Person talk:Benjamin Washburn (6)

What does the source say? [5 February 2011]

A source is cited here with no abstract of what it says. It is self-published in the publishing mecca of Buena Park, Calif., and happens to be in no library closer than 1200 miles to me. I cannot tell what data was taken from it as no facts are attributed to source #1, and in any event, since there is no abstract, have no idea if these are unsupported assertions (unfortunately, experience makes this the probable answer for a self-published genealogical source) or based on primary sources and an exhaustive survey of sources. One cannot tell if the source is aware that questions exist, or whether it just naively copied Mitchell's History of Bridgewater.

One could reasonably respond that this is my problem, if I'm interested go find it, but that would not be a person who is composing their pages to be helpful to the reader. My problem is that I think the information presented is wrong, and while I don't care about this person, the implications of this research impact others I do care about. It is hard to marshal a counter-argument when you don't know what the argument is.

If this source does support the idea that the Benjamin Washburn, s/o Joseph, married Martha Kingman, there are reasons for thinking it is wrong. First, there is the article by George Ernest Bowman, editor of the Source:Mayflower Descendant, entitled "Benjamin Washburns of Bridgewater", published in Source:Pilgrim Notes and Queries (Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants), p. 5:1, which says evidence shows that Benjamin, s/o Samuel, married Bethiah Kingman; and that Benjamin, s/o Jonathan, married Martha Kingman; and by elimination but no evidence, that Benjamin, s/o Joseph, married Zerviah Packard. (Unfortunately, as near as I can tell, the promised follow-up article giving fuller details seems to have never been written. But George Bowman rarely made errors and was pretty fastidious about basing conclusions on primary evidence so the presumption is that there is some reasonable evidence out there.)

Besides that, the names of the children of Family:Benjamin Washburn and Martha Kingman (1) (eldest daughter Mary presumably after his mother, wife of Jonathan), as well as the names of the children of Family:Benjamin Washburn and Zerviah Packard (1) (son Ebenezer presumably after brother, and daughter Hannah presumably after his mother, wife of Joseph) tend to suggest Bowman had it correct.

If the cited source does not support the said identification of Benjamin, husband of Martha, as son of Joseph, then no evidence is presented that does.

The death date clearly goes with whichever Benjamin married Martha, which I believe is the son of Jonathan. However, the age at death is off by 10 years so there is room for doubt, which is part of the reason why all evidence must be examined in this case. --Jrich 13:34, 5 February 2011 (EST)

I don't have access to the source either - I copied it from a RootsWeb submission - I know, not the best idea - guess I was tired. I originally thought that the Benjamin who married Martha Kingman was the son of Jonathan, but the age at death threw me off (should be 52 if it was him). Given the source you have cited, I'd go with him being son of Jonathan and that there was an error on the gravestone (or the transcription). I will fix the record, and if someone has evidence to the contrary, they can change it again. --DataAnalyst 17:48, 6 February 2011 (EST)