Thinking About Research Process for John Gibson

I've decided to take another stab at the family of John Gibson (born in Stow, Massachusetts in 1751) and who I wrote a while ago after finding a reference to him in a Gibson family history.

The author of that family history apparently loses John after a land transaction in 1799 where he sold his property in Ashby, Massachusetts, and indicated that it was thought that John left the area after that point in time.

And, for unexplained reason, the author indicated that John Gibson died after 10 April 1811. The author makes no reference as to why they knew John was alive on that date. In all honesty, I need to read more completely the Gibson genealogy from which the information on John was obtained to see if there is any other reference to that 1811 date--it may be that he signed or appears in some sort of probate or other estate settlement document. But that's only a guess.

Apparently at some point, some genealogist has taken the "last alive by date" for John and converted it into a death date. That date is given as John's death in numerous online references, all seemingly copied from the initial date converter.

I've not thrown out the online references to John and his children. Just because a compilation has one fact apparently interpreted incorrectly does not mean that other information in those compilations is incorrect. Those compilations have given me solid leads on John's children, specifically:

• Catherine Gibson, born 1783 in Ashby
• John Gibson, born 1778 in Ashby

I'm using the information in those online compilations on those two children as clues to obtain further information from "non-compiled" sources. I am also constantly reviewing that data to determine if the information is reasonable and consistent. And as I do that, I'm tracking from where the information was obtained. That does slow down the research process, but it makes later continued analysis and reference easier. 

Another of John's children, Sarah (born in 1744 in Ashby) is believed to have married Samuel Sargent. I'm also hoping to find documentation to solidify that "belief." 

Part of the rationale for tracking these children of John Gibson is that some of the records on Catherine, John, and Sarah Sargent mention where they lived and where their children were born. 

These locations are then being used as possible places to search for John Gibson in an attempt to see where he went after he apparently left Ashby. Chances are hopefully he'll turn up near where one of his children live.

And then maybe I'll find estate, probate, or land records on him that may more concretely tie him to his children and maybe even solidify that died after 10 April 1811 death date. 

Some schools of thought would suggest that I research the children completely, then put that information together, see what it says and go from there. Given that I'd really like to find John after 1799 and that records on him may help me confirm where his children ended up, I'll keep working the approach that I'm using now. 

Because I'm hoping to firm up the "belief" that John's daughter Sarah married Samuel Sargent--after all, that's my actual line of descent.

Realizing It Is Not Online and Waiting to Search for John Gibson

I've been working on the John Gibson ("Not Getting the Revolutionary Cart Ahead of the Horse") who "disappeared" from Ashby, Mass. around 1800. And I've come to a conclusion.

I need offline resources to answer this question--or to at least make that next step. I'll leave the details and citations to a later post. This post is more about process.

Assuming the family history cited in the post is correct (and I have no reason to conclude that the names of John's children are wrong), it seems likely that at least two individuals with names the same as John Gibson's children lived in Addison and Rutland Counties in Vermont in the 1800-1820 time frame. This is the same time frame that Sarah (Gibson) Sargent and her family lived there. There's also a John Gibson in 1810 in Pittsford, Rutland, Vermont of the age to be the John Gibson mentioned in the "Cart Ahead of the Horse Post"). That's a lot of coincidence. And, if it is the Gibson family living near the Sargents, then it makes a little more sense why the Sargents settled there when there were no other Sargents nearby.

I need to see if there are any land deeds, court, town, or probate/estate records on this John in Rutland County, Vermont.The hope is that they will connect him to his children, particularly daughters with married names (ie. Sarah Sargent). Searching online compilations probably is not going to answer my question. These records do not appear to be online in digital format.

I've added this work on John to my list for when I'm at the Family History Library.

Another time when one needs to realize when the online sources have told you what they are going to tell you.

And this time they are telling me that I need to look at those local records in Vermont.

Not Getting the Revolutionary Cart Ahead of the Horse

Haste makes waste.

A search on GoogleBooks for Samuel and Sarah (Gibson) Sargent brought up the a reference in a genealogy of the descendants of John Gibson of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Sarah Gibson who married Samuel in 1798 is my ancestor.

And it's tempting to immediatly conclude that my Sarah is the daughter of this John Gibson referenced below:

I don't have too many ancestors with Revolutionary War service as this John does--his father actually does as well.

But it's important to read the entire writeup carefully. The author uses the word "likely" to define the relationship between Sarah (Gibson) Sargent and this John Gibson. Just how "likely" is "likely?" It is enough to put the relationship in my database and go from there?

Just because other online trees have included the relationship does not mean it is true. They could very well have used the reference above (or a reference derived from it). It may or may not be worth my time to look at other online compiltations to determine if someone has attempted to take the relationship from "likely" to something even stronger.

At the very least, it would be good to know why the author used the word likely? There's no indication of what prompted the author to clarify the parent-child relationship as likely. Was it beause of the proximity of the indivduals involved? Were there no other Gibson families in the area? Was it based upon the probable age of the Sarah who married compared with the known Sarah, daughter of John?

I don't know.

It appears that the author was unable to locate John after he sold property in 1799. The book follows other male Gibson lines of descent (it also includes information on children of Gibson daughters) and the lack of information on any of John's other children causes me to believe that the author simply lost the family after 1799.

What to do?

I know where Samuel and Sarah (Gibson) Sargent were after 1799. They left the immediate area. It's possible that they moved along with other Gibson family members. At this point, I will:

• Look for Gibsons living near (in the same and adjacent counties) to Samuel and Sarah (Gibson) Sargent in post 1800 census and other records. 
• Look for Gibsons living near Samuel and Sarah (Gibson) Sargent's children in New York State, Michigan, Illinois, Vermont, and New Hampshire. While the father John probably didn't move into Illinois, it is possible that he did go to any of the other areas and the Sargents could always have lived near Gibson cousins.The Sargents who settled in Illinois and Michigan did not settle near other Sargent relatives. 

That's probably enough for now. 

The motivation is to find something on John Gibson that may more concretely tie him to the family of Samuel and Sarah (Gibson) Sargent.