Friday, January 31, 2014

Family History Hints, Part 3

We use terms like "primary" or "original" records (vs. "secondary" or "derivative" records) without remembering many people don't understand that difference or the importance of knowing where information came from. This happened with the staff on Genealogy Roadshow - they, understandably, did not grasp how a single derivative source would not be enough to conclude relationship, etc. I hope I was able to enlighten them with this information:

I was asked about how these records we search came to be. Only in the last few generations (late 1800s to present) has it been common for “regular people” to be literate (able to read and write - some could sign their names, but even that was rare in many communities and they would sign with an X - indicated with “his mark,” written by the officiator of the document).

There are 2 main types of documents: Primary (or Original), and Secondary (or Derivative). Of course, this second category also includes tertiary and beyond - such as “word of mouth,” etc. Primary or Original documents are produced at the time of the event and by someone who was at the event (e.g., birth record signed by the person who delivered the baby, marriage record signed by the Priest or minister who officiated, etc.). We call “vital records” (the records dealing with our important life events - birth, marriage, death) to be Original, as far as the data about the person and event in question are concerned. For example, a birth record for a child probably will have accurate data for the child’s name (though that still may be in error), birth date and place, and mother’s information (though, if she is lying, that is not likely to be known). The father’s data may also be accurate, but if there is no father in the picture, or if someone who is not the father is named as such, then it’s anyone’s guess. Prior to the mid- to late-1990s, DNA was not considered as a method of determining paternity (though it could determine non-paternity in some cases).

OK, a death record is considered a primary record for the death information ONLY. And if it’s a case of a body being discovered sometime after death occurred, even that can be in question. If there is a coroner’s report, that will not accompany the death record (that will usually require a court order to see, though a direct family member may have access, depending on circumstances and jurisdictions). Death records usually have the names and birth places of the decedent’s parents, but this information is accurate only to the extent that the informant knew it. My mother’s death certificate lists “Lalla Trapschuh” as her mother. Mom’s mother was “Emma Hollander.” My father, who knew his mother-in-law very well, provided the information. But Dad was distraught and couldn’t think. Who was “Lalla Trapschuh”? “Lalla” was my Grandmother Emma’s nick-name among the family members. “Trapschuh” was HER mother’s maiden name. There is no such person as Lalla Trapschuh, but consider my confusion if I proceeded to try to find this individual in census records or other such documents! And this happens frequently!

A delayed birth certificate (issued sometime after the birth - often years later and usually because the original certificate contained an error, was never filed, or was destroyed, possibly by courthouse fire) is even more uncertain and would be considered a secondary piece of evidence. My great-grand-uncle and his siblings (except my great-grandma) had delayed birth certificates filed in Milwaukee. They are part of the vital records of Milwaukee and say they were born in Milwaukee (sworn to by their mother . . . who gave birth to them . . . in Bilin, Bohemia - I have their christening records and proof they immigrated to the US after they were born). Hence our skepticism of delayed record filing.

Federal Census records, which we use a lot, are generated once every 10 years. These are supposed to record every individual (of all ages) in the US. From 1850-2010, these included names and other data for each person in the household. From 1790 (the first Census - following the winning of the Revolutionary War in 1783) to 1840, only the heads of household were named. Then there are slash marks to indicate what other people were in the household (grouped by age and gender). But who gave the information could be anyone - a child who was home, a spouse (maybe a second spouse giving information about her husband’s prior marriage, etc.), even the next door neighbor. How accurate are these? It’s anyone’s guess. In 1940 there was a mark placed by the person in the household who gave the information, and it was required that every household be enumerated by information from a household member (no more next door neighbor reports). Census records are kept private for 72 years, so the most recent we have is 1940. The US Census for 1890 was destroyed by fire and water and only a handful of names remains (under 2,000, I think).

There are other forms of Census records - State, Native American, Slave, Military, etc. We use these, when available, but preservation of these was not always a priority and many state and special census records are not on line, but need to be accessed via microfilm through FamilySearch. A note about the Slave Schedules of 1850 and 1840: most slaves had (or used) only first names, so if someone named John Freeman is suspected to have been a slave, it is extremely difficult to identify him. Many think that the surname he used as a freed slave is his former master’s. This did happen, but not always. Once emancipated, John may not have wanted to have been reminded of the person who kept him in slavery and, instead, preferred to adopt a new name, declaring his new status as a free man, hence John Freeman. (The Freeman name in the south, among African Americans, is common and relationships to each other are not at all known, and often unlikely.)

Hope that clears up a little of how these records are viewed, why we use them, and why we are skeptical about accepting everything in writing or on the Internet as being an accurate account.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Family History Hints, Part 2

Continuing with the information used to help the Genealogy Roadshow staff understand some of the reasoning behind research directions, etc., here is a post about how/why ancestors "disappear." It can be confusing to genealogists to find a forebear just "gone," and it really was perplexing to some of those we worked with on the show . . . with good reason!

            It was not uncommon for people to decide to start a new life. In the early years of the country, most people could easily pull up stakes and go into the “wilderness” (in the mid-1800s, that would be West of the Mississippi . . . which is why Illinois, Wisconsin, and surrounding states are called “the Midwest” - in the earliest years, that was as “west” as one would go and, when you consider Canada, those territories were in the middle of the western most areas). Someone wanted by the law would be able to start a new life (often with a new name) in this “new land.” This is why it is often hard to trace the pioneer settlers in Calif. when they came out in the late 1840s-1850s. Because a paper trail in the new area was essentially non-existent, finding documentation of these people may prove very difficult, at best.

            On the same general topic, when people left “the old country” (meaning country “of origin” - in Europe, the British Isles, etc.), they were expected to bring a document from their ecclesiastical leader (priest, minister, etc.) to bring to America where they would produce it for the examination of the clergy in the new country. Without this paper, they would not necessarily be welcomed into the congregation (they might not be of good moral character). If we know the church they left and/or came to, that document may be available (or a record of its existence may be found in a church’s meeting minutes).

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Family History Hints, Part 1

When we were working on the Genealogy Roadshow, we discovered that a lot of the folks on the casting and production teams were unaware of some of the research techniques and other aspects of the field that those of us involved in family history just take for granted. I had to turn in daily reports to the staff and began to include little hints and concepts that guided us in our work. Some of the research team members liked the information and asked me to write these up for general consumption, hence the posts to follow.

Some of these "hints" will be brief while others are more involved. Check back or subscribe to this blog to get the latest posts . . . who knows, maybe one of these informative entries will help you break through a wall. Enjoy.

At one point, those we worked with mentioned confusion over the difference between a person who is "related" to someone and a person who is a "direct line descendant."


A direct line relationship follows one’s pedigree through parent, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. This type of relationship is necessary for any proving of connection for lineage societies (e.g., DAR, DUV - Daughters of Union Veterans, SUVCW - Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, Mayflower Society, Colonial Dames, etc.). For those interested in those organizations, there MUST BE a direct line relationship (hence the name “lineage society”). Just being related (e.g., cousin, grand-uncle, spouse’s parents, etc.) is not sufficient; neither is adoption usually acceptable, though some societies may have different rulings on this (e.g., as the wife of a direct descendant of Roger Williams, I am entitled to join the Roger Williams Society). Therefore, the connection we seek may have extreme importance to the applicant (esp. if seeking money - e.g., scholarships - or other benefits of lineage society membership). Being related to William Penn is not the same thing as being a direct descendant.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Moving ahead

I am just recovering . . . not sure if Gena has had a chance to do that yet! While our lives are busy (sometimes with non-genealogy activities), our dedication to family history does not diminish.

What's coming: the Southern Calif. Chapter of the Assoc. of Professional Genealogists mini-Professional Management Conference at the Corona Family History Center, 1123 S. Lincoln, Corona, CA. We have a great program planned, but it is for APG members only. The good thing: we will be accepting memberships at the door! And, other than that, it is free! One of the best prices in town. If you are interested, contact me directly at jean@circlemending.org and I'll send you a flyer. Pre-registration necessary. Date: 8 February 2014, 8:30 - 4:00 (bring your own lunch). Learn tips on building your genealogy business.

What's happened: the Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy earlier this month. Gena did an amazing job of coordinating the Social History course. What a great experience for us all - learning how to apply the various aspects of historical documents and events to the family lives of our ancestors. Gena shared about food, historical events, locating helpful information, and more. Other presenters were Beverly Rice, Luana Darby, and Pamela Sayre. What a line-up it was! I loved sharing some exercises to help people FEEL what their ancestors did. And I thank Gena for making this a fabulous way to start the year. We hope this will be a continuing class in upcoming years.

photo by Phyllis Codling McLaughlin, 17 Jan 2014

Looking into the future: more exciting things. And hopefully some webinars, dealing with methodology and using the events and traditions of history to make our ancestors' lives more real and less vague. Thank you for your support.

Jean Wilcox Hibben; PhD, MA, CG