The Argument for Freelove
THE MAYFLOWER ANCESTRY OF RUTH FULLER FRANCISCO
(Author’s note: This is an unfinished genealogical project. A worksheet, if you will, as I muddle through the proofs and my own personal progress. It starts with Part One and winds it's way here. If it's not your cup of tea you should bail out now. No harm no foul. Peace out.)
Unapologetically, unedited in the heat of the moment.
I.
It sucks when all you can do is wait.
It sucks even worse when you have—in a fit of hubris—attached your "twentieth-or-so" absolute "best" version of your article submission, Identifying Ruth, into the compound fracture of an email and vaingloriously hit send. Yes, you’ve gone and volleyed it off to the ivory towers of an editorial desk; a desk you likely should have known better than to have ever personally aspired to.
And then... you sit.
What happens next, as you wait and wonder, is that you inevitably go back. You go back and revisit that "twentieth-or-so" version of it all—you know, that hard-wrought submission you labored over for months. The one that you labored to glean every possible proof for, crossing every "t" and dotting every "i," screaming at every typo in your superscripts that wouldn't seem to follow your direction, or your damnable run-on footnotes. You look back, and the questions begin to puddle, running like a faucet left on inside your brain:
What did I miss? What would have made it better?
You already know the shortfalls, even though you know damn well that Ruth (Fuller) Francisco can be none other—and only—the woman you’ve argued and identified her to be. You know it in the heart of your celestial and genealogical soul, as if her ghost had whispered it right into your ear. But you also know the committee meetings inside your head and that "peer review" crowd in your imagination—and those in reality—will give you no peace, sleeping or waking. That’s if they, those real peers and those editors you aspire to, will even bother to entertain your private perfection: that your own "private" Ruth Fuller was indeed the wife of "Old" Henry Francisco.
So, you wait.
And then, it surfaces. Yes, she does.
Yes, who exactly?
She arrives in the form of an answer beyond Ruth. She reveals herself out of an ether which might have made that "twentieth-or-so" version a hundred times stronger. But it’s too late. It’s gone. You missed the genealogical trail and the favor of the genealogical trial. You've succumbed to the question of whether those grand folks of the tribunals will notice your oversights, and it becomes a heavy reflection—not just on your academic acumen, but on yourself.
And worse, a reflection on poor dear Ruth.
But she was there anyway, that other reflection of Ruth, so what could you do except go down the rabbit hole? What could I do once you realized you'd lacked the skill to discover her in the first place—that is, until it was "after-the-fact"?
What could you do when I finally discovered Freelove?
II.
Genealogy is, after all, a man’s world in a lot of ways. You see, being a bit of a doltish man, it took me a while to see that while I was hunting Ruth (Fuller) Francisco, I was concentrating almost exclusively on the male-line Fullers to make my case. I’d studied Ruth's father and brothers: Aaron Sr. and Jr., Judah, Gershom, Henry, and Ephraim. I had tracked her grandfather, her son, and her grandson: Moses Sawyer, Solomon Francisco, and Solomon's Cincinnati-bound son, John.
Then a little light went on in the back of my brain: Duh, Jeff. What about the women?
The published genealogical literature traces the men. It favors them, as it always does. I had diligently been working to prove out Ruth as the sister, daughter, niece, and wife to a dozen different patriarchs. But what about Ruth's sisters? What about the women in this misogynistic genealogical scheme of things?
It makes sense, doesn't it?
It makes sense that if I might be able to verify even one thing about any of Ruth’s sisters—beyond what the Silver Books tell us, or in addition to any one of "those dudes" in her family tree—I’ve essentially built a fortress around Ruth herself. If her brothers were married to the "Real Housewives of Whitehall," surely the sisters left a footprint in the New York soil, too.
And then, through the sagebrush surrounding the Whitehall Fuller family tree, I saw her.
I saw Freelove.
III.
I'm not sure when I first noticed Freelove.
I guess I'd had some mild genealogical epiphany about Ruth, and the lack of literally anything about the women in her immediate family. And while her mother's lines were interesting, they were and are those of her sisters that drew me in. More like a gambler at a roulette wheel than an actual game of "genealogical clue," I took a chance and dove down the rabbit hole.
It was there that I met Freelove Fuller, kid sister of Ruth (Fuller) Francisco.
Why I chose to look after Freelove, rather than any one of Ruth's or Freelove's other sisters I really can't say. I can say though, that indeed, I'm glad that I did.
Now there's a lot to unpack here but I guess I need to start with saying that for everything any naysayers may come up with as far as my Identifying Ruth goes, there is a near equal amount of obscurity for Freelove. However, and again, before I get to far, let me just introduce the first bit of information that swam to the top of that puddle when I queried after our dear Freelove:
It was her name of course: Freelove Fuller, wife of Solomon Vine.
Yes, it was attached to a FindAGrave cemetery record for she and Solomon. While there was no headstone image, the source read:
Ref: Burial records found in: "Cemetery Records" Town of Whitehall, Washington County Historical Society - 1998, pg 198."
Wait - wife of Solomon Vine?
Now we all know that FindaGrave.com records are a lot like playing the genealogical lottery. The headstones are invariably missing and or the genealogical information is just plain shite, fabricated, or wrong. True enough too, is that I haven't yet been able to access the actual cemetery records of the town of Whitehall, Washington County, New York. (Hidden behind some paywall or in Salt Lake)
However. sometimes, just sometimes, those FindAgrave.com records actually do tell the truth. In this instance, I had no reason to believe that the information about Solomon and especially Freelove was false. I just needed more...
Again, Freelove was married to Solomon Vine?????
If this held true, that meant that "Old Henry's wife, Ruth (Fuller) Francisco's sister Freelove's husband Solomon was likely a close kinsman to Henry and Ruth' son Solomon Francisco's wife Mary Freeman. You see, Mary Freeman, parents were John Freeman and Rebecca Vine.
Did you get all that? Yeah, me neither.
Just how Ruth's brother-in-law Solomon was related to her son's mother-in-law isn't quite clear yet, but I'm getting there. There have been a few other things I've wanted to clear up first.
The first thing being - Do I have the right Freelove Fuller?
On the surface I did.
However, knowing I can't rely on a transcribed cemetery records from FindAGrave.com, let alone one I haven't even seen yet, I knew what I could do was to go back and start from scratch. I needed go back to the Silver Books. There, where lo' and behold, was Freelove Fuller, last in this cropped image from author McGunnigle's book. So far so good - the Freelove (Fuller) Vine in the FindaGrave.com records and via the unseen cemetery transcription appeared to be an exact match.
However, I've been down this road before. I don't want to look at a dang "false positive" identification for Freelove. Yeah, I'm gonna need something more. So I looked at what was out there.
And I found this in History of Cornwall:
Okay, this wasn't perfect either - it's an older compilation of the "second half" of Aaron Fuller and Ruth Sawyer's children, those born a Cornwall, Conn., as opposed to the first half (Ruth's half) born at Colchester. But it was ok, even with a funky date of birth for Freelove of:
"April 31st."
There was though, something that was still bothering me about all this. It needed to be resolved before I could even get into the whole "wife of Solomon Vine" part of this tale, or at least to where I could lead up to it. You see, in the FindAGrave.com notes there was mention that Freelove's maiden name might not have been "Fuller" at all.
No! Shut the door!
She may have been "Freelove Allen" or "Freelove Wells."
Oh. Good Lord, not "a Wells." LOL.
Say what? Yeah, that doesn't work to link her to "Ruth Fuller" or to any woman, "Ruth Fuller's sister," who was married to Solomon Vine - or not.
Egads, that's thick as mud.
So I decided to take a chance and see what there is/was in the way of D.A.R. records on Solomon Vine. Sure enough, old "Solomon T. Vine" was a patriot, and there were two D.A.R. members who claimed descent from him and, wait for it, Freelove.
Yeah, I had to get my hand on a copy of those records. So I ordered up the first lineage application on Solomon - thinking the most recent one would tell me more than earlier ones. I gotta say, it was a little disappointing. The proofs in the file were (to be kind) extremely lacking. The file itself was from 1976 when I guess they didn't require much in the way of solid verifications, if any.
Anyway, it looks like this:
Ancestor: A118918
Member Number: 606984
Well, that was disappointing.
I could see where Freelove's alternative last names (those of Allen and Wells) had come from. It bothered me too that Freelove's date of birth was recorded her as "May 1, 1760" and not April 30, 1760 as in the Silver Book for the family of Aaron Fuller and Ruth (Sawyer) Fuller.
It was just enough to be off.
And yes, I know that even a year of variance isn't uncommon in following a line through for the Genealogical Proof Standard (I mean look at the variance of birth year for Freelove's big sister Ruth (Fuller) Francisco, that of 1746-1747) but given that I also had been introduced to two alternative maiden names (Allen and Wells) which would now also have to be addressed and ideally disproven, it complicated matters not to have an exact date of birth match.
As an aside, and before I get too much further here, I thought I would share a bit of the curious and unverified genealogy on a subsequent page of this same D.A.R. application:
The D.A.R. records indicate that Solomon T. Vine was married twice, first to Freelove and then to Rachel. It also says that neither of his wife's maiden names are known. So as I'm searching here to verify that Ruth (Fuller) Francisco's sister was Freelove (Fuller) Vine - the Vine family having married into the Francisco's via Old Henry's son Solomon marrying the daughter of John Freeman and Rebecca Vine - now I'm also "confronted" with the possibility that Solomon T. Vine himself married a Francisco daughter, widow, or wife?
I'm not even going to mention that Old Henry Francisco and Ruth spent their Golden Years living with their daughter and her husband, the family of Robert Willson. Is there a connection here to Freelove and Solomon's daughter Lucy - who married a Thomas Wilson?
These people need to get out more.
But back to Freelove.
A couple of things to note here. Even as disappointing as this D.A.R. record has been in terms of proofs or documentation, I did notice two things. The first is that being prepared in 1976 precluded a lot of information now available. I noticed something else too. The notation over Freelove's date of birth. There it is says:
"g.s. calc" and "68 years, 8 months 28 days"
So this tells me that whoever did the transcription of the gravestone (or transcribed the Whitehall cemetery records) used a "gravestone calculator" to figure Freelove's date of birth backwards. Check out what a modern day "gravestone calculator" comes up with for a date of birth for Freelove:
The very curious and albeit impossible date of "April 31st" pops up again for our girl Freelove - just like in History of Cornwall.
The D.A.R. record shows Freelove's (unverified) date of birth as "May 1, 1760."
May 1st and April 31st (however impossible) are in fact the same date.
I think it's pretty safe to say that we have eliminated the date of birth issue. As the Silver Book records Freelove Fuller's date of birth as "April 30, 1760," and as the Whitehall cemetery transcription records it the same, and as these D.A.R. records generally concur and coincide with the notations about Freelove (Fuller) Vine in History of Cornwall, it seems a pretty safe bet (pending a copy of those cemetery transcriptions or a gravestone photograph) that we have "captured" Freelove.
I suppose the competent genealogist would say I am getting ahead of myself.
I mean I haven't proven that there wasn't a "Freelove Allen" or a "Freelove Wells" that married Solomon T. Vine, now have I? They would argue that it is equally as possible that there was a "Freelove Allen" or a "Freelove Wells" born April 30-May 1, 1760 who could have just as easily "fit the bill" for or as a wife of our hero Solomon T. Vine.
In terms of the Genealogical Proof Standard they would be right.
Ugh.
Yeah, I don't think so either, but.... I need to do a better job here. To do so, I need to better link the Fullers to the Vines.
IV.
Ugh (again...)
So I went back in. I needed to order up some additional D.A.R. records. This time, I got a bit luckier. You be the judge.
Ancestor Number: A118918
Member Number: 52551
Okay - I'm good here without seeing the cemetery transcription off of the FindAGrave.com record. This transcript of the 1808 Assessment Roll for Whitehall works just fine to verify Solomon and Freelove's ages at time of death. There's some great backstory too, about the "Allens and the Wells" living in such close proximity to Solomon. There's even mention of Solomon's late in life wife Rachel (.......) Vine.
All good.
While I can even see how all of that "Freelove Allen"and or "Freelove Wells" posturing business got started, I still very much need something that links Freelove to the Fullers - and well past the date of birth record for Freelove Fuller matching pretty much exactly to the calculated date of birth for Mrs. Freelove (Fuller) Vine.
Yeah, I know, that's some thick ass stuff.
I need to have a preponderance of evidence proving Freelove Fuller and Freelove Vine are one and the same person.
Okay, let's start with basics:
We know that Solomon married Freelove. (Duh, Jeff....)
Above: Cropped images of United States Bounty Record, Family Search, FIlm 004172726 image number 406/1014 for Solomon T. Vine
And fortunately, it was about then that a friendly old name began to surface.
"Aaron Fuller, Esq."
Now for any of you slackers who haven't been paying attention all the way back since Part One, that name above, "Aaron Fuller, Esq." is he who we have more than amply shown to be the brother of Ruth Fuller, AKA Ruth (Fuller) Francisco, and, (wait for it)
...also the brother of Freelove Fuller.
These land records from 1784 show that Solomon Vine shared a property boundary with Aaron Fuller, Esq. (Aaron Jr.) and (not shown) also with Aaron Fuller's son Robert Fuller.
Now, I guess you could say that I have two things for "Mrs. Freelove Vine," no, make that three. (1.) I have an 1808 Tax Assessment roll that confirms her date of birth as the same as the same date of birth a Freelove Fuller's in McGunnigle's Silver Book on the descendants of Mayflower passenger Edward Fuller, (2.) I have a concordance of Freelove's date of birth in History of Cornwall, (likely taken from the same sources) and, (3.) I have a deed that places her husband's property lines adjacent to Aaron Fuller, Esq who is named as Freelove's brother in the Silver Books, and this, alongside one of Aaron's sons - Robert.
I'm not seeing a lot of "Allens" or "Wells" connections here for Freelove. I do see the understandable hearsay in this later newspaper account on the history of the Vine family and of Solomon T. Vine.
However, as valuable and as interesting it is that Solomon T. Vine had a small farm on the "opposite side of the road from the Allen Farm," this hearsay that he married some Allen girl was written almost a century later and based off some later generation's memory of what had been said. (I won't wade into conjecture about "when" Solomon could have purchased this "small farm on the opposite side of the road from the Allen farm.")
I'm only going to point to the fact that:
1.) In 1784, Solomon Vine's property bordered Aaron Fuller, Esq., - and Aaron's son Robert's
2.) Mrs. Freelove Vine's date of birth matches exactly that of Aaron's sister, Freelove Fuller.
I will even set aside the numerous unexplored family connection (for now) between the Vines and the Franciscos in relation to the Freemans and the Fullers. I won't even mention that sisters Ruth and Freelove's brother Ephraim Fuller (of Whitehall) named two of his daughters "Ruth and Freelove."
No, that would be hearsay. LOL.
So I am going to just rest it here that I'm pretty dang sure I have identified Ruth's sister Freelove Fuller as the first wife of Solomon T. Vine. There is so much more to go through here, but for the purposes of these work-in-progress blog posts it doesn't make sense to get into it further. I can follow-up with the Freemans and the Vines and how it all connects back to Ruth and Old Henry and on down to my friend Paige at a later date.
I wish I'd had some of this when I prepared the submission for NYG&B, but I didn't. Hindsight sucks, especially while you're waiting for word on whether or not your work cut the proverbial Fuller mustard. I suppose I can always use this data to help beef up my identification of Ruth (Fuller) Francisco at a later date, or should the editor find my work too lacking.
We shall see. For now, I am content with this "preponderance." I am content with The Argument for Freelove.
To be continued...
☮
