife and four young daughters. In the following year, there were a few baby boys named John Gunning Steeves and John Gunning whatever their family name was. They were not descended from the Gunnings, but they were honouring the person whose life was cut short.
In later generations, children named in this way can get namesakes, and it can start to look like a family name. But my point is just that there are other ways that surnames can become part of a family's naming decisions.
