Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
The following FACTS and EVIDENCE are offered as concerns Joseph of Maryland:
1. "Mysteries" are NEVER resolved based on internet data.
2. Joseph Longfellow could not witness a will at age 10. Under English common law, male witnesses needed to be at least 14 (Table 6-3: Ages of Legal Action, in Arlene Eakle, "American Court Records," in Arlene Eagle and Johni Cerny, ed, The Source (Sale Lake City: Ancestry Publishing Co, 1984, pg 186, citing Tapping Reeve, The Law of Baron and Femme... . (1862; repr., NY 1970).
3. Even IF Joseph witnessed the will (of Elizabeth Browne) and even IF he were only 14 at the time the will was executed 21 Jan 1710, his proposed father (William 2) would have been only 17 at Joseph's birth under this scenario. If you believe this, it would have occurred long before William's first marriage in Boston to Mary Davis (not Davise) in 1702. Sorry, but it does not add up.
4. What is plausible is that Joseph was more than age 40 [sic]. If so, it suggests he was born about 10 years earlier than William 2. The individuals who witnessed wills in the colonial era, was not a chore taken lightly. More often than not they were ELDERS (neighbors or respected members of the community). A witness to a will had to be capable of withstanding a possible court challenge to the will, and was not likely to be entrusted to a teen-ager or young man under 30, e.g., but to someone known for years as a long time member of (blank community) who knew the deceased for (blank) years.
5. The death of William2 Longfellow was at Boston 16 Nov 1702. The source for this is found in Vol 1 "Deaths in Boston 1700-1799, A-L" (NEHGS, Robert J Dunkle and Ann S Lainhart, 1999), pg 376. There is a double entry for Williams death, one citing code BA, another code MS. BA is for "Boston City Hall Archives, Index to Deaths, 1700-1799 (manuscript at Boston City Archives, microfiched by Holbrook Research Institute, Oxford, Mass.)." Code MS refers to "A small manuscript volume, 'Deaths in Boston," on deposit at the Boston City Hall Archives, copied with permission many years ago by Robert J Dunkle. This work by an unknown author does not include any references to the sources from which the deaths were compiled."
6. This death record can only refer to William 2 Longfellow. No other person of the same name was living in Massachusetts that a death record of 1702 could apply. The death of William is rock solid.
7. The death of William 2 at a younger age is further supported by evidence that his younger brother, Stephen Longfellow, began a determined effort to obtain exclusive rights to the High Field farm formerly owned by his grandfather, Henry Sewall, at Byfield, Mass. (John J Currier, "Ould Newbury": Historical and Biographical Sketches (Boston: Damrell and Upham, 1896, pp 309-10, citing "Letter Book of Samuel Sewall," Vol 2, p. 172. If William was living, he would have had legal right to this property as eldest son. Moreover, Stephen would not have acquired the rights from his sister Elizabeth, his brother Nathan, and his half-sister Mehitable (Short) Emery and years later went to court to secure the rights of his sister, Anne Abrams. After getting judgment against his sister, it would have been relatively easy to convince his half-brother Samuel Short, to relinquish his rights, which he did 6 Jan 1726 (Essex deed 23:97 Elizabeth to Stephen 3 Jan 1711; 37:261 Nathan to Stephen 17 Dec 1712, 42:66 John and Mehitable Emery to Stephen 7 Jan 1715, and 47:119 Samuel Short to Stephen 6 Jan 1726).
8. No marriage record exists at Newbury, Mass., of William to Elizabeth Ringold. Consequently the births that allegedly occured in Maryland of children William, Jonathan, Mary, and Hetty commencing 23 Dec 1713, are unsupported by factual evidence. The births may very well be recorded there, but not by factual evidence.
9. There is no factual evidence to support Prather's belief William "ran away from home and went to sea. We next find him in Maryland," or that "When no one came to help him, being grief stricken by the loss of his father, and thinking no one cared about him, took off on his own and never returned." These are unsupported personal assessments by individuals who have yet to offer support or evidence for such fantasies. They were likely arrived (Prather or associates) to support strong personal beliefs owing to a "facial resemblance to the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow." This is preposterous and hardly supportive evidence. Moreover, it was BEFORE the source, detailing the death of William2 in 1702 was published, as stated above. It confirms that Prather did not search New England archives. Instances of William2 being "grief stricken" because no one "came to help him," and that he "took off on his own and never returned," are pure fantasies unsupported by FACTS, and provided only to serve a pre-determined belief of getting the supposed facts to agree with an assumption. Bearing facial resemblance to an ancestor, to my knowledge has NEVER been cited as reason to believe a conclusion.
10. Citing the Mormon Church internet sites is hardly "a solution." On the contrary, IGI entries are clues. They are placed out there in cyberspace for all to absorb, pursue, and find documentation to support such beliefs. In the instance cited they are the submission of a Ohio woman who has never provided any factual evidence to support such a submission of data to the Mormon Church. This is hardly a "solution."
11. Land grants to Joseph in 1769 are noted and recorded for historic reasons. They have no relevance to proving events 60-years earlier except in a cursory manner. No more than a birth record of 1740. These are events cited as TOO LATE to be of significant use in resolving the major questions: WHAT was JOSEPH's ancestry, WHERE DID HE COME FROM, and WHEN? Land grants reaffirm the presence of Joseph; but then ---- we already know this from from earlier 1710 records.
12. That Joseph is NOT found on passenger lists is FACT, e.g., passenger lists are commonly used to identify the arrival date of early colonial immigrants. We know Joseph appears Maryland in 1710. What we do not know is where he came from; how he got there; and when he got there. We know he did not swim. So the fact that Joseph does not appear in PUBLISHED passenger lists (the most instant, logical source), merely suggests to researchers they not try to rediscover the wheel unless a similar source is found to corroborate Joseph's arrival in America/Maryland, e.g., say as a crew member on a ship.
13. The name "Joseph," does not appear among early colonial American "Longfellow," families in New England as descendants of William Longfellow. It was more than 100-150 years later that the name first appears. This is a FACT, stated for the record to corroborate earlier assumptions.
Finally, the above are offered as FACTS and EVIDENCE. I never professed to "solve," any Maryland mystery (strangely the subject of dual progenitors NEVER appears in the pre-2002 historical record). Naturally, after spending so much time and money researching the LONGFELLOW family of America, it would be only proper that I share my findings.
I never cease to be amazed at the many Longfellow descendants (internet) who trace their ancestry to Joseph, and HONESTLY believe they are descendants of the immigrant William. Yet, the only evidence I find in support of such an assumption, is flimsy while loaded with fantasies. I have yet to see a single instance of FACTUAL EVIDENCE offered by these descendants to support their descent to William2. Not a single instance. More often than not they repeat flawed data that is broadcast over the internet.
It would be irresponsible of me not to share my findings at great risk of running counter to that of Maryland descendants who wish to discredit the messenger while ignoring the message.
I continue to research Joseph. I recently ordered some published material and will order film of English archives as I pursue the subject. I seek clues that may help explain Joseph's arrival in America.
Owing to the ancestry of my mother, Iva Clara Longfellow of Boston, via Palermo, Maine, and earlier to Hampton, NH, I have great interest in hearing from those with a mutual Longfellow interest, wishing to share clues or information on Joseph. His ancestry is just yearning to be resolved.
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/longfellow/messages/542.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|