|
Facts and Events
Name |
Ebenezer Eastman |
Gender |
Male |
Alt Birth[4] |
5 Sep 1711 |
Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, United States |
Alt Birth[3] |
2 May 1714 |
|
Birth[1] |
3 May 1714 |
Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, United States |
Marriage |
8 Mar 1737 |
Concord, Merrimack, New Hampshire, United StatesCitation needed to Eleanor Allen |
Death[2] |
1778 |
Concord, Merrimack, New Hampshire, United States |
References
- ↑ Haverhill, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records of Haverhill, Massachusetts, to the End of the Year 1849. (Topsfield, Mass.: Topsfield Historical Society, 1910)
p. 102.
EASTMAN, Ebenezer, s. Ebenezer and Sarah (Peasley), [born] May 3, 1714.
- ↑ Bouton, Nathaniel. The history of Concord: from its first grant in 1725 to the organization of the city government in 1853, with a history of the ancient Penacooks : the whole interspersed with numerous interesting incidents and anecdotes, down to the present period, 1855, embellished with maps, with portraits of distinguished citizens, and views of ancient and modern residences. (Concord, New Hampshire: Benning W. Sanborn, 1856)
p. 645.
Children of Capt. Ebenezer Easman and Sarah Peaslee: Ebenezer, b. 5 Sep 1711 [sic, see note ], d. 1778, m. Eleanor ---.
- ↑ Barbour, Lucius Barnes, and Newton Case Brainard. Vital Records of Woodstock, 1686-1854. (Hartford, Connecticut: The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Co., 1914)
p.19.
"Ebenezer Eastman son of Ebenezer Eastman by Sarah his wife born May 2: 1714."
- ↑ The date 5 Sep 1711 is reported in Source:Bouton, Nathaniel. History of Concord, p. 645, and in Source:Rix, Guy S. History and Genealogy of the Eastman Family of America, p. 26. Noting that both of these are secondary sources, and neither identify the basis of this date, but based on its inclusion in the former, it is suspected this date is recorded in the town records of Concord (that's the best case: a worse case would be an interview of a descendant done generations after the fact). Since the family moved there in 1727, this would have been recorded long after the fact, best case, and hence the Haverhill record must be preferred. That same would be true for all the children recorded in Haverhill since none of the dates align with those given in these secondary sources, and in some cases, even the birth order is changed.
|
|