Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
I have little to add to the postings of the three of you, Ed, Bill, and Jay, but I do want to point out one major discrepancy between "Churchill Family in America" and Jay's posting. According to CFA the name of Samuel Boardman Churchill's wife was Sarah E. Hinton. They were married in Bastrop, Texas, on September 5, 1855. From a notation I made in my copy of CFA I apparently was in touch with a descendant of a son Samuel, Jr. not listed in CFA. I haven't gone back to check the correspondence to see if the descendant named Samuel Boardman Churchill's wife, but at the least I made no notation contradicting CFA. I wonder if perhaps your Sarah Rebecca Eggleston was the wife in a second marriage.
A goodly number of New Englanders engaged in trade with the South, including several Connecticut Churchills. The death in 1813 rather than 1818 of Charles of New Bern raises an interesting question about one of these. Benjamin, the grandson of Capt. Charles' brother Benjamin, and thus the nephew of Charles in New Bern, is reported by CFA to have moved "about 1818" from the Black River country of New York to New Bern. The family remained thereafter in North Carolina. Charles's oldest son Chappell McClure left New Bern early, it would appear from his counties of marriage and death, and son Claudius Belden became a doctor. A logical conclusion from Benjamin's move to New Bern would be that he stepped into Charles' business since Charles' sons did not do so. The question is whether CFA mistakenly linked the date of Benjamin's move to Charles' supposed death in 1818, mistakenly wrote 1818 for Benjamin's move when it should have been 1813, or was correct in saying 1818 for the move, in which case there is a long gap of five years between Charles' death and Benjamin's presumably entering into the family business.
One other thing I just noticed may bear on Charles' four younger children on whom there is no further information. All were sons, and CFA routinely assigns a number to each son who may have had children. Chappell McClure is 136, Claudius Belden is 137, and CFA then jumps to Crispen Osborne, 138. I have occasionally noticed a spot where CFA has omitted a number by accident, but this appears deliberate. I would conclude that CFA had some kind of skimpy information that led them to conclude that three of the four younger sons had no descendants and that only Crispen Osborne might have.
Malcolm
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/churchill/messages/2289.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|