I believe it is time to reflect a little on the loss of this great Beeler site.
It will soon be a read only resource but it has provided some very good exchanges in the last 4-1/2 years we have followed it. The Famous Beeler Family King’s Mountain Hoax was discovered on this site and we hate to see it go. It has been fun during the last couple of years when we found out what was really going on.
One of my early posts was on a thread begun by someone looking for information and had no idea what would happen in December of 2009.
It is typical of those threads prior to the discovery of the Beeler Family Hoax regarding Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 and Joseph Beeler 1744-1833.
The “correction” to history is immediate, specific and as I discovered in 2010, had been going on for 15 years. I was even called in my office less than five days after the 12-29-2009 post.
The site was watched very carefully for “incorrect” statements. Anytime someone said it was the sons of John Valentine Beeler, the correction was speedy, “it is the sons of Ulrich and Maria Buehler”….
I had transcribed surveys, pensions etc. for my family in the 1980’s and decided to take a look at one U.S. Pension S.5277 during the Christmas Holidays of 2009.
It was brought about by an article written from a rather peculiar angle when such strong primary documentation was available.
The following is my post of December 29, 2009.
It has proved to be entirely correct and was all about “bragging rights” just as I said over four years ago.
It never struck me that in a hobby such as this the practice would be so blatant. Historical Hoax is the sum total of the affair and all over the military service of two Patriot Soldiers who were little more than teenagers.
Please see the Beeler-L files for May/June 2010 for the indignation regarding my assessment of the documentation.
I didn’t realize that I had stumbled onto a Hoax for almost a year.
It has finally come apart in the Spring and Summer of 2014. It probably would have gone on undiscovered if it had not been for this great site and good old fashioned computer searches.
Another book has been written and has done nothing but remove any doubt as to the truth of the Hoax. It really was all about bragging rights and trying to protect one’s integrity after the cat jumps out.
One of the things that made the Hoax work so well was there was almost nothing known about Joseph Beeler 1744-1833 and Jacob Beeler 1750-1843. Neither of the two had any military service that could be documented.
It was a simple matter just to claim the service of two others with the same name. It was because of this site we were able to unravel the Hoax. Sadly, that is all there is to it.
The list of problems for the Hoax are as follows:
1. There is a Joseph Beeler 1762-1845 on the NSDAR Ancestor list for many years. (Probably 1950’s) The NSDAR didn’t seem to connect the two as NOT BROTHERS. Not even related as it turns out. (June 2014)
2. U.S. Pension has the wrong age on it. (December 2009)
3. It could not be proved that Joseph Beeler 1744-1833 was in Sullivan County until 1796.
4. It could not be proved Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 was in Sullivan County until 1812.
5. The famous “Beeler Family Bible” provided no relationship for Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 and was a total fabrication with regard to Ulrich and Maria Buehler. It had been the basis for several researchers to claim they had solved the Beeler Family mystery, Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 and Joseph Beeler 1744-1833 as “brothers”.
It had been nothing but a hoax and there wasn’t a thing proved about Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 that we didn’t already know. (May 2014)
6. Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 has no proof for being born in Shenandoah, Virginia. It is not known who his parents are. (June 2014)
7. A book was written to erase Jacob Beeler 1761-1842 and prove there was only “one” Jacob Beeler. Tax Lists, U.S. Census all proved there were two Jacob Beelers living in Sullivan County from 1812 through 1830.
8. The Veterans Administration marker on the grave of Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 in Beeler Cemetery, Bristol, Tennessee is illegal and never should have been placed. The VA records are marked accordingly. (Spring 2014)
9. The U.S. Census for 1840 is erroneous and the poof of error is made with ease. However, no United States Pension for service in the Revolutionary War has ever been “corrected”, “changed” or “altered” in any way by a listing in the 1840 U.S. Census. There is no comparison to the weight of an approved United States Pension. A completely bogus attempt to salvage credibility.Try that approach for admission at the NSSAR.
10. The Veterans Administration has supplied a memorial marker for Jacob Beeler 1761-1842 and it has been placed in the Liberty Hill Cemetery, Washburn, Tennessee. The VA is completely satisfied with the documentation and will maintain that marker on request. The marker inscription reflects only information in the files of the United States of America regarding that Revolutionary War Soldier. Find-A-Grave # 117396266.
As you can imagine, there has been a considerable amount of hocus pocus to keep this humorous deception moving. We believe the driving force for the last three years or so has been the three NSDAR members hanging by a thread because they entered on the flawed information referenced by this site.
There were also the “assistants” that monitored the “Beeler” sites and supported the ruse in their own way.About the time it seemed the issue had faded in the sunset, here comes someone who reads. Aw shucks…
Again, it is sad to see this site lost.
We have copied much of the pertinent information to be used on other sites as the opportunity presents itself. It should be noted that for Beeler researchers, anytime your work is around the four persons Jacob Beeler 1761-1842, Joseph Beeler 1762-1845 (sons of John Valentine Beeler 1737-1823) or Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 and Joseph Beeler 1744-1833, care should be exercised in the use of statements made during the last twenty years.
The hoax began during the early 1990’s and continues today. The trees affected are in the hundreds on Ancestry.com alone. Most don’t seem to really care as long as they have a name to fill in a spot. Few apparently read the documentation and are comfortable with copying each other.
The cat is out of the bag on the famous Jacob and Joseph Beeler at King’s Mountain Beeler Family Hoax. That was what it was all about from the beginning. It was just a bad case of bragging rights.
Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 turns out to be nothing but a “fictitious brother” of Joseph Beeler 1744-1833.
The relationship was created to satisfy the “Isaac Shelby Dispute of 1823” deposition by Jacob and Joseph Beeler (“my brother”).
Claims made on this and other places were tied to the famous “Jacob Beeler Bible”, aka “Beeler Family Bible”.
There was simply NO SUCH INFORMATION contained in the three sheets Xeroxed in the 1980’s out of Shirley Underwood’s 1788 German Bible.
She discovered the Bible in 1947 and the whereabouts was known for over sixty years.
The Bible proved/showed/indicated/made verifiable absolutely NOTHING about the relation of Jacob Beeler 1750-1843 to anyone. The supposed documentation was a complete hoax.
I have had a copy of those pages for four years and never knew that was what “they” were talking about as “the proof”. Proof does not exist so it is easy to see what we have here. It has been a very deliberate and continuous obfuscation for the last twenty years. The last fifteen years are on Genforum.com.
Response and indignation appeared quickly in 2010 and I would like to bring this post up near the front again.
It just shows what can happen when you read the documentation. Like Maxine said, “documentation, documentation and documentation”. Please go read it yourself. If someone starts to explain the document, you need to read it or get caught up in something like this affair.
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 Parker of 1170
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 postions 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. Cospers 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.