Skip to content
Where the Record Ends
← All proof paths

Proof project

The Sledge proof path

Tracing Mary Estelle Sledge's family toward the John Sledge named in a 1798 Hancock County will, one relationship at a time.

Why I am following this path

I want to establish this line for myself and understand how it relates to a family SAR claim. Lineage, the 1798 testator's identity, and Revolutionary service need separate conclusions.

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.

The SAR genealogy policies call for proof through every generation. Identifying the ancestor and establishing Revolutionary service are separate questions after those generational links.

  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 Mary Estelle Sledge

    His contemporaneous Texas birth certificate names 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 original 1934 birth certificate was checked against an independent 1973 death certificate, with the birth index and 1940 household as context.
    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 contemporaneous birth certificate directly names Mary; the later death record independently repeats her name as mother.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    No conflicting mother identification appears in the reviewed records; the derivative birth index is not counted as an independent event.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The correlated original records establish Mary Estelle Sledge as Jimmy’s mother.

    Next: Revisit this conclusion if contrary evidence appears.

    Read the current assessment

  4. 04 · Parent–child link

    Supported inference

    Mary Estelle Sledge Jack Sledge

    The 1900 census names Mary as Jack Sledge’s daughter; her later identity is strongly supported by correlated certificates and the complete 1940 household. The remaining GPS question is the weight of age discrepancies and evidence limits.[83][84][85][75][76][57][56]

    GPS: nearly demonstrated

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

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    Reviewed childhood censuses, later certificates, the complete 1940 household and the existing identity synthesis supply a proportionate continuity case. No specific missing record is presently required; final adequacy review is bounded by the stated age and informant limits.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    Certificates and complete census households have exact record locators; the reused correlation is identified as authored analysis, not independent corroboration.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The narrative correlates Plano birth, Richardson residence, parent names, husband and child, distinguishes reported facts from identity inference, and weighs a different-Mary alternative.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    1934 and 1940 ages favor the 1952 birth year 1896; 1900 says 1897 and April 1910 age 14 is also not an exact fit. Final adjudication of their effect on identity remains open; Netzer is an unverified lead, not competing original evidence.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    A reasoned supported-inference conclusion is written. Overall GPS remains near-ready pending final adjudication of the age conflicts and adequacy of the evidence despite informant and document-boundary limits.

    Next: Decide whether the age discrepancies and documented informant limits leave a plausible alternative identity. State what, if anything, further evidence would need to resolve.

    Read the current assessment

  5. 05 · Identity

    Supported inference

    Jack Sledge Ira Sledge

    The repeated wife and children, marriage duration, and correlated census profiles strongly support Jack and Ira as one man; conflicting name and birthplace reports still need final assessment.[84][85][83][91]

    GPS: nearly demonstrated

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

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Satisfied
    The reviewed 1880, 1900 and 1910 schedules and the later certificate provide a bounded identity comparison. No member-tree assertion is evidence, and an explicit alias record is not required.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    Specific citations identify the three census schedules and the later certificate. The written correlations explain those records and are not additional independent evidence.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    Repeated wife and children, progressing ages and marriage duration, Lizzie’s matching natal profile, and the 1880/1910 Ira profile favor one man. Both duplicate-family and replacement-husband explanations are weighed.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    The Jack/Ira name and head/father birthplace differences remain recorded. First-marriage reporting weakens substitution; final adjudication of whether the conflicting fields leave a material alternative remains open.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The written conclusion supports one man and explains the near-ready assessment; final adjudication of the head’s name/natal discrepancies remains the bounded gap.

    Next: Decide whether the conflicting names and birthplaces leave a plausible alternative after weighing the repeated family members, marriage history and unknown census informants.

    Read the current assessment

  6. 06 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Ira Sledge John W. Sledge

    The original 1880 Collin County census records Ira as a son in John W. Sledge’s household. The later Ira household fits his age and parental birthplace profile.[91][85][87]

    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 reviewed original 1880 household directly records Ira as son; a later Ira household was compared for age and parental birthplace continuity.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The 1880 schedule has a precise page, lines, film, and provider locator; the 1910 household is separately cited.
    Analysis and correlation
    Satisfied
    The 1880 relationship column names Ira as John W.’s son, and the 1910 age and natal profile supports the later Ira identity.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    No conflicting father statement has been found in the reviewed records; the separate Jack–Ira identity question remains open.
    Sound written conclusion
    Satisfied
    The reviewed records support John W. Sledge as the father of the Ira in this path.

    Next: Continue testing Jack and Ira as one man in the separate identity step; keep the original census image private.

    Read the current assessment

  7. 07 · Parent–child link

    Open

    John W. Sledge Francis M. Sledge

    The 1860 and 1870 original schedules place Francis and a John in shared households, supporting repeated co-residence but not a direct father–son statement.[86][87][90]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    Both household schedules are reviewed; parentage and later identity searches remain open.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The 1860 four-frame sequence and 1870 household have specific source locators.
    Analysis and correlation
    Partial
    Repeated co-residence is analyzed but does not establish fatherhood.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    The 1860 page-order issue is resolved; competing kinship explanations remain untested.
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The written assessment correctly leaves fatherhood unproved.

    Next: Find a parentage record or correlate later John W. records with both households.

    Read the current assessment

  8. 08 · Parent–child link

    Open

    Francis M. Sledge Collin Sledge

    A 1834 deed places Francis as a witness in a Sledge transaction, but states no kinship; the proposed parent–child link remains unproved.[89][88]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    A deed, estate notice, and earlier will are reviewed; the key heir records remain open.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Partial
    The deed and will are cited; the estate-notice summary lacks a linked citation here.
    Analysis and correlation
    Not shown
    No reviewed source connects Francis to Collin as his son.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Not shown
    Competing parentage candidates have not been evaluated.
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The page states the link is open without proposing a proved parent.

    Next: Examine Collin's probate, deeds, tax records, and Francis's early records for kinship.

    Read the current assessment

  9. 09 · Parent–child link

    Documented

    Collin Sledge John Sledge, 1798 Hancock testator

    The recorded will dated 14 April 1798 explicitly calls Collin the testator's son.[88]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Partial
    The original will and related probate, inventory, and estate-account context are reviewed; the later Collin identity remains unestablished.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Satisfied
    The will-book volume, pages, image, and provider link are cited.
    Analysis and correlation
    Partial
    The will directly calls Collin a son of this testator, but later identity needs correlation.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Satisfied
    The earlier 17 April transcription is corrected to 14 April by original-image review; the alleged date conflict is withdrawn.
    Sound written conclusion
    Partial
    The will statement is established; a full lineage proof is not assembled.

    Next: Document adequate identity research for Collin and write the linked parentage proof.

    Read the current assessment

  10. 10 · Identity

    Open

    John Sledge, 1798 Hancock testator John Sledge of the SAR family claim

    The will identifies a testator and son, but reviewed evidence here has not established the testator's compiled identity or Revolutionary service.[88]

    GPS: work remains

    See the specific standards and next action below.

    View five-part GPS assessment
    Reasonably exhaustive research
    Not shown
    No reviewed patriot records have been incorporated for identity comparison.
    Complete, accurate citations
    Not shown
    The will citation documents the testator, not the claimed patriot identity.
    Analysis and correlation
    Not shown
    Residence, family, chronology, and service identity have not been correlated.
    Conflicting evidence resolved
    Partial
    The unsupported Jr. suffix is rejected, but the identity question stays open.
    Sound written conclusion
    Not shown
    No same-person or SAR eligibility conclusion is presented.

    Next: Identify the claimed patriot and compare sourced service and life records with the testator.

    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 Mary Estelle Sledge the mother of James Lawrence Meason born in 1934?

Documented

His contemporaneous Texas birth certificate names Mary Estelle Sledge as his mother.

Evidence type: direct

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The original birth certificate directly names the mother.[75]

  • supports

    The derivative statewide birth index repeats the full parent name.[74]

  • context

    The 1940 Richardson household associates Mary with young Jimmie.[76]

  • supports

    The 1973 original death certificate independently names Mary Sledge as Jimmy’s mother.[56]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1934 birth certificate
  • Statewide birth index
  • 1940 household
  • 1973 death certificate

Limit: The certificate image is not cleared for public reproduction; the index is derivative of the same birth event.

The contemporaneous birth certificate directly names Mary Estelle Sledge; his later original death certificate independently repeats Mary Sledge as mother. The birth index derives from the same birth event, and the 1940 household is supporting context.

Current conclusion

The correlated original records establish Mary Estelle Sledge as Jimmy’s mother.

Lineage assessment 02

Was the later Mary Meason the daughter of Jack Sledge in the 1900 household?

Supported inference

The 1900 census names Mary as Jack Sledge’s daughter; her later identity is strongly supported by correlated certificates and the complete 1940 household. The remaining GPS question is the weight of age discrepancies and evidence limits.

Evidence type: mixed

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The death certificate names Jack Sledge and Elizabeth Hetzer as Mary's parents.[83]

  • supports

    The 1900 household records daughter Mary with Jack and Lizzie.[84]

  • context

    This household adds conditional continuity context; identifying its Ira with Jack is assessed separately and is not a prerequisite of the 1900-to-1952 Mary-to-Jack argument.[85]

  • supports

    Plano origin, Sledge name, Richardson residence and age support identification with the later Mary Meason; the certificate does not name her father.[75]

  • supports

    The husband, son, residence and age bridge the 1934 parental household to the later Richardson Mary Meason and favor a birth about 1896.[76]

  • context

    Consistent with the 1940 couple and Mary's 1952 widowhood; the informant field alone does not explicitly identify a spouse.[57]

  • supports

    Later secondary parentage information corroborates the 1934 family; it does not identify Mary’s father.[56]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1900 Dallas household
  • 1910 Lathram household
  • 1934 Texas birth certificate
  • Complete 1940 Richardson household
  • 1949 James Lawrence Meason death certificate
  • 1952 Mary Meason death certificate front
  • 1973 James Lawrence Meason death certificate
  • Existing household identity correlation

Limit: Existing preserved records and documented prior image reviews were assessed; no new records were acquired. The 1952 informant’s knowledge is undocumented and reverse/adjacent-frame coverage remains qualified. No exhaustive search for every similarly named family is claimed.

Plano birthplace, Richardson residence, Sledge parentage, compatible age and the James/Mary/Jimmie family bridge the childhood and later records. The 1910 Ira household supplies conditional context, while the central Mary-to-Jack case relies on 1900 and 1952. The 1949 Mary is an informant, not explicitly a named spouse in that field. A different-Mary explanation has no affirmative support in the reviewed set.

Conflicts and limits

  • 1900 records October 1897 and age 2; April 1910 records age 14; the 1952 certificate reports 20 October 1896.

    Age 38 in October 1934 and age 43 in April 1940 fit October 1896. The 1910 age would be 13 for that birth date, not 14. Reporting variation is a plausible explanation, not a demonstrated cause. The combined family/locality evidence favors one Mary; final adjudication of whether these discrepancies are immaterial to that identity remains open.

  • Elizabeth’s maiden surname is typed Hetzer in 1952; Netzer is an unverified suggestion.

    Retain the literal Hetzer reading. No reviewed competing original establishes Netzer. Her actual maiden surname remains a separate unresolved question, but the unverified suggestion does not create a material competing Mary-to-Jack relationship.

Current conclusion

The correlated records strongly support identifying Mary Estelle Sledge Meason with the daughter of Jack Sledge in 1900. The written identity argument is complete for this near-ready assessment; a bounded final decision on the age conflicts and evidentiary limits remains before assessing GPS met.

What could change it

Decide whether the age discrepancies and documented informant limits leave a plausible alternative identity. State what, if anything, further evidence would need to resolve.

Lineage assessment 03

Were Jack Sledge and the Ira in the 1910 Lathram household the same man?

Supported inference

The repeated wife and children, marriage duration, and correlated census profiles strongly support Jack and Ira as one man; conflicting name and birthplace reports still need final assessment.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    Jack, Lizzie, and daughter Mary appear in 1900.[84]

  • supports

    Ira, Lizzie, and daughter Mary appear in 1910.[85]

  • context

    Mary’s later certificate repeats Jack as her father’s name; it does not explicitly equate Jack with Ira.[83]

  • supports

    The 1880 Ira’s age and natal profile agree with the 1910 household head.[91]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1880 Collin original census control through documented prior review
  • 1900 Dallas and 1910 Lathram preserved original households, reopened
  • 1952 certificate front through documented prior review

Limit: No reviewed record explicitly equates the names, but that document type is not required. Census informants are unidentified; the final weighting of the head’s name and natal discrepancies remains open.

Lizzie, Mary and Charles recur with coherent spouse/son ages and marriage duration. Lizzie’s natal profile matches, and both spouses report a first marriage in 1910. These details weaken a different-family or replacement-husband explanation; the 1880/1910 Ira profile supplies a separate continuity control.

Conflicts and limits

  • The 1900 head is Jack, Texas-born with a Georgia-born father; the 1880/1910 Ira profile is Arkansas-born with a Mississippi-born father.

    Repeated family members, Lizzie’s matching birthplace and parental birthplaces, and the first-marriage and marriage-duration entries favor one man over two families or a replacement husband. The cause of the conflicting name and birthplace reports is unknown; their final weight remains unresolved.

  • Mary is age 2, born October 1897, in 1900, but age 14 in April 1910; her later certificate reports 20 October 1896.

    Neither census age exactly fits the later birth date. This uncertainty does not by itself imply two families. Mary’s continuity and the conflicting ages are assessed in the separate proof of her relationship to Jack.

Current conclusion

Jack in the 1900 Dallas household and Ira in the 1910 Lathram household are strongly supported as the same man by family and natal-profile correlation. GPS is near-ready pending final adjudication of the head’s conflicting name and birthplace reports.

What could change it

Decide whether the conflicting names and birthplaces leave a plausible alternative after weighing the repeated family members, marriage history and unknown census informants.

Lineage assessment 04

Was Ira Sledge a son of John W. Sledge?

Documented

The original 1880 Collin County census records Ira as a son in John W. Sledge’s household. The later Ira household fits his age and parental birthplace profile.

Evidence type: mixed

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The 1880 original schedule directly records Ira as John W.’s son.[91]

  • supports

    The later Ira household fits the age and parental birthplace profile from 1880.[85]

  • context

    The earlier John household informs the older-generation identity question but states no kinship.[87]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1880 Collin County original household
  • 1910 Lathram original household
  • 1870 Alcorn household context

Limit: The 1880 informant is unidentified. The separate question whether Jack and Ira were one man remains an inference; this parentage assessment does not resolve it.

The 1880 relationship column supplies direct father–son wording, and the later Ira’s age and parental birthplace profile supports continuity. The proposed Jack–Ira identity is assessed separately.

Current conclusion

John W. Sledge is documented as father of the Ira recorded in 1880, with the later Ira identity supported by the household profile.

What could change it

Continue the separate Jack–Ira identity test.

Lineage assessment 05

Was John W. Sledge the son of Francis M. Sledge?

Open

The 1860 and 1870 original schedules place Francis and a John in shared households, supporting repeated co-residence but not a direct father–son statement.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The corrected four-frame sequence puts John, age 10, in Francis's 1860 household 958.[86]

  • supports

    F M Sleage and John, age 21, share the complete 1870 household.[87]

  • limits

    The 1870 form gives no middle initial or relationship column.[87]

  • context

    The derivative school-fund index identifies manuscript pp. 19 and 42 for original-page inspection; it establishes no household or kinship.[90]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Complete 1860 household sequence across manuscript pp. 145, 147, 148, 146
  • Complete 1870 Alcorn household
  • Derivative 2005 school-fund name index, used only to locate unseen original pages

Limit: Neither schedule states parentage; identity with the later John W. also needs independent correlation. The school-fund account-book manuscript pages remain unseen.

The age and birthplace pattern plus repeated co-residence support a strong working identity. Co-residence alone cannot distinguish son, other kin, or another household member.

Conflicts and limits

  • The 1860 page order appears to jump from household 958 to 970.

    The reviewed four-frame sequence places p. 147 after p. 145 and before p. 148, locating John in household 958; Sarah Bass remains in household 969.

Current conclusion

John W. as Francis's son is not yet proved.

What could change it

Find a direct parentage statement or correlate later John W. records with the 1860 and 1870 household member across name, age, place, and associates. Inspect school-fund manuscript pp. 19 and 42 for named entries and column meaning; do not infer kinship from the index.

Lineage assessment 06

Was Francis M. Sledge Collin Sledge's son?

Open

A 1834 deed places Francis as a witness in a Sledge transaction, but states no kinship; the proposed parent–child link remains unproved.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • context

    Francis witnessed Zilpha Sledge's purchase; the deed does not name Collin or state a relationship.[89]

  • context

    The earlier will documents Collin as the 1798 testator's son but says nothing about Francis's parentage.[88]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1834 Pike deed
  • Reviewed Collin estate notice summary
  • 1798 Hancock will

Limit: The estate notice names no child; no reviewed source directly or indirectly closes Collin–Francis.

A shared surname, Georgia setting, and witness role cannot establish a father–son relationship without a more specific link.

Current conclusion

The Collin–Francis link remains open.

What could change it

Search Collin's probate, deeds, tax records, and Francis's early records for a named heir or a documented family network.

Lineage assessment 07

Did the 1798 Hancock County testator John Sledge name Collin as his son?

Documented

The recorded will dated 14 April 1798 explicitly calls Collin the testator's son.

Evidence type: direct

What the sources contribute

  • supports

    The original will-book entry directly states the parent–son relationship.[88]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • Hancock Will Book AA, pp. 18–19, original recorded entry

Limit: The testator is not styled Jr.; this statement does not identify him with a compiled patriot or prove a later Collin–Francis link.

The relationship wording is direct. It applies to the testator named in this will, without importing a compiled identity. The first bequest names son Nathaniel, not a wife; no wife is named in the will. The corrected execution date is 14 April 1798, and probate remains 11 October 1798.

Conflicts and limits

  • The earlier research transcription and public summary dated the will 17 April 1798.

    Independent original-image review reads fourteenth day of April: 14 April 1798. The earlier 17 April reading was erroneous; there is no conflict with the derivative 14 April date.

Current conclusion

John Sledge, the 1798 Hancock testator, documented Collin as his son.

Lineage assessment 08

Was the 1798 testator the same John Sledge associated with the family patriot claim?

Open

The will identifies a testator and son, but reviewed evidence here has not established the testator's compiled identity or Revolutionary service.

Evidence type: indirect

What the sources contribute

  • limits

    The will supplies the testator's name and Collin relationship, but neither a Jr. suffix nor service evidence.[88]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1798 Hancock will-book entry

Limit: No reviewed service record or identity comparison has been incorporated into this proof project.

A same-name will cannot by itself connect this testator to a patriot profile. Identity and service require separate correlated records.

Conflicts and limits

  • Compiled versions append Jr. to the testator.

    The original will does not use Jr.; leave the compiled identity unassigned.

Current conclusion

The testator's proposed patriot identity and service are unproved here; no SAR eligibility conclusion follows.

What could change it

Identify the claimed patriot and compare independently cited service, residence, family, and probate records with the Hancock testator.

Related research

The separate service question

Revolutionary service needs its own evidence after the lineage and patriot identity are established.

Related question 09

What Revolutionary service, if any, is documented for the John Sledge of the SAR family claim?

Not yet assessed here

Revolutionary service has not been assessed in this public proof path.

Evidence assessment pending

What the sources contribute

  • limits

    The 1798 Hancock will documents a testator and his son Collin, but contains no Revolutionary service evidence.[88]

Research and reasoning

Records examined

  • 1798 Hancock will-book entry for the limits of this source

Limit: No reviewed service record or qualifying service analysis has been incorporated here. The will cannot serve as evidence of service.

A family patriot claim and a same-name will are leads. Service requires independently cited records, and the person in those records must be identified with the ancestor on the lineage path.

Current conclusion

No Revolutionary service conclusion is presented here, and this path establishes no SAR eligibility.

What could change it

Identify the service claim and review original or reliable derivative service, residence, and identity records for the named man.