Darned Page Order

Tracy Reinhart is a long-time researcher who remembers way back when accessing the census meant scrolling through microfilm. Long ago she discovered her Braford ancestors’ family in Cannon, Kent, Michigan was one of those split across pages in a census. Online publishers like Ancestry and FamilySearch have to identify these split families and join them back together. That’s a fairly straightforward process unless you run into the situation Tracy ran into recently.

“Part of the 1870 census for Cannon, Kent Co. Mich.  was not filmed in page order,” she told me.  “As a result,  when a family list carries over from one page to the next,  you will find wrong family associations.” She found that for Cannon, Kent, Michigan:

• Image 28 on Ancestry.com is page 28 and ends with the Henry Wolaver family.
• Image 29 on Ancestry.com is page 30. Notice page 29 was skipped. It starts with Emma Braford. Since Emma has no family or dwelling numbers, we know that she belongs to the family on the previous page. Because the pages were filmed in the wrong order, Ancestry erroneously places her in the Henry Wolaver family. This page ends with the Harry (or Harvy) Haines family.
• Image 30 on Ancestry.com is page 31, which correctly continues with Mary Haines.
• Image 31 on Ancestry.com is page 29, the skipped page. It ends with the A. B. Brayford family.

I was interested to see how FamilySearch handled this situation. Researchers with access to both Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org universally advise using Ancestry.com for census research and the 1870 census on FamilySearch.org is a good illustration of why.

• If you search for Cannon, Kent, Michigan, you get everyone living in the entire state of Michigan!
• If you don’t know where your person lived, but you somehow find them, FamilySearch doesn’t indicate where the person was!

The only advantage I see for searching FamilySearch’s 1870 census is that in a search you can specify another family member (in the “Other Person” field). That’s not possible on Ancestry.

But I digress…

As I compared FamilySearch.org with Ancestry.com, I noticed several interesting things.

• The image order on FamilySearch.org matches Ancestry.com.
• FamilySearch didn’t erroneously combine the Wolaver and Braford families. But they also didn’t correctly join the the two parts of the Brayford/Braford family.
• While Ancestry has 31 images for Cannon, Kent, Michigan, FamilySearch has 32. Ancestry has left out one of the pages from the microfilm! I’ve seen FamilySearch do the same thing. Neither company discloses the censure. The companies deem the image to have no genealogical value so they delete it. This is a very bad practice! There is no guarantee the decision maker understands advanced methodologies that may require a knowledge of the existence of that page, its contents, or the lack thereof. (A little looking showed this particular page is facing page 31 on folio 139. It has no names on it.)
• The digital folder number (004271429) and image number (00268) for Emma Bradford on FamilySearch.org match the image URL on Ancestry.com: https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/7163/4271429_00268. That’s kind of techie, but the takeaway is that Ancestry seems to be using FamilySearch images.
• FamilySearch misindexed the name Braford on page 30 as Bradford. Ancestry did not. Ancestry doesn’t seem to be using FamilySearch’s index.

I see several lessons we should draw from this:

• If you don’t find your ancestor on one website, check others.
• Search several images forward and backward from your ancestor.
• Your ancestor’s name can be spelled differently by the same person in the same record.
• Look at and try to understand all the information on a page.
• When the day comes that we no longer have access to microfilm, there will be errors that we can no longer detect or overcome.
• Everybody makes mistakes. Ancestry. FamilySearch. Microfilm. Everybody.

”Just a heads up for something that I never expected to find on Ancestry,” Tracy said.

“Grrrrrrr”

Thank you, Tracy. Image credit: Ancestry.com.

Darned Record: No Father -- Just Growed

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Reader Steve Squier shared this:

Hello, I thought you might like to use the attached image for one of your "Records Say the Darnedest Things" posts. The first entry in this register of births is for an unnamed daughter of a Miss Knox, of whose father the clerk wrote: "hain't got none just growed."

Source: Taylor County, Iowa, Register of Births, vol. 1 (1880–1897): 160, entry no. 110 for [unnamed female]; County Courthouse, Bedford; digital images, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/search/catalog/679412 : accessed 16 April 2017); imaged from FHL film no. 1,035,143, item no. 1.

Unfortunately, I can’t show you the image. To see it, visit your local family history center and click here: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-DYWS-4V5.

Darned Undertaking

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Kenneth H. Rich was the undertaker. He was also the decedent. Weird.

After 30 years as an undertaker, Kenneth retired just 7 weeks before his doctor started treating him for interstitial nephritis. Less than 6 weeks later, Kenneth was gone. His son, Robert, took over the family business. Six years after his father’s passing, Robert had his first born son. He named him Kenneth.

Reader Naomi Martineau shared this record with me. Thanks, Naomi!

Image credit: Ancestry.com.

Darned Nagging, Nagging, Nagging

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Will No.468/1926.

     I leave all I possess…to SYBIL MARY WEATHERDON, she was the only daughter that wrote to her father when he was in trouble.

…

                                     Charles Jarvis Weatherdon.

     This is the end of a perfect life spoiled by a woman, a man loved and who did not know it. May she not be buried in the same ground when she goes over the border, as I do not wish the nagging down below as I received up above…

Moral of the story: Don’t nag and always write your father.

---

As a final note, as funny as it is, this document also pains me. How sad it is that this man died alone and bitter. What trouble had he fallen into? What had fractured a family that must have begun in hope and happiness? May I suggest that we each hold close those we love—in kindness, patience, and forgiveness.

Source: FamilySearch, image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS7P-T33H-T?mode=g : accessed 21 January 2017), path: Search > Catalog > film 1295235 > “Deceased Estates, 1846-1950” > Film/DGS 1295235 > select camera icon > image 1015; citing Natal, South Africa, deceased estate files, 1846-1950, no. 11510, filed 24 June 1927, will 468/1926; Natal Archives Depot, Pietermeritzburg, Natal, South Africa.

Credit is due Tom Nelson who brought this to my attention. He discovered it via a post by Brenda Haffner in the Facebook group, “Indexing South African Records on FamilySearch.” Thank you, Tom and Brenda.

Darned Records: I’m My Own Grandmother

UPDATE 21 OCTOBER 2016:Reader Joe Lowry posted this comment: I regret to inform you that the Florida Sun Post is a fake or satirical news publication: http://www.dailydot.com/irl/florida-man-granddaughter-marry-hoax/.

 

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Certain information flags immediate suspicion in an online tree. Ever see a son who is older than his father? But be careful. One needs to think twice about making assumptions without proof. What would you think if you saw the pedigree of a woman who was her own grandmother? You might be wrong.

According to the Florida Sun Post,

A 68-year old man from Miami’s Golden Beach neighborhood has reportedly had a ‘terrible shock’ after discovering his new bride, a 24-year old woman from Jacksonville, is actually his own biological granddaughter. The couple, who have only been married for three months, made the discovery while looking through a photo album.

When the man showed the woman a photo of his oldest son, the woman identified the son as her father. The man had lost contact with his son when his wife left him. The woman had lost contact with her father when he kicked her out of the house.

Read the entire story on the Florida Sun Post website.

Darned Image Citations

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Let me briefly talk about two aspects of citations to online images.

I have seen citations that consisted of a URL only. I’m guilty of it myself (at least in my working notes). Is a URL sufficient? Consider the following two examples, taken from actual source references to the U.S. census. Neither one still works! A naked URL is insufficient because links rot.

     1.  http://www.mocavo.com/1910-United-States-Census/126211/004973415/607
     2. http://www.ancestry.com/search/io/browse.asp?c=8&state=Vermont&county=Addison&township=Bristol&ed=&roll=M33_126&STAbrv=VT&startimg=30&endimg=42&rp=42&hash=1670352374&width=2877&height=5089&levels=5&colorspace=Grayscale

The U.S. Federal census is now ubiquitously available on major genealogy websites. If you viewed it online, is it necessary to specify the one you used? Consider the following example.

     3.  1860 U.S. census, Jackson County, Ohio, population schedule, Scioto Township, p. 62; NARA microfilm publication M634, roll 992.

Depending on which website you go to, you might see this

or this

or this

.

If you don’t specify the website, others may not be able to see what you saw!

Darned image citations!

P.S. For extra credit, create complete citations for these three sources. For citation 1, cite Robert Black; for 2, cite Pearis Raymond; for 3, cite Lewis Rapp on FamilySearch.org.

Darnedest Political Obituary

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

“NOLAND, Mary Anne Alfriend. Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016.”

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

---

Source: “Noland, Mary Anne,” obituary, Richmond (Virginia) Times-Dispatch, online (http://m.richmond.com/obituaries/article_c21b60bc-1153-5abd-b3c8-268cfd32eb57.html?mode=jqm : accessed 28 May 2016).

Darned Lazy Spouse

Reader Donna Toole shared this darned record. Thank you, Donna!

EDITOR SUES FOR DIVORCE.
                  ------
Declares Wife Stayed In Bed to Avoid
          Doing Housework.
   LA PORTE,   Ind.,   Sept.  20.—Harry E
Galbreath, editor and publisher of the
Saturday Advertiser, today brought ac-
tion for divorce from Rose Wagner, mak-
ing the unusual allegation that his wife
persisted in staying in bed for a week
at a time to escape doing housework
Galbreath says he got tired of waiting
on her.

Dear Mr. Galbreath, The Insider has a message for you from most every wife on the planet: “Welcome to my world.”

---

Source: “Editor Sues for Divorce,” The Indianapolis (Indiana) Star, 21 September 1911, p. 4, col. 3; digital image, Newspapers.com (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3551560/1911_sep_21_divorce : accessed 5 March 2016).

Darned Records: Miscreant Ancestry.com Search

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable.

Records say the darnedest things!

Rather than a record, per se, today I consider darned search results from Ancestry.com. A reader, Jim Castellan, shared a search result from Ancestry.com that he saw a couple of years ago. The search results have seemingly zero to do with his query.

This behavior has not changed. If you perform the same search today, you get the same result (with the exception that Mary Brown has moved out of New York City?).

Here’s a partial explanation. Look at the search sliders on the left side. The “Lived in” New York City slider has been pushed all the way to the right. This requires that all results be located in the specified place. All the rest of the sliders (except last name) have been pushed all the way to the left. That means the search results don’t necessarily need to match all of those criteria. If you examine the results, all meet a couple of them:

• name is a nickname of William
• born within several years of 1871
• born within one state of Connecticut
• married within several years of 1895

To receive more reasonable results, fiddle with the sliders. If you move the name sliders to the “Exact and similar” position, you get zero results, which might be what you expect if William Pinkerman died or moved out of New York City. If you then move the Lived In slider to the left to “Country,” there is the possibility that you will find where your William Pinkerman moved to.

The search sliders are one of the most powerful aspects of the Ancestry search system. They provide a degree of control lacking on other websites, which pick these settings for you and then don’t tell you what they chose.

Yes, search results sometimes say the darnedest things!

Darned Sketchy Death Certificate

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

Donna Hoskins Backus was excited when Texas death certificates went online. Her paternal brick wall ancestor died in Texas.

“It took us several decades to find my grandfather’s family,” Donna says.  “Why? His parents divorced before 1902, when he was very young, and his mother moved them to New Mexico from Texas and remarried.”

She was able to locate her great-grandfather’s death certificate. But the information was sketchy:

He was known in town only as M.B. (Family lore has it that he went by his initials so as to give more prestige to his position as a lawyer.) His age was unknown. His birthplace was unknown. No information was known about his parents.

The information was so sketchy, the informant seemed compelled to explain why in a marginal notation: “Was a Recluse. No Relatives here.” The informant was the undertaker. Sadly, the only thing that seemed to define M.B. to his fellow citizens was his divorce.

He died alone.

Now in my opinion, the information is not only sketchy, it is sketchy. The date of death has obviously been “corrected” and the date of the doctor’s signature may have been as well.

The cause of death is “Don’t know.” The signature of the town doctor, Hines Clark appears sketchy:

On other certificates from around this time it appears like this:

Donna’s grandfather was just a teenager when his father, M.B., died. “He was sent by train to attend to his estate, finding on arrival other relatives had come and gone,” Donna says. “Yes, all of the money and negotiables were gone.”

Darned, sketchy records!

Thank you, Donna Hoskins Backus, for sharing this record.

Marriage in the Middle of the Night in the Middle of Nowhere

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable.

Records say the darnedest things!

“Mac,” who shared the following marriage return with me, wrote, “It appears that the good reverend wanted to make very clear in writing that he was within the law in conducting the nuptials.  The ceremony took place late in the evening, in the middle of winter, on a public road between Missouri and Kansas.  There were five (count 'em five) witnesses who attended the 'happy' event (and might have suffered frostbite for their efforts).  We can only hope the marriage lasted after this auspicious beginning.”

This is to certify that the undersigned a regular minister of the
Gospel in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church on Wednesday
Feby 10^th 1875 at 10 Oclock P M. in Jackson County Missouri
near the state line between the states of Mo. and Kansas
in the Public Road opposite my residence in Johnson Co Kan.
did solemnize the rights of Matrimony between Mr Charles
Caldwell and Miss Fannie P. Robinson in the presense of
Jospeh Bryant, George Caldwell, Thomas W. James, W. F. Morrow and
Mrs. E.C. Morrow                                 J W. Morrow {seal}
  Filed for Records Feby 15^th 1875.
                                            C.D.Lucas Recorder
                                            By W.A. Symington D.R

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

---

IMAGE SOURCE

Jackson County, Missouri, marriage records, v. 7 (1872-1879), p. 224, last paragraph, county clerk’s office, Independence; digital image, “Missouri, County Marriage, Naturalization, and Court Records, 1800-1991,” FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-35905-7300-67 : accessed 2 January 2016), path: Jackson > Marriage records 1872-1881 vol 7-8 > image 152 of 500; FHL microfilm 1,019,758.

Frederic Clift’s Darned First Marriage

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable. Records say the darnedest things!

By Maurine Clift Nuttall

Frederic Clift married Felicia Victoria Jones June 3, 1872 at the Register Office in Brighton, Sussex, England. The Jones and Clift families were neighbors in Croydon, Surrey, living only three houses apart on Church Road. It is likely this is how the couple met each other. For whatever reason, they married under the fictitious names of “Frederic Nelson” and “Felicia Jones,” and gave fictitious names to their fathers, as well—“Richard Nelson,” deceased Accountant and “Francis Jones,” Stock Dealer.

“Darned” Record #1: Marriage Certificate for “Frederic Nelson” and “Felicia Jones.”
With compliments from the Brighton & Hove Registration District, 22 June 2001
The Register Office, Town Hall, Bartholomews, Brighton BN1 1JA
Now indexed: Felicia Jones and Frederic Nelson, June Quarter 1872, Brighton, Sussex, Volume 26, Page 367,
FreeBMD. England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index, 1837-1915 [database on-line].
Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2006.

In fact, Richard Clift was alive and well and working as a stockbroker on the London Stock Exchange and Felicia’s father, James Felix Jones, was a retired captain in the Royal Indian Navy and former political agent in Her Majesty’s service at Bagdad and the Persian Gulf.

The marriage was legitimate; both parties were of full age. Was it an elopement of sorts? Perhaps the couple had not received the approval of their families? These questions remain unanswered. It appears, however, that Frederic’s parents learned of the union late in 1872. A post-nuptial settlement of the proceeds of sale of a “Leasehold house and furniture at Westow Hill Upper Norwood and East India and other Stocks” was made between Richard and Christian Clift and their son, Frederic Clift. The settlement was dated 5 December 1872 and assigned the family home and furnishings to Frederic Clift with provisions made for the sustenance of his parents.

Here (below, right) is a copy of the face of the legal document which seems to deal with the 1872 marriage under assumed names of Frederic Clift and Felicia Victoria Jones. It is still not quite clear when their parents first learned of the marriage. A partial transcription follows this article.

This settlement was later updated 2 January 1874 (pictured above, left). That was the day before Frederic and Felicia were married again—the marriage taking place this time at the Parish Church, All Saints, at Upper Norwood. The couple’s fathers were identified correctly and James Felix Jones signed as a witness.

The Second Marriage Certificate for Frederic and Felicia ~ The “Darned” truthful one!
Given at the General Register Office 4^th July 2001
Now indexed: Felicia Victoria Jones and Frederic Clift, March Quarter 1874, Croydon, Surrey, Volume 2a, Page 275
FreeBMD. England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index, 1837-1915 [database on-line].
Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2006.

Officially now, the couple set out to make a home and a livelihood for themselves.

Yes, records say the darnedest things.

 

---

Partial Transcription of the 1872 Settlement

Dated 5^th December 1872
Rich’d Clift Esqre
to Frederic Clift Esqre
Copy

Post Nuptial Settlement of the proceeds of sale of a Leasehold house and
furniture at Westow Hill Upper Norwood and East India and other Stocks

“This Indenture made the 5^th day of December 1872 between Richard Clift of Westow Hill Upper Norwood in the county of Surrey Esquire of the first part Christian Bottrall Clift his wife of the second part and Frederic Clift of Westow Hill Upper Norwood aforesaid Esquire of the third part. . .”

“. . .said Richard Clift hath assigned certain hereditaments comprised in and expressed to be demised by an Indenture of Lease dated the 12^th day of March 1863 and expressed to be made between The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England of the one part and James Franks therein described of the other part unto the said Frederic Clift his executors administrators and assigns for the residue of the term of Ninety nine years by the said Indenture of Lease expressed to be granted. . .”

“. . .belonging to the said Richard Clift now in or about his present residence at Westow Hill, aforesaid and commonly called or known by the name of “Tusculum” unto the said Frederic Clift his executors administrators and assigns Upon trust that the said Frederic Clift. . .”

Monday Mailbox: The USS Farragut

Dear readers,

I received this letter Friday in response to my article and photos of Leavenworth prisoners wearing hats.

Signed,
---The Insider

 

Dear Ancestry Insider,

What is of interest to me is Mr. Ames' hat and the ribbon.  It says U.S.S. Farragut.

USS Farragut may refer to:

• Farragut (TB-11), a torpedo boat, commissioned on 5 June 1889

• Farragut (DD-300) was a Clemson-class destroyer commissioned on 4 June 1920

• Farragut (DD-348), the lead ship of her class of destroyers, was commissioned on 18 June 1934

• Farragut (DDG-37), again the lead ship of her class of destroyers, was commissioned on 10 December 1960

• USS Farragut (DDG-99) is a Flight IIa Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, commissioned on 10 June 2006

With his conviction being in 1913, he must (assuming the picture was taken before his sentencing and not some years after) have served on the torpedo boat.

Enjoy looking at the different ships; they are found by entering the ship's name, clicking on the most recent and then clicking on the link at the top to show all ships bearing the name.

Howland Davis

Dear Howland,

I love it! This is why genealogy is so fun. What other hobby or vocation bids you learn about prisons, uniforms, ships, militaries, histories (personal and macro), and photo examination, all in one afternoon? Thanks for sharing.

Signed,
---The Insider

P.S. Happy Leap Day, everyone!

NARA’s Darned Hat Collection

Thank you to all who responded to my article last week, “Darned Hat Collection.” The question as to why NARA has a hat collection was a trick question. These photographs were not from a NARA hat collection, but a collection of prison records from the Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. I “conveniently” left off the right profile of each mugshot.

W. H. Ames, Inmate Number 8757, at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary

“Convicted of white slavery in 1913, W. H. Ames specifically was found guilty of Transporting in Interstate Commerce a Woman for Immoral purposes. He was sentenced to one year and one day.”¹

 

Roan Horse, Inmate Number 5881, at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary

“Roan Horse was sentenced to one year for larceny in 1907. When asked to give a history of his crime he said, Sold a horse for $25 and as the man to whom I sold it did not give me the money as agreed in a weeks time I took the horse back and sold it to another party, was arrested in Deadwood S.D. and plead guilty to the charge of larceny.”²

 

Photograph of John L. McMonigle

“McMonigle spent nearly a year in prison for violating the Oleomargarine Act of August 2, 1886.”³ In other words, he was a margarine bootlegger.

 

Prisoner at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. Lizzie Cardish

“Fifteen years old; convicted of arson. Received a life sentence.”⁴ The Office of Indian Affairs in Washington had decided that “however distastetful such action may have been it was found necessary to make an example of those concerned in these unlawful acts.”⁵ The sentence was commuted at age 21.

 

Inmate File of Murray Pennell

“Crime: Conspiracy for Transporting Explosives.”⁶ Murray was convicted for his role in the ironworkers’ dynamite campaign.⁷

 

Inmate File of Mary Grayson

“Grayson was nineteen years old when convicted of larceny.”⁸

 

Prisoner at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. Mary Snowdon

“21 year old Indian; convicted of assualt [sic] with intent to kill.”⁹

 

Inmate File of Francisco Salinas

”Crime: Concealing Smuggled Property”¹⁰

Criminal records can be a rich source of information. These Leavenworth prisoner forms call for names and nativities of parents, wives, and inmates. The files contain records of letters sent, indicating addressee and relationship to the prisoner. Further, the stories behind these records are fascinating. Thank you, Judy, for teaching me about criminal records in general and leading me to this collection in particular.

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

---

Sources

     1. “W. H. Ames, Inmate Number 8757, at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, 1913,” front and right profile booking photograph; Inmate Case Files, 7/3/1895 - 11/5/1957; Record Group 129: Records of the Bureau of Prisons, 1870 – 2009; National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri; digital image, National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5756503 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 5756503. The quoted text is from the catalog entry.
     2. “Roan Horse, Inmate Number 5881, at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary, 1907,” front and right profile booking photograph; ibid.; digital image (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5756495 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 5756495. The quoted text is from the catalog entry.
     3. “Photograph of John L. McMonigle,” front and right profile booking photograph, undated; ibid.; digital image (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/596101 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 596101. The quoted text is from the catalog entry.
     4. “Prisoner at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. Lizzie Cardish., 1906,” front and right profile booking photograph; ibid.; digital image (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/292115 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 292115. The quoted text is from the catalog entry.
     5. “Fires of Incendiary Origin,” The Native American: Devoted to Indian Education 7 (7 July 1906): 220; digital images (https://books.google.com/books?id=SbsRAAAAYAAJ : accessed 18 January 2016).
     6. Murray Pennell front and right profile booking photograph, about 1 January 1913; “Inmate File of Murray Pennell”; Inmate Case Files, 7/3/1895 - 11/5/1957; Record Group 129: Records of the Bureau of Prisons, 1870 – 2009; National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri; digital image, National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/24725822 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 24725822. The quoted text is from the prisoner record document in the same file.
     7. “The Dynamite Conspiracy” American Industries: The Manufacturers’ Magazine 13 (January 1913): 8-12, especially 9; digital images (https://books.google.com/books?id=UB9HAQAAMAAJ : accessed 18 January 2016). See also “Dynamite Plot at Work,” Boston Evening Transcript, 16 February 1912, p. 6, cols. 4-5; digital image (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=koo-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=x1kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4000%2C2753645 : accessed 18 January 2016).
     8. Mary Grayson front and right profile booking photograph, about 26 Febuary 1900; “Inmate File of Mary Grayson”; Inmate Case Files, 7/3/1895 - 11/5/1957; Record Group 129: Records of the Bureau of Prisons, 1870 – 2009; National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri; digital image, National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12013774 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 12013774. The quoted text is from the prisoner record document in the same file..
     9. “Prisoner at Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. Mary Snowdon, 1900,” front and right profile booking photograph; ibid.; digital image (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/292113 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 292113. The quoted text is from the catalog entry.
     10. Francisco Salinas front and right profile booking photograph, about 26 Febuary 1900; “Inmate File of Francisco Salinas”; Inmate Case Files, 7/3/1895 - 11/5/1957; Record Group 129: Records of the Bureau of Prisons, 1870 – 2009; National Archives at Kansas City, Missouri; digital image, National Archives (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7496904 : accessed 18 January 2016), NAID 7496904. The quoted text is from form 14-1000 in the same file.

Darned Hat Collection

Judy Russell, the Legal Genealogist, showed me something recently that led me to discover the NARA hat collection.

        

Can anybody out there identify each hat type? Why, do you suppose, does NARA have a hat collection? How would you cite it?

Post your answers. I’ll give mine in a future article. (If you attended Judy’s SLIG course, please keep your answers private.)

Darned Divorcee’s Deposition

Lise Embley submitted this darned document to my RootsTech 2016 Darned Record contest.

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable.

A Truer Lie Had Never Been Spoken

by Lise Embley

In an April 1883 affidavit in Holt County, Nebraska, Delia Hooker provided details of her marriage to Ambrose Hooker, Civil War veteran. She was applying for a Civil War Widow's Pension.

Delia, then surnamed Bird, married Ambrose Hooker in August of 1867. In her affidavit, Delia swore that her previous husband, Byron B. Bird, died of a fever in Independence mining camp in December 1866. She attached a newspaper death notice to prove her point, and stated that “she knows no person now living who was present at the death of her said first husband Byron Bird.”

That no person then living was present at his death was absolutely true. That Byron died in 1866 was certainly not true. He was still alive when she had divorced him in July of 1867.

The closing comment of her deposition sums up the situation nicely:

“Deponent farther says that she believes that any farther search or inquiry for farther proof of the death of her first husband the said Byron Bird would be useless.”

So true!

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

Sources

    

Affidavit of Delia A. Hooker, 24 April 1883, State of Nebraska, Holt County, 3 pages; in Widow’s Application no. 302,112; Soldier’s Certificate No. 201,692, Ambrose E. Hooker, Captain, Unassigned Company, Regiment 9, Cavalry; Pension applications for service in the US Army between 1861 and 1900, grouped according to the units in which the veterans served; Civil War and Later Pension Files; Records of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Record Group 15; National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.

“Court Proceedings,” Daily Alta California, 30 July 1867, p. 1, col. 5; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 29 November 2015).

A Darned Part of the Whole Story

Linda Bailey submitted this document to my RootsTech 2016 Darned Record contest.

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable.

The Whole Story

by Linda Bailey

I used this document to encourage our Oakland family history library staff to learn how to research the story.  I've seen too many times when a “researcher” used an indexed record and never bothered to actually look at the document image to cull all the details.  i gave them this one and challenged them to research as much of the backstory as possible. They gave me everything from a video of a corn shredder in action to where the rest of Herman was buried to burial customs of different religious groups. It was a fun exercise. 

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

Darned Records: Flush Out Your Family Tree

Findmypast has a pretty low opinion of my records. They recently told me to flush out my family history.

I suppose we could all be reminded to use high-quality records to document our family trees. Still, this felt a little extreme.

(My apologies to Findmypast. I live in a constant state of anxiety because I have soo many errors in my writing! My blog writing software just lost its spell checker, so expect even more. I just hope they don’t spotlight my next doozy in their blog!)

Yes, records say the darnedest things!

Jo Duffy's Darned Confusing Birth

We depend upon records to reveal the “truth” about the past. Yet sometimes records have anomalies. Some are amusing or humorous. Some are interesting or weird. Some are peculiar or suspicious. Some are infuriating, or downright laughable.

Records are the darnedest things!

(This article is based an Larry Martin’s winning entry to my RootsTech 2016 contest. Congratulations, Larry!)

Josephine Demerris Duffy is Larry’s wife’s late mother who has a darned confusing birth. She and her family always celebrated her birthday on May 17th. But birth records disagree as to the date and place of the birth.

Chicago, Cook County recorded her birth as 17 June 1912, on East Oak Street in Chicago, of Irish parents.

Josephine Demerris Duffy birth certificate¹

According to published abstracts, Cook County recorded her birth a second time, specifying the same date and parents, but with a different birthplace and ethnicity: Cullom and Canadian.

Josephine D Duffy birth record on Ancestry.com²

There is no town named Cullom in Cook County but there is a Cullom Avenue in Chicago. The 1910 Census shows Josephine’s parents lived on East Oak Street (above their grocery store), however, and not on Cullom Avenue.

John Duffy in 1910 United States Census³

Like any good genealogist, Larry used the Ancestry.com database as a finding aid. He has ordered the cited microfilm. When it arrives he will see this:

Josephine D Duffy in birth register⁴

It is apparent the indexer took “Cullom Avenue” from the wrong line, but where he got “Canadian” from is anyone’s guess. The information in the register matches the certificate. I haven’t shown enough to see, but all surnames on the page start with the letter D and the entries are not strictly chronological. While the opposite page contains additional information, the certificate contains even more.

The Holy Name Cathedral, Chicago, recorded her baptism of 2 June 1912, noting her birthdate as 17 May 1912, with her parents listed properly.

Josephine Duffy in baptismal register⁵

The baptismal dates are in strict chronological order for several pages before and after this page.

What do you think? When was Josephine born?

Yes, records are the darnedest things!

---

Sources

     1.  Cook County, Illinois, birth certificate no. 3659 (1912), Josephine Demerris Duffy, County Clerk, Chicago; FHL microfilm 1,288,245. Birth year is not specified, but determined by previous certificate.
     2. Detail from screen image, “Cook County, Illinois, Birth Certificates Index, 1871-1922,” database, Ancestry (http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=try&db=FSCookILBirth&h=2061451 : accessed 27 November 2015), Josephine D Duffy, 1912; from "Illinois, Cook County Birth Registers, 1871-1915," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N7XY-4HV : accessed 27 November 2015); citing p. 75, no. 3659, County Clerk, Chicago; FHL microfilm 1,287,756.
     3. Clips assembled from "United States Census, 1910," image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-23041-3426-94 : accessed 26 November 2015), path: Illinois > Cook > Chicago Ward 21 > ED 913 > image 24 of 57; citing NARA microfilm publication T624 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). Don’t snip up your images in real life. It is a violation of Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards: 50th Anniversary Edition, Kindle Edition (Nashville, Tennessee: Ancestry.com, 2014), no. 28.
     4. Clips from an image of Cook County, Illinois, “Apr – July 1912, Register of Births, A to Z,” 66:75, no. 3659, Josephine D Duffy, County Clerk, Chicago; FHL microfilm 1,287,756.
     5. Holy Name Cathedral (Chicago, Illinois), baptisms, 1908-1915, Josephine Duffy, Holy Name Cathedral, Chicago; digital image,"Illinois, Chicago, Catholic Church Records, 1833-1925," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11395-27252-84 : accessed 27 November 2015), path: Holy Name Cathedral Parish (Chicago: State St) > Baptisms 1908-1915 > image 150 of 246; FHL microfilm 1,578,586.