Uh Oh in Beeler Land
All Beeler Folks,
I have brought forward a post made farther down in this Beeler Forum over four years ago. It is still correct. I will paste it here so we can look at it again. I indicated I could prove it that way and no one seemed to pay attention that I also said I could prove who it was not.
What is new? Well nothing to some of us but the ladies at DAR are all in a twist again over #A131400 and #A008522. I imagine this is going to get real hard to come back to. I admit it is such fun for some but just maybe.... Believe me, I'm having some fun but it is time to do something else for a little while...I'm fixing tile on my pool today and she wants it done.
So, anyone that wants to join DAR on Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 #A131400 should make haste.
In April 2010 while the Beeler Family Feud over "which set of brothers were at King's Mountain" was at a fever pitch again, something happened. That something was one of those four men was found to have "Stand Alone Proof" he was not only in the service, but was at King's Mountain 7 October 1780, and he had a brother named Jacob.
Ain't that something? Had to read some but that is all it took and as usual: the documents can speak for themselves, No explanation is required.
We knew he had a brother Jacob, but who had service beside A Jacob? One guess. Joseph Beeler (remember the one too young! Go look at Joseph Beeler 1762/6 to 1845/6 NSDAR #A008522 before "too young" is gone.) In my file 49 months.
He DOES and he is the son of John Valentine Beeler. It has nothing to do with that S.5277 U.S. Pension AT ALL.
I found it but did not need it because anyone that can read can see that a Jacob 11 years younger than his Uncle Jacob. So what was the point? Redundant, but more than that, ole Ken found out something else in January 2010 so I saved it for a rainy day! It just rained in March 2014 at the DAR.
Found out in January 2010 some folks DID NOT WANT TO KNOW! I believe we know who we are. So since we are going there again, I will say it one more time; Benjamin A. Beeler is the Nephew of Joseph Beeler 1766-1846 and I don't need your book reference Dave to know it.
It looks like some are going to find it out the hard way. Three DAR's. Go read your own documentation!! #A131400 doesn't have ANY service, Military or Patriotic and you need to go talk to your friend from Illinois!!! Yes, nothing. Neither brother of John Valentine Beeler has a single piece of military or patriotic service to be found. I was also looking for that too because I did not believe they had nothing. Well that is what they have, zero. Doesn't mean they were not in the fray somewhere but they are like thousands of other patriots that didn't leave a clue.
So to start this out ONE MORE TIME so we all can have some fun:
Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Re: Beeler Burials in East Tennessee
Posted by: Kenneth Parker (ID *****8332) Date: December 29, 2009 at 20:08:45
In Reply to: Re: Beeler Burials in East Tennessee by Kenneth Parkerof 1099
I have reviewed a paper by a D. R. Cosper from about 1994. It may be the one my son-in-law said was posted by you on one of the sites. I am not sure. In any case it does not matter all that much. The article did point to a pension filed in 1832, but addressed no details, and the rest of it stated some accepted positions long held and spent the rest in speculation, circumstantial and conjectural observations. Cosper admitted that.
Keystone documentation was missing. The only 1832 pension application I have been able to find is for the younger Jacob Bealor of Sullivan County Tennessee. It clearly is not for the elder Jacob Beeler of the same county which may be the claimants uncle. The pension file itself is on line.
What is strange about the Cosper paper is that the one pension I found clearly refutes his position. The pension I refer to was administered in court August 22, 1832, Sullivan Co. Tennessee. He, Cosper, could not have read this one and come to the conclusion he did. Surely he refers to another.
I did find a reference to a Jacob Bealer on the census of 1840 regarding pensioners. The younger Jacob Bealer was probably dead by that time so it could be the wife of the younger Jacob Bealer if he had one alive that was getting a pension. The age given was 89 years which would be close to the age of the elder Jacob Bealer but there is no pension in fact to support the Cosper claim that he ever applied for a pension. Also, I don't think the elder Jacob Bealer would be eligible to get the pension of his deceased nephew but I am not sure.
The Acts of 1816, 1818, 1832, 1836 and 1838 could apply in the instance above so I am not sure what is the case. The general belief at the time and possibly a requirement was to swear that you had no property that amounted to $100, and I refer to Revolutionary War Pensions, Adam Cabbage, S.2111, page 9. I feel that Joseph Bealer the younger in Grainger County would not be eligible as he seems to have been fairly well off. I do not know about the elder set of brothers but men of property do not seem to be claimants but as Adam Cabbage stated, "he saw other of his neighbors get the pension that had more than he did so he decided to claim it to".
The United States War Department had inquiries on the above person (Jacob Bealer) in 1910, 1914, 1938 and 1940. The letters are in the file and the answer was consistent. It seems like there is a fixation about "who was at Kings Mountain?" (1) The Draper paper tells you the Bealers were brothers and (2)the War Department pension application tells you which set of brothers and battles involved. You need both.
In the case at hand, the claimant respondent seeking the benefit of the Act of Congress 7 June 1832 had to: state his name, age and service in multiple places, have at least one witness to his claim. He did. He also signed it in script; he writes. He did not execute a "his mark".
On the 22nd day of August 1832 the CLAIMANT would have to be 81 years old if it was the son of Ulrich Bealer, or 70 years old if the son of John Valentine Bealer. It IS written in Arabic numbers AND in word form and sworn to by three persons. I suggest anyone interested go read it themselves. THE ONLY 80 FOUND IN THIS ENTIRE FILE IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH YEAR. $80 per annum.
The "brothers" were the sons of John Valentine Bealer. Joseph was 18 years and three months old and Jacob Bealer was nineteen years and one month old in October 1780.*
Also, while reading one of the posts by Maxine Yeats, I noted one comment she made which would apply in this case discussed. Documentation, documentation and documentation. I have to admit I ALMOST didn't go look in the files at the War Department when I read the article by Cosper. ALMOST!
There was a tone, if you will, to that article that would beg a closer look. My real surprise is that apparently no one else has picked up on the error.
Down here in Texas the thing is "who was at San Jacinto, the Alamo, etc", what I would call "bragging rights". Since it was "a given" that the elder Jacob Bealer was a Patriot, the argument had to be over "bragging rights". So what I got out of that article was it was very very important for some reason known only to Mr. Cosper to "place" the elder Jacob Bealer at Kings Mountain.
As one involved in peer reviewed papers, I respond to Mr. Cosper's invitation for question and no offense is intended. This public forum is acceptable to me but others wishing to contact me by email are invited to do so.
I will be putting the file in question up on blog because of the supposed "confusion". Until then please go to the Revolutionary War Pension files, Jacob Bealer and read the documents for yourself.
I hope this helps,
* My calculations and I trust you will agree I am very close
No invitation anymore Dave, I believe I'm good!!! But I was giving you the credit. Not tacky, just correct.
Uh Oh, Ken and I hope this helps