|
|
Family tree▼ Facts and Events
| Marriage[1] |
Aft 8 Sep 1751 |
|
Children
| | Birth | Death |
|---|
| 1. |
|
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
|
Questionable information identified by WeRelate automation
References
- ↑ Leicester, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States. Vital records of Leicester, Massachusetts, to the end the year 1849. (Worcester, Massachusetts: Franklin P. Rice, 1903)
137.
CONVERSE, John and Mary Dammon, int. Sept. 8, 1751.
[Note: the reverse record on p. 171, under "DAMMON", omits "int."]
- Source:Johnson, Edward Francis. Notes on the Family of Deacon Edward Convers, p. 3:330, says John Converse b. 1701/2 m. (2) 1751 Mary Damon. Source:Converse, Charles Allen. Some of the Ancestors and Descendants of Samuel Converse, Jr. of Thompson Parish, Killingly, Conn, p. 43, also says that John Converse m. (2) 1751 Mary Damon. Source:Washburn, Emory. Historical Sketches of the Town of Leicester, Massachusetts, during the First Century from Its Settlement, p. 353, also says that John Converse m. (2) 1751 Mary Damon. Even "Book of Corrections", Source:NEHGS Nexus (New England Historic Genealogical Society), Vol. 3, No. 6, printing a user submission that corrects errors in Descendants of Samuel Converse, also says that John Converse m. (2) 1751 Mary Damon. It is likely all these sources are wrong.
For the above to be true, a man born in 1701/02, had a child, Esther, born in 1777. Although there is no death record for his first wife, whose last child was born in 1739, he remarries 12 years after that, at approximately age 50, to a girl not yet 16 years old and has 10 more children. He was working as a blacksmith in 1775 at the age of 73 making bayonets for the Revolutionary War. Meanwhile, his son born in 1728, and who therefore would have been age 23 in 1751, disappears with no further trace or marriage in any of the above sources. Why do all the above sources believe the father married Mary Damon and not the son? Probably because they copied each other. And the oldest source appears to be the History of Leicester, which only had access to the births of children in Leicester, so wasn't aware of the son John born in Woburn, nor any of the children born after 1759. The only argument in their favor is that John and Mary named no son John. But the timeline of events ascribed to John Converse would make a lot more sense if John the son married Mary Damon, while John the father married only Abigail Baldwin. This is a mystery just waiting for a descendant willing to look up probate and land records, and do a complete investigation.
|
|
