Taking Stock

I've written previously about the mysterious Abijah LeRoy, my 2nd great-grandfather, who started my genealogy journey and remains a very stubborn brick wall. 

I decided it was time to take stock of the facts I do know (spoiler alert, it's not very much!):

• My grandfather was Jesse Ben LeRoy (1907-1971) Born in Georgia
• My great-grandfather was John Robert LeRoy (1847-1927) Born in Georgia
• My great-great grandfather is the mysterious Abijah/Abijob (or whatever his given name turns out to be) probably born around 1819 (possibly earlier) since all of his children were born between 1839-1847 in Georgia. He's not listed in any census from 1850 forward with his known family. Based on 1880 and 1900 census of his son, he may have been born in Georgia or South Carolina. No birth, death or marriage records and no obituary has been located. No burial had been discovered. The only mention of him is on one of  his son's death certificate. I can find no mention of him in any records for his other children.

Many trees show Abijah as John, with his mother potentially being Dorcas Shoeboots/Boots, a Cherokee Indian. I'm 40% on board with Dorcas as the name of his mother, because of an 1860 census hint from her later years, showing her surname as Lukeray, with her occupation as domestic help in the household of two of her believed grandchildren. But I'm not at all convinced she was Cherokee. And I have no clue as to her maiden name. I've found no other records for her as of yet. She may not even be the right mother. I simply don't have enough information yet. 

Thanks to Thru Lines, I think I know 2 of her other children though. The most important clue so far is both of them using the surname LeCroy (not LeRoy). It's not much, but it's something. I had long wondered if the surname morphed along the way. Certainly LeCroy to LeRoy isn't a big stretch. But searching for Abijah with any of the dozen or so spellings I've seen returns absolutely zilch! 

Then there's the matter of the little fact I totally forgot. John Robert LeRoy, on the 1910 census, shows as having served in the Confederate Army. I'd previously mined unproven details from his widow's unsuccessful bid for his pension. He was apparently not shown on the records she indicated he should be. And so, I dropped looking for him as a veteran, figuring she was just trying to get the money. Recently, I happened to get some hints for Civil War veterans for John Robert LeRoy. They were actually for John LeCroy! I'm not entirely sure they're for my John, but it did give me pause to rethink the surname again.

At this point, it seems viable Abijah was a nickname of some sort. The other 2 siblings I think I've identified are Thomas and Amanda. On the surface, John is a more likely given name. And, if some trees are to be believed, it's possible his father's name was also John...or Thomas...or Luke. I have found some full-text search results on FamilySearch, where Chief Shoeboots did actually transfer land to a John LeCroy, and John was an early settler on Indian lands. There's also a newspaper mention of Shoeboots giving him 4 slaves in 1830....but it's nowhere near enough information for me to confidently say he's Abijah's father, or Dorcas's husband. 

Another interesting tidbit is Abijah's wife Nancy Williams is shown in 1850 (as Nancy LeRoy) living next door to an Abijah Williams. He would be the right age to be her brother. Is it possible her brother's name was somehow provided instead of her spouse's on the death certificate? Or perhaps it was a name she also affectionately called her husband? Or maybe Abijah Williams isn't even her brother...

I've contemplated Abijah may have been away from the family. The Mexican-American war did occur in the proper time frame, as did the Cayuse War. But I somehow doubt he was involved in either. The list of killer diseases at the time is long. He could have died from any number of illnesses or farming accidents. He could have left his family, changed his name, and started over somewhere else too! So far, all I have is a lot of maybes...and lots more DNA cousins to fit into my tree. Maybe one of them will eventually turn into a lead.

Surname brick walls aren't terribly uncommon. There were numerous reasons names might have been recorded incorrectly. But have you ever had a given name you thought might be totally incorrect? If so, can you share how you attacked the problem?

Image by Jupi Lu from Pixabay

The Why

We all begin our genealogy adventure for different reasons. Perhaps a family member gave you the gift of a DNA kit, and now you're inspired to learn more. Or maybe you heard all the family stories as you grew, and wanted to uncover secrets from long ago. For some, there were no stories, only questions, and a deep sense of needing to find where they come from and where they belong. Each adventurer's quest into the past is different and has unique meaning to the individual. In short, we all have a different "why".

Research can be tedious and time consuming. And yet, when you find the one elusive record you've been after...somehow time melts away and it was all worthwhile. Thoughts of genealogy and ancestors may fill you mind...as you go about your day...or maddeningly, as you try to fall asleep. You may find yourself in front of the computer in the middle of the night searching for clues. How many times have you thought "just one more search" or "I'll stop after one more record"? The search for your ancestors (and their many descendants) has become a part of you. Over time, our individual "why" may change and grow into something much deeper, more personal and harder to quantify,

The following two blog posts resonated with me this week. Resonated isn't really an adequate word....they spoke to me would be more accurate. They capture "the why". Summarizing them would be an injustice. If you have a few minutes to spare, they're both well worth the read (or at least a bookmark for a later time).

The Ghost in Your DNA: Why You Feel Connected to Ancestors You’ve Never Met 
From GenealogyExplained, by Marc McDermott 

Walk with Your Ancestors: Peace, Light and Healing in an Abandoned Medieval Village
From DNAeXplained by Roberta Estes 

For those of us who discover we have a true passion for family history, the journey may take on a much deeper meaning. The past intricately intertwines and becomes a part of our present. Our ancestors whisper in our minds. We talk to them, and in turn, they walk with us, and in us, as we eagerly accept the responsibility of bringing them back to life, and ensuring they are not forgotten.

Image by akbaranifsolo from Pixabay

Facts Don't Always Fit

I've was recently researching a relative (by marriage) who passed away in just the last few years. He had a rather uncommon surname. Since he still has living children, for the sake of anonymity, I'm going to call him Jon Luke Long (not an uncommon name I know, but you get the idea). A quick Google search showed me in 2010, there were only an estimated 2,307 people with his actual surname in the entire United States...less than one in 100,000 people. One would think this would make working on hints easier....how likely would it be to have 2 people with the same name n the same area? Sure, there could be a father and son living in close proximity, but birth dates should help identify the proper person to attach hints to right? 

It's not a problem of having enough hints either. I had several, from various collections. The problem was them fitting into the narrative of known facts. My Jon Long was from northeastern Ohio. Initially, I found several hints appearing to be for a Jon Thomas Long (when I compared them with other records for the person). Clearly, with a middle name so distinctly different, I could easily ignore these hints as being the wrong name. 

But then there were the school yearbook hints. Sometimes, those are the only way to find a picture of someone in my tree, especially for more recent relatives. But they can also be hard to verify as being the right person. I know many people skip these records entirely, but I choose to use them where I can. I ignore those I'm confident are wrong, and I "maybe" any I'm not sure of. I had 7 different yearbook hints, from 2 different schools. And to make it harder, the schools were located several hours apart, and neither was in an already known location for this person. It's not unusual to have someone live in a different city than they attended school. As I've shared in the past, this applied to me personally 

With only a name of Jon Long shown in the yearbook hints, I had to figure out if they were my Jon Long, or not. In this case, the person in question had a more recent obituary. Thankfully, the family included some important genealogical information, including the high school he graduated from. Should make the search easier right? Not in this case. None of the hints were from the school listed in the obituary, and none were for a person who was graduating. The school mentioned in the obit was located in northeastern Ohio (fitting with other known facts). The hints I had were from central and western Ohio. But people move, and just because they didn't fit my currently known facts, didn't necessarily make them wrong. The challenge is not having much information on where this person lived during his earlier years. I know where he was born, died, and in this case graduated high school. But I don't have information for locations between birth and high school.

The photos of the persons from the 2 schools were also very different. It was clear, if (and it was a big if) either of the locations was correct, it was going to be one school or the other. In a few hints the name was simply shown as J Long. Jon? James? Jerry? Initials weren't going to help me. I started by looking at the locations for Jon Thomas Long, the person I knew was not my Jon Luke Long. I started checking the distances between cities this person lived in. Finally, I was able to identify one of the schools was only 40 minutes away from a known location for the "wrong" Jon. While not proof positive, it was enough for me to mark those yearbook hints as not likely being my Jon Long. The school in the remaining hint was more of a challenge, but ultimately, based on the photo of Jon in his obituary and comparison to the photo in the yearbook, I determined it was also unlikely to be my Jon Long. While I never found any yearbook photos from the known school listed in the obituary, I'm glad I could fairly reliably rule out the incorrect hints. 

Not every hint fits known facts and narratives. Sometimes, we can fairly easily rule hints out. Other times, we can't. But my personal feeling is it's better to leave something as an undecided "maybe" than trying to force it to fit. Eventually, another hint may come along to prove or disprove a previously undecided hint. And when I've nothing at all to compare a hint to? I do my best to skim all the available hints looking for any patterns. If I just don't have anything tangible, I'll usually skip working on the hint entirely until I find some new information. Just like a jigsaw puzzle, putting the wrong piece in a place it doesn't belong can make it harder to figure out the puzzle.

Image free for use under the Pixabay Content License. https://pixabay.com/photos/puzzle-last-particle-piece-654956/

Stuck in a Loop

When you hit a roadblock, sometimes the best thing is to set the person aside and come back (days, weeks, or even years later) to take a fresh look. Perhaps working on collateral lines will shed new light. Or, in the future, there may be new records to peruse. All of this is sensible and genealogists do this all the time. You can't force the records, they either exist or they don't, and you'll either find them, or you won't. Sometimes, the wheels are spinning but it's not getting us anywhere. 

So why am I finding it so hard to set aside the 25 people in my tree Ancestry's ProTools says I need some form of documentation for? They account for only 0.8% of my tree, so this isn't a big out of control issue. 15 of them I know only a surname or given name (but not both, making them harder to find). But 10 of them, I believe I have the given name and surname (and sometimes middle name or initial as well). Some are from far in the past, and some are quite recent. Recent is usually somewhat easier for me to locate (but not in this case). Why can't I let them go? 

I'm stuck in a loop. Just about every day, when I finish my "regular" research, I pop over and try to find something...anything for these people. Is ProTools Tree Checker a good motivator? Sure, it seems to be for me. It's now my personal mission to get to 0 people with no documentation. But is it a valuable use of my time? Probably not so much when I'm not making progress. Were perseverance alone enough, I'd be golden. But it's all about finding the records. And those records are eluding me. I'm spinning my wheels on the same searches, when my time would likely be better spent on researching other parts of my tree.

Is it possible I have incorrect names? It's totally possible! These are names mined from obituaries, death certificates, Social Security  and other records where there could certainly be spelling errors or where information was provided by an outside source who may have gotten it wrong. I can't be sure until I find a matching record, preferably more than one. If I'm spinning my wheels on bad data, I'll keep returning no results. I need to find a way to either set this personal goal aside (for now) or come up with a new (and more inventive way) of searching. It might be time to reassess my research goals, and set some new (perhaps smaller, more achievable) goals to help me break free of the loop. It doesn't mean I'll stop looking, but maybe not so frequently.

Letting go isn't easy! What do you do when you find yourself stuck in a genealogy loop? 

Image by Thorsten Dahl from Pixabay

Questions I Forgot to Ask

There are questions I forgot to ask while I still had the chance. This morning, I can't stop thinking about how my ancestors might have celebrated Easter, Christmas and other holidays. I have precious few relatives who might have heard the stories, and even fewer who might have participated. There's a gaping hole in my family knowledge I may never be able to fill.

I'm certain all sides of the family likely dressed their many children in their Sunday clothes (the ones with the fewest holes or less mended) and marched them off for Sunday service. But what did they do when they came home?

Candy was probably a luxury they couldn't afford. With chicken coops on the farms, and eggs being a needed commodity, did they hide eggs for the children? There was likely no extra money to hide coins or other treasures. Meals were hard enough to come by, and I know some of my ancestors ate rabbit regularly (the Easter Bunny surely wouldn't have stepped foot on the farms!) 

So what did they do? Was it just business as usual taking care of the many tasks associated with having big families? Were there any traditions they followed? Did they maybe visit a grandparent for a big meal? I don't have the chance to ask these questions now. If you're fortunate enough to still have family living, make a call or stop by and ask while you can. Take notes, and write the stories down, so they won't be lost on future generations.  

Image by Janet Meyer from Pixabay

Beyond ThruLines

Today, I stretched beyond Ancestry's ThruLines® and added a set of 6th great-grandparents to my tree! I was quite excited to "meet" Roger Gantlett and Sarah Ponting of Wiltshire, England. 

To be fair, I wsn't actually using ThruLines® on this branch of my tree. Wiltshire, England has parish records aplenty and it's been relatively easy navigating this line. But it was nice to verify Ancestry's predictions through my 5th great-grandparents on this line were correct. And even more exciting to stretch beyond them.

I'm always in awe as I scroll through the dutifully recorded events from more than 250 years ago. It amazes me to see the original writings, carefully scanned and preserved for future generations. Ink dark in some places, yet almost unreadable in others. Some entries clearly written, others not so much, as perhaps the scribe tired of penning the events of the day. I'm glad the records have been so well preserved, and they've been made available to me without crossing an ocean.

I still have much more to uncover. I know Roger and Sarah were married (by license) on October 13th, 1757, but I don't yet have confirmed birth and death dates. I know they had a daughter Sarah Hart Gantlett (my 5th great-grandmother), but I also see some of their other children, both baptized and buried, in the records. I need to work slowly and add as many as I can find. I'll set aside time to review this particular record carefully, likely going page by page. It's only 68 pages, and in the past, I've found it can be well worth the time to review the entirety of the parish ledger.

One document I saw showed Roger's signature. It put to rest the question of Gauntlett (as quite a lot of records show) or Gantlett (how he signed his name). A quick look shows me I'll likely be able to add the names of both of their parents, but I don't want to rush. I want to take time to "get to know" Roger and Sarah first. To hopefully find his occupation, see how many children they had and how many they lost. I like to reflect on how their lives were so different than ours.

I only have 5 of my 6th great-grandparents identified thus far. Not accounting for possible (ok, likely) pedigree collapse, I only have 251 more to go!

Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Could Cherokee Be Back On the Table?

I'm still on the hunt for any clues to my 2nd great-grandfather, Abijah LeRoy. He's the reason I started researching...he's also one of my most stubborn brick walls. I've previously shared our family lore, what I know, and how (were it not for the proof of his children) he seemed to never exist. 

For some time, Ancestry's ThruLines has suggested his mother may have been named Dorcas (possibly Cherokee, but last name is totally unproven at this point) and his father John LeCroy (a spelling variation I'm used to trying). In fact, Abijah may have been named John. I'm not sure yet. However, poking through those DNA match trees didn't yield any definitive "Ah ha!" moments. I really thought Dorcas may have been wishful Cherokee thinking. The given name may be totally right, but that doesn't make her Cherokee. Recently, as algorithms update, so too did the information shown in ThruLines. I noticed John LeCroy had only 39 DNA matches, and Dorcas suddenly showed 54. Certainly, since DNA inheritance isn't exact, it's not surprising to see a small difference in matches, but 15? Looking further, it appeared Dorcas may have had another son, named Thomas LeCroy (this is where all those new DNA matches were). I went ahead and tentatively filled John, Dorcas and Thomas in my tree, even though I've yet to document to my satisfaction. That covered potential 3rd great-grandparents (even if they are a work in progress).

Given the sharp difference in DNA matches, I wondered if perhaps Thomas had a different father. For the time being, I've added an unknown LeCroy as his other parent. A few days after doing this, I noticed even more new potential ThruLines extending further back. The next suggested 4th great-grandparents are a Chulio Tuskingo (Cherokee) and Lucy Daul. This loosely backs up an entry from a book "Ties That Bind: The Story of an Afro-Cherokee Family in Slavery and Freedom" by Tiya Miles. While the story compellingly mentions a John LeCroy, I've not yet found enough documentation to prove the account. I did find one property deed, using FamilySearch's full text search, but it alone is not enough. All my matches to this couple descend through Dorcas, making me wonder if this is a real connection or wishful thinking. And then came the "Cherokee is back on the table" moment...a potential 5th great-grandmother, Nionne Ollie Attakullakulla. Keeping in mind, I'm totally unsure of this trajectory, I've not added any more names to my tree beyond those I mentioned...but I have poked around in my DNA match trees, and my interest is piqued. 

I have 51 DNA matches to Nionne. 10 of those descend from Chulio (obviously still in question). But there are 8 other potential lines with 41 matches! I can easily understand how anyone looking for Abijah or Thomas might perpetuate incorrect information, but now I have 8 more other potential Native American ancestors. While I haven't had time to research any of these in detail, poking through trees shows a couple actually reference Dawes Roll entries. I clearly have a lot more research ahead! I do know for sure, I have some kind of DNA connection to a group of 51 people also looking into Cherokee ancestors, and 41 of them are not through Abijah, Thomas, Dorcas or Chulio. I see a glimmer of possibility!

Could we all be wrong? Certainly! We are talking about the early 1700's for this potential 5th great-grandmother. There will be few if any records. It will not be easy to research. And the Cherokee family story is a common one. But could all these people researching different ancestors be wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps I dismissed the Cherokee possibility too soon. Maybe my 1st cousins and I who've tested simply didn't inherit the DNA. But unquestionably, we have DNA matches to 51 other people also looking into Native American heritage. I need to begin the search into each of them to see if there's a true trail of records, or if debunking the family story will be my own personal trail of tears.

Balancing Life, Health, Work and Family Through the Generations

This past year brought unexpected challenges to my life. Lately, I've been reflecting on my ancestors and how they balanced life, health, work and family...the same challenges we each face today. How did they manage in a world where medical and techonogical advances (we often take for granted) simply didn't exist? How did they have the fortitude to survive...and even thrive?

I've wondered if they ever felt angry or frustrated as they navigated the ups and downs of life. How did so many of the early generations find the courage to leave their home country (or state) and set off in search of a new and hopefully better life? If they'd known the challenges their lives would be filled with, would they have made different choices? Or were they happy with how their lives turned out, perhaps counting their blesssing every time they saw another sunrise? My father used to say "any day you're looking down at the ground, instead of up, is a good day." 

The lives of my ancestors help me find balance in my own life. Researching them provides a sense of fulfillment, and it reminds me to be thankful for all I have. Though I've had to scale back in the recent months, I'd be devastated if I couldn't continue my genealogical journey. I'm very thankful for all the people and websites who make researching from home possible. As genealogists and family researchers, we're so fortunate to have access to so many repositories of information. It's hard to imagine how much data is sill uncataloged, patiently waiting to be revealed to us, little by little in the years to come!

This past year, Ancestry tells me I added 579 people to my tree,  All but 25 people in my tree have some kind of record attached. I reviewed thousands of hints in 2024. I was thrilled to satisfactorily confirm several new direct ancestors. And Ancestry's ThruLines even turned up a tantalizing breadcrumb...a potential sibling or half-sibling, in my search for Abijah, the ancestor who started my journey. I was also excited to see (on 23andMe) I now have 10 confirmed ancient DNA matches, all to the Viking era. 

As we approach the end of 2024, and look forward to 2025, I hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday season. While we come from all different corners of the world, the genealogy community feels like a big extended family. I'm thankful genealogy is a part of my life. Happy Re searching!!

Image by No-longer-here from Pixabay

Share Your Journey This Independence Day

I wish everyone a very Happy 4th of July! 

On this day when many are gathering with family and friends to celebrate the holiday, take time to share about your genealogy journey. Yes, yes, I know - some eyes may glaze over as you speak, but don't give up! Talk to the children and regale them with interesting stories you've discovered. Show them pictures from times gone by. Listen, so the older generations might share their stories with you. Record them if possible or take notes so you can write their recollections down for future generations. One day, you'll be very glad you did. Share new discoveries with your elders. They may be thrilled to hear the stories. And, it may spark memories you've never heard before.

This is a day to celebrate our country, our independence and most of all, our family journeys. Many of us have traced far enough back in our lines to discover ancestors who fought for independence. We owe these ancestors a great debt of gratitude. Other families immigrated to a this country later, leaving all they knew behind. It doesn't matter from where your ancestors came, or when they came, today we celebrate together!

Remember all those who've bravely served their country. If possible, thank them for their service. For those no longer with us, say a silent thank you to honor their memory and the sacrifices made to ensure the independence we enjoy today.

Today is a day to be grateful for all who came before. It's a day to be thankful for all the resources available so we can uncover and discover our ancestors. Today, I'm deeply thankful I embarked on my genealogy journey and for all the wonderful discoveries I've made (and have yet to make). Happy Independence Day!

Image by free stock photos from www.picjumbo.com from Pixabay

Biggest Brick Wall: Abijah LeRoy

I've had a solid brick wall at my maternal 2nd great-grandparents since the day I started researching, over 10 years ago. My research started with a family story (now disproven by DNA). The Native American connection I spent years searching for does not exist. My maternal DNA shows primarily England, as well as  Sweden/Denmark, Scotland, Ireland and Norway. Once I had my DNA results in hand, I mistakenly thought removing Native American heritage from the equation was going to lead me somewhere fast. Boy was I wrong. It's like this couple was never born, they seem to appear out of thin air.

The known, my 2nd great grandparents had 6 children. Part of this comes from an elusive message board post about a family bible....though there is no documentation to substantiate, and no information on where I might find a copy of this bible. But, in conjunction with viable census records, the names seem to be accurate (as far as I can tell, one census has nothing but initials for given and middle names but they do line up pretty well.). I've pieced together the following children:

1. Elizann E LeRoy (1839– )
2. Amos Jasper LeRoy (1840–1904)
3. W A LeRoy (1842– )  "A" may stand for Abijah or Arthur
4. Benjamin Franklin LeRoy (1843–possibly1900)
5. Elizabeth Jane LeRoy (1844– )
6. John Robert LeRoy (1847–1927) -  my great-grandfather

From the census records and death certificate of John Robert LeRoy, I believe my 2nd great grandmother was Nancy Williams (possibly middle name Jane if you believe an 1870 census with Benjamin and John in the household also showing someone named Jane and being the correct age). From the same death certificate, his father was listed as Abijob LeRoy. However, other family lore shows Abijah, so I choose to use it (for now, cause I'm not at all convinced it was his given name at all). Abijah does not appear in any census records I can find. 

I've seen old Ancestry message board posts with others looking for Abijah, with the same Native American story in their family lore. Every tree I look at has him listed with no viable documentation, other than the death certificate of his son I've already located. In some trees, Abijah is shown as John or Luke. His father is sometimes attributed as John. But in NONE of the trees do I find any useful documentation. Sure there is an 1830 census record for a John LeRoy in Georgia (where I know he lived), but there's nothing show it's the LeRoy I'm looking for. And at best, I'll still only have numbers of people of various age ranges in the household. It's before the birth of his children...so...no clues to match with anything else. I'm not at all comfortable at this juncture using the 1830 census for anything. 

You'd think DNA results might point me in a direction right? Nope! I have 42 matches to the supposed Abijah (or Abijob or John or Luke) LeRoy and Nancy Williams. I have 39 matches to his supposed father, John. Nothing else. No DNA matches to an as of yet unidentified child from the father John. Everything ends with Abijah and Nancy. To make it more frustrating, all my DNA matches to Abijah are from his sons only (leaving me with questions about his daughters, since they have very similar names and could end up being the same person). It seems strange for a time period around the early 1800's not to have matches to some other children of Abijah's father. Why is Abijah the only child of theirs with DNA matches? Sure, it could be no one has tested. It could be the parents died and he was orphaned...or he legitimately may have been the only offspring (although I tend to doubt this). It just seems very odd to me. 

I've searched all kinds of different ways. I've only found one obit for a child of Abijah and there's no mention of the parents (but it does verify some of his siblings). The death certificate I've located is the only one I've found for any child showing parents. The one brother with the obit did have a death entry but it was just a record book, and parents weren't listed. The obit, from Tennessee, did say the son (Amos) was born in Banks, Georgia...while the majority of records I have are from Whitfield, Georgia... but it hasn't unearthed any new clues for me. All of the children were born prior to the start of birth records in Georgia.

With all my subscriptions, you'd think I'd be able to find obits for a few more of his children. Though, even if I did, they might not mention parents. Southern records of the time are less than detailed. I've considered some records might have been destroyed. And while the FamilySearch wiki shows the Whitfield, Georgia county courthouse was burned in 1864, there was no reported loss of records. I've also considered the family may have migrated from another state (I already know the family lived in and around Georgia and Alabama, but some also lived in Tennessee or had records created there), but broadening searches to nearby states has yielded nothing. FamilySearch shows Abijah born in South Carolina, but there's no documentation there either, save for the same single death certificate of John Robert. 

I checked for any wars during the time I suspect he lived, and the only one was the Mexican-American war. It seems unlikely he'd have had any reason to leave Georgia for this event. There were certainly lots of diseases at the time, he may have died....but there's no burial I can find. He may have left the family and started over under a new name (his son Amos left his family for a time per his obit, but eventually returned), but why no records before then? Perhaps the surname should be LeCroy, Leeroy, Lerry, Lukeroy (yes, I've seen records with all kinds of spellings) or even Lecroix. I've used wildcards and "sounds like" with no success. I'm finding nothing...nothing!...to connect any dots. 

The FamilySearch full text search potentially yielded some Whitfield Georgia deeds with LeRoy's in the right time frame (1850's range) when I "think" Abijah may have died based on no children born after 1847, but to be honest, there were quite a few with the same or similar names (none of them being Abijah or Nancy). Most are showing a John receiving the property, and there's nothing at all to suggest the John in these records is my great-grandfather. Amos and Benjamin were farmers for a time per non-population schedules and property tax digests. The property tax digests just confuse things more because there's one from 1873-1877 showing both a Benjamin and Luke in Cobb, Georgia. But Benjamin is sometimes called Luke (and unless he had multiple personalities, he can't be both Benjamin and Luke on the same record, and there's no other brother named Luke). The record is well after I believe Abijah to have died. I'm not finding deeds with the names I'd expect, and there's nothing in those deeds to help terribly much. I am not skilled with land records and deeds, but I may have to spend some time on them just to disprove them. 

Could it be there simply aren't records? I tend to doubt it. Sure, the southern states do seem to be more scarce on documentation than say Ohio (who kept wonderful records) but I feel like I just haven't found the right search yet. The family was scattered across Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee during the time. Maybe I'm just being too narrowminded. And don't forget thet bible published in Louisiana and the Louisiana Confederate money I found clearing out my parents house. Maybe they're a clue? So far, I've not tied the family at all to Louisiana, though there was a big LeRoy presence there, but they primarily hailed from France where I have no known DNA ties on the maternal side. To be fair, there could be a French connection not indicated by DNA, but I can only use the known, and France isn't part of the equation at this point.

So my brick wall still stands firm. I'm constantly thinking about other approaches to break it down, but so far nothing has worked. I kick my toe painfully against this wall every couple of weeks, but it refuses to crack. I won't give up, one day I'm confident I'll find the record I need and when I do, it'll be the biggest genealogy happy dance ever!

Image by Ray Shrewsberry • from Pixabay

To Prove or Disprove

Image created using DALL-E and ChatGPT

There are days when I just can't start working on a record I know is going to take a long time to finish. For whatever reason, I just don't have the focus in the given moment or there's a time constraint. But at the same time, I still want to do something....anything...to further my research. I make working on my tree a part of almost every day, even if it's only reviewing a few hints.

So, on days like today, I occasionally make my focus disproving hints. Rather than clicking endlessly thru screens and not doing anything at all, I'll set my focus on weeding out hints I don't believe are valuable (typically copies of user uploaded documents I already have in my hints) or ignoring those I determine don't pertain to the person in my tree. This sounds pretty easy right? Well, sometimes it's not. Matching up images to hints is fairly straightforward. If the image is the same as the image in a hint - ignore the uploaded one and use the hint. But looking at multiple census records where the name appears right, but the various years show different parents, different relationships or even a significant change in location, can take more time. In these cases, I click thru to the hint and start evaluating the other potential hints Ancestry helpfully shows in the sidebar. I try to find if the details on those other hints line up with my tree, or don't line up at all. I start looking for how the puzzle pieces fit (or in some cases, don't fit).

While I might not want to spend an hour mining details from a census record I know is correct, I might easily spend an hour clicking back and forth thru various hints, looking for the clue it's not the right person. I find I encounter this a far more often as I push back further in the direct lines. As records become more scarce, and names are common and repetitive in the location I'm searching, narrowing down the right records can be a head scratcher.

As an example, let's take Henry Jackson (1768-1854), the 5th great grandfather of my ex-husband. I know he was born in Maryland and died in Kentucky. Most of my knowledge of him comes from letters written by family years ago and research done by other family members. Thankfully, memories were preserved and shared, and copies of original documents not currently available as hints were uploaded. He appears to have been a caring individual. Records show in 1825, he was responsible for the son of a "poor free man of color" until the boy reached the age of 21. In 1833, another poor woman (relationship unknown) was placed under his care by the court. Records also show he emancipated two woman of color in 1838. These documents are all from the same location he lived and died in Kentucky and provide some idea of his character. There's even a copy of his will uploaded for me to pour over (with his daughter's married name, so I know I'm on the right track)....though it may also be available via the FamilySearch Full Text Search now, to save my poor eyes from deciphering the handwriting. 

So, I know a reasonable amount about his later life. Then I switch over to the record hints I can see. There certainly are several early census records, but they don't list all the household members by name, and some of the counties are different than where he lived later. I don't yet know his parents or siblings, so I'm currently at a disadvantage. There's also a FindAGrave record, right name, different county (but the same different county as some of the census records) with a different spouse (sadly, no birth or death date). It's quite likely he did have another earlier spouse, as when his will was written he had many married children and an also an young daughter he was leaving in the care of one of his grown daughters. But is the FindAGrave record right? Just because the location matches a questionable census record doesn't make it so. And there's nothing yet to prove the name of another spouse. I'm still poking around with Henry's records. I'm not confident enough yet to attach or ignore them, but the investigation is gratifying.

In some ways, disproving a record is just as satisfying for me as finding a valid record, especially when it comes to the farther back generations. None of us wants to spend countless hours documenting the incorrect person. I try to make notes why I finally decided to disprove a record. Doing so saves me time if similar records or information pop up again. Just today, I had notes where an ancestor is associated in many trees with a particular husband. But in my research, I was satisfied this was not the same person as is in my tree. Not only did I make a note to remind myself of this, I had the foresight to include a link to the census record I ultimately used to make the determination. In this case, it was an 1880 census showing her as married to a man with the surname McBriant (the name in many trees), but she was actually married a man with the surname LeRoy a couple years before and was having children with him in 1880 (and I have DNA matches from, and a paper trail to, this union). So the 1880 record disproves McBriant as a spouse entirely. I was able to eliminate several other hints today based on my notes disproving McBriant.

So...on days when recording details may not be an option (whatever the reason), progress can still be made by disproving records. Weeding out the unrelated to allow the rest of the records shine through is still a research win in my book!

Bumps in the Road

Image created using DALL-E and ChatGPT

I encountered a big bump in the road to my research last week. It's left me adrift and wandering. My closest sibling passed away about a week ago. It wasn't totally unexpected, but I didn't expect it so soon. I've lost a parent and a sibling in the span of 1-1/2 years. I have one older sibling left. Then it's just me and my male offspring in my direct line. For some reason, the eventual eradication of our leaves on the tree is hitting me really hard.

It started me thinking about my own mortality. I should put a genealogy will and DNA beneficiary agreement in place so my male offspring has access to my accounts. He's not into genealogy, but I'd still like him to have access to my research. If nothing else, he can pass it on to someone else in the family or donate it. And it would give him the ability to potentially remove my DNA from uploaded sites, should there be a reason to do so in the future. I have document templates saved specifically for a this task, I've just never gotten around to doing them. But now, this is moving up on my to-do list.

Then I started thinking about my tree. Do I go ahead and show by sibling as deceased? I'm trying to be sensitive to the rest of the family's loss as well (since my tree is public and some of them do genealogy on Ancestry). No one has updated him yet (and it's hard to say when they might....loss is a very personal thing). I've decided to give it a few more weeks and I'll revisit the topic. I know my tree is mine, but sensitivity to family members is still a concern for me. 

Then there's FindAGrave. Do I go grab a memorial so someone else doesn't beat me to it? I'd like it to be in the family, if nothing else. But again, a part of me feels I should leave it to the spouse to create a memorial. Thankfully (at least in some respects) no obituary has been posted, so none of the memorial hoarders have grabbed it up...yet. I wish I could broach the question directly, but I feel it's too soon. Unfortunately, delaying may mean someone else creates it. But, I guess, one of us can always go through the process of requesting it back if it happens.

I've been finding myself aimlessly scrolling through pages of hints on Ancestry for the last few days. Sure, I randomly attach a hint here or there, but I feel like I'm adrift in an ocean of hints. I'm having a hard time focusing. The other morning, I spent hours just poking around on our 2nd great grandparents, hoping to find more, or solidify some connections. I managed to fix one inconsistency with one of their children's birth dates, and identified one other potential issue (a child born a couple years before they were married). In the mother's obit, she was listed as a surviving daughter. It could be bad dates on records. It could be she was the product of another marriage, and my 2nd great grandmother was the only mother she actually knew. And to make it worse, there's a name discrepancy in some of the potential hints, she may have been adopted into the family, or maybe the hints are for a totally different person. I'm unsure at this point...so I finally gave up...for now.

I'm trying to remind myself, genealogy isn't a race. I don't have to research everyday (unless I want to). I don't have to attach some magical number of hints. The reality is, our trees are never "done". There's no finish line to cross. It's ok to take time to process whatever may be going on in life. But I'm still conflicted. My brain really wants to get lost in the routine of evaluating records and let time fly by almost unnoticed. But as I'm aimlessly scrolling, I'm unfocused and keenly aware I'm just spinning my wheels. There's nothing else I "need" to be doing right now, beyond letting myself grieve. I suppose if clicking thru hints aimlessly helps me for the moment, it's ok. Who knows, maybe one of those random clicks will open the door to something totally unexpected?

A Tale of Two Social Security Numbers

It is extremely rare for someone to have two Social Security numbers. More often than not, if one delves down far enough, we'll find there's something different between two records appearing to be for the same person. People can have the same name, the same birth date, and even the same location of birth....but be two completely different people. There are a limited number of reasons someone might be issued two different numbers, and it isn't common. I'm well aware of this, and generally, I try to prove one correct and disprove another. 

I've encountered times when someone has the same given and surname, but the middle initial may stand for a different middle name. Or two people with the same name, and different birth dates. Or same name and birth date, but different locations (one being completely different than any other records). It's generally pretty simple to disprove one of the potential indexed Social Security numbers as "wrong" for a person in my tree. I'll say hints are generally pretty good, and I don't run into it often, but when I do - it's not usually a big deal.

And then there's James Miles LeRoy. born February 23, 1892 (in Varner, Ripley, Missouri) and died Jan 2, 1986 (in Stevenson, Jackson, Alabama). Before I start this story, I'd like to point out, the subject of this post also lived in Tennessee as of the 1900 census, and Bridgeport, Jackson, Alabama (only about 6 miles from the Tennessee state line) for many years before his death.  This last residence complicates evaluating the records because my ancestors routinely travelled from Georgia and Alabama to Tennessee for important events like marriages, and draft registrations. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to leave out a few digits in the SSN, just because it feels strange to include the whole number, even though it is readily available in records.

The first record I encountered was in the Social Security Claims Index. It was listed under Jim LeRoy. The name didn't bother me, Jim is certainly short for James. The date of birth, Feb 23, 1892 was correct, as was the birth place of Varnor [Varner], Missouri. Now, to be fair, the parents names are spelled wrong. His father was Benjamin Franklin LeRoy, and in this record it's shown as Bengemon F Leroy,  but a simple misspelling here doesn't seem to be really "wrong". His mother is listed as Nancey Patterson (although it's usually spelled Nancy), otherwise, her maiden is correct. The SSN# on this record is 421-##-##11. It shows his name as Jim LeRoy as of July 1937.

The US Veteran's Administration Master Index shows James Leroy, date of birth Feb 23, 1892. His residence is shown as Bridgeport, Alabama. Military service is listed as January 14, 1919. We know he died in the same county and lived many years in Bridgeport, so....so far so good right? Here's where it starts to get odd.

The Social Security Death Index lists a James LeRoy, Social Security Number 411-##-##32 (very different from the other number, clearly not just a typo). His birth is listed as Feb 23, 1892 (same date), and the Social Security number was issued before 1951 in Tennessee. This fits with what I know about this person. In the 1950's he was living just a few miles from the Tennessee border. It's not a stretch to think anything "official" and important would be done there. The last residence is listed as Stevenson, Jackson, Alabama, the location other records show as his place of death. There is no day listed, but the month and year are correct with January 1986. See where it's getting a little murky now?

The Department of Veteran's Affairs BIRLS Death File lists James Leroy, date of birth February 23, 1892, date of death January 2,1986, with Social Security Number 411-##-##32. Date of military service is August 7, 1918 to January 14, 1919. At this point I'm starting to scratch my head. 

I looked for a SSDI entry for 421-##-##11 (the entry in the claims index) and nothing at all comes up. So I looked for claims for 411-##-##32 (the SSDI entry), and guess what? Nothing comes up. So each of the two numbers seems to play a part in this, as does the corroborating information from the VA and what I know of his parents. I can't satisfactorily "disprove" either of them! Given he lived to 1986, I can't imagine why there's no claim for the 411 number. And if 421 were the correct number, why is there no death information? 

The reasons for two Social Security numbers are generally:

• Sequential numbers are assigned to members of the same family
• More than one person is using the same number
• The person has religious or cultural objections to certain numbers or digits in the original number
• The person is a victim of identity theft
• There is a situation of harassment, abuse, or life endangerment

Sure, one of the first two reasons "could" be the issue. But I'd have expected a note in the Claims Index showing issuance of a new number. Given how often notes show a change of name for women when they marry, I'd expect correcting a nickname to given name would be pretty simple. Identity theft wasn't really something we heard about until more recently (though I'm sure it did exist, it wasn't as commonplace back then as it is today).

This is a conundrum and I'd be most interested to hear what you think. Is this truly a case where the Social Security Administration made an error and issued two cards? Did someone just type a completely wrong number in the claims index? Did he register twice? Once under Jim and once under James? Did he lose his card and just went in and applied for another and never said he had one previously? Was he trying to take on a new identity (of sorts) by securing a new number? Nothing else I'm finding about his life would give this indication. Or am I completely missing something here? Let me know your thoughts.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

This Little Piggy

Sometimes, I think about very random things about my family tree. This morning, I was contemplating how my ancestors were not rich, far from it. A few (on my paternal line) amassed pretty impressive amounts of farmland, but I don't find anything to show they lived lavishly. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most of the family I've found appear to have been very frugal. Some branches of our family clearly had challenges making ends meet (just as many families today struggle month to month). Most certainly my grandparents and parents were very frugal. But somehow they all made it work...otherwise, I wouldn't be here. 

I moved on to thinking about how they repaired and reused items. Where we often toss old broken items in the trash bin, for my ancestors, throwing away was a last resort when every bit of usefulness from every possible part had been gleaned. Clothes were mended and handed down, not donated or thrown away. When no longer wearable, they became the foundation for quilts. Many, like the one I remember from my childhood and still have, are treasured heirlooms. Bits of the past, squares and triangles stitched together, a lasting memory of the garments they came from. They found multiple uses for everyday items. Today, we're wide eyed when we find "101 uses for" [whatever the item may be]. In some cases, a single alternate use for a item today is a big win right? Back then, they probably knew tens if not hundreds of multiple uses by heart, because it was their way of life. 

Today, we love to find recipes to feed our families for far less than we could have imagined and we're thrilled with the savings. Back then, they made everything they could from whatever they had. When my dad was a teenager, he got up every morning and jogged his trap line before dawn. Most of the meat the family ate came from whatever he caught (rabbit, squirrel, possum and even groundhog). A depression recipe I once stumbled on was Water Pie, and while I've not actually made it (yet), it's a reminder of the ingenuity of those who came before, finding a way to make something out of almost nothing. (I have an affinity for depression era recipes. I love collecting them. Simple meals are often the best in my mind.)

And then...my mind took a sharp turn...a trajectory to nursery rhymes. I was thinking about the "this little piggy". I know, it's totally random isn't it?! Now who doesn't know this rhyme? 

This little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed home
This little piggy had roast beef
This little piggy had none
This little piggy went ...
Wee, wee, wee, all the way home!

We've probably all heard it at some point, and those of us with children have probably passed it along to them as babies. According to mudcat.org, the opening line goes back as far as 1728, with abundant iterations to follow. The well known version seems to stem from about 1760. Apparently, varying versions of the rhyme can cause dissent amongst spouses. I found a thread where one woman wanted others to settle a disagreement between her and her spouse over the "proper" way to say the rhyme. Why was I even thinking about this?...

Because it isn't the way I was taught this rhyme. Oh no! My little piggies appear to have made an appearance in written history about 1890. I know the rhyme like this:  

This little piggy went to market
This little piggy stayed home
This little piggy had bread and butter
This little piggy had none
And this little piggy went ...
Wee, wee, wee, all the way home!

When my male offspring was a wee, I taught him the way I was taught. But my ex-husband always said roast beef. At some point, my son innocently asked why my piggies didn't eat roast beef? So I told him the truth - "they were depression era piggies". I'm sure he had absolutely no clue...but it likely sounded important, and it seemed to quell his curiosity. My version eventually won out in our home. 

The differences in the way of thinking and living, then and now, were swirling around in my head. I don't know if my ancestors felt like they were missing out, or if they were fairly content with their way of life. Some certainly seemed to have had it harder than others. But however they may have perceived their lives, I'm very thankful the frugal ways of the past were passed down through the generations to me. My ancestors passed on a fundamental foundation for living. In many areas of my life, frugality seems absolutely ingrained in my DNA. 

I've enjoyed, and passed on, the love of apple, honey and maple syrup festivals (instead of going to amusement parks). I research purchases, find the best value for the money and then keep items for many years. A handmade gift or card is more valuable to me (in most cases) than a purchased item. One of my favorite books is The The Complete Tightwad Gazette: Promoting Thrift as a Viable Alternative Lifestyle by Amy Dacyczyn. (Not an affiliate link! You can likely find a copy at your local library, but sadly it has never been released on Kindle or as a eBook). I've read it cover to cover more times than I can count. I buy items on clearance. I stockpile consumables when on sale. I still struggle to throw away small amounts of leftovers (vs putting them in tiny Tupperware to save as a snack.) I still amass more mundane items than I need, because they might be useful one day. And my little piggies still have bread and butter. 

Image by Alexa from Pixabay

Sadly, No Backup Plan is Foolproof

Last Thursday night, I experienced a catastrophic failure with FTM2019. Even though I diligently back up (auto and manually), I was unable to sync to Ancestry even after restoring from backup (2 different backups from 2 different days as a matter of fact). Live Chat didn't even look for the issue, as soon as I told them restoring didn't work, they said I either had to upload my tree back to Ancestry, or download a new copy to FTM. Each has drawbacks. It was a a rough couple days deciding. 1/2 of my media files don't come down from Ancestry. I DO have backups of all the media so that's fine. But I also have a small amount of private notes and private facts, and FTM currently doesn't have an easy way to find these.

If I re-uploaded to Ancestry, I'd have had to re-invite some family to my new tree, relink all my DNA matches, and I'd be uploading a ton of media items eventually showing up for other users as those pesky multiple images of the same item, something I don't enjoy in my own research,  I didn't really want to go this route.

I did download a new copy of my tree from Ancestry to FTM, after applying my customizations for the tree, I started manually relinking, renaming, and recategorizing all the media files, including those not downloaded. (These extras are primarily screenshots of text only records, and additional pages of census records or draft cards when only the main image downloads.) I spent about 16 hours on it Friday and Saturday and was barely 5% of the way done. I started rethinking my plan. There was no way I'd finish any time soon, and my OCD dictates I've have had to work on it exclusively until finished. It wasn't practical given most of what I "lost" wasn't tremendously important and I really want to continue moving my tree forward.

I finally made the difficult decision not to do all the reattaching. I decided a tolerable amount of non-critical data loss was acceptable for me. Of course, I've saved all the media (and a copy of the tree) in case I want to refer to it. But after much consideration, the reality is most people see my online tree anyway. My male offspring has no real interest in genealogy (unless I happen to stumble on something interesting, then he'll listen for a few minutes). Most of my work will be preserved online. I doubt anything I have private would ever be found by anyone and there wasn't very much of it.

So I scrapped the reattaching project, redownloaded another fresh copy of my tree, and I'm moving on! I do have color coding and some filters set up in my software, so I can reference people easily and track where I am in my research, but for the most part (probably 95%), my sync will be down from Ancestry only from here on in. FTM is now a true mirror tree. (If this happens again, it won't be any big deal). I won't rename my media anymore (beyond the titles on Ancestry photos). I won't take all the screenshots or index only data. I won't categorize my media (I already do it on Ancestry anyway). And since I already transcribe and save everything in my Ancestry citations, I'm not really losing a whole lot (just a little). 

It was disheartening the restore didn't work...especially since I try so hard to make sure I have backups of backups. I suspect somehow the trees became unlinked, explaining why there were no options to restore. I've no clue how it happened (it certainly wasn't intentional and I don't recall seeing any pop-up confirming such an action), but anytime 2 different programs try to communicate, there are bound to be glitches from time to time - especially with all the changes Ancestry's been making. Everything happens for a reason. Yes, I felt (and still sort of feel) like the world stopped spinning briefly. But I'm trying to be optimistic and forge ahead. In a few days it'll be nothing more than a memory, like nothing ever happened. I'm back to researching (albeit adjusting to not doing all the double documentation, improving my speed thru hints slightly), so all is well with my genealogy world.

Echoes of Valhalla

In addition to Ancestry, I've taken a DNA test with 23andMe. I've known for some time 23andMe showed my my maternal haplogroup is T2b4. Although my haplogroup traces back to a woman who lived more than 6000 years ago, I'm far more interested in the T2b part of it. This has been linked to a female Viking warrior from the 10th century! I find my Viking ancestry just as interesting as I did the (now debunked) Cherokee story. It's more interesting because it's linked to my DNA. There's no story here. No ambiguity. It's scientific fact - DNA doesn't lie.

Let me start by saying, I'm well aware I'm never going to find any written or oral history taking me back to the age of my Viking ancestors. Ancient DNA results are really just another type of entertainment value in genealogy for me. But since I've always been fascinated by the Vikings, I'll embrace it. When I first found this interesting tidbit, I also shelled out a few bucks and did the Viking index score at Living DNA (where I had previously uploaded my DNA results for free.)

The Viking index is a little bit convoluted. My score is 76% and showed me being most closely associated with the Vikings of Eastern Europe. The 76% is the tricky part. This simply means my DNA is more similar to Viking DNA than 76% of all Living DNA users in their database. The key here is how many users are in their database. It's not a number they actually promote. This makes the score very hard to interpret. If they have 10,000 users, it's a lot less impressive than if they have 100,000 users. None the less, I was secretly pleased when I showed 20% higher than my ex-husband. At least I know they don't give everyone the same score.... I've investigated some of the other sites who'll match your DNA to multiple ancient samples. Most are fairly pricey, and since it is just entertainment for me, I'm not going to drop hundreds of dollars to see the results. 

Today I was really excited! 23andMe announced they're providing historical DNA matches to 23andMe+ premium users. Currently, they have 335 potential historical matches. I eagerly logged in to see the secrets my DNA revealed. Historical matches can be seen by selecting Ancestry and then Ancestry Overview. There's a new section called "Meet your historical matches". I showed 7 matches. While none of them were famous people (though it would have been nice) all my matches were to Viking age individuals! They ranged in time from 652 CE to 1200 CE. 3 were seafaring warriors, the other 4 were simply listed as Viking age individuals. 

This doesn't mean I'm directly descended from these matches (in all likelihood I'm not). But it does mean we share a common ancestor. While I only shared 1 segment with 6 of the matches, I shared 2 segments with one match. Of course the match percentages were extremely low, ranging from .06% to .13%. 3 matches were from Estonia, the others Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Far from conclusive, this seems to indicate perhaps a connection to the Scandinavian Vikings is as viable as those from Eastern Europe. Since Vikings explored many regions and their range was much farther than most people generally realize, there's a huge margin for error when it comes to trying to establish locations for Viking populations.

None the less, I'm thrilled to have more proof of my ties to the Vikings. Does it change my research? Not one iota. Is it really interesting to me? Absolutely! Female Viking warriors are often depicted as Valkyries, the mythological women (often on horseback) who ushered the dead into Valhalla. For now, I'll just think about how these new DNA "historical matches" are truly the echoes of Valhalla swirling through the leaves and branches of my family tree.  

Image by HANSUAN FABREGAS from Pixabay

Ironic Twist to the Family Lore

As you may know, my research started with a family story. To read more details on my personal journey, check out How My Journey Began and Myth of the Cherokee Ancestor. 

The short version of the story goes like this...two brothers from France came to America. One married a full blooded Cherokee. They had a son, who married a 1/2 blooded Cherokee wife. Their son (Abijah, who I've identified as my 2nd great grandfather) was supposedly 1/2 Cherokee. In my branch of the family tree, the story morphed to include how back in the early 1920's marrying someone who was part Native American was considered taboo. Supposedly, my grandmother knew, but swore my grandfather to secrecy, and she would divorce him if he ever told anyone about his heritage. It was a family secret not even their children were told. If it were true, my mother would have been 1/16 Cherokee.

Well, DNA testing basically blew the whole story apart. No Native American DNA and no known French ancestry on my maternal side. It's interesting because I've seen others looking for the same Abijah I've been searching for over 10 years now, and they've shared the same story (minus my grandma and the threat of divorce). But in an an ironic twist of fate, as I was researching my mother's maternal great-grandfather this weekend, I found an unexpected, although indirect, link to potential Cherokee heritage in the family after all, just not where it was expected.

William Robertson (my 2nd great-grandfather) was married to Eliza Elvira Kuhn and they had only one child together, my great-grandfather Nathan Newell Robertson. Eliza passed away in 1911. Somewhere between 1911-1914,  William, then in his mid-50's, married Ida Franklin, 26 years his junior, and they had 2 more sons together.  While skimming through Ida's hints (I wasn't ready to work on her profile just yet) I noticed an application for Enrollment with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina. To be completely clear, she is not my direct ancestor, and she was denied enrollment, primarily because her family was not already enrolled with the tribe and they were not in North Carolina at the required time. It doesn't mean the lineage she reported wasn't accurate, it just didn't meet the standards for enrollment at the time. But in the application she did detail how she was 1/16 Cherokee, and she applied not only for herself, but for her 2 sons as well....my grandmother's step-uncles. Since she's not in my direct line, I'm not researching her ancestors, but it was still a nifty find!

I have to wonder how my grandmother felt about this. She would have been about 17 years old at the time of the application. Did she know her grandfather's 2nd wife was supposedly part Cherokee? Was this the reason she didn't want any story of Native American heritage passed down? Because it was loosely tied to her side of the family? Granted, it doesn't change there's no known Native American history in my direct family line, but it was still an interesting and unexpected skeleton to find in the closet.

Image by Orange Fox from Pixabay

My Ancestry Year-In-Review

Ancestry.com is really good at providing metrics for users to know how many people they've added, how many hints they've saved, etc. I'm not a fan of the notification bell lighting up darn near every time I save something. In general, I don't find the "suggestions" useful and I summarily dismiss them (extra unnecessary clicks as far as I'm concerned, but I get it, they want user engagement...). I do, however, really like the metrics they provide on a weekly basis. 

Sometimes it's hard to quantify all the hard work we put in on our trees. Weekly updates help me realize while I may not have finished researching as many people as I'd like, or made it thru as many hints as I'd prefer, the work really does add up...and pays off...even if some of my branches still end in a brick wall. If the numbers are low, I can reflect on what kind of research I was doing the previous week. Some records, like census and obituaries, take me much longer to mine all the facts than say a public records hint with just address/residence information. Records with images take me longer to review than indexed only records. It's a quick and easy way for me to mentally analyze the work completed the previous week.

Ancestry just sent out a Year-In-Review email with more impressive stats! I do have to keep in mind I did a lot of work on a adoptee tree I started for a friend this year, and the numbers most definitely reflect this. For the adoptee tree, I absolutely took time to review each record, but I didn't add all the detailed and custom facts or transcriptions I use on my main tree. The adoptee tree was created for a singular purpose - finding the grandpa and grandma of a friend. With this in mind, my main tree probably only accounts for a quarter to a third of the counts listed in the image above, but I'm still pleased! 

One on-going task I completed for my tree this year was adding all the names from a trusted (and generally accurate) family history originally compiled in the 1930's and updated regularly over the years. This was no small undertaking and I'm glad it's completed. While this only strengthens one specific branch of my tree, and I still have tons of records to add as backup, it definitely makes the research path easier on the branch. I also started the DNA Academy course so I can better work with my DNA matches. I'm still working on my studies. There's a lot I need to learn and making sure I'm understanding and not just plowing through is important to me.

Just seeing my stats for the past year was invigorating! I'm really stoked as we prepare to move into 2024. I have a feeling it's going to be a very good year for genealogy! With my focus solidly back on my main tree for now, I'm excited to see what the new year has in store. If you've received the Year-In-Review email, or pay attention to your weekly stats, comment on one of my socials....I'd love to hear the successes you've had this year!

Too Many Subscriptions?

 

I typically don't do anything 1/2 way. I'm either all in, or all out. Found a sweater I like? And it comes in 5 colors!? I'll buy all 5! Pasta comes in 10 flavors? I'll buy one of each. So it's no surprise, I probably spend more annually on my genealogy addiction than the average person. 

For me, it's about the who, what, where, why, when and how of my ancestors. To bring people to life, I need lots of information. Will I be able to find something interesting on everyone? Certainly not! Will I find all the answers I'm looking for? Sadly, the answer is also no. But do I have the potential to discover something really interesting about just a few people? No matter what sites we're using, or how much (or little) we invest monetarily to do it, I'd like to think we all have the potential to discover something wonderful and interesting in our trees if we put in the effort!

Subscriptions are my kryptonite! Sometimes I question if I have too many. But then I tell myself, "Nah...all those subscriptions probably cost less than one annual vacation or in-person research trip". While that's probably true enough, I still ask myself, do I need or even use information from all those sites? The answer is ever changing and moves in waves. Some months, I don't go to a site at all. Other times, I wander over and kick my foot against my brick walls for hours on end, searching through various record sets for any tidbit or morsel. And sometimes, I'm on a quest for a specific piece of information, and I just want to have all the resources I may want to use at my fingertips. For me, the comfort is knowing I have the option to go search through databases and records whenever I want. Is it the best use of my funds? I'm sure some would argue it's not. But, I find great happiness and satisfaction in genealogy and researching my family's past -  so for me, it's money well spent. 

I'm all for a good sale, don't get me wrong! But I also realize companies are in business to make money. If they aren't doing so, they won't be around very long. I'm okay paying for subscriptions. It costs money for companies to obtain access to record sets, and to make those records available to us. Developing new DNA, tree and photo tools costs money too. Occasionally, I do enjoy finding a little savings here and there, but I don't go to great lengths to find them. It's much the same as I feel about software. It costs money to develop and maintain programs users (including genealogists and family historians) depend on for their daily tasks. I personally feel supporting those companies who make my joys possible is important. I like the convenience, and I want them to be around for years to come. 

So what sites do I subscribe to? Hang on! It's a long list!

1. Ancestry (World Explorer) - where I do the bulk of my research and keep my public tree
2. MyHeritage (Complete subscription)
3. FindMyPast (Premium) 
4. 23andMe+
5. Newspapers.com (Publisher's Extra)
6. Genealogybank
7. NewspaperArchive (includes access to Storied)
8. Billion Graves 
9. Accessible Archives (lots of exclusive content)
10. GEDmatch (Tier 1)
11. DNA Painter 
12. National Genealogical Society (NGS) 
13. American Ancestors - New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) - they have an impressive collection of third party research databases
14. Geneabloggers (resources for genealogy bloggers)

Researching your family history can range from free (if you're willing to put the extra time it takes) to very expensive (if you go on family heritage vacations, or do a lot of in person research trips).  There are certainly ways to keep costs manageable by utilizing sales, discount codes or taking advantage of month to month subscriptions as needed Each of us has different needs and wants when it comes to what we can afford and what we're willing to spend. Chime in on my social media and let me know what subscription sites are your "must haves".

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay