As I have in the past with three men named William Eversole (http://thesaltofamerica.blogspot.com/2012/05/sorting-out-3-william-eversoles-in.html) and five men named McCager Napier (http://thesaltofamerica.blogspot.com/2012/05/sorting-out-5-mccager-napiers-of-perry.html), among other relatives, I find myself needing to set straight the records of two other relatives with the same name whose relationships and identities are often mixed and matched in various genealogies online.
In Fayette County, Ohio from the late 1820's until the late 1880's there were two cousins named George W. Binegar. Sorting out who is who has been a little complicated for a number of reasons. I myself had one George as my first cousin only to figure out it was the other George who was my first cousin. It doesn't help that there are also issues with determining relationships concerning their respective siblings and cousins, so I am hoping I can provide clarity for other folks researching the Binegar, Rees, and related families of Fayette County, Ohio and the surrounding areas.
To start, I would like to specify my relationship to these folks. These families are old Quaker families that came from Pennsylvania to Virginia (and parts that are now West Virginia) and then to Ohio. I descend multiple times from the Moon and Rees families, and I also descend from allied families like Howe, Butterfield, Matlock, Humphrey, Bowen, and other families you will regularly see inter-marrying with these families. While I am not a biological Binegar, my kin did marry into the family multiple times.
Now sorting all of this out really is quite straightforward, but some preconceived notions must be released in order to effectively reach an unbiased conclusion. I am going to lay out all of the facts and do my best to clear up any misconceptions in order to help my fellow researchers reach the same logical conclusion as I.
The easiest place to start would be the beginning: the progenitors of the Benigar family of Fayette County, Ohio were George Benigar [henceforth called George I] and Mary Rees. Mary Rees is my aunt; she was the daughter of Morris Rees and Sarah Butterfield, and I descend from her brother, Thomas Rees.
George and Mary had a large family, but I am not going to delve into every branch. For the purposes of this article, I will only reference four of their sons: David, John, Samuel, and George [henceforth referred to as George II]. And I will not be tracing the family's origins or route to Ohio. I am starting with the 1830 Census and moving forward. In the 1830 Census, George I and these four sons all appear in Fayette County, Ohio. David and John are listed in Green Township, and the other three in nearby Union township.
One reason I want to start here is to clarify a particular Binegar relationship that will come into play later in this article when it comes to sorting out the two younger George Binegars. Angeline Binegar was born in 1819 according to her headstone. She later married twice: first to Murray Wilson, second to Samuel Zimmerman. She is buried in Missouri under the latter surname. Online trees attribute her to one of two families: either George II or John. My note here to start with the 1830 Census is because only ONE of these two men has a female child in their home ages 10-14 in the 1830 Census: George II. Therefore, it can be concluded that Angeline Binegar Wilson Zimmerman is NOT the daughter of John Binegar; she IS the daughter of George Binegar II.
The other reason to start here is to point out that this Census lists George I as George Senior and George II as George Junior. This fact plays a small roll later on. George I reportedly died in 1837 according to family records. In 1840, there is only one George Binegar listed as a head of household, no Jr. or Sr. included. It is George II, or "Jr." as he was listed in 1830. Now that his father is deceased, I believe George II was now referred to as "George Sr.". This is based on the headstone of George II's wife. His wife was Mary Matlock, daughter of Thomas Matlock and Martha Rees. She was my aunt, as I descend from her sister, Sarah Matlock Howe.
According to a 2001 transcription of Walnut Cemetery in Perry Township, Fayette County, Ohio by Charles R. Gossett and Peggy Gilmore, Mary's headstone specifies that she was the wife of "George Sen.". This indicates that once George II's father died, he took on the title of "Sr." So who then takes on the title of Jr.? There are two choices because there were two George Binegars in the next generation; these two Georges are the focus of this article.
We're going to jump ahead a little before going back. The 1860 and 1870 Censuses prove there were two George Binegars living in Fayette County, Ohio. They were two years apart in age, one born in 1825 and the other in 1827. By looking at all of their Census records and the records of their associated family members, it is easy to determine who is who. Unfortunately, some people (myself included previously) jump to conclusions about certain details, and that is what needs to be dispelled.
The elder of the two was George W. Binegar born 1825 (henceforth referred to as George 1825). He is usually linked to George II as his son for a simple reason, and it is the same reason I linked the two: George 1825 is buried in Walnut Creek Cemetery in Perry Township, and so is George II and his wife Mary. Simple enough, right? It is known George II had a son George, and since this one is buried in the same cemetery, we can assume they are one in the same, right? Wrong.
George 1825 was married three times. First he married Sarah Jane Simmons and had two known daughters, Martha and Sarah. These two girls will become important later in this discussion. Sarah died in 1857 and is buried at Walnut Creek. George 1825 married second Mary Knedler in 1858. She died soon after in 1859 and is also buried at Walnut Creek. In 1861, he married Mary Jane Johnson. His headstone shows that he died in 1879. His third wife Mary did not die until 1916, and then she was also buried at Walnut Creek. So we have George 1825 and three wives all buried at Walnut Creek, along with at least one son by his third wife, Lee Clark Binegar.
Again, because George 1825 was buried at Walnut Creek, many, including myself, assumed he was the son of George II. But now we have to look at the other George to reach the more logical conclusion.
Let's take a step back to the 1850 Census. George II's household includes several children, including the son who is the all-important key to this puzzle: Albert Binegar, born 1832. He is in his parents' household in 1850, then George II dies in 1855, and he is in his mother's household in 1860. In 1870, he is in the household of a George Binegar b. 1827, henceforth referred to as George 1827. In 1880, Albert is again in the household of the same George and their relationship is specified--"Brother".
There are no other Albert Binegars in this family, at least not in this generation. Since we know from the 1850 and 1860 Censuses that Albert is the son of George II, and we know from the 1880 Census that Albert is the brother of George 1827, then we can logically conclude that George 1827 is the son of George II. This is NOT the George buried at Walnut Creek. George 1825 and George 1827 are two completely different persons.
Albert Binegar helps again when he appears in the 1910 Census in the household of Edward Cockerill, where he is listed as Edward's brother-in-law. Edward's wife was Herresa Binegar, the youngest child of George II per the 1850 Census. This proves Albert was the brother of Herresa who is proved to be the daughter of George II, and drives home the fact that George 1827, with whom Albert previously resided, is the son of George II. Albert's death certificate reports that he was buried at Walnut Creek in 1913.
The difficult part of this is that George 1827 is absent from the 1850 Census. That is not unheard of, many people are absent from a census or two, but it certainly doesn't make any of this easier. What does make it easier is George 1827's marriage in 1850. He married Mary Moon that year. And on the marriage record, guess how he lists himself? Why, as George Binegar Jr., of course. Since as previously mentioned his father was George Jr. and then George Sr. someone had to take over as George Jr. That was apparently George 1827, and while the "Sr." to "Jr." titles don't always indicate father-son relationships, sometimes it can be uncle-nephew or grandfather-grandson, this time it does appear to be a father-son connection.
For additional supplemental evidence about this conclusion, and to determine the correct parentage of George 1825, we look to the 1860 Census. George 1827 is residing with his wife, Mary, and two children: Churchill Wilson, age 16, and Elizabeth Wilson, age 6. We know from the 1850 Census that Churchill Wilson was the son of Murray Wilson and Angeline Binegar who was previously discussed at the beginning of this article. We can infer that Elizabeth was also a child of that coupling. Since the 1830 Census proves that Angeline was the daughter of George II, and as indicated above George 1827 appears to be the son of George II, we can infer that Churchill and Elizabeth were the nephew and niece of George 1827. With all of this information together, I believe genealogies of this family should list the George Binegar who was born in 1827 and is buried at Cochran Cemetery in Fayette County as the son of George Binegar II.
George 1825 appears in the 1860 Census with a woman and children that are not his own. I do not know of a connection between him and Mary Mattocks or her children Emmarilla and Nora, but based on ages, this Mary does not appear to be the Mary Johnson he marries in 1861. She is listed as his housekeeper. I do not know why his daughters are not living with him, but where they are residing, I believe, holds the key to the paternity of George 1825. His daughters Martha and Sarah are listed in the household of Samuel Binegar, son of George I. This would indicate that the girls are his granddaughters, meaning George 1825 was his son. Therefore, I think genealogies of this family should list the George Binegar who was born in 1825 and is buried at Walnut Creek Cemetery as the son of Samuel Binegar.
Finally, there is one last piece of information commonly found in Binegar genealogies that needs to be adjusted. Hannah Rebecca Binegar born 1822 is often listed in genealogies as the daughter of George II. The 1850 Census would indicate this is incorrect. She married Peter Hutchinson in 1844, and in the 1850 Census she appears to be widowed as is living in the household of JOHN Binegar, not his brother George. She remarries to Randall Wilson in 1851. Therefore, if you have Hannah listed as the daughter of George II, I believe this is incorrect and she should be listed as a daughter of John.
I hope that all of this information is helpful to researchers of these families. In summary:
- Angeline Binegar is the daughter of George Binegar II, not John Binegar.
- Hannah Rebecca Binegar is the daughter of John Binegar, not George Binegar II.
- The George Binegar b. 1825 buried at Walnut Creek is the son of Samuel Binegar, not George Binegar II.
- The George Binegar b. 1827 buried at Cochran Cemetery is the son of George Binegar II.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or supplemental information.
Interesting analysis. However I do not recall mention of land or probate records. Did you find any deeds or mortgages? Wills or estate records?
ReplyDeleteI did not reference any land or probate records. While I found some, most led to the same issues here: both these men still have the same name. I found scarce few records that also mentioned their wives so to allow us to differentiate them from one another, and the ones that I did either had no genealogical relevance or concerned the families of their wives and not their own.
DeleteWills and deeds are great records for sorting out a lot of issues. But for telling two men of the same name and age apart, Census records are a better tool in this case (in my opinion). I believe these results speak for themselves. If you think there is a deed or other record that contradicts these conclusions, I would be interested in seeing that. But if nothing exists directly contradicting these logical conclusions based on the information currently available, then I believe they are the most sound and reasonable arguments available. I understand it will tangle up some folks' trees, but if people aren't careful enough to not mix up two individuals of the same name, then they are bound to have to fix their trees sooner than later whether they like it or not.