1860 Constitutional Concerns of Benoni Staats

Timely that just a day after the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, I should sit down and start to transcribe letters written by my 3rd great uncle, Benoni Staats in the 1860s. In the first letter in the collection, Benoni focuses on his interpretation of the first article of the Constitution, and is asking for the opinion of his Congressional candidate on the issue. These letters are part of the Ephraim Cutler collection in Special Collections at the Marietta College Library. You never know where stuff is going to turn up. You’ll find all kinds of cool things in college libraries, so make sure that you investigate them in the areas you research.

Here is just a snippet of that first letter. A little enlightened for his time — especially living in the area that he did. Although a poor farmer most of his life, it is clear from his writing that he was quite well-educated.

Vincent,” Barlow township, W. Co. O. [Washington County, Ohio] Sept 17th/60 [1860]

To the Hon. Wm. P. Cutler – Sir, as you are a Candidate for Congress, and are now canvassing this district for that office, I design to have your opinion on the First Article of the Constitution (I have tried your predecessor in vain).  In the first place the Articles of Confederation existed and were in force until this Constitution was adopted by the requisite number of states; and in the Preamble to the Constitution it says, “We the people of the United States,” – now I contend that “people” means “persons,” that is to say “we the persons of the U States.”

Thus, the Preamble to the Constitution, denominates the people of the U States thereafter as “persons,” and nowhere denominates them as property of the U States, nor does it anywhere say “We the property of the U States.” Now Sir, from these deductions, it is plain that these U States are composed of “persons” and not “property” and the three fifths clause which is said to relate to slaves and free colored persons, they are still denominated “persons” and not “property”— and as such are numbered by the U States Marshals for the Representation in Congress and are a part of “We the people of the U States.”1

This is just part of the first letter – an impassioned argument for the equality of “Indians and negroes.” There are five or six in the collection. Each are interesting, and I will post them as I can.

Letter from Benoni Staats to Congressional candidate ,William P. Cutler, 17 Sep 1860.

  1. Benoni Staats, Vincent, Barlow Twp., Washington County, Ohio, to William P. Cutler, letter, 17 Sep 1860, requests Mr. Cutler’s opinion on the First Article of the Constitution; Ephraim Cutler Collection, 1860, Sept 17 ; Marietta College Library Special Collections, Marietta Ohio. []

One Weird Trick To Improve Your Online Networking Experience

Hello kids, I’m back and posting. Consider yourself warned. And, yes. The title of this post is taken from those bizarre ads you see online where “One weird trick” seems to exist to do everything you might be wanting to do.

Here’s my one weird networking tip:

Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, oh my. There are so many online ways in which genealogists can meet and greet these days, it can be a confusing landscape. Each platform has its own terminology, etiquette, and challenges – friends, connections, followers, requests, introductions, and more. For non-techy folks, it may seem more trouble than it’s worth. Believe me, though, it is WELL worth the effort. One way to simplify things is to understand that networking online is really no different than networking in person. You just need to adapt the tools of each platform to do electronically what you would do in person.

One of the things I’ve noticed is an increase in the amount of blind connection requests I get from genealogists (and others, to be fair). On LinkedIn, this is a request from someone I don’t know, but can usually figure out that they are somehow connected to genealogy. All that’s included in the request is the boilerplate “I’d like to add you to my professional network.” On Facebook, this is the default way to “friend” someone, as there’s no way to send a message directly with your request. If I see you are a genealogist, or we have common genealogy friends, I usually accept the request.

However, on both LinkedIn and Facebook, I think you will have much more success building your network, and the quality of that network will be greater, if you personalize each request. We have reasons that we want to connect with someone. We need to tell them what they are; whether it’s because you might want to hire them, they share a specialty with you or have a specialty you might need down the road, or maybe you are just looking to expand your network. Say that. While Facebook doesn’t allow you to send a message with the friend request – send them a direct message to go along with it.

As part of the request, make some comments and ask some questions that go beyond “I’d like to add you” and the reasons. Open a discussion that allows you to get to know each other a little bit. I’ve probably gotten five or six connection requests on LinkedIn the last few days, and not one of them changed the standard “greeting.” In most of those cases, I haven’t communicated with them besides accepting the connection request. That connection is really doing neither is us any good. I kinda don’t like the term “networking.” What we are really doing is building relationships. I don’t want to amass a giant database of people. I want to know each of you that are in there – even if just a little bit.

You can connect with me using the buttons on the right of the page. I look forward to meeting you!

Long Time Gone: Mail Service In the 1830s

Heading off to work bright and early every Monday at 7am doesn’t sound so bad. Neither does heading home from work on a Friday evening. But when that Friday evening ride is the return leg of the Monday morning commute, it begins to sound a little less appealing. Throw in the fact that you’re either on horseback or on a horse-drawn cart, travelling the rough southeastern Ohio terrain, it’s 10 or less degrees outside, and you’re not exactly a spring chicken anymore- you can keep that job.

In order to keep the job, you first have to get the job, and that’s exactly what Benoni Staats tried to do in 18381. The route Benoni placed a bid for covered 146 miles one way – a daily route between Zanesville, Ohio and Maysville, Kentucky. The path of the route was then a part of Zane’s Trace, and is now Ohio Route 50.2

Page showing Benoni Staats’ bid for a post route in 1838.

What is unclear is the exact definition of daily. Was it five days? Six days? As the route description details, it would take a little over two days to get there and a little over two days to get back. Clearly, the contractors bidding would have to have several people in their employ to be able to deliver mail daily, so the amounts here are not even what they themselves would actually make. Given the fact that a number of people would be needed, it seems likely that a lot of these guys probably had agreements to work for whichever one of them won the bid.

Notice how John Yontz spit up his bid. The first and lowest price is for a two-horse wagon. When a four-horse coach gets thrown into the mix,  using a four-horse coach during the summer and fall months then switching back to a two-horse coach during the winter and spring, the price jumps. Add a few months in the four-horse coach, add a few thousand dollars. If the government prefers four-horse service all year, they’re going to pay through the nose for it. I assume that tells us something about the expected conditions of the road they traveled – and one wonders if the reason James Bryan failed is because of the larger rig.

What does that route look like on a map today? Below is a Google Map with all of the stops from the description marked:

Zanesville-to-Maysville mail route on a modern map.

Let’s be honest – that route would not be fun for very long in a car, let alone in a wagon or horseback. Rough roads, exposure to the elements, and who knows what else makes this a job for the hearty folks. At the time of this bid, Benoni was likely about 38 years old. He appears to have been involved in mail delivery through at least 1865 – at least as an advocate3 . Later, his grandnephew (my great grandfather), Wilbur Staats also delivered mail in the Summerfield area.4 It would be one tough way to make a living. So let’s tip our hats to all those rural mail carriers – both yesteryear and today.

  1. U.S. Congress, Executive documents: 13th congress, 2d session-49th congress, 1st session, H. Doc 220, “Abstract of Bids Under Advertisement of May 17, 1838…,” 229; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=3owFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP11#v=onepage&q&f=false: accessed 5 Aug 2012). []
  2. for general background information on Zane’s Trace, see: Beverly Whitaker, “Zane’s Trace,” article, Genealogy Tutor,  http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gentutor/Zane.pdf: accessed 5 Aug 2012). []
  3. U.S. Congress, Journal of the House of Representatives Being the Second Sesson of the 38th Congress (1864-1865), 202; digital images, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/: accessed 5 Aug 2012).  []
  4. Roger Pickenpaugh, A History of Noble County, Ohio, 1887-1987 (Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1988), 125. []

One From the Photo Album: Will Deemer, Beaver Twp, Jefferson, PA

While not exactly wordless…or Wednesday, but:
I’ve always found this photo very compelling. I don’t know for sure where this was taken, although I assume it is in Beaver Twp, Jefferson, Pennsylvania. The subject is Will Deemer, b. abt 1868. I would guess this photo is in the 1920s, although it is literally a guess based on age. With the opening of PA’s death records, maybe I can finally get his death certificate to help date this photo a little better.

It’s one of those images that is not only full of emotion, but different emotions. Sometimes I look at it and it is so bleak and depressing, I can hardly stand to look at t for more than a few seconds. Other times, it is a story of survival in tough times. Still others, it’s not only about survival, but actually looking to take on adversity and beat it into submission.

He’s yet another in my tree that had no descendants (that I know of), so this is my way of keeping a small part of my 2nd great-granduncle alive.

Will Deemer. Taken, by estimation, in the 1920s, probably Beaver Twp, Jefferson, Pennsylvania

Family Lore: Is a Staats Family Mystery Documented In This Record?

Preface: While the evidence suggests a possible conclusion, more research is needed to confirm the family story and determine its validity. Another very good reason to write about this particular subject is because she left no descendants, and I feel the need to in some small way document the memory of those lives that might otherwise be lost over the course of time. Feel free to add your opinions on the case in a comment to the post.

Earlier this summer while visiting with my aunt, she asked whether I knew anything about a child that, according to a story she had heard, was left with my great great-grandparents and raised as their own. I had never heard anything about this and pretty much forgotten about it until today. I was updating the cover photo on my facebook page to a scan of the Dr. A. A. Staats family album page that recorded all of the children of this family.1 As I was playing with the photo in Photoshop to try and get the dimensions correct to display properly as the cover photo, I noticed something new about the entry for their daughter, Margaret Staats.

Margaret “Madge” Staats’ birth record shown below matches the date recorded in Noble County Probate Court. That county birth register lists the parents as A.A. Staats and Maggie Summers, although no name is given for the child despite the fact that A.A. Staats provided the information himself.2  Madge never married, and died in Columbus, Ohio on 1 Mar 1925 of heart failure at age 42. The informant on the death certificate was her uncle, E.L. Summers.3

First, when looking at the family record written in different hands, an effort is needed to try and determine who made which entry to better gauge when the original entry was likely written.

Family Record of A.A. Staats and Maggie Summers

Looking at the entries, you can see there are a number of different hands at work here. Comparing other sections of the album confirm that all of the original entries in the “Family Record” page, despite the differences in the “M”s, are written by Maggie (Summer) Staats. A close up comparison of the crossed out family entry with a signed narrative entry in 18924 show that the original entry was made by Maggie:

  • M: both start with a mid-line loop and have slightly smaller and narrower second humps
  • g: in both examples, the shape and slant are the same, and the first g ends rather than connecting to the second g
  • i and e: the shape, slant, and stoke of the letter combinations are identical

Signature comparison reveals that both entries are made by Maggie (Summers) Staats.

What about differences in those M‘s? Comparison of names from the family record with another marriage entry5 shows:

  • The M in the marriage entry shows the same Ms in the first two entries of the family record
  • Although the “Alexander” entry in the family record begins with a rounded A, the marriage entry As match the middle initial in the family entry.
  • The “Summers”, “Staats”, and overall hand are clearly the same. Comparing the family entries, signed narrative, and marriage entries together, it is clear that all are written by Maggie (Summers) Staats, although they were likely written at different times.:

Comparison of family record and marriage entry showing same hand and different formation of the “M”.

Is it possible that Alexander Staats had a similar hand and made some of the entries? Possible, but not very likely. Here is the title page which presumably features the hand of A.A. Staats, as he is gifting the book to Maggie. It also establishes the earliest date of the book as Christmas 1888.6

  • The “Maggie” does look similar, although th humps in the M are roughly equal, the g‘s connect, and the stroke of the ie combination is different.
  • The capital A and S and D are considerably different from those in the family register
  • The crossing of the t‘s in Staats is entirely different, as is the final s, which crosses over the beginning stroke here, whereas it doesn’t touch in the family entries.

Title page showing A.A. Staats handwriting

Looking back at the family record, the original entries were likely written by Maggie (Summers) Staats – probably near to the time the book was given to her, and likely before the signed 1892 entry used for the handwriting comparison. All of the other entries are written first name followed by the surname Staats. However, Maggie is listed as Maggie Mayood, with the Maggie later crossed out and Margaret written in a different hand, as well as what appears to be a third hand adding “[Staats” above the original entry.

As a doctor, A. A. Staats would have likely had a number of experiences delivering babies who needed a welcoming home. If in fact Maggie was one of those babies, and the family chose to raise her as one of their own, it would make sense that the county birth register reflect that decision. From that day forward, Maggie would be thought of as a true part of their family – one of their own children. Any information provided later by the family would also reflect that decision. But the family entry, written in the hand of the matriarch suggests, however subtly, the possibility that something was different about Maggie. Whether or not that’s true needs more investigation. Ultimately, it makes no real difference whether or not she was a blood child of the family, as she was clearly accepted and loved as one regardless.

Looks like yet another project has made its way into the queue.



  1. A.A. Staats and Margaret (Summers) Staats family album, ca. 1880-1930, “Family Record,” handwritten entries of birth and death dates, unpaginated; privately held by author, chris@staatsofohio.com, Euclid, Ohio, 2012. Entries after Margaret’s death in 1919 were likely written by her daughter, Violet (Staats) Reed, who had possession of the book. []
  2. Noble County, Ohio, Record of Births, 2:57, unnamed Staats (1882); Noble County Probate Court, Caldwell. []
  3. Ohio Department of Health, death certificate, no.14532 (1925), Margaret M. Staats; Ohio Dept. of Health, Columbus. []
  4. Staats family album, Maggie (Summers) Staats, signed entry noting the death of daughter Mina in 1892. []
  5. ibid., “Marriages,” first entry on page. []
  6. ibid., title page, dated 25 Dec 1888. []

Losing my GRIP: Days 4 and 5

The tower bells tolled high noon, cars were loaded, and GRIP 2012 came to an end. But what a whirlwind week it was.

All of us blogging from GRIP missed posting about Day 4, at least as far as I know. After a difficult homework assignment Wednesday night followed by the fourth full day of classes, Thursday was definitely the low tide of student energy. Up to that point, we bloggers had done a pretty good job of balancing the grueling schedule with our need to write and inform. As homework assignments mounted and available neurons became scarce, we gave in and decided not to post on Thursday night.

Lest you think I am complaining, I certainly am not. I loved the challenge, although I have to admit a certain amount of frustration at not being able to easily solve the problems with which we were presented. But you know what? At breakfast each morning we would gather and discuss the previous assignment and it became clear we all shared that common feeling of frustration. It would be one thing if only one or two of us were confused, but here we were, a group of experienced (and certified, in some cases) genealogists all in the same boat. We all doubted ourselves. None of us were completely sure we had the right answers. Then we came together, talked, and realized that we struggled largely because we were presented with truly difficult problems. There were no easy or obvious answers. There were no neat and clean resolutions – no smoking gun. That was the beauty of Tom Jones’ class.

Thursday night, we all needed a little break, which was conveniently provided by Cathi Becker Weist Desmarais and Noreen Alexander Manzella, who threw a release party celebrating the publication of their first NGSQ article1. Four articles appear in this issue, and the authors of three of them happened to be present (Tom Jones and Karen Maurer Green being the other two). Where else does this happen? Not too many places, I would guess. A couple hours later, everyone was off to their rooms to tackle more homework.

Friday was a mixed bag of emotions for me. Although my brain was about full, it was also the last day before returning to the real world. We reviewed the homework, and despite the fact I could only find one of the two documents we needed, I felt better about this assignment and glad I ended the homework on a positive note. I really enjoyed Friday’s first class: Identifying female ancestors and techniques for finding common poor folks were the first session. By the second session on Friday, we had actually caught up to Friday! This session was the highlight for me. We learned different methods of correlating information and evidence: using tables to compare evidence, making time lines to sort out identity, and creating ordered lists to make things more understandable to your readers. It really helped open my eyes to different approaches that will certainly improve some of my current projects.

To this point, I’ve not quoted any of the syllabus material in my recaps, but the final 20-minutes of the last session focused on continuing your education as a genealogist. It featured one of the biggest take-aways of the week for me. As someone who writes and is really self-critical, I would never think of submitting something for publication that I didn’t deem completely perfect. That idea is wrong. Instead, Dr Jones encourages: “Don’t expect yourself to produce work the quality of what you see in print. Few people can do that on their own – most articles result from the work of a team of editors and readers working with an author.”2.

And so it ended. I learned more than I can easily summarize. I benefited not only from the knowledge of our instructors (who were without rival), but also from conversations with classmates. There are so many personal research projects I want to revisit with my new genealogy smarts. Many of us are on the BCG clock, or will be soon. Our conversations, along with input from BCG trustees, really helped clarify how we are going to approach our portfolios. I made some potential connections that will likely bring some business. And best of all I got to know some really great people, and know them better than if we had met at a conference. While you can probably meet MORE people at conferences, the institute experiences really enables you to get to know people a little BETTER.

In short – I loved it. I don’t know what next summer will hold for me personally, but I do know that Elissa Powell and Deb Deal have really created something special here – something top-notch. Take a look at next year’s schedule (go to Stone House Research  – GRIP’s site is not yet updated), and trust that if any of the courses interest you, you will be in for one awesome week in the genealogical bubble.

Goodbye ’till next year!

  1. Cathi Becker Weist Desmarais and Noreen Alexander Manzella, “Who Fathered Jacob and William Northamer: Pennsylvania Tax Records Help Determine Kinship,” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 100 (June 2012): 123-132. []
  2. Thomas Jones. “Continued Advancement,” Advanced Research Methods, prepared for the Genealogical Research Institute of Pittsburgh (July 2012): 3. []

GRIP Day 3 (AKA, My 20th Anniversary)

I don’t know how you guys celebrate anniversaries, but I’m guessing there only a few of us fool-hardy enough to do it by leaving our spouses and heading to a genealogical institute for a week of intense learning. I’m lucky I found a good spouse…make that a great spouse, and really, I’m not just saying that so I won’t be beaten when I return home. Really.

Yet another rocking day here at GRIP. After a late night of homework and blogging, I was a little groggy this morning. When you need to jump right in and get going, starting off the day with Claire Bettag is a good thing. It also helps that we share a favorite topic – land records. Most of what I know is more at the deed level, so I really enjoyed learning more about federal land records – primarily original land entry files, but also bounty land and private land claims – all instruments by which land passed from the government to an individual, granting original title.

Because the government only holds records for the 30 federal land states, Claire said anyone who didn’t have any interest in those states could take a break or leave…ya, right. As if anyone was going to miss out on this gem. Interesting things learned included the fact that the indexes on the BLM-GLO website index both a preemption file and commuted Homestead file as a cash sale, and there is really no way to know until you order the file and see, Why is that important? If your ancestor was involved in one of those transactions, you can find lots of additional info such as marriage information, children, affidavits of the applicant as well as neighbors, and even naturalization records. I also learned I probably need to spend more money getting records from NARA. Don’t we all?

Next up was Tom Jones. How intense is the class? How much info is packed into it? Well, coming into today, we were still in the middle of Monday. Documentation and citing sources may not seem like an exciting topic, yet somehow it is. Often genealogists are told that we primarily cite sources so we can follow our trail backwards or so others can re-create our work. In reality, we do it so we can better understand the sources we use, and so that readers can assess the quality of our sources and decide for themselves the soundness of our research. Yet another gem of a quote from Tom in this lecture: “Placing two footnote numbers separated by a comma is like wearing a T-shirt that has ‘AMATUER’ [sic] written across the front – and it’s spelled wrong.” Classic.

We then raced through census and census-substitute strategies, finally making it to Tuesday morning by lunch on Wednesday. Lesson of the class: Genealogists often fail because they focus too narrowly rather than broadening their search geographically or chronologically, One of the examples from this session featured another quotable line: “This was not a very literate family, or a very sober one.”

After lunch, we were off to the races with Rick Sayre and Map Strategies – basically documenting resources and techniques for using maps in your research. You all probably know I’m a land geek, but I have much less experience with maps, so this was a good one for me. Many excellent resources were mentioned, including: the online map room at the Library of Congress, David Rumsey, USGS Map Store, as well as other sites like Historic Pittsburgh and Places In Time (Philadelphia). The summary seems a little short, but the demonstrations are something you’d want to have seen. Another great lecture and lecturer. I am hoping I can make it back to GRIP 2013 to take his land class.

Last, but certainly not least was Tom Jones again. We took on two presentations – Tax roll strategies and the beginning of the land records session. Again – especially to the non-genealogist – sounds like a pretty boring afternoon, but ohhhhh the stuff you can learn from tax records: estimates of birth, death, marriage; actual direct evidence of those things; and much, much more. Tax research can be tedious, but as Tom warns, the year you skip to save time is guaranteed to be the year in which the taxman noted your ancestor’s father’s name. We didn’t get too far into the second lecture about land – a topic near to my heart, but I agree with Tom’s assertion that land records are probably the most reliable genealogical record – although we all know that ALL records can lie to us.

The day ended with yet another Tom quote: “I know you all are dying to get to the homework…or just dying.”

And what a homework assignment it is, so I better get to it. I had to skip the evening lecture tonight to make sure I get some time in on the assignment. Too bad, as this was a two-hour presentation by Rick Sayre about Pennsylvania research and I would have loved to have heard it.

So long today from GRIP. See you all tomorrow!

GRIP Day 2 Recap

Day 2 is in the books, and by the time I post this, it will likely have turned to Day 3. I had planned to post a stunning summary of the day, but was slightly stunned by the homework. I vowed to tackle it, and I did, even though it cost me most of the evening. It’s also entirely possible that I over-thought it, and did a little more than I probably had to but I’d rather err on the side of over-doing versus under-doing.

I can’t add much to what my classmate, Cathi Desmarais, posted this evening about the details of the day, other than to say yet another awesome day with two new and awesome instructors – Claire Bettag and Rick Sayre. We took Washington D.C., NARA, and the LOC by storm! It was kind of like driving by on the freeway, but the handouts were excellent, and will serve as pretty good tour guides when I get a chance to go back.

I’ve taken lots of classes from lots of places. Lots of them claimed to be challenging. I can honestly say that there is something unique and special about this environment in general, and the course in particular. I think all of my classmates will agree: each successive class causes you to re-evaluate what you thought you might have known when you walked in the door. Even in the cases where we actually did know end up knowing what we thought we knew, the material is challenging enough to rattle that knowledge around, and you really have to fight to keep it straight in your head. I love that.

I’m exhausted and excited for tomorrow’s classes!


GRIP: Day 1 Recap

My opening lessons came in the wee hours of the morning today. First was the reminder that I had forgotten to bring my own pillow. The dorm beds had a pillow..at least I think there was a pillow inside the case – it was really hard to tell.

Secondly, for all you folks here at GRIP who are over 4’6″ tall and having trouble with your dorm temperature: You’ll need to squat down to see the magic control lever that you use to adjust that rather important setting. All the way to the left is “Woolly Mammoth Preservation”, which is what mine was set on last night.

On to the institute. Wow, just wow. As expected, billed, and reviewed, I am loving Tom Jones’ class. We had four sessions today…and we were still somewhere in the middle of the second lesson when the end of the day arrived. We were forewarned that this would happen, though. The focus of most of today was on evidence orientation – evaluating source, information, and evidence. In the last session, we moved on to research planning, which I really enjoyed given that I just did a presentation on this topic at the OGS Library in Bellville. The structure was part lecture/part group discussion within our tables, and really got people thinking about the topics discussed. Somehow, I ended up being the table spokesperson. I swear – I’m actually very quiet. Why will no one believe me?

There’s really no way to try and capture in a simple blog post what you cover and learn in the course of a day at something like this – especially given the rather exhausting schedule. The only thing that is probably saving me tonight is that our homework assignments don’t start until tomorrow. What I do want to highlight is the opportunity that the institute offers for making new friends.

While the schedule is pretty demanding, there is ample opportunity to get to know people. In fact, if you don’t take the time to do that, you are pretty much wasting ample opportunities. At breakfast, lunch, and dinner I sat with different groups each time. Again, I am pretty quiet (really…no really), and that’s not necessarily something that’s easy for me to do, but I love listening and participating in different conversations. Everyone has something different to offer, yet we are all united in out passion and interest in genealogy, so there aren’t a lot of pregnant pauses.

I won’t get on the networking soapbox, but I will provide a specific example of why you might want to do it: Talking to people here, there are a number of us that are either on the BCG clock, or are doing the work to be ready to submit once they are. After lunch we were discussing our fears, concerns, specific examples about certification. Suddenly, someone had a revelation about their submission idea. Then we discovered we were making more of some of the requirements then necessary. And then I had a sudden spark of inspiration and discovered a KDP project for which I had done most of the work already and just need to clean it up some. All this because a group of us had the opportunity to get together and talk in a creative and charged environment.

And since being in class all day and talking about genealogy for every available minute wasn’t enough for us genealogy junkies – most of us also attended an additional lecture this evening – an excellent lecture by Pamela Stone Eagleson about writing a family narrative.

I’m telling you – if you are on the fence, get off. This is far more beneficial and less stressful (so far!) than the hectic and disjointed conference experience often is. Now, if I’ve mastered the thermostat and my new pillow purchased from Target works out okay, I’ll be all rested up, batteries recharged for tomorrow

GRIP: Registration Day Recap

Phew – what a day, and the thing hasn’t even started yet. After a quick stop at Walmart for supplies, I picked up fellow genealogist and friend, Jean Hoffman, and off we went on the 2.5 hour drive to Pittsburgh. Funny how time flies when genealogists get yakking about dead people we’ve known and researched, isn’t it?

We were still chatting away at the first toll booth in PA, waiting in line to pay the toll, when a wild burst of horn-beeping broke out. I looked around to see what was the matter (like the “Night Before Christmas” reference? See what I did there?). And what to my wondering eyes should appear but Dr. Debbie Abbott waving and smiling in the next lane over. I knew this was gonna be fun.

Registration was smooth and trouble-free, and we had an hour or so to find old friends and make new ones before dinner. I met Becky Wiseman, who is an occasional commenter on this blog. I met a few other facebook friends for the first time in real life, like Patti Hobbs and Cathi Desmarais (who is a Ruffner cousin by marriage). Of course, I got to catch up with all the Great Lakes APG regulars and even ran into John Humphrey, who will be speaking in Cleveland this fall.

The cafeteria was the next stop. I like these – especially when they have ice cream. Also, I did eat the broccoli so the wife would be happy. Although the place was a bit noisy, good conversations were had, and I finally got to meet my 4th cousin twice removed, Malissa Ruffner. You can bet we’ll be exchanging and comparing info over the course of the week.

After dinner, the ProGen alums met briefly to introduce ourselves and get our picture taken. There are a few folks I need to catch up with from that group over the week . Left to wander on my own, I got to chit-chat with a few other friends before retiring to my room to work on the homework some more and tell all of you about the fun. I’m not sure I’ve ever had this many conversations about genealogy in such a short time span. I can’t imagine what the rest of the week will hold.

A sincere congratulations and “atta-girls” to Elissa Powell, Deb Deal, and all who helped make this happen. Even though we haven’t officially started, it’s pretty clear I made the right choice to attend. Can’t wait for tomorrow!