Webinar This Wednesday: Analysis and Correlation: Two Keys to Sound Conclusions

analysis2

 

Join me this Wednesday, November 2, 2016, when I will be presenting fifteen+ years of research in one hour! Thanks to the folks at Legacy Family Tree, I get to talk about using analysis and correlation to overcome conflicting evidence in the complex and confusing case of my Delaware Staats family. From my handout for the presentation:

 

 

“The family of Jacob Staats provides an interesting example of analyzing and correlating information, resolving conflicting direct evidence, and reaching a conclusion. A deed names Elijah Staats’ father as Jacob Staats Sr. and a court record names his father as David Staats. Neither are correct. Analysis and correlation of all the evidence reveals that Jacob Staats Sr. is Elijah’s grandfather, David Staats is Elijah’s uncle (and eventual step-father), and that his actual father is another son of Jacob Staats Sr. not named in any records.”

While that may seem like a spoiler, it’s how we get to that conclusion that’s the (hopefully) interesting part.

You can register for this and other great upcoming webinars at the Legacy Family Tree webinar page. Best of all, it’s free!

DNA Dilemma: A Mystery Presents Itself, Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts telling this tale as it unfolds. Since the case involves living people, identities will not be disclosed unless and until all parties have agreed to publication. You may have guessed this by the made-up names I’m using, but just in case…

When we last left our heroine:

Quite simply, Esmerelda’s biological father is not the man who raised her as his daughter. But if he was not her father, who was?…All the more distant, common identifiable matches shared by Esmerelda, Match 1, and Match 2 were on the McEnroe side.  Therefore, research focused on the immediate family of Donna McEnroe. Donna had ten siblings…There was plenty of work to do.

Pictured below is the McEnroe/Turner family. Esmerelda’s biological father was almost certainly a grandson of John McEnroe. But through which son, and how did this McEnroe come to know Esmerelda’s mother? The only way to find the answers to these questions was to research each of John McEnroe’s sons and identify all of their sons. That research revealed a surprising geographical connection: Both the Smith and McEnroe families moved from the same hometown to the same city in another state!

macenroe-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was a 26-year difference in age between H.M., the oldest son and F.M., the youngest. Research quickly ruled out the three oldest sons. All of their sons were too old to be candidates for Esmerelda’s father. Of the next oldest three, all but J.M. could be ruled out. J.M. had two sons that were considerably older than Esmerelada’s mother, but still within the realm of possibility. The most likely candidate was F.M. He had two sons, both of whom were the same age as Esmerelda’s mother. Even better, the son that was closest in age to Esmerelda’s mother was still living.

At this point, Esmerelda had accepted the reality that the father that had raised her was not her biological father. With that acceptance came the desire to know the truth. To know the story. She approached her aunt and first cousins on her father’s side with the evidence, and asked 1) if they knew anything about this, and 2) whether they would participate in DNA testing to further confirm the theory. Whether or not they knew is a matter of debate, but if they did, they said they didn’t. Nor were they interested (not that any change in theory was expected, anyways). But it was the first time that Esmerelda had spoken of her new-found secret, making it easier going forward. Although she desperately wanted to know the answers, she also didn’t want to upset close relatives with this new information, so no other relatives were queried.  At one point, her determination to know wavered as she thought about letting her mother’s secret die with her. That lasted a day. She decided to try and make contact with the McEnroes.

Since the son of F.M. was the most likely candidate (and the only one still living), a letter was drafted to him. Esmerelda introduced herself and her dilemma, outlined the research to that point and what the DNA evidence indicated. And then popped the question: “Did you know my mother?” The letter acknowledged that although the most likely candidates were sons of F.M., it could potentially be another descendant of John and Tina, and simply asked for any information they knew and were willing to share. That letter was put in the mailbox once, pulled back out once, left on a dresser for a few days, and finally put back out again to make it’s way to F.M.’s son.

As long as it took to mail, waiting to hear back would seem infinitely longer. Would he answer? Would he be the one?

Next: More surprises.

DNA Dilemma: A Mystery Presents Itself, Part 3

This is the third in a series of posts telling this tale as it unfolds. Since the case involves living people, identities will not be disclosed unless and until all parties have agreed to publication. You may have guessed this by the made-up names I’m using, but just in case…

Esmerelda had no identifiable matches on her father’s side, and closely matched an unknown person, Match 1, on Ancestry. Esmerelda and Match 1 shared 383 total cM– statistically somewhere in the first cousin once removed/second cousin range. The family tree Match 1 uploaded contained just four names and no maternal information. However, traditional research expanded the paternal side and helped identify the common ancestors of other, more distant shared matches between Esmerelda and Match 1.

DNAMatch1 (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To this point, the tale has been told in mostly chronological fashion. However, research is not linear. Match 1’s tree had been roughed out once the match first appeared, but sat idle for essentially two years. Somewhere in that span, the first of two paternal relatives tested and didn’t match Esmerelda. She didn’t match that person, but she did closely match Match 1. At least one of these three people had a different biological family than they thought, but there wasn’t enough evidence yet to reach any conclusions.

In the past few months, two more test results became available. The first was another paternal relative that should match Esmerelda and didn’t. Her two paternal relatives matched each other, but not Esmerelda. It’s at this point that research bias introduced itself. Esmerelda’s family couldn’t be the one holding the secret, right? For a few wasted weeks, research continued using that faulty premise. And then, the sudden realization of what that extremely close unknown match probably meant sunk in. Red flags, alarm bells, whatever cliché you want use, there were only two possibilities: Esmerelda’s biological grandfather was someone other than the one she had known, or the man that had raised Esmerelda as his own was not her father.

The second test result, Match 2, appeared shortly later as a second cousin to Esmerelda, and a shared match with Match 1. Esmerelda and Match 2 shared 287 total cM. Match 2 had no family tree posted and didn’t respond to messages. What was the relationship between Match 1 and Match 2? The screen name for Match 1 was of no help in determining her actual identity. Match 2, however, was clearly a real name which helped to figure out how he his relationship to Match 1.  A collateral relative’s obituary did not specifically name Match 2, but it did identify a person who was either his mother or grandmother. She was a daughter of Harold Copperfield and Donna McEnroe, making Match 1 and Match 2 either first cousins or first cousins once removed.

DNAMatch (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While there was still a remote chance that Esmerelda’s father (on paper) could be the secret, non-DNA evidence suggested otherwise. Geography also helped rule out her father. When Esmerelda’s father was born, his family was nowhere near that of Match 1 or Match 2. The families did not live in close proximity until many years later. Also, the DNA evidence is difficult to interpret any other way.

Quite simply, Esmerelda’s biological father is not the man who raised her as his daughter. But if he was not her father, who was? Match 1 and Match 2 came from families that lived in the general area where Esmerelda’s parents were both raised, but her parents had moved to another state by the time Esmerelda was born. Her mother obviously had to have had physical contact with the man who would father her daughter. But where? How? And of course, who?

All the more distant, common identifiable matches shared by Esmerelda, Match 1, and Match 2 were on the McEnroe side.  Therefore, research focused on the immediate family of Donna McEnroe. Donna had ten siblings, seven of which were sons. There was plenty of work to do.

Next: McEnroe research reveals an unexpected geographical connection and the list of potential candidates narrows.

DNA Dilemma: A Mystery Presents Itself, Part 2

This is the second in a series of posts telling this tale as it unfolds. Since the case involves living people, identities will not be disclosed unless and until all parties have agreed to publication. You may have guessed this by the names I’m using, but just in case…

In the previous post, one-to-one comparisons on GedMatch.com between two different paternal cousins revealed Esmerelda did not match either one. One was her half-first cousin once removed, a close enough relationship that they certainly should have matched. Not only did she not match those known paternal cousins, there are no identifiable matches at all on her paternal side. The complete lack of shared segments between her and her cousins presented the distinct possibility that her paternal line was not what she thought it was– something had happened along the way.

Esmerelda has tested at two different companies. The GedMatch comparison used her data from Ancestry.com and her cousin’s data from Family Tree DNA. Esmerelda also tested through Family Tree DNA, and she didn’t match her cousin there, either. Why is this important? It helps rule out a faulty test. Neither tests were a match. Her cousin, however, only tested once. Is it possible that the cousin’s test was not accurate? Possibly, but not likely, especially since he matched another cousin from the same family. So who does Esmerelda match?

Besides her children, Esmerelda has three very close matches on Ancestry.com: a known maternal first cousin, and two unknown matches in the 1st-2nd cousin range.

AncestryEsmerelda had previously contacted Match 1 to try and figure out how they were related. Son 1 and Son 2 both matched Match 1, just a generation further away. Match 1 was sent five generations of Esmerelda’s surnames, not a single one of which Match 1 recognized. Match 1 stopped answering messages about a year ago. The previous assumption was that there was something amiss in Match 1’s family. But taken together with the GedMatch results, it was becoming clear that the secret may lie in Esmerelda’s own family.

Match 1 had only ten names in her family tree, and no maternal information at all. Research into her paternal side revealed a distant common surname, but not remotely close enough to explain their 1st-2nd cousin match.1 Esmerelda and Match 1’s parents were all from the same general area, although there was no obvious connection between them. Looking back two more generations separated the families geographically, making it unlikely that the connection was more than one generation, two at the most, away. And the closeness of the match suggested that it may be even closer than that. Esmerelda was getting nervous.

Next: Match 2 appears. Traditional research and analysis of the total shared DNA between the three drastically narrows the possibilities.

  1. Although no common relative could be identified by comparing six generations of the two trees, the research into Match 1’s family was still useful. More on shared matches and that surname in the next post. []

DNA Dilemma: A Mystery Presents Itself, Part 1

Note: This is the first in a series of posts telling this tale as it unfolds. Since the case involves living people, identities will not be disclosed unless and until all parties have agreed to publication. You may have guessed this by the names I’m using, but just in case…

For several years now, I have been working off and on on a brick wall project for a client to try and identify the parents of her 4th great grandfather. I had suggested DNA testing as a possible tool to help Esmerelda overcome gaps in the paper trail. She finally found a male cousin, Sam, to participate in yDNA testing, but no helpful matches appeared. After a year or two, she asked to have Sam’s kit upgraded to an autosomal test. When the results came back, we expected that Sam and Esmerelda’s tests would match. They didn’t. The chart below shows their relationship: half-first cousins once removed.

PartialDiagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Half-first cousins once removed sounds a little diluted, and with only two kits to compare, it was certainly possible that one or both of them simply hadn’t inherited enough DNA to show up as a match to each other. It did raise the question whether or not they were actually related by blood. But again, with no more data, there was no way to know for sure. The paper trail was clear and convincing. There was no reason to question the relationship

Two years passed before another descendant from this family also tested, and both results were uploaded to GedMatch.com. The results were surprising. The two kits from other family members matched each other, but Esmerelda did not match either one.

FullDiagram (2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Digging deeper into what the half cousin relationship should look like, it was clear that they should have matched. On average, that relationship would be expected to have about 212 cM in common.1 These kits had zero, zip, nada. The other two kits shared the amount expected with each other. Even if matching segments shorter than the recommended 7 cM were included in the comparisons between Esmerelda and the other two kits, it didn’t bring the total matching cM anywhere near the expected level of shared DNA. What the data suggested was mind-boggling: Esmerelda was not related to at least some of the people that until yesterday, she had known as her family her entire life. The question was where? There were multiple possibilities.

As of this writing, Esmerelda is contacting her closest living relatives, her first cousins, to see if they will test to help narrow down the possibilities. The DNA data from GedMatch pointed out the problem, but didn’t provide any theories as to its solution. That would require more data and research.

Next installment: Unexplained matches on Ancestry.com reveal a stunning possibility

  1. International Society of Genetic Genealogy Wiki, “Autosomal DNA Statistics,” http://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_statistics. []

Books and Belongings of Jacob Barnett

booksAs I sat at my desk on a warm Sunday morning, jazz playing quietly in the background, I had a rare opportunity to do some research.1 I found myself in Belmont County, Ohio probate records, researching the Barnett and Hamilton families.

More accurately, I was revisiting old research, cleaning up citations and refreshing my memory about these families. In particular, I was reviewing the estate file of Jacob Barnett, who died in Belmont County in 1849. He’s my 4th great-grandfather. I’ve had copies of this estate file for years, but in reviewing the now-online file at FamilySearch, I discovered that I did not have the complete file. I was only sent the documents filed in the estate — no receipts or other miscellaneous papers. Seeing the complete file revealed two important things: 1) receipts and documents from the estate of son Jacob, who died in 1842 were mixed in with the estate of his father, who died in 1849. Those receipts shed new light on on Jacob Jr.’s life; and 2) Jacob Sr. actually died between 14-18 Jun 1849– several months before the administrator’s bond was issued in Oct 1849.2

But back to my thoughts on this warm Sunday morning:

Looking at Jacob’s estate inventory, it appears he was probably a blacksmith. He owned little else besides blacksmith tools, some furniture and household goods… and books. Often, estate files only list “One lot of books,” or simply list the number of books and their value. In the case of Jacob Barnett, Sr., though, the titles were actually listed. These books offer a glimpse into the life and thoughts of a man who died in 1849– especially as I reflect about it on a Sunday morning 168 years later. The books Jacob owned were:

  • The Life of John Wesley
  • The New Testament
  • Wesley Sermons, Vol. 2
  • History of the M.E. Church, Vols. 1, 3, 4
  • Woods Dictionary
  • Fourfold State
  • Bates Examination of Quakerism
  • Watson’s Conversations
  • The Life of Christ
  • Milton’s Works, Vols. 1, 2
  • Cummings Geography
  • Family Bible3

 

In addition to the books, he also owned a rocking chair, spectacles, a pipe, and tobacco. Can you see the picture? Sunday morning. Jacob sits on his porch, puffing contemplatively on his pipe, taking in the passage he’d just read, perhaps comparing it to last week’s sermon or maybe the service he was getting ready to attend? It’s a terrific image, especially in contrast to the rugged hills of rough-and-tumble southeastern Ohio. It’s not really what you’d expect to find, this religious, well-read, blacksmith– my religious, well-read blacksmith.

I’m glad I got to review the file. I’m glad I saw the receipts I’d previously not seen. And I’m glad I got to know Jacob Barnett just a little bit better.

  1. Personal knowledge of author. For jazz mix, see Spotify (http://www.spotify.com), “Radio” > Thelonius Monk. For the fact that time for research is rare, notice this is my first post in months. []
  2. “Ohio Probate Records, 1789-1996,” database and images, FamilySearch.org (http://www. familysearch.org : accessed 31 Jul 2016), estate of Jacob Barnett, Sr, file no. 2481 (1849); digital copy of FHL microfilm 2,115,840, [Belmont County Ohio] “Probate court records, no. 2476-2572, ca. 1849-1950”. The doctor bill lists the last visit on 14 Jun 1849, and the coffin-maker’s bill is dated 18 Jun 1849. []
  3. which was purchased by my 3rd great grandfather, James Hamilton. I’d love to see that book! []

Jacob Wait: A Forgotten Man in a Lesser-Known War

Robert R. Wait and Sarah “Sally” Staats were married by a Justice of the Peace in Harrison County, Ohio on Thursday, March 21, 1822.1
There are no entries for Robert or Sarah in either the 1830 or 1840 censuses, and there is no definitive record of when their only surviving son, Jacob, was born. It is likely that in 1830, that the family was living with Sarah’s father Elijah.2 They do not appear to be in Elijah’s household in 1840, and it’s entirely possible that both Robert and Sarah had died sometime before that census.

In any case, they were both deceased before December of 1844, when Enoch Staats filed a partition for partition of the property of Elijah Staats, who had died 27 Sep 1844. The petition named eleven heirs, including Jacob, “living son os Sarah Wait, formerly Sarah Staats.”3 That Jacob had no guardian at the time of this 1844 petition indicates that he was not a minor at the time it was filed, and points to an 1822-1823 birth date– close to the time of his parents’ marriage. A male child of this age was enumerated in the 1830 Elijah Staats household, supporting that range.

Two years later, on 11 Dec 1846, Jacob enlisted for service in the US-Mexican War. Jacob served in Company I of the Mounted Riflemen Regiment. A letter from his uncle, Benoni Staats, in written in November of 1847 suggests that the family had lost contact with young Jacob prior to his enlistment. In his letter looking for more information, Benoni states that the last the family had heard, he was sick in the hospital at New Orleans on July 28, 1847 and had not been heard from since. Benoni asks when and where Jacob enlisted, for how long, what description he gave of himself, and “what age he made himself to be.”4

Letter from Benoni Staats to the Sevretary of War, 17 Nov 1847

Letter from Benoni Staats to the Sevretary of War, 17 Nov 1847

Jacob stayed in the hospital until discharged due to disability 27 Mar 1848. In April of 1849, Benoni wrote another letter. This letter was asking for Jacob’s discharge certificate or any other papers. Jacob died in the Jefferson Barracks Army hospital on 31 Mar 1848, just four days after being granted his discharged. How Benoni came about this information is unknown, as the replies from the Adjutant General’s Office indicate they didn’t have a record of his death.5

While much of Jacob’s story remains undiscovered, I find it important to tell those pieces that I do know. There are no descendants to tell Jacob’s tale. Laying sick in the hospital most of his enlistment and dying of disease certainly wasn’t the flag-waving, feel-good, patriotic experience that the recruitment posters offered. Is it ever? Thank you for you service, Private Jacob Wait.

 

 

  1. “Ohio, County Marriages 1790-1950,” digital images, FamilySearch.org (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 30 Dec 2011), Robert R. Wait to Sally Staats (1822); citing FHL film no. 894,637; Harrison County (Ohio), “Marriage records, v. A-C 1813-1850,” A:179. []
  2. 1830 U.S. census, Harrison, OH, Freeport Twp, p. 226, line 13, Elijah Statts; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 Jan 2009); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M19, roll 133. []
  3. Monroe, OH, Common Pleas Record, 8:212, Enoch Staats vs. Benoni Staats et al, April Term 1847; Monroe County Courthouse, Woodsfield. []
  4. Inquiry of Benoni Staats, 27 Nov 1847; Letters Received by the Office of the Adjutant General Main Series 1822-1860; Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1762 – 1984; digital images, Fold3.com (http://www/fold3.com : accessed 30 May 2016). []
  5. Inquiry of Benoni Staats, 4 Apr 1849; Letters Received by the Office of the Adjutant General Main Series 1822-1860; Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1762 – 1984; digital images, Fold3.com (http://www/fold3.com : accessed 30 May 2016). []

Margaret Ellen (McGinnis) Patton

Margaret McGinnis Patton

Margaret McGinnis Patton

 

Margaret Ellen McGinnis was born on 1 Nov 1865 to James McGinnis and Elizabeth (Moore) McGinnis, the ninth of twelve children.1 The McGinnis family was no stranger to tragedy or family taken far too early. In just the year and half before she was born, the family lost a son, John, at age seven. Their first-born daughter, Sara Emily, had already died in 1860– just eight years old.2 James’ youngest brother, Henry, died in Jun 1865 at age 30.3 A year before, in August of 1864, another brother of James, Christian, was killed in action in Marietta, Georgia.4 The loss that Margaret experienced in her lifetime, though, I can’t imagine.

 

 

 

  • In 1868, her sister, Elizabeth Ann, died six months after being born.5
  • Although it seems likely that Margaret might not have remembered Elizabeth, she was seventeen when her older sister,  Clara, died in 1882. She certainly would have remembered her.6
  • Older brother Chambers, who had gone west, died in 1885. Family story is that foul play was involved.7
  • About that same year, Margaret married Robert Lee Patton. Her oldest son, Harry, was born in 1886, most likely in Pennsylvania. Her second son, Homer Lee Patton, was born in Kansas in 1888.8
  • In 1893, her father was killed when he was thrown from his buggy and run over on his way to a birthday party for a friend.9
  • Her oldest surviving sister, Mary Catherine McGinnis, had been abandoned by her husband, Joseph Goodfelder, leaving her and their two children.10 Mary died in 1900.11 Her children were fatherless and motherless at seventeen and twenty-two years old.
  • Margaret’s oldest brother, William, died in Missouri in 1902 at age 52.12 She also outlived two William’s children, both of whom died in the 1918 flu pandemic.13
  • Her youngest brother, James Jr., died in 1904 after a self-inflicted gunshot wound, reportedly a hunting accident while climbing under a fence. That story is yet to be verified.
  • In 1909, her sister, Rebecca hanged herself on the family farm.14Rebecca was no stranger to tragedy herself, having already lost two husbands and a child in addition to all the things that Margaret experienced.
  • The 1910 census states she had three children, two of which are living.15

 

Margaret and R.L. Patton likely divorced, although she may have been widowed.16 Homer Patton was in Denver, Colorado by 1901.17 From city directories, it appears as though her oldest son, Harry was also in Denver, but more research is needed.18 Margaret is first listed in the Denver city directory in 1906, living at the same address as Homer.19 Homer married Anna Trostel 15 Oct 1913.20 They had no children together.

Although I have not yet found a death date for Margaret, she is in the 1930 census.21 Some family notes indicate that she was alive in 1932.22 She outlived all but one of her siblings, Nancy (McGinnis) Long who died in 1952.23 She outlived at least one of her two children. Harry’s fate is unknown, as is Margaret’s. What is known is Homer’s. Thirteen years after that 1906 city directory entry, Homer took his own life (see photo below).24 No parent should outlive their own children. No person should endure the hardships and loss that Margaret did. Yet she made her way through it. It’s my duty to tell this story, as it’s likely that there is no one left but me to tell it. Sometimes telling these stories is tough. Sometimes telling them accurately is tougher. But if Margaret Ellen McGinnis could endure the trials of her long life, then the least I can do is try and preserve her memory.

"Body of Denverite Discovered In Weeds After Suicide Threat," (Denver) Denver Post, 1 Sep 1926, p. 2, cols. 1-2.

“Body of Denverite Discovered In Weeds After Suicide Threat,” (Denver) Denver Post, 1 Sep 1926, p. 2, cols. 1-2.

  1. Sara (McGinnis) Faith (New Kensington, Pennsylvania) to McGinnis/Ruffner reunion attendees, handwritten family information, c. 1970; privately held by McGinnis/Ruffner reunion attendees; copies in possession of Chris Staats, Euclid, Ohio (2016) []
  2. ibid. []
  3. Armstrong, Pennsylvania, Estate Files, no. 1707, Jun 1865, estate file of Henry McGinnes; Armstrong County Courthouse, Kittanning. []
  4. “Compiled Service Records of Volunteer Union Soldiers Who Served in Organizations From the State of Missouri.,” Christian McGinnis, Co. A, 6 Missouri Infantry Regiment; Record Group 94: Records of the Adjutant General’s Office, 1762 – 1984; digital images, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : accessed 15 May 2016). []
  5. McGinnis/Ruffner reunion handouts. []
  6. ibid. []
  7. ibid. That foul play may have been involved was conveyed to Chris Staats via an email from Crystal McGinnis, who is in possession of written family information to that effect. []
  8. 1900 U.S. census, Geary, Kansas, population schedule, Junction City, enumeration district (ED) 48, sheet 18A, p. 50, dwelling 387, family 401, R.L. Patton household, image 35 of 49; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T623, roll 481. []
  9. Nancy Hill Hidinger, editor, Armstrong Democrat and Sentinal published in Kittanning, Armstrong County, Penna; Genealogical Abstracts January 1892-December 1894  (PA: n.p., 1994), Vol 2: p. 236; citing: Armstrong Democrat and Sentinal, 31 Aug 1893. []
  10. Armstrong, Pennsylvania, Estate Files, estate of James McGinnis, file no. 5309, “Minutes of audit and testimony taken before S. B. Cochrane, Auditor on Saturday, February 9. 1901, IN RE Estate if James McGinnis,” testimony of James McGinnis, Jr; Armstrong County Courthouse, Kittanning. []
  11. “Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh City Deaths, 1870-1905,” index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XZ7Y-LYQ : accessed 24 April 2012), Mary C. Gudfelder (1900).   []
  12. Findagrave.com, digital images (http://findagrave.com  : accessed 15 May 2016), W.M. McGinnis, memorial no. 75916139, Rosebank Cemetery, Mulberry, Crawford, Kansas. []
  13. Mulberry News (Kansas), 22 Nov 1918, p.1.; Kansas State Historical Society microfilm no. M-140. []
  14. “Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1963,” database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016), Rebecca J. Cunningham, cert. no. 65270 (1909). []
  15. 1910 U.S. census, Denver, Colorado, population schedule, Denver, Ward 10, enumeration district (ED) 136, sheet 16A, p. 210, dwelling not numbered, family not numbered, Margaret Patten household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T624, roll T624_116. []
  16. 1920 U.S. census, Denver, Colorado, population schedule, Denver, enumeration district (ED) 309, sheet 1B, p. 251, image 2 of 21, dwelling 29, family 39, Homer Patton household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 8 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T625, roll T625_162. []
  17. “U.S. City Directories, 1822-1995,” database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016), Colorado> Denver>1901>Denver, Colorado, City Directory, 1901, image 547 of 894, entry for Homer Patton. []
  18. ibid. Harry appears in several years, but it is unclear that this is in fact Harry, brother of Homer. []
  19. Denver City Directory, 1906, Ancestry.com. []
  20. Colorado Division of Vital Statistics, Marriage Record Report, no. 6476, image 2460 of 4387, Patton-Trostel; digital images “Colorado Statewide Marriage Index, 1853-2006,” FamilySearch.org (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 8 May 2016). []
  21. 1930 U.S. census, Denver, Colorado, population schedule, Denver, enumeration district (ED) 164, sheet 2B, p. 213, image 3 of 25, dwelling 28, family 62, Margaret Patton; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T626, roll 238. []
  22. “Notes” might be the wrong term. I had a conversation with a descendant who claimed that Margaret visited in 1932. I might not even be remembering the correct year. []
  23. “Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1963,” database and images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 May 2016), Nannie Long, cert. no. 101746 (1952). []
  24. “Body of Denverite Discovered In Weeds After Suicide Threat,” (Denver) Denver Post, 1 Sep 1926, p. 2, cols 1-2. []

A+ For This 1900 Arapahoe County, Colorado Enumerator!

Don’t you wish all enumerators disregarded the instructions and added this helpful information: exact birth dates!

1900 U.S. census, Arapahoe, Colorado, population schedule, Henderson, enumeration district (ED) 131, sheet 2A, p. 17, image 3 of 7, dwelling 33, family 34, John Trostel household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 8 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T623, roll 120.

1900 U.S. census, Arapahoe, Colorado, population schedule, Henderson, enumeration district (ED) 131, sheet 2A, p. 17, image 3 of 7, dwelling 33, family 34, John Trostel household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 8 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T623, roll 120.

Anna Trostel was the wife of my 1st cousin 3 times removed, Homer L. Patton.1 Despite being from a large family, it does not appear that Anna had any children with Homer. Homer died in 1926, and is buried in Crown Hill Cemetery in Wheat Ridge, Jefferson County, Colorado.2 I love finding and telling the stories of families that no longer have anyone left to tell their own story. I still have plenty of digging to do before this one can be properly told.

I’m still looking for death place and date of Homer’s mother, Margaret Ellen McGinnis. She was living with Homer and Anna in the 1920 census.3 She’s the only child of James McGinnis and Elizabeth Moore that has eluded me. Maybe a Trostel descendant will stumble upon this post and have more information for me? That would be even better than a census enumerator that lists exact birth dates!

  1. Colorado Division of Vital Statistics, Marriage Record Report, no. 6476, image 2460 of 4387, Patton-Trostel; digital images “Colorado Statewide Marriage Index, 1853-2006,” FamilySearch.org (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 8 May 2016). []
  2. Find-A-Grave, digital images (http://findagrave.com : accessed 10 Apr 2009), Homer L. Patton, memorial no. 35376945. []
  3. 1920 U.S. census, Denver, Colorado, population schedule, Denver, enumeration district (ED) 309, sheet 1B, p. 251, image 2 of 21, dwelling 29, family 39, Homer Patton household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 8 May 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T625, roll T625_162. []

Jersey-Bound!

Below is the information for the Genealogical Society of New Jersey’s annual seminar, where I will be speaking on June 4th. If you are in the area, I hope you will register, attend, and say hello!

The Genealogical Society of New Jersey—2016 Seminar
Saturday, 4 June 2016www.gsnj.org | www.njgenealogy.com

Co-Chairs and Hosts:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, East Brunswick Ward
303 Dunhams Corner Road, East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816

Join us for an all-day program on researching at repositories, immigration, skill-building, and research abroad—all designed to help you advance your New Jersey research! This year’s GSNJ Seminar will present a variety of talks in two concurrent lecture tracks (attendees can switch between tracks).

The first lecture track includes talks on analysis and correlation, discovering your immigrant’s origins, finding Italian-Americans in the Old Country, indirect evidence, and global research from home.

Our New Jersey-focused lecture track will explore three important repositories for New Jersey research, as well as websites and important, underused New Jersey record sets.

We hope you’ll join us on Saturday, 4 June and discover something new that will inspire your research!

Seminar fees include five talks (two tracks, some talks concurrent, please see schedule), lunch, beverages, luncheon presentation, chance of door prizes, parking, and printed syllabus covering all 10 lectures (except lunch presentation where there is no syllabus).

GSNJ Members and LDS Church Members: $48
Non-Members: $58

See website for schedule details, directions, sign-up, and more information. We look forward to seeing you there!