Behind the Name

Do you have a favorite name you've encountered in your family research? Mine is my 1st cousin 3x removed - Zytilla Gertrude James (1853-1910). I started wondering where in the world the name Zytilla came from? It certainly hasn't popped up anywhere else in my research. 

I was surfing around and came upon Behind the Name. I really like all the information you can find on both given and surnames. When you first land on the site, you're on the given name page. If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the homepage, there's an option for surnames as well. You can browse various names, search, find meanings and related/equivalent/diminutive names, see the popularity change over time in various areas of the world, and even find namesakes and various other bits of information. You can browse names not only by first letter, but by region, mythology, religion and other various categories. There are additional interactive features and message boards if you want to sign up. The site is FREE!

I had fun looking up my name. Doris, seemed to be most popular in the US in the late 1920's and early 1930's. By the time I was born, it was not just falling out of favor, it was plummeting! In fact, the only country where it currently shows any real use (albeit not much) is the Netherlands with 0.080%. I happened to be named after 3 different friends of my mother. Clearly, they were all born when the name was far more common. I was surprised to see all the usages: English, German, Swedish, Danish, Croatian, Ancient Greek, Greek Mythology. I won't bore you with the other facts about my name, but suffice it to say, I thoroughly enjoyed poking around the site as I was writing this post.

Back to Zytille Gertrude! Gertrude probably hasn't been a favorite in a long time. Between 1880-1900 it accounted for about 1% of the female names per this site. Since then, it's fallen sharply and stopped registering on their graph in the mid-1960's. But how about Zytilla? Well, there's absolutely nothing on the site. So, like all good sleuths, I Googled. Again, nothing! I opened up ChatGPT and asked AI if it knew anything, and it responded:

The name "Zytilla" is quite unique and doesn't have a widely recognized origin or meaning in common name dictionaries or linguistic sources. It may be a modern creation or a rare name that is specific to a particular family or cultural group.

So there we have it. I can fairly confidently say, Zytilla's mother probably either had 2 other names she morphed together (possibly the Polish Zyta and the German Ottilla), or she made it up and simply liked the way it sounded. It certainly was unique! I wish I knew if Zytilla (also known as Tilla in some records) liked her name? I don't much care for Gertrude, but I do actually really like Zytilla. I wonder about her character. I imagine her as a little blond girl, who looked much like Alice in Wonderland. All I know for certain are these basic facts: she was born in Ohio, died in Illinois, was married, had two children, was a housewife and could read and write. She was a "unicorn", an individual with a unique name and perhaps a unique personality to go with it.

All Those Addresses

Do you take the time to record all the addresses from public record hints on Ancestry? I'm sure a lot of people probably just ignore them. After all, the dates can be suspect, often overlapping. And unless the person lived in the same house for a long time, possibly as far back as the 1950 census, or for whom voter records are available, there's no easy way to verify some of the data. And let's be honest, recording all those addresses from the various iterations of the Ancestry record sets can be time consuming. There might be from one, to as many as four, addresses in a single record. But I've noticed over the years, recording these addresses can be really beneficial.

How can they be so helpful? Well, have you ever had a couple you're pretty sure was married (perhaps from family knowledge or maybe from names mentioned in an obituary), but you've yet to find a record prove it? Not only do public record hints often show maiden and married names for women, but by having all addresses recorded, you can easily see when two people may have lived at the same address. Is it a smoking gun proving they were married? No, of course it's not! But it's better than nothing. And if you do an exact search for a street address in Ancestry, you may find the name of an unknown spouse (or a spouse for whom you only had a surname). Specifically with regard to the public record databases on Ancestry, I hesitate to say they're significantly helpful for finding children or other family members (other sites are better suited to this). There may be times when they could assist, but the vast majority of where I find they're helpful is for spouses.

They can also be useful when you're running into couples where both parties have similar names to couples in your tree, or someone with the same name but you've already found it's not the person in your tree. By making notes when you ignore a public records hint, you can save considerable effort the next time you run into records about people or addresses you've already researched and disproven. 

So, how do I handle all this data? I choose to record the dates and location as a Residence Fact. This allows me a quick visual if other types of records happen to be from the same place. I can expand the dates as necessary when other records surface, without needing to add a bunch of identical residence facts. Then I create an Address fact (also with the dates and location) and put the street address and zip code in the detail. Since I never let Ancestry create any facts, and I enter them all by hand, this allows me to be consistent in how the data is recorded. This method also enables me to use Ctrl+F on the person's profile to quickly check for a street address. There are any number of ways to record the information, this just happens to work well for me.

I've seen many times when there are addresses for a location where there are no other apparent records of the person being there, or with overlapping dates. This could indicate a 2nd residence (vacation home anyone?) or maybe the person was a cosigner for someone (parents helping a child perhaps). Maybe they made a short term move, like going to college out of state or a temporary job relocation. Perhaps they have/had a thriving Airbnb or rental situation going. Just because we can't find supporting records doesn't mean it's not a viable address. It simply means we don't know the nature of the record from where the address was taken to know how it relates to our person, or where we might possibly look for validation. Per Ancestry, the Public Records Indexes contain information culled from:

• Telephone Directories
• Marketing Lists
• Postal Change-of-Address Forms
• Public Record Filings
• Directory Assistance Records
• Property and Land Records

I've also noticed some of the dates in these records may stretch beyond a death date. This could be because there was no change to the property ownership and family continued to live in the home. Or, perhaps the family simply never stopped mail delivery for the deceased, so it continued to show up as a viable address on mailing lists. In this specific case, I use the date of death in my facts. If I were to run into an address only shown after the date of death, I would likely not record it, as it might be the result of a change of address submitted to facilitate the execution of a will. Such an address might help identify who the executor of a will was though! I can't say I recall actually running into this with regard to public record hints, but it could happen. 

For me, the time and effort recording this data has value. Indexed pubic data isn't perfect, and it's not a substitute for proper records. But it can help solidify a hypothesis, provide a tangible link, or open up a new potential research avenue.

Image by G.C. 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/

Palatines to America German Genealogical Society

Recently, I discovered when my 5th great-grandfather, Freiderich Zearfoss arrived in Pennsylvania! Even with an unusual name, researching this ancestor isn't as easy as you might think. His surname isn't one you see all the time, but I'm finding it spelled almost a dozen different ways. Born around 1724 in the Palatinate region of Germany (a historical region in south-western Germany), he arrived on the ship Edinburgh on September 15, 1749 at the age of 25. The ship sailed from Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and since I don't see any others with the same surname in the record of immigrants, it's quite possible he may have come alone on the voyage. He married after he arrived in America. His information is a springboard for another quest I've been on.

I've been looking for where my Shelly line came to America. There have been some confusing (uncited) details in many trees claiming the Shelly's were of English descent but moved to Holland, ultimately coming to America to avoid religious persecution. But once here, the Shelly's settled and lived in the German communities in Pennsylvania. My Ancestry ethnicity results show I have 21% Germanic Europe from my paternal side, likely an area of French & German Switzerland. Switzerland was directly adjacent to the historical Palatinate area of Germany. It seems possible the Shelly's may have originated in much the same area.

I'm hopeful finding where Freiderich was from will help me find more details on the Shelly family origins. While I was doing some preliminary research, I stumbled on a website called Palatines to America German Genealogical Society. While full access to the site does require membership, there are plenty of resources available for free. I've already been able to find Zerfass (one of the many surname spellings), Shelly and Snavely (another branch of my tree from Pennsylvania) surnames in the Ancestor Chart Project. It remains to be seen if any of the ancestors listed are my ancestors. They also have a robust list of links to external resources, but be prepared, some of them will require translation to English (your browser should prompt you to translate). Membership is $40 per year for US members, and their membership year starts in October. If you're interested in joining, it may be wise to take this into account to maximize your membership (especially if you're only interested in a one time membership.) 

For now, I'm going to take advantage of the free resources the site offers and do additional research on sites where I already have subscriptions. I haven't yet started pursing this Palatinate angle on Ancestry, and MyHeritage certainly has a wealth of European records. But I've added Palatines to America German Genealogical Society to my Genealogy Toolbox under Historical Societies so I'll have it handy when I need it. If you have ancestors from the Palatinate region, I'd be interested to hear if this site helps you in your own research.

Edna James, Female Pilot WWII: Remembering the Unrelated

As you sift through your numerous hints, trying to discern the bits and pieces of your ancestor's lives, do you take time to really read the details you know are not related to your family? Do you truly notice the unrelated? Or do you just ignore and move on? Occasionally, a hint for someone not in your tree may offer an interesting glimpse into a part of history you might otherwise overlook.

I admit, I'm usually focused on the person I'm working on. Does the hint seem to match? Yes or no. Sometimes, it takes a little digging...ok, sometimes a lot...but other times it's a simple no. Regardless of why I ignore a hint, I add a brief note how/why I came to the conclusion, just in case I need to re-evaluate in the future. But occasionally, as I'm reviewing, something will pique my interest and I'll read on, even thought I know it's not about someone in my family tree.

Today, I was researching Edna Varnes (1898-1973). She had 3 husbands, one of whom was my 2nd cousin 2x removed (David Reuben James). They were married in 1935. I stumbled on an indexed hint from the U.S., World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946, for an Edna James who enlisted in the Women's Army Corps, Inactive Reserves, as an Aviation Cadet on October 24, 1942. It's slightly unusual to find a woman enlisting for flight training and I was intrigued. I really wanted her to be my Edna James! Alas, she was single and had completed 4 years of college, ruling her out.

But the Edna James in the hint seemed interesting. At 63" (5'3") tall and just 118 lbs, she was just a little slip of a thing. Imagine her learning to fly an airplane! In WWII, women served an important role in aviation. They were part of the Women's Air Force (WAF), Women's Air Corp (WAC) and Women's Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) While they weren't involved in active combat, they did fly missions here at home. They moved planes from one area to another, transported cargo, assisted with training flights and most importantly at the time, freed up male pilots for combat missions. Wikipedia has a nice synopsis on these brave, adventurous and important women who flew in WWII. 

I wasn't able to find much about Edna James. I know she was born around 1898. She completed 4 years of college and had a "professional occupation". In 1942, at the age of 44, she was single and felt the calling to both support her country and embark on an interesting future. She hailed from Ohio, and enlisted there. Her service number was A-501308. A quick Google ties this service number back to the Women's Air Corp (WAC). While I wasn't able to pinpoint who her parents were, or anything else about her life, I feel compelled to say "Thank you for your service Edna James.  You helped pave the way for women of the future."

Image by Vlad Min from Pixabay

The Curious Case of the Disappearing Hints

 

No, it's not magic! And no, I haven't worked through thousands of hints recently. The algorithms at Ancestry have been doing their thing and the number of hints on my All Hints page have been fluctuating wildly over the last few months. At one point, I had over 12,000. A few weeks ago, I was down in the 6000's. Today, I have about 8,500. It can be disconcerting to see the numbers change so drastically, but it's important to realize it's temporary! Ancestry hints come and go, an ebb and flow, as the algorithms search tirelessly for new hints and suggestions.

I've had readers ask, "How do you manage all those hints?" The truth is, I don't! I know many people completely ignore the All Hints page, preferring to focus solely on one person (or branch) at a time. Being a little neurospicy, I tend to like variety. I usually alternate working on a single person, then follow up by hopping around like the Easter Bunny on Easter morning. Finishing a person (even if it's just until more hints show up) is a very rewarding feeling. But hopping gives me a sense of satisfaction no branch is being ignored. There's no right or wrong, you have to determine the strategy best suited for you and your research goals.

Over the past several months, I've noticed the oldest hints (those over 90 days old) seem to be disappearing at a pretty good clip. I shouldn't really say disappearing. They're simply being removed from the current view. Unless a record collection is actually removed, hints are still there waiting to be discovered. Not only have I seen my All Hints fluctuating, but the number of hints on a specific person may go from 20 to 2, or even 0, overnight. Typically, focusing research on a person will regenerate many hints with the click of a refresh button. Adding several new people to a branch is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. As hints are generated for these new additions, there's a cascading effect. You might add one person and you're rewarded with 10 hints for them. And then you notice you sudenly have nany new hints for someone (or several someones) in the same branch, even if you've not researched them recently.

I've seen a few posts in the forums lately where people are alarmed as hints disappear. They're afraid they'll never know if any really good hints are suddenly gone. Some go so far as to take screenshots or copy all the links as soon as they see them, just in case. I totally understand! I've felt the same way. If I find a really good hint I'm not ready to work on just yet, I do copy and save it. (Trying to relocate an elusive hint you just know yow saw in the past can be absolutely maddening!)  But saving every link can quickly become overwhelming. The longer I research, the more I realize, trust in the algorithms, they will provide. It's like nurturing a garden. Put in the effort and you will be rewarded. Even if the hint numbers dwindle for a time, be it All Hints or on a person profile, they will eventually repopulate. If they don't show up fast enough, you always have the option to go search yourself rather than relying on the algorithms. 

I actually consider disappearing and reappearing hints a good thing! It keeps things fresh. Regardless of whether you're a hopper or prefer focus, so long as you're researching, you're going to have ups and downs as the algorithms do their magic. And remember, the algorithms aren't going to present you with every possible hint. Hints are generally from the most utilized collections or those others have saved in their trees. If you're not making time to do at least a few cursory searches of your own, you may be missing out on valuable and insteresting information. 

Finally, please be sure to evaluate every hint for yourself. Just because the algoritm serves it up doesn't make it true. Just because someone else saved it doesn't make it right. Just because the name matches doesn't make it the person in your tree. And just because the OCR or AI thinks it found a name in a newspaper article does not make it so. OCR and AI are both imperfect technology (helpful, and useful, but imperfect none the less). Humans are fallible. No matter how hard we try, trees will sometimes contain accidental errors. Hints are nothing more than suggestions. Careful evaluation of each hint can save hours of time trying to unwind mistakes down the road.

Image by HANSUAN FABREGAS from Pixabay

Atlas of Historical County Boundaries

Using maps isn't the first resource to jump to mind when I'm researching my ancestors. Sure, I often pop over to Google to see how far apart a couple of cities may be, but I don't really enjoy using maps as a whole. I also frequently plug in a zip code and ask Google to tell me the county it's located in. But this only tells me where the cities or zip codes are now. Often, it's more helpful to know where they were in the past. There's no denying boundaries have shifted over time and having a research tool to assist when questions arise is important. One site I've visited, with easy to use features for the United States, is the Atlas of Historical County Boundaries from The Newberry Library (Dr. William M. Scholl Center for American History and Culture). This site is totally FREE.

From the website:

The Atlas of Historical County Boundaries is meant to be a resource for people seeking records of past events, and people trying to analyze, interpret and display county-based historical data like returns of elections and censuses, and for people working on state and local history projects.

The core of the site is the interactive map (conveniently located on the homepage). You can easily explore historical boundary changes over time, as well as find much more detailed information on these changes. There are detailed instructions (along with videos) on using and navigating the maps. And there's a FAQ section for additional information. They also provide downloadable GIS, KMZ, and PDF files with explanations on the uses of these files.

Searching is simple and straightforward. Just click on a state from the map on the main page or use the search box to select one. You'll be presented with maps, indexes, chronology, sources, commentary and downloads. Each section is clearly indicated and they're all displayed on one page for easy access. Within the maps, you can further select a time period for the historical borders you want to learn about (one of the best parts of the site!) Using my home state of Maryland as an example, I could see boundary changes ranging from 1638-1997. I can't fit all the date changes into a single image because there are so many it needs a slider, but this gives you an idea of how it appears. (For such a small state, we sure had a lot of boundary changes.) Having all this information in a single, easy to use place is just the kind of tool I need! 

The county chronologies include dates of creation, name changes, and boundary adjustments. This helps genealogists and family historians identify where records may be located over differing time periods. This can be helpful when searching for censuses, land deeds, probate records and much more. Each state has a historical commentary section providing context and further explanation for boundary changes. Understanding why boundaries changed may offer further insight into historical events impacting your ancestors lives (including why they may have migrated to other areas).

Maps will probably never be my favorite research tool. But as with all tools, it's important to know they exist and the times we may want to use them. One could search for ages for records in a given area, but if the particular location wasn't the same in the past, all those search efforts may be in vain. Finding a city shifted counties in the past could potentially be a brick wall buster! By utilizing the Atlas of Historical County Boundaries (linked in my Genealogy Toolbox under Mapping) you can enhance your family history research, gaining a clearer picture of where to find historical records and understanding the geographic context of your ancestors’ lives.  

Image by pinkzebra from Pixabay

Don't Make Assumptions

Image created using DALL-E and ChatGPT

Common advice is to start your tree with yourself, adding your parents and grandparents and then working back (or sideways or down) however you want to proceed. When I started my tree, hints for myself were primarily school yearbooks and a few public records. For my dad, there were draft cards and census records. Both immediately made me understand there are "facts" people probably get wrong when taking details from these records (if they trust the checkboxes presented when saving facts on Ancestry).

I went to a private school, not far from my home. But if you were to save the location of this school as my residence (as Ancestry helpfully suggests), you'd be wrong. The school is listed in one town, when I really lived in an adjoining town. I made a mental note never to accept the helpful checkboxes Ancestry shows when saving a hint, and to mine my details before I save each record. It takes longer, but it makes for a more accurate tree. (For yearbooks, I choose to enter a fact about education so I can record the location of the school).

Likewise, when working with draft cards, I have to ask myself where did the facts from this record really happen? Certainly the residence should be correct, but the other information? Unlike residence, vitals like height, weight, eye color, etc were most likely taken at the spot the draft card was filled out. The employer (if listed) might have a different location from the residence or where the card was filled in. I enter each detail based on the location I believe to be accurate for the specific fact, I don't lump them all into the same place.

Even SSDI records can be a little different. Sure, last benefit and last residence may be shown, but it doesn't mean it's where a person died...it's simply where they probably lived before their death. I've found deaths that occurred at home, yes. But they also happen at hospitals, nursing facilities, and even while away on travel or in an accident.

Obits are a treasure trove of facts. But the obit "happened" at the location it was published, while the facts contained in the obit likely happened elsewhere (possibly many different locations). The same goes for baptism records. It may be the closest you can come to a birth date (especially prior to births being recorded). But if all you have is a baptism, you only know the date the person was baptized, unless it happens to state the date of birth. Baptisms could happen days to years after birth (and in some religions, it happens in adulthood). And the place the baptism happened may or may not be where the family actually lived. A church may have been in a nearby parish or town. 

Public records, voter registrations and censuses are a little better. They're typically recording something happening at a specific place and possibly time. Likewise, marriage records are fairly accurate. But while a marriage license may show where a couple intended to marry, if there's no return of the license, you can't assume the marriage actually took place. Is it likely, sure. Is it guaranteed, no. Even with a returned license, the marriage may not have happened in the same place the license was issued.

The point of this post is to ask yourself "where did this fact happen?" Many times, it absolutely will be the same as the helpful checkboxes, but sometimes it isn't, or you may simply not know. It's incumbent on each of us as researchers to ask the questions and record the facts as best we can. Don't simply take information on a screen at face value when saving hints. Don't make assumptions. You only know what you know.

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

Talk to the Tree?

I'm sitting here wondering if anyone else ever talks to the people in their tree? Or am I just weird? Not pick up the phone, sending an Ancestry message or writing an email talk...I mean talking to the names on the screen as you work on them.

The other day, I was trying to find the given name of a (presumably) living husband in my tree. I'd added him based on the wife's surname shown in one of her parent's obits. More often than not, people I add this way have hints show up or I can tease out the answer relatively easily. But a few are proving very stubborn and I'm spending quite a lot of time trying to pin them down.

So I was researching...clicking thru various search results...refining my searches and trying again...and again. I looked on FamilyTreeNow.com, hoping he'd show up in family or known associates of the wife or their children. Frustratingly, nothing was working. 

Then, as if by magic (well, actually it was the magic of searching for a specific street address in the keywords search field of public records), I found the record I was searching for! I can show the person lived at the same address as the wife. And I had a given name! 

Without missing a beat, I caught myself whispering under my breath "...there you are...", as if he had simply been hiding just out of view, like a naughty child. Is it just me or do you occasionally talk to the people in your tree? (And just to be clear - no, they don't talk back). 

Image by Ryan McGuire 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!

Ohio Research Resources: Wayne County Public Library

Image created using DALL-E and ChatGPT

I have lots (and I mean LOTS!) of Ohio relatives and ancestors. One of the websites I've found very helpful in my own research is the Wayne County Public Library site. Local libraries offer a number of resources and Wayne County Public Library is no exception. 

Without a library card, from their database page you can access various free databases including:

• The Cleveland Necrology File containing local cemetery records and newspaper death notices for the following years: 1833, 1847-1848, 1850-1975
• Community History Archive of WCPL | Advantage Preservation including 26 different titles of Wayne County, Ohio newspapers covering the years 1836-2019. Newspapers were published in the communities of Creston, Dalton, Doylestown, Rittman, Shreve, West Salem, and Wooster.
• Digital Public Library of America, Historic digital collections from libraries, museums, and archives across Ohio and more.
• R. B. Hayes Ohio Obituary Index: This index covers obituaries, death notices, and probate notices from more than 60 partners across Ohio.
• Wayne County, Ohio Online Resource Center: Access to research databases, genealogy and local history information and more.

If you happen to live in Ohio, you can request a library card and unlock even more free resources (some available remotely, others are in-library only). In addition to the Wayne County, Ohio Online Resource Center they also have a Genealogy Portal with links to additional Ohio databases and resources, including Pioneer Families and other notable people/families. 

When considering additional places to expand your research reach, don't forget public libraries! You don't have to limit this to your local library. Check online for libraries in the areas you're researching for records availability. Some may offer collections online, others may not be digitized yet. But it's quick and easy to do a search to see if libraries in the areas where your ancestors lived might be an untapped resource for you. 

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

Ancestry Hacks: Ancestry Hints by Specific Record Collection

I make research plans and I carry them out...for awhile. I tend to get restless and bored doing the same thing day after day.  I like to switch up how I'm attacking my research, and I generally like to keep working on all branches of my tree (backward and forward) at the same time. Some days, I work on a specific person until I'm done with all the green leaves and suggested hints. Sometimes, when I'm pressed for time, it's working through a few photo hints or other user trees. When I have good mental energy, it's attaching census records or obits (though they tend to take longer). And some days (like today) I choose to concentrate on a specific record collection. When I'm "in the zone" on a specific set of records, I feel like I can fly through hints (while still making sure each is correct and documented). 

One of the best "secret genealogy hacks" (ok, maybe not super secret) I've come across is Mining Ancestry.com Hints by Specific Record Collection - Updated by Randy Seaver on Genea-Musings. This tip has been around years, and it still works! It's a trick I use quite frequently. He outlines how to search a specific record collection on Ancestry.com to find the people in your tree who currently show hints available in the specified database. This is done by using your Ancestry member tree number (treenumb) and the database number (dbas) in a carefully crafted URL. I won't go in to the specifics. Randy does a brilliant job of explaining the steps and I encourage you to read his post. It's a very simple trick to use. I want to tell you some of the reasons why I like it searching this way.

Have you ever wished, for instance, you could find all the yearbook hints? Those are fairly quick and easy to attach. Working thru quite a few in a single sitting is liberating (though still requires diligence to be sure you have the right person). Or Social Security Claims and Applications? Often a way to verify the child for a set of parents, along with the birth date, birth location, death date, social security number - and for females, potential other husbands surnames (from the notes). With a confirmed Social Security Number it makes working with SSDI records a breeze (cause you can easily confirm the SSN matches) and you often get the added state where the number was issued (and when) as well as the last residence/benefit address. Social Security records are some of my favorite record sets to work with when I want to make a small dent in my ever growing list of hints! Or all the FindAGrave entries or draft cards or....ok, ok, you get the idea. You can search for any database you want, so long as you know the number.

Any record set can be extra useful when narrowed down. Are you working on a specific branch of your family and want to see all the census records for a specific year? Perhaps you want to see who lives near who...or who moved away since the last census. Once you've narrowed to the specific database of interest, you can further narrow your search by first name, last name, or most recent hints (just like you can from the main list of all hints). This is a great way to focus in on specific parts of the family within a given dataset. Even public records, with the numerous addresses, when narrowed down, can help you figure out if the various people are all falling into the right place (pun absolutely intended). This isn't a magic solution to find elusive hints. Everything this search returns is already shown somewhere in your "all hints" listing. It just makes it easier to find the hints by filtering out the noise and letting you focus on a specific database for a period of time.

Randy provides a really good list of various database numbers to start you off. As I work, when I encounter a new database I'm running across frequently, I'll add the database number to my running list so I can go back and use it whenever I want. This "trick" has been around since at least 2013, and with a few tweaks to the original method over the years, it still works extremely well. It's definitely something you want to have in your genealogy toolbox. If you've never tried searching using this particular method, give it a go and see how you like it. Personally, I'm as excited about it now as I was when I first discovered it. Connect with me on social media (or leave a comment) and let me know how it works for you.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

Those Famous Relatives?

The most "not quite famous" person I've been able to prove I'm related to is someone who handles snakes and alligators and was a contestant on one of those national TV talent searches. I know he's related because he visited my father years ago (and talked about himself a lot). The relationship was corroborated by a cousin who provided enough smaller details for me to confirm the relationship. To date, I've not found anyone else remotely close to "truly famous" in my tree. Now let's be honest, we're all related to someone famous in some way....but more likely than not, it's a very distant relationship and we're unlikely to share any significant DNA (if any at all). Sure, there are some folks who'll have more closely related famous matches...it's just how it works...but for many of us, sites promising to tell us our famous ancestors are only going to show very distant cousins.

Several years ago, Ancestry had an app called "We're Related". It was retired some time ago, but I always enjoyed looking at it. In fact, the app helped clarify the name of a great grandmother I was having a tough time with back then. It didn't necessarily "break down" a brick wall, just helped me get around an obstacle in my path. Still, I was grateful to have found a clue in an unexpected place. Despite the questionable accuracy of sites of this nature, it was still fun to poke around on. Alas...it is no more.

Recently, I was tempted by Geneanet's sister site, Geneastar. As far as the standard features, Geneanet (acquired by Ancestry in 2021) isn't terribly impressive. But Geneastar held a bit of allure for me. I thought it might be slightly better than the famous relatives you find on FamilySearch.org just because of the questionable accuracy of the one-world shared tree. We all know it has errors, and those errors will subsequently trickle down to the famous ancestors they say we might be related to. Geneastar is only available with a premium membership ($55US per year) and I decided to join, just for the entertainment value (not because I really expected to find anything amazing).

I tried several times to do a search, but each time, I was presented with a message saying the search would take a bit of time and I could leave the page and I'd be notified when it was done. Returning to the page always resulted in a banner saying a search was already in progress. I never received a single notification saying my search was complete and the banner never went away (unless I cancelled the search). To me, this indicated the search might never be finishing (perhaps something in the GEDCOM I uploaded was causing a problem?) 

I reached out on Facebook and was told premium members should submit a support ticket. I did this and was very pleased with the response time. However the representative simply said "we're sorry you don't have any matches with the Geneastar database". I wasn't really expecting much as far as famous relatives, but I did want an explanation why my search wasn't completing. After a little back and forth, I was asked to provide some screenshots. I did. The response was "This message shows up when you have a search for hints in process...We are sincerely sorry that you don't have any matches with the Geneastar database." They never did explain why the banner never went away. I already knew it was displayed because a search was in progress - the banner made it very clear. It doesn't matter to me if there were matches or not, I just wanted to know the site was actually doing the search at all and to verify it wasn't hung up in a never ending loop. I finally gave up and will most definitely not renew this subscription again! Lesson learned. I'm sure it works just fine for many people, but it certainly didn't for me.

The frustration led me to look for other entertainment value options and I landed on Relative Finder. It's still based on the FamilySearch tree (with all it's potential errors) but at least it's FREE and gave me a ton of possibilities. This begs the question, does Geneastar not have a decent size database of famous people if I'm not matching to any at all? FamilySearch matches me to over 50 potential famous people people, and Relative Finder to thousands (albeit mostly VERY distantly and a lot were LDS related. Still, with LDS filtered out, I had over 1000 matches). I have to assume either Geneastar is not nearly the site they hype it up be, or it simply doesn't work for me for some reason. In any case, I enjoyed checking out Relative Finder. They even allow you to export your results so you can open and manipulate them in a spreadsheet. They also include the common ancestor, theorized relationship and clicking on a match clearly presents the potential connection generation by generation. They include filters for everything from royalty to the Salem witch trials, providing a lot of room to narrow down potential results to areas of interest.

Though I won't spend any real time trying to prove any of these connections, I use these sites as a potential way to identify names or even parents of some of my more difficult to find ancestors. I never ever take the information at face value - everything MUST be proven! I just enjoy seeing the possibilities and if appropriate, maybe poking a little further into a name I haven't seen before just to see if it's viable. For me, it's not about saying I'm related to someone famous, it's about maybe finding a tiny clue to help me past a brick wall.

The moral of this post? Don't waste your money on Geneanet Premium (unless, perhaps, you're looking for information related to French ancestors). Stick with the free site Relative Finder or just use the activities tab on FamilySearch.org and choose the Famous Relatives option. I totally get I may not match with anyone in Geneastar's database, and it's ok.....but given the disparity between the results, it just seems awfully strange not to have even a single match. Have you found any famous relatives? If so, how did you discover them? Connect with me on social media and let me know! 

Image by Denys Vitali from Pixabay

Baa Baa Black Sheep

Many (if not most) of the people in our trees are "everyday people". Folks who were born, lived their lives, likely worked very hard, perhaps raised a family and ultimately died. I must admit, the vast majority of people in my tree are a bit...non-descript...perhaps even boring. 

Don't get me wrong! There are exceptions and they're usually the ones destined for a biographical sketch. Some of my ancestors led very interesting lives. A few made great contributions to their community. Several were savvy business owners. Many served their country bravely in the military. A smattering died in unusual or unexpected ways. I do my best to bring each and every person in my tree back to life as much as I can with the information available to me. But sometimes, there just isn't a whole lot to tell.

Now wouldn't it be interesting to find someone with a slightly checkered past? Perhaps something long hidden no one in the family talked about? Maybe an ancestor who was in prison or an insane asylum? Go back far enough and one might even find a pirate, an outlaw, a witch or an execution. But where do you look for records of this type?

Blacksheep Ancestors could potentially be the site to help unlock long hidden secrets! You'll find links for the United States, Canada and the UK. By far, the United States seems to have the largest number of links on the site. You'll find the following types of records:

• Prison and convict records
• Court records
• Executions
• Insane asylum records
• Bios of famous outlaws, criminals & pirates 
• And more!

You're not going to find all the secrets of your ancestors by using this site...but you might find a hidden gem you didn't expect! Especially if you hit a brick wall where a person seems to disappear, consider whether they might have run afoul of the law or been sent away to a hospital. Blacksheep Ancestors might just give you a nudge towards a record you hadn't considered or perhaps to a website you've not contemplated searching before.

This is one of those "down the rabbit hole" sites for me. Sometimes it's fun to simply poke around, even if it isn't about my specific ancestors. It makes me wonder, are any of my family members somewhere in these records? Some of the biographical stories are fascinating to read. If you have an ancestor who just disappeared, do a quick search at Blacksheep Ancestors. You might just uncover something unexpected.

Image by Hans from Pixabay

Unlocking Our History: The Triumphs of Reclaim the Records

Sometimes, we hit the proverbial brick wall. Especially for those of use who primarily research online, it's the point where records seem to evaporate. Maybe it's a record for an ancestor from long ago. Or maybe it's for someone closer in time. The reasons we're looking for various records are numerous and sometimes very personal. We may begin to question if these records ever existed at all. Some may have been lost to time...others destroyed. But there are also genealogical gold mines, archives we simply aren't allowed to access and many of us may not even know they exist. Despite being called public, some are anything but.

Enter Reclaim the Records, a non-profit organization with the mission of making historical and genealogical records accessible to the public. As an advocacy group, they fight for transparency and access to records using Freedom of Information requests, and lawsuits if it becomes necessary. Once "reclaimed", they make the records they obtain freely available to all. 

Their approach is nothing short of inspired legal wrangling. By studying the laws surrounding specific record sets in a given area, they utilize legal maneuvers to demonstrate the public's right to access governmental records. Reclaim the Records has successfully liberated many millions of documents. These range from birth, death, marriage and naturalizations records to other genealogically important archives. They've targeted additional new record sets on their "to-do" list, not only in the categories above, but divorce, educational, probate, military and more.

Recently, in my home state of Maryland, they freed the Maryland Motherlode. This massive record set is estimated at over 5 million records and includes birth, death, marriage and naturalizations. The collection includes indexes as well as images. In this case, they researched the law and were successful with a Freedom of Information request. They did not have to sue the state. If you're interested in viewing the Maryland archives Reclaim the Records has made available for free, they can be viewed here.

The positive impact of Reclaim the Records can be felt by all genealogists and family historians. Even if you've not had a reason to visit the records they've made available, their work underscores the importance of unlocking public records. They continue to remind us these documents belong to the public, not locked away in some vault or storage area. They should be shared, explored and preserved for future generations of researchers. I encourage you to visit Reclaim the Records. Read about their latest successes. Sign up for their newsletter. As a non-profit run by volunteers, donor support helps ensure they can continue to fight for records. If you want to support the cause, you can donate on their site.

As genealogists, the work of Reclaim the Records offers us invaluable resources on our journey piecing together our family histories and stories. For those of us who've faced the frustration of "brick walls" in our research, Reclaim the Records demonstrates how determination can bring about positive and productive change. Their efforts remind us with the right research and approach, the records of the past are often within reach. It's a lesson we can apply to many of our brick walls. With patience, a well designed plan and perseverance...it can sometimes be possible to break down brick walls, bringing records we need into the light. 

Image by Mariann Szőke from Pixabay

Feelings About FamilySearch

I haven't written about FamilySearch.org, not because it isn't a good site...it definitely is! The records and resources can be extremely beneficial. In fact, many sites offering hints do so to records found on FamilySearch. My biggest issue is with the shared family tree. It's really hard for me to get excited about a tree anyone can change. Those with established trees and years of research under their belt have undoubtedly used the site at some point. This post is more for those who may be looking for ways to get started with their journey, or for those who haven't visited the site in awhile.

Let's start on the bright side, FamilySearch is totally free. For many, this is understandably a big draw. If you're new to genealogy and want to get your feet wet without the limitation of tons of hints you can't actually view and without a monetary investment, this may well be the best site to start with. They have a huge repository of records! Some are indexed, some aren't (as with many sites). While many of their records are digitized, with more added every week, there are some records only viewable at their family history centers. I've personally never been to one of their centers, as the majority of records I've been interested in I've been able to view online (or there were transcribed results sufficient for my needs). If you live near a FamilySearch center, you can even get one-on-one help by visiting them. For a free site, FamilySearch absolutely has a lot to offer.

They go far beyond just trees, hints and record collections. A tremendous plus is the FamilySearch Research Wiki (no login required) Even if, like me, you don't care for the tree building on the site, the Wiki is truly an amazing resource. You'll find information on records, research and many other valuable resources. Even for seasoned researchers, the Wiki is definitely worth having as a tool in your genealogy toolbox. On their main site (login required) you can also connect with and message other members. I've done this a few times, and people have always been very pleasant and helpful. I also enjoy the Activities section. From time to time, I check out my potential famous relatives (though I have yet to connect any to my tree via my own research). There are also numerous other activities available to encourage both adults and children alike to engage in family history. FamilySearch also hosts and sponsors RootsTech. If you aren't familiar, it's "A family history conference. An on-demand learning library. A way to grow closer to the people, places, and stories that matter most." For the past few years, they've offered the ability to participate in the conference virtually, for free. If you've not signed up for RootsTech this year, I encourage you to do so here. 

And now for the downside. For me, this is a hurdle I can't get past. Unlike the big subscription sites (ex: Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast) where you control your tree and who has access to see and edit it, on FamilySearch your tree really isn't "yours". While you'll see your ancestors when you login, the entries are actually part of a larger shared family tree. Some call this type of tree a "one world tree". The data you add to your tree can be viewed and edited by others. The only privacy is for living people. You could shut down your computer one night, happy with your progress and research, only to log in tomorrow to find a bunch of changes you didn't make. It's simply how the system works. In theory, if everyone was detailed and citied everything it would be great. But it isn't reality. I've read countless posts by folks who simply get tired of trying to fix mistakes perpetuated by others. There is no "double check" to be sure others enter correct information. This often leads to duplicate people, incorrect family members, and facts without any citations. The accuracy of the tree is sometimes questionable. I absolutely do refer to my FamilySearch tree at times, but it's fairly infrequent. 

As a resource for records, research guidance and learning opportunities, the site is truly fantastic! The activities can be very engaging and certainly a great springboard for younger generations to learn about their ancestors. Being free is a huge bonus! There are very real costs associated with making so many records available. Whether you're accessing these records via hints on other sites, or directly on FamilySearch, we're all very lucky to have such a diverse collection of records made available to us. My only gripe is the shared tree and I really don't expect it to change. Doing so now would be a monumental undertaking. It's simply a limitation to be aware of, and to keep in mind when you're working on the site. If you're new to genealogy and haven't visited FamilySearch.org, I absolutely encourage you to check it out. Whether you decide to keep a tree there, or not, is a personal choice. The shared tree doesn't diminish the overall value of the site.

Image by stokpic from Pixabay