Person talk:Isaac Newton (27)

Watchers

Confusing citations [6 October 2011]

You have posted two websites here, one of which cites the other. The evidence applies to the father but is posted on the son's page as if it applies to the son. This is very confusing and the census records in particular are misleading because they appear to apply to the father. It was good the links were there as it was necessary to follow them to make sense of the evidence. I am making changes to remove the one website that just copied the other, and to remove the census records and add more explanation to help future readers avoid getting confused as I did. --Jrich 12:34, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


The reason I posted both sources is because one of them [S3] does in fact apply the will to the son (consistent with Ermina Leonard) whereas the other [S4] applies it to the father (which I suspect is correct).

To understand the differences you need to trace through the parents and children in these two different arrangements.

Unless/until we can agree which is correct I believe we should show both.

I have revised the source commentary to clarify the differences. --Jhamstra 13:05, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


Well the abstract of the will is unfortunately excessively brief. It is certainly possible that two Isaac both had wives named Sarah and it wouldn't be unusual in any way that the son named children after his siblings, so some of the off-hand phrasing or mention of little details could certainly provide clues as to which it was, but none of this was given.

I do not find two old Isaac Newtons in the 1810 census. I find only one over 45, and the other is "Isaac Newton Jr." with no wife or children and age 16-25 (birth between 1785-1796). There is a Lemuel Newton with young children, age 26-44 (birth between 1766-1784). There is a John Newton with young children, two males age 26-44. Also, Joseph Newton with young children, age 26-44. The Lemuel and John appear to correspond to the children shown belonging to Isaac b. 1759, but of course he would have been too young to father a child in 1775.

Total speculation, but my guess is that the Isaac b. 1759 died young, and a second son b. about 1785 was named Isaac. Thus this is the will of the father, and the Isaac and John born in the 1770's belong to the father. That he was having children in the 1780's suggest that the father's birth was closer to 1737 than 1720. --Jrich 14:03, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


I have been tracing out the various possibilities you mention for some time.

I think your conclusions are quite likely and have arrived more or less at the same place. However I appreciate a second set of eyes because this is definitely messy.

Going down the path of parallel families (wife Sarah, son Isaac, daughters Sarah and Martha) is a dead end as I cannot find any evidence that any of these "missing people" existed in the younger generation whereas there is ample evidence that they existed in the older generation.

Having excluded that path in my own mind I have finally come to the conclusion that Ermina Leonard got the two generations confused in her book - although I have been aware of this possibility from the start.

I do not accept Leonard or either of the web sites on blind faith - At every point I have looked for corroborating evidence (or otherwise) - both web sites have errors including the one you stumbled upon in [S3] where she reports the same 1810 census data for both Isaacs (which would make both of them old). Note that I reported this as her conclusion and not mine.--Jhamstra 14:31, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


Who were his children? [6 October 2011]

In my opinion the two notes [N1, N2] regarding the sons listed in the Newton Genealogy refute the family history as reconstructed by Ermina Leonard.

Isaac of Pomfret is almost certainly the son of Asahel and Sarah (Beebe) Newton, descended from Thomas Newton rather than Richard Newton.

John and Lemuel Newton were almost certainly brothers of this Isaac Newton rather than his sons.

To reach these conclusions I have researched the posterity of these three gentlemen to their grandchildren (and well beyond in the case of my ancestor John Newton). At this writing I have only contributed a subset of my results to WeRelate.

I am going to considerable length to identify the discrepancies between the public facts and the Newton Genealogy to (hopefully) avoid subsequent contributors having to re-trace this path - or should they wish, to assist in re-tracing this path.

To this point I have found no public records of the marriage or posterity of this Isaac Newton.--Jhamstra 14:16, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


Consensus? [6 October 2011]

Have we reached consensus on the most likely reconstruction of this gentleman's family?

If so then at some point I will proceed to rearrange the relationships accordingly.

I definitely want to preserve the rationale and the alternatives for those who may follow us to these pages.--Jhamstra 14:45, 6 October 2011 (EDT)


You should feel free to change this page how you like. This has progressed way outside my research interest (Grace Garfield), though I get notified of changes and try to add sources when I think I can. My speculation above was only suggested in case it inspires some research insight, like seeing if an Isaac Newton from Vermont (i.e., the one b. 1759) died during the Revolutionary War, etc. The type of confusion here seems similar to other examples where different parts of one person's life have been thought to represent two separate people (ironically, one example being Grace Garfield's grandfather, Edward Garfield, though perhaps more similar to this case would be Person:Daniel Wing (1)). --Jrich 19:20, 6 October 2011 (EDT)