Dear imagexideas-ga;
Having read your “other” question only a few moments ago (and long
after posting my initial comments) I now know that DAVID KINSINGER and
GEORGE KINSINGER (Jr.?) both appear in the will of GEORGE KINSINGER
(Sr.?) - this is something I did not know prior to posting my comment.
It was such a valuable piece of information that had I been diligent
and read the other question beforehand, I would have posted what I
concluded as an answer. I think I can safely do that now with a much
greater degree of confidence. Let me explain:
If you examine the links I left in the comment section below, some
time before I pieced this all together, I might add, you can see many
of the records I am referring to. The more pertinent ones I will
re-list for you here.
I do indeed believe that Rebecca Brindel is somehow related to Marks
Brindel . I also believe that Rebecca is a direct descendant of
Johannes “John” Brindel (aka Brendel, Brindle, Brendle). I DO NOT
believe that this relationship was likely to have been a married one,
but they COULD possibly be siblings or cousins. It is possible that
Marzus (a descendant of Johannes “John’ Bridel) may have been either
Rebecca’s uncle, or father, making Marks Brindel, Jr. her cousin or
her brother. As far as I can tell though, Marks Brindel and Rebecca
Brindel have never appeared on any of the same legal documents (i.e.,
census records, wills, etc) suggesting that their relationship was
more distant and making the possiblity that they were cousins a more
plausible answer.
I believe that the key to Rebecca Brindel “parentage” or descending
lineage lies with David Brindel, nearby whom she is buried in Ohio on
your own account. I believe these records are the key to the mystery:
Old Brindel Cemetery:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~brendelforum/FranklinPACem.htm
This record, posted on the internet lists the following data. While
this Brindel plot is in PA, the researcher ends with this very
enlightening statement: “Migration as follows: PA, OH, LA, MO.” This
establishes a very high probability that the same Rebecca Bridel
buried in Ohio is direct a descendant of Johannes “John” Brindel and
therefore a relative of Marks Brindel.
Because of this record, it is also established that the Marks Brindel
buried in the PA cemetery is obviously not the same person as the one
buried in Ohio, but most likely Marks Brindel Sr.’s son, (of the same
name) as you can see here:
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/IGI/individual_record.asp?recid=100034663423&lds=1®ion=11®ionfriendly=North+America&frompage=99
Now this is a record of burials in the Pleasant Township, Huber
Cemetery, PA., which lists some of the Kinsinger family:
Kinsinger, David, d 25 Apr 1890, ae 80y 3m 6d (husband of Mary A.
Kinsinger; parent)
Kinsinger, George, d 23 Oct 1855, ae 62y 2m 3d (father; on monument
with Rebecca
Kinsinger)
Kinsinger, Mary A., d 8 Mar 1869, ae 52y 10m 21d (wife of David
Kinsinger; parent)
Kinsinger, Rebecca, d 5 Apr 1867, ae 77y 7m 9d (mother; on monument
with George Kinsinger)
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohlogan/cemplhu.html
The there is this, an 1880 Ohio Census record, which provides the
answer you are looking for and ties it all together.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/census/household_record.asp?HOUSEHOLD_CODE=1880US_5466091&HOUSEHOLD_SUB=1&frompage=5
Here is what I believe: By virtue of the 1880 census record, as I
pointed out in my initial comment below, I believe I have probably
established, as closely as can reasonably “be” established, that the
“George Kinsinger” who is listed on this 1880 Ohio census as head of
the Kinsinger household at this time, and with whom also resided David
Kinsinger, is probably the son of George Kinsinger (the elder) rather
than the son of David, as the census incorrectly suggests. Here is my
reasoning:
1) In 1880 Ohio, like many places in the US, the census takers were
hired from the available pool of local citizenry. The work was hard,
did not pay well, and required a person to ride horseback or in a
wagon for long hours. This was not a position that a well educated
man, suitable for more profitable and easier work would apply for.
Subsequently, as is evident from other census records of the time,
spelling was very poor (often phonetic) and understanding of family
ties, relationships and social circumstances was limited. Names were
often misspelled, relationships assumed and dates or ages estimated.
It would not be unlikely if the census takers were familiar with
certain families in their area of responsibility, nor would it be
unlikely if a census taker, having seen an elderly person living with
a family, just “assumed” that he was the father or grandfather of the
head of the house hold, or that of his wife, and saw no need to
inquire further. These and similar types of flaws led to many
erroneous census records. David could well have been George’s uncle,
but the census taker assumed that David was his father, having known
that the old man lived in their home. Of course it is also possible
that the Kinsinger farm was remote or inaccessible, and the census
taker recorded what he thought he knew from his own memory without
visiting the farm at all. While these are certainly all very
reasonable explanations for the error on the census that indicates
David if the father of George, it is admittedly speculative, so we
shall move on.
2) People were traditionally buried in family plots. The fact that
George (Sr.?) and David are buried in such close proximity suggests
that they were related. This, combined with the facts that they are
(A) close in age and (B) both born in PA, suggests that they may have
either traveled to Ohio together, or one may have came along later to
be with the other, perhaps to share his burden or to share in his
prosperity. These were also common behaviors and practices of brothers
in this era.
3) If in fact George (Sr.?) and David are brothers, which I believe
they are, it is very unlikely that David would have named his own son
"George" while his brother was still married to a woman of child
bearing age and therefore basically deprived his brother of the option
of naming his own son "George"; a name selection to which he would
have had first rights. Since we already know that George the elder
named a son "George", it's even more unlikely that David would do it
too. This is a major point that clearly disputes the 1880 census
suggestion that David is “Head of Household George's” father.
4) David and George (Jr.?) both appear in George the elder's will. It
would have been against traditional protocol, and in fact quite
scandalous, for George Sr. to have died and left the lion's share of
his assets to only one selected nephew, and leave his brother the
paltry sum of $25. This not only indicates that there was probably
only ONE George Kinsinger (Jr.?) in this lineage, but that he is the
one on the 1880 census and the son (and likely the oldest living son)
of George the elder, from whom he inherited the greater portion of
assets – and NOT the biological son of David as the census indicated.
5) At an advanced age, and now a widower, David would very likely have
moved into the household of the family patriarch. By 1880, with his
brother now deceased and himself too old to lead his own household,
George (Jr.?), who is probably the oldest living son of George the
elder, is now the head of the family. This is evident by the title
bestowed upon him in the 1880 census, and confirmed by the fact that
David is now living with him.
6) If this establishes George as the son of George the elder, as the
will suggests, and not the son of David Kinsinger, as I believe the
1880 census “incorrectly” indicates, then this also confirms that the
William and Samuel mentioned in the will are the brothers of George
(Jr.?). With this comes the additional suggestion of proof that they
are all sons of George the elder, and as such this becomes the
additional corroborating evidence that you are seeking as they must
also be the sons of Rebecca Brindel Kinsinger, his wife. Could these
sons have been the product of some other marriage of George the elder?
It is remotely possible – but highly improbable. Since we’ve already
established that George the elder and Rebecca were married in/or about
1818, we know that George (Jr.?), who was only 34 years old in the
1880 census, could not have been a product of any marriage prior to
Rebecca Brindel. Since George the elder and Rebecca are buried next to
each other, we can easily assume that they remained married throughout
their lives. There could not have been another wife after Rebecca,
since she outlived him. Also, Rebecca was buried next to George the
elder some 11 years after his death. This means that for George the
elder to father other children, he and Rebecca would have had to
divorce. Following the divorce she would have had to remain and
survive alone in the community for 11 more years, which again, would
have been very untraditional in these days as a rejected wife would
certainly have had to have sinned so badly against her husband that
she would likely have been shamed or dishonored to such a degree as to
force her move back home to Pennsylvania to take up residence with her
father’s family. She would, in all probablility, have been a single
divorcee for the remainder of her life, and therefore would have been
buried in Pennsylvania as well. The only reasonable explanations that
George (Jr.?), William and/or Samuel would NOT be Rebecca Brindel’s
biological children would be if one or more were adopted/fostered into
the family and little or no record of this exists, or if, as people of
German descent from Pennsylvania, the Kinsingers were Amish/Mennonites
practicing plural marriage. While there is no real way to prove or
disprove the former, it is not likely that plural marriage is a
possibility, since neither George (Jr.?) nor David, after the death of
his wife, had any other women of child bearing age other than George’s
wife Sarah using the Kinsinger surname while living with them on the
1880 census and no other wives are buried in the family plot.
7) Finally, ten years after the 1880 census, David Kinsinger dies.
After sharing his home, his food, his company and ultimately having
cared for David for so many years, George undoubtedly looked upon the
old man as a father or grandfatherly figure. George, who is obviously
the head of the household, would have had the final say as to where
the old man was to be buried. Certainly, in ten years time, others in
this family, or closely related to it, would have died as well and
there was certainly more than enough time to have established a
separate family plot representing David’s nearest relatives with whom
he would someday be buried himself. But this is not the case. Again,
based on this and my interpretation of the man other known or logical
facts, it is my conclusion then that George (Jr.?) is David’s nephew,
and not his son. Upon his death, George Kinsinger, Jr. buried his
uncle David Kinsinger in the place reserved only for himself – the
plot next to his father, David’s brother - the most honorable of
places for the man for whom he loved for so many years as if he were
his own father.
It is my conclusion, therefore, that my theory is a very plausible one
(while still unproven), and in all likelihood, true. The story as I
have suggested is not only moving when you consider the hardships of
the era, but also quite logical, and supported by what I believe are
the most reasonable and attainable information available.
I hope you find my research and my explanations of value in your
continued search.
Regards;
Tutuzdad-ga |
