Skip to content
Where the Record Ends
← All proof paths

Proof project

The Meason proof path

Following the documented family line through Benjamin while testing where Benjamin belongs among the earlier Measons.

Why I am following this path

I want to understand and explain each relationship in my Meason line, especially the open generation before Benjamin.

From me to the earlier generation

The lineage, one link at a time

Each parent–child step needs its own evidence and reasoning. An identity step tests whether records with different names describe the same person. The evidence badge describes the current conclusion. The separate GPS assessment tracks five standards for that link. “GPS criteria satisfied” is my assessment that the evidence for that specific link meets the five elements; it does not imply independent review or establish the whole path. A path with an open step remains an open lineage.

  1. 01 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Andy Cohen Cynthia June Meason

    Reviewed original and amended birth records directly document Cynthia June Meason as the mother of Shannon Jeremiah Meason, later Andy Cohen.

    GPS criteria satisfied

    In my assessment, the evidence for this specific link satisfies all five GPS elements.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    The certified original and amended birth records, together with first-person identity evidence, answer this narrow mother-and-child question.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The certified records and preserved images are individually identified in private source notes; their details are not published here.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The original record names Cynthia as mother; the paired amended record connects the child’s earlier and later names.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    The change of name and parent fields is explained by the original and amended records, without changing the documented mother relationship.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The paired records establish Cynthia as Andy’s mother.

    Next: Keep the source records private and revisit this conclusion if material contrary evidence appears.

    The reviewed modern records remain private.

    View this link in the family atlas

  2. 02 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Cynthia June Meason James Lawrence “Jimmy” Meason

    Reviewed vital records directly document James Lawrence “Jimmy” Meason as Cynthia June Meason’s father.

    GPS criteria satisfied

    In my assessment, the evidence for this specific link satisfies all five GPS elements.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    The certified birth registration and first-person identification answer this narrow father-and-child question.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The issuing office, registration, and preserved image are identified in a private source note; the record is not published here.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The registration directly names Jimmy as Cynthia’s father; first-person evidence identifies its subject as the Cynthia in this path.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    A transcription discrepancy elsewhere on the registration was resolved against two photographs; it did not concern the named father.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The registration and identity evidence establish Jimmy as Cynthia’s father.

    Next: Keep the source record private and revisit this conclusion if material contrary evidence appears.

    The reviewed modern records remain private.

    View this link in the family atlas

  3. 03 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    James Lawrence “Jimmy” Meason James Lawrence Meason (1892–1949)

    Jimmy’s contemporaneous 1934 Texas birth certificate records the older James Lawrence Meason as his father and Mary Estelle Sledge as his mother.[75][74][76][56]

    GPS criteria satisfied

    In my assessment, the evidence for this specific link satisfies all five GPS elements.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    The contemporaneous 1934 birth certificate was checked with the independent 1973 death certificate, birth index, and household context for this father–son claim.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The birth and death certificates are precisely cited. The contextual 1940 household is located at ED 57-14, sheet 4B, lines 59–63, visitation 86, NARA T627 roll 4016, frame 37.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The birth certificate directly names the father; the later death record uses a shorter form of his name that fits the same family.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    The shorter paternal name in 1973 is reconciled with the full name and matching family context in the 1934 record.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The correlated original records establish the older James Lawrence Meason as Jimmy’s father.

    Next: Revisit this conclusion if contrary evidence appears.

    View this link in the family atlas

  4. 04 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    James Lawrence Meason (1892–1949) Franklin Meason

    James Lawrence Meason’s 1949 death certificate names Frank Meason as his father and Nancy A. Huffines as his mother.[57][58][75][76][94][95]

    GPS criteria satisfied

    In my assessment, the evidence for this specific link satisfies all five GPS elements.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    Childhood censuses, certificates and adult family records cover the relationship and identity questions. The known elderly namesake has been excluded; no material competing parentage remains.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The argument cites identifiable original census and vital records. Private images remain restricted from republication.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    Two childhood households explicitly call James/Larance a son of Frank. The repeated family and birthplaces connect him to the adult James whose death certificate names Frank and Nancy as parents. The informants’ limits are addressed.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    Childhood records imply 1893, while later records give 1892. That one-year difference does not undo the family identification; the exact birth date remains undecided. The older namesake and younger son are distinct people.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The correlated records establish James Lawrence Meason, who died in 1949, as the son of Frank Meason, husband of Nancy Ann Huffhines. This narrow parentage claim meets the researcher’s GPS assessment.

    Next: No additional record is required to close this parentage claim. Reassess if contrary evidence emerges; clarification of the exact birth year is a separate question.

    View this link in the family atlas

  5. 05 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Franklin Meason George M. Meason

    Frank’s 1933 death certificate names George Mason and Martha Reed as his parents; the earlier census households corroborate their identification as George M. Meason and Martha.[58][92][93][94][95]

    GPS criteria satisfied

    In my assessment, the evidence for this specific link satisfies all five GPS elements.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    The 1860 and 1870 households test the earlier corroboration gap. Together with the later parental report, a separate family certificate and adult census records, they adequately address this parentage question.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The argument cites the 1933 death certificate and identifiable original census schedules from 1860, 1870, 1900 and 1910, alongside the separate family certificate.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The certificate names George and Martha as Frank’s parents. Two earlier households corroborate that family identification; co-residence alone would not prove parentage. Later records connect Franklin to the adult Frank with wife Nancy. Informant knowledge remains limited.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    Age differences leave Frank’s exact birth date unsettled. Earlier census reports consistently place George’s birth in Kentucky and outweigh the later Missouri report for identity comparison. Neither discrepancy establishes a competing father; George’s exact birthplace remains outside this conclusion.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The direct parentage report and correlated households establish Franklin (Frank) Meason as George M. Meason’s son. This narrow claim meets the researcher’s GPS assessment; it does not establish George’s parents.

    Next: Reassess if material contrary evidence appears. Further exact-birth research is optional and separate; no additional record is required solely to complete this parentage claim.

    View this link in the family atlas

  6. 06 · Parent–child link

    Accepted indirect

    George M. Meason Benjamin Meason

    The public tree accepts this link through a converging family and land network, although no reviewed record states it directly.[1][61][28][62][33][60][59][64]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    Land, households, and later kinship records have been reviewed, but the estate and identity searches remain open.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The published argument identifies and cites the relevant deeds, censuses, marriage return, and death record.
    Analysis and correlation
    Partial
    Several independent family-network clues are correlated, but the inferential dependencies need a fuller written argument.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    The distinct Missouri and Texas James L. trails are kept separate; alternative meanings of “uncle” and George’s omission from Benjamin’s will still need testing.
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The high-confidence indirect link is an accepted working conclusion; the underlying synthesis explicitly leaves its GPS proof argument unfinished.

    Next: Write a full indirect proof argument that tests alternate kinship paths and documents the remaining searches.

    Read the current assessment

  7. 07 · Parent–child link

    Open

    Benjamin Meason Thomas Mason of Kentucky

    Thomas Mason of Kentucky is a proposed parentage candidate, but no reviewed record names Benjamin as his son.[2][20][21][67][68]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    Kentucky marriage, land, tax, and Highland Creek records are reviewed; other branches and linking records remain to be searched.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The relevant marriage, deed, and collateral-heir records have specific public citations.
    Analysis and correlation
    Partial
    Place and chronology make Thomas a candidate, but no reviewed record assigns Benjamin to his branch.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    Other possible family branches remain open; the heir-at-law wording cannot be read as “son.”
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The reviewed conclusion leaves Benjamin’s proposed father unresolved; no positive parentage proof can yet be written.

    Next: Seek a contemporary parentage or household link and test the other heir branches before concluding.

    Read the current assessment

  8. 08 · Identity

    Supported inference

    Thomas Mason of Kentucky Thomas, son named in the 1779 will

    The recurring Joseph–John–Samuel–Isaac–Elizabeth network strongly favors the Kentucky man, but no reviewed record says so directly.[18][67][68][22][69][20][21]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    The will, Kentucky deeds, and collateral-heir network are reviewed, but unique identification is unfinished.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The recorded will and relevant land and heir deeds are specifically cited.
    Analysis and correlation
    Partial
    The family network favors the identification, but no direct record joins the will’s son to the Kentucky landholder.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    Hempfield Thomas is separated by chronology; other plausible identities have not been fully eliminated.
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The written conclusion is provisional, not an established identity.

    Next: Test the remaining same-name candidates and seek a record connecting the will’s son to Kentucky.

    Read the current assessment

  9. 09 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Thomas, son named in the 1779 will Thomas Meason senior

    The will dated 14 March and proved 15 March 1779 names a son Thomas among twelve children.[18]

    GPS: nearly demonstrated

    Strong evidence is in place; the listed GPS work remains.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    The earlier will-book entry and later rendering are reviewed as one instrument. The search context for the genealogical parentage conclusion has not yet been fully documented.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The earlier will-book entry has a precise citation and the second rendering is identified as a copy of the same will.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The will explicitly names a son Thomas among the testator’s children.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    The former 18 March proof-date error is resolved from both renderings; neither is treated as an independent will.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The conclusion is limited to the son named in the will, without assigning him a later identity.

    Next: Document the research context for this narrow parent–child conclusion; test the son’s Kentucky identity in its separate step.

    Read the current assessment

The evidence behind the line

Assessments in lineage order

The detailed questions below follow the same direct line shown above. Earlier documented links use the published family atlas.

Lineage assessment 01

Was George M. Meason Benjamin Mason's son?

Accepted indirect

The public tree accepts this link through a converging family and land network, although no reviewed record states it directly.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • context

    Benjamin and the Hollingsworth family appear in one 1850 Monroe County household; George is not identified as his son.[1]

  • supports

    Laura Ann Meason is directly called Benjamin’s daughter and married John C. Kippers.[61]

  • supports

    John C. Kippers, George M. Meason, and James L. Meason jointly acquired adjacent land; the deed states no kinship.[28]

  • supports

    The 1860 Missouri neighbor sequence preserves Kipper, Hollingsworth, Parker, and James L. Mason associations.[62]

  • supports

    George’s 1880 household names son James and daughter-in-law Eva, enabling the later Texas identity correlation.[33]

  • supports

    The 1900 Texas census calls elder James L. the uncle of James R., strongly continued from George’s son James in 1880.[60]

  • supports

    The elder James L. 1919 death certificate names Benjamin Meason as his father; this is later, informant-supplied evidence.[59]

  • limits

    Missouri James L. remained Kentucky-born in 1880; no record bridges him to the Missouri-born Texas elder James L.[64]

Explore the george connection case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Reviewed Missouri land and household records
  • Reviewed Kipper, Hollingsworth, Parker, and Meason associations
  • Reviewed Texas uncle and father statements

Limit: No single reviewed record names George as Benjamin's son; the Missouri-to-Texas James L. bridge remains unresolved.

Benjamin’s documented daughter Laura and her husband John C. Kippers connect the Missouri land and neighbor network to George. The Texas uncle statement, George’s 1880 son James, and the elder James L. death certificate add independent kinship correlations. The two James L. trails remain separate because no migration record bridges them.

Conflicts and limits

  • The Missouri and Texas James L. records report different birthplaces.

    Keep their identities separate; the George–Benjamin conclusion rests on the wider network and retains this limit.

Current conclusion

Accepted as an indirect parent–child conclusion in the public tree, with the identity caveat visible.

What could change it

Find a contemporary record that directly names George's father or independently resolves the James L. identity bridge.

Lineage assessment 02

Was Thomas Mason of Kentucky Benjamin Meason's father?

Open

Thomas Mason of Kentucky is a proposed parentage candidate, but no reviewed record names Benjamin as his son.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • context

    Benjamin's 1801 Nelson County marriage bond places him in Kentucky but names no parent or guardian.[2]

  • context

    Thomas's 1788 land purchase places the proposed father in Kentucky; it names no child.[20]

  • context

    Thomas's 1795 Logan County conveyance does not mention Benjamin.[21]

  • limits

    Benjamin was an heir at law of Joseph Meason, but the deed does not state the degree of kinship or assign him to Thomas's branch.[67]

  • context

    Joseph's collateral-heir deed identifies other family branches, without assigning Benjamin to this candidate.[68]

Explore the parentage case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Reviewed Nelson County marriage and tax records
  • Kentucky land transactions for Thomas Mason
  • 1813 Highland Creek heir deeds

Limit: The reviewed records do not identify Benjamin's parents or connect him specifically to Kentucky Thomas; other branches remain possible.

Kentucky place, chronology, and the wider Meason network make this a question to test. They do not establish a parent–child link. Joseph's heir deed does not specify Benjamin's relationship to Joseph or to Thomas.

Current conclusion

Thomas Mason of Kentucky remains a proposed father only; Benjamin's parentage is open.

What could change it

Find contemporary guardianship, probate, land, tax, or church records that name Benjamin in Thomas's household or identify his father.

Lineage assessment 03

Was Thomas senior's named son the later Kentucky Thomas?

Supported inference

The recurring Joseph–John–Samuel–Isaac–Elizabeth network strongly favors the Kentucky man, but no reviewed record says so directly.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • context

    The 1779 will establishes the son Thomas as a role.[18]

  • supports

    Benjamin’s 1813 deed names him as an heir of Joseph but does not identify the degree of kinship or Kentucky Thomas.[67]

  • supports

    The neighboring 1813 deed names Joseph’s brothers John and Samuel and their children, strengthening the family-network comparison.[68]

  • supports

    Joseph’s 1795 deed of gift calls William the eldest son of Thomas Mason of Logan County.[22]

  • supports

    William Mason, expressly son of deceased Thomas, conveyed a Highland Creek interest in 1811; the deed does not name Benjamin.[69]

  • context

    The 1788 Rough Creek purchase documents the Kentucky Thomas.[20]

  • context

    The 1795 sale of the same Rough Creek tract places Thomas Mason in Logan County; it states no relationship to senior.[21]

Explore the parentage case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1779 Westmoreland will
  • Kentucky land transactions
  • 1813 collateral-heir deeds and associated family records

Limit: No reviewed record explicitly calls the Kentucky man Thomas senior's son; the Hempfield man's connection to senior remains unproved.

Repeated uncommon family-name associations and the Kentucky deed sequence favor the identity. The argument still depends on correlating separate records rather than an explicit identity statement.

Conflicts and limits

  • Another same-name man, including Hempfield Thomas, has been proposed for the will's son.

    Hempfield and Kentucky men are distinct; the named son's identification remains an inference rather than a direct conclusion.

Current conclusion

The Kentucky identity is strongly supported but remains provisional; it does not establish Benjamin as his son.

What could change it

Find a deed, probate, or family record explicitly connecting Thomas senior's son with the Kentucky landholder.

Lineage assessment 04

Did Thomas Meason senior name a son Thomas?

Documented

The will dated 14 March and proved 15 March 1779 names a son Thomas among twelve children.

Evidence type: direct

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The earlier recorded will-book entry directly names son Thomas; the cataloged copy is another rendering of the same will.[18]

Explore the parentage case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Westmoreland Will Book 1 earlier recorded entry
  • Cataloged copy-volume rendering

Limit: Neither book is the loose signed original; the will does not identify the named son with a later Kentucky or Hempfield man.

The parent–son statement is explicit in the will. Identification of that son in later records is a distinct question.

Conflicts and limits

  • An earlier public citation gave 18 March as the proof date.

    Both reviewed record-book renderings give 15 March; cite the earlier entry and identify the other as a copy rendering.

Current conclusion

Thomas senior's will documents a son named Thomas; it does not establish that son's later identity or Benjamin's parentage.

Related research

Questions that support the line

These questions help evaluate a link or test an alternate identification. They do not add another generation to the lineage above.

Related question 05

Who were Benjamin Mason's parents?

Open

Benjamin is documented in Kentucky and Missouri, but no reviewed record names either parent.

Evidence type: mixed

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    Benjamin signed the 1801 Nelson County marriage bond; it names no parent or guardian.[2]

  • context

    The 1850 census reports a Virginia birthplace and approximate age, without parentage.[1]

  • limits

    Thomas senior's extensive 1779 will omits Benjamin; omission weighs against direct fatherhood but is not categorical.[18]

  • limits

    Hempfield Thomas's will also omits Benjamin, without identifying his parents.[19]

  • supports

    Benjamin is directly called an heir at law of Joseph Meason, but the deed does not state the degree of kinship.[67]

  • context

    A neighboring deed shows Joseph’s collateral heirs through brothers John and Samuel; it does not assign Benjamin to a branch.[68]

Explore the parentage case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Reviewed Nelson County marriage and tax records
  • Reviewed Benjamin's Missouri household
  • Reviewed Thomas senior and Hempfield probate records
  • 1813 Highland Creek heir deeds

Limit: The reviewed record set has not identified a parent, guardian, or direct relationship statement.

Benjamin’s marriage, census, and heir deed place him in a documented family network. “Heir at law” does not mean son, and the collateral deed does not assign him to John, Samuel, or Thomas. The will omissions and lack of a linking record keep his parentage open.

Conflicts and limits

  • Thomas senior and Hempfield Thomas are attractive same-name candidates, but both wills omit Benjamin.

    Treat each omission as negative evidence to weigh, not proof of exclusion or a positive assignment elsewhere.

Current conclusion

Benjamin's parents are not established.

What could change it

Search contemporary guardianship, land, tax, probate, and church records for a relationship statement or a correlated household path.

Related question 06

Could Hempfield Thomas be the later Kentucky Thomas?

Excluded

Hempfield Thomas was dead by March 1786; Kentucky Thomas acted in land records in 1788 and 1795.

Evidence type: mixed

What the sources contribute

  • context

    Hempfield Thomas made a will in 1785; its 1805 proof is not his death date.[19]

  • supports

    The 21 March 1786 agreement calls Ann the widow of deceased Thomas.[73]

  • supports

    Kentucky Thomas purchased land in 1788.[20]

  • supports

    Kentucky Thomas conveyed land in 1795.[21]

Explore the parentage case

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Hempfield will and widow agreement
  • Nelson and Logan County Kentucky land records

Limit: The exclusion separates the two later men but does not identify Benjamin's father or prove either man's link to Thomas senior.

A man dead by 21 March 1786 cannot personally transact the later Kentucky land purchases and conveyance.

Conflicts and limits

  • The Hempfield will was not proved until 1805, which can be mistaken for a survival date.

    The 1786 agreement independently establishes his earlier death; the later notation is probate timing.

Current conclusion

The Hempfield and Kentucky record groups describe different men.