Monday, January 14, 2013

How to Make Genealogy a Respectable Branch of History

     James Tanner recently wrote a blog for Genealogy’s Star entitled “History vs. Genealogy?” In it he asks: “[A]ren't genealogy and history really the same thing simply with a different focus?”
     However, Mr. Tanner failed to address his thesis statement, focusing, instead, on a comparison of the requirements for degrees in history and genealogy at two universities.
     So let me reply to Mr. Tanner’s question. Are genealogy and history really the same thing? As a former college history professor and current family historian I can confidently reply: “Yes. Yes they are.” 
     Genealogy is simply subset of history, like Medieval history or Native American history or WWII history. When genealogical research and writing is done well it is an excellent example of history that is relevant to its readers in a way that most history can never be. A story about your family? How can you go wrong with that as your subject matter?
     In addition I can say that both professions – historian and genealogist - are honorable. Both professions require similar skill sets. Both professions involve researching, examining sources, recording and documenting facts, postulating cause and effect, verifying the connection, and most importantly, telling the story once it has been discovered. As you can see, the major difference is simply the area of specialization.
     Before I go further I want to say that there are many excellent family historians/genealogists out there. They take their craft seriously. They document every fact religiously. They prefer originals when they can get them, are happy when a digital copy is available, and will settle, grudgingly for a transcript – for now until they can get the real thing. They keep track of where they search. Their computer bookmarks for “Genealogy” are legion. They search high and low, write letters and emails, and cajole both kind-hearted and stony-hearted clerks of court to look for “just one more record.” They never, ever copy someone else’s tree.
     These people are the cream of the crop in the genealogical world. Some are professionals who help out folks for a living. Some are amateurs who are content to seriously and studiously craft their luxurious family tree. I salute these men and women for their dedication and professionalism.
     Sadly, these good people are not the majority, or if they are, they are the silent majority in the field of family history/genealogy. Too many of the people who plop their trees on various websites and online locations don’t have a clue what they are doing. And it appears that they really don’t care, either.
     In the genealogical world it is considered, well, not “perfectly acceptable” but “mostly okay” to lift entire twigs, branches, and limbs from someone else’s tree to attach to our own. Yes, there are some of us who cringe when we are presented with a tree which has for its only source “Ancestry Family Tree.” But by-and-large this wholesale thievery is simply shrugged off.
     It seems that the only time this form of plagiarism catches the attention of the average person is when it is discovered that the tree you blithely copied and pasted into you own was full of foolish errors and silly mistakes. Dad was born 15 years after Junior was born. Granny died at the ripe old age of 7, the mother of 16 children. Meanwhile gramps died in 1947, 157 years old to the day. People are born in Texas, marry in New York, have four children in South Carolina, China, Seattle, and Green Bay and they have the obituary to prove that Dad worked for 40 years at the same Ford factory in Wilmington, Delaware.
     If someone wrote that batch of nonsense,  slapped it on a website, and called it history the feeding frenzy would look like piranhas on a lame cow stuck in a mud hole. 
     Do you remember the enormous fuss when noted historians Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin were accused of plagiarism? They were immediately and publicly called on it. Folks wrote about it, talked about it, debated it, and vilified them for lifting from the work of others.
     Mr. Ambrose and Ms. Goodwin weren’t given a pass. No one said, “well, it’s still a good story” or “they know better than I do what is correct.” They were castigated on NPR, in the New Yorker, and on the evening. Historians everywhere, from tenured professors to middle school history teachers, demanded an apology, an explanation, and a correction. We jealously guard the reputation of historians and expect each person who practices history, no matter how grand their position, to adhere to the same strict standards that we all learned back in school.
     But if it’s a genealogical version of the same thing we just shrug and walk away. 
    It is because family history/genealogy refuses to take itself seriously and hold its practitioners to the same standards as the others historical fields that family history/genealogy is looked down on by the rest of the historical community. 
     So what do we do about it? How do we make the folks in their ivory towers of historical academia take us seriously? 

#1 We have to take ourselves seriously.
I am not a proponent of stacking a pile of letters after your name. It’s no different in genealogy than it is in academics – the guy with the most letters after his (or her) name is either unsure that they are competent to do the work therefore they attempt to shore up their confidence with the impressive rows on undecipherable letters after their name, or else they are so impressed with how well-edjumacated they are that they will probably be insufferable to work with. 
But while I don’t think it matters a hill of beans if you are “certified” or not, it does matter that you are taking courses and webinars to learn what it going on and what is out there in the vast continuum that is the internet. It also matters that you are reading up on your subject, whether via journals, blogs, books, or (ideally) all three.

Every day there are more resources, more documents, and more information available to us, thanks to the internet. But the more that is added the more we need to learn what is where and how to access it. There are new computer programs and technological gadgets to assist us in retrieving, storing, and using the information we acquire. There is always something new to be learned and we should take the time to learn something new. 
This is true whether you are a “professional” or an “amateur.” If you aren’t learning and growing you are stagnating and dying.[1]

#2 We need to hold ourselves, individually and as a group, to the highest standards.
No more copying the work of others. This is simple, but for some folks it will be like asking a crack addict to go cold turkey. The good news is that this kind of cold turkey won’t make you sweaty and nauseous. Well, maybe it will, if coming clean means you have to ditch half of your pseudo-research and start over. But as difficult as it may be to delete entire generations on your family tree, knowing with absolute confident certainty that each person belongs on your tree is extremely satisfying. 
Start reading each document fully and completely before you add it to your sources. What does this particular document tell you? Why senselessly add documents just because they are there? Add each fact to your tree as appropriate. There is nothing uglier than senseless hoarding.

Ask yourself “Could I defend this statement in court? Do I have the evidence to back up my assertion?” If not, keep looking for the proof you need. And, like a good detective, look at all of the evidence. No cherry-picking while you judiciously ignore the things that don’t add up or mess up your beautifully laid out genealogy. “Just the facts” should be your mantra. 
#3 We need to call people on it when they are doing silly genealogy. 

I have written about this before and I can’t stress it enough. You don’t have to appoint yourself the police-of-everything-you-see-wrong, but you should let folks who claim kinship with you know when they are out of line. 
Start out by asking them what sources they have for that fact. Who knows? They might have some documents you didn’t know existed. But if they tell you “I got it from a tree I found” and you have an actual document which proves you are right, do them and everyone else in your extended family tree a favor and share your info (and your document!) and explain how you know that your information is correct. 
#4 When you hire a professional make sure they actually know what they are doing. 

Anyone can call themselves a genealogist and hang out their shingle. That no more makes you a genealogist than changing my surname to “Middleton” makes me the Duchess of Cambridge.
Sadly, there are far too many genealogists out there who call themselves “professional” and yet believe every tree they find online is 100% accurate. I know this because they come to me to break down that brick wall they can’t work around. Of course not. You have the wrong name for the grandmother! And I don’t care if it did come from a tree you found at Ancestry or on FamilySearch. It still has no sources to verify anything on it. 
You wouldn’t hire a dentist who” just liked teeth” but had no experience or training in dentistry. Then why in the world would you consider hiring a family historian whose only credential is they “like genealogy”? Look for someone who has some background in both history and genealogy. Ask to see a sample of their work. Ask for a calendar of documents from that same example of their work. Do they know what they are doing?
#5 Share your knowledge with others. 

Back in the day we wrote books and journal articles. If we believed that we had some knowledge that could be useful to others, we wrote about it so that those “others” could learn. 
Today there are blogs and seminars and good old email. Use them. Share your knowledge and experience with those who are starting out, or those who want to learn. Write a blog. Teach a webinar. Send an email to someone whose tree has gone astray due to poor research or copying.

Offer to teach a class at your local community college or community center. Call it “Genealogy 101” and teach these new learners how to successfully do their own research and the rewarding feeling of knowing that every person on their tree is the right person.

     It isn’t difficult to make genealogy a legitimate historical field of study - it simply takes time, and we are past masters at working hard for a long time in order to gain a little more. But as long as we are willing to accept bad practices in ourselves and others, as long as we prefer to whine that people don’t take us seriously and then refuse to act like serious historians, we will remain relegated to the level of hobbyists and rank amateurs messing in things we don’t understand.
     What do you say? Are history and genealogy the same thing? Is there another way to make genealogy a more “respectable” branch of historical research? 


[1] Check out my website or Facebook page for a list of upcoming FREE webinars which History & Heritage will be offering in conjunction with our partner Rootsonomy.


Sunday, January 13, 2013

Aspen Tree Genealogy

"Aspen Trees" By Daniel Schwen (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
     Are you familiar with the Aspen tree? Aspen trees are unusual. Unlike other trees, Aspens grow in colonies, spreading out from their roots. New trees pop up as far away as 130 feet from the “parent” tree. Aspen colonies can be very old: one in Utah is estimated to be 80,000 years old. They can also expand quickly, spreading over three feet each year. 
     So what does this have to do with genealogy and family history? A lot. 
     When it comes to creating a family tree, some folks are only interested in their direct line ancestors and eschew siblings. When you look at their tree you can only assume that they come from a long line of only children. Very fortunate for them! 
     Their tree is truly a tree. Actually, it's kind of more like a stick than a tree: one single stalk with very few, if any branches. 
     But those of us who want to know all about our ancestors add everyone in the family tree and end up with something more like a thicket of Aspens! 
     I am a fan of adding in those side branches and off-shoots. Part of the reason is that I want to know all about my ancestors, and that includes all of their family. I want to know who they lived with, played with, worked with, and fought with. I want to know who shared their griefs and triumphs. I want to know who they went to for a loan, to watch the kids, or to help with rebuilding.
     It helps to know that my direct ancestor was the oldest child, the youngest child, the oldest son, etc. One of my direct ancestors accused his wife of infidelity and claimed that the youngest son she “presented to him” was not his. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the questionable youngest son was my direct ancestor! 
     (For any of my family reading this blog, fear not. I have this mess all sorted out for us, and that youngest son was legitimate. His dad just went a bit crazy.) 
     But there are other reasons to consider turning your family tree into an Aspen grove. Here are a few reasons that I came up with while considering this question: 

Siblings of your direct ancestor

The siblings of your direct ancestor can help you find the family before and after your direct ancestor is born or leaves home. Knowing that Amanda was the youngest sister of Mary, Henry, John, Simon, and George helped me to find the family in the years before she was born. And lucky me, her paternal grandparents lived with the family in 1850, so I used that information to extend the family tree back a generation. Without her sisters and brothers I might never have been able to find that information. 
The siblings can help you find the family, including your direct ancestor, when misspellings occur or when the transcriptionist makes an error in transcribing a document, or when a document is poorly indexed. My father, for instance, was indexed incorrectly as “John P.” His middle name is “Robert.” But when I found the family with brother Bill, and sisters Mary Jo, Pat, Jackie, and Gerri I knew that I had the right folks. 
Siblings can also help you identify that you have the right family when you find more than one which meets your basic criteria. If you find that sister Susan and brother Thomas were in will “A” but not in will “B” then it is more likely that the family you want is the one in will “A.” This was true of my search for Nathan Eakman – it was only the list of children that told me the John who died in 1857 was the wrong one and directed me to look at the John who died in 1844 – the right ancestor. 
Spouses of the siblings of your direct ancestor 

Knowing who the siblings married, particularly the husbands of sisters, can help you trace aging parents, orphaned children, “troubled” children who were sent off to live with other members of the family, or other situations when families were split up. This happened in my Tasker family when Ida died and John’s children were scattered among his family and friends after the house burned down (how is THAT for a lousy run of luck?!)
Knowing who the grown siblings are and who they married can also help explain why your direct ancestor’s family seemingly up and moved to some random place. This was true for Hannah Eakman who moved more than 30 miles – a single mother with three children under the age of ten in the late 1860s. Knowing that she moved closer to a married sister helped to explain her otherwise inexplicable relocation. 
The names of in-laws also can help to connect your direct ancestor’s business partners, guardians, executors, those who stood as surety for him or her, co-owners of land, people to whom they sold land or from whom they purchased it, first names in letters who are mentioned over and over, and more. Recent research for a client was moved forward when I began looking for the wife’s siblings even though he didn’t care about any maternal lines and didn’t want me to research any of them. Turns out that the father and brother of the wife were business partners of her husband and many of the records were indexed under their names instead of his. 
More Aspen tree connections 
     Below is a list of possible “sideways” extension to your family tree. Which of these do YOU include in your family thicket of Aspens? Why? Do you have others which you have found to be of use to you? 

  • Siblings of direct ancestors 
  • Half-siblings 
  • Step-siblings 
  • Parents of step-parents 
  • Spouses of siblings 
  • Children of siblings 
  • Parents of the spouses of siblings 
  • Spouses of the children of siblings 

Friday, January 11, 2013

Breaking Down My Brick Wall, part 2


       As exciting as it was to have all of the papers relating to Nathan’s estate in my hands, I still didn’t know anything about it. I had proof that his wife was Hannah. I had proof that he existed and I had proof that he died and was buried. But his parents? No. His death date? No. I still really didn’t have much.
Well, I take it back. 
On closer inspection of the estate documents I had discovered some names in a final accounting of Nathan’s estate.
John C. Eakman.  
Elizabeth Eakman, deceased.
Lucinda and Laura Hannah Eakman.
Possibly another Elizabeth Eakman. 
Sarah Eakman, widow.



     From the references, I presumed that John C. Eakman had died prior to the death of Nathan, and there was still a disbursement from his estate to be made to Nathan’s estate. As I read through the few lines in this document I decided that it was possible that John C. was the father of Nathan. Sarah was the widow of John C. and that Lucinda and Laura Hannah were children of John C. who inherited at his death but had died themselves. 
     I hypothesized that Nathan was a child of John C. and as such was entitled to a share of John C.’s estate and a portion of Lucinda and Laura Hannah’s shares. I wasn’t sure who Elizabeth was, possibly an aunt or grandmother since she was not listed with the other girls. Oh, and Sarah was still among the living in 1865 when this document was written up because it refers to the death of Sarah as something in the future. 
     I checked the 1850 US Census for John C. Eakman and found a John Eakman and a John S. Eakman living in Armstrong County. But neither with a wife named Sarah. So I went back a decade to the 1840 US Census. This would have the name of the head of the household only and then tally marks for children of various ages and genders. 
     Bingo! John C. Eakman. But wait; there was also a John Eakman, a John Eckman, and a John L. Eakman. I back-pedaled one more decade to 1830 and found three John Eakmans. No John C. 
     Then I have to confess that I threw up my hands and put it all away. My husband’s family is only mildly interested in their history, and no one wanted to hear about the troubles good old Nathan was causing me. Nathan Eakman became one of my someday-I’ll-get-to-it problems.
     Fast forward to earlier this week. I was hanging out at the Rootsonomy Research Group and noticed that no one was asking any questions. I am a firm believe that a second set of eyes can be very useful in genealogy. Someone who doesn’t know your family like you do will see all of the documents with no preconceptions and might spot something you overlooked. And it is fun to dig and discover in tandem with someone else who is just as passionate as you are about making the discovery.
     Jan Edwards was in the group, hanging out, waiting for something to help with, so I proposed my dilemma. And Jan, the genealogical bloodhound, was off. Over the next several days she and I looked up and looked at all sorts of documents. I won’t detail the work that we did, checking ages, scrutinizing handwriting, searching for more and more documents.
     One day Jan overwhelmed me with a plethora of documents relating to the deaths of John and John C. Eakman. She found the will index, wills, guardianship papers, documents relating to the estates, and on and on. I gamely saved them all and vowed to “get back to them soon.” And I did. 
     Four o’clock the next morning found me back at my desk reading through the various papers, tedious and boring in their legality. John C.’s will was a disappointment. He left everything to his beloved Sarah for as long as she remained a widow and on her remarriage or death everything went to their children. But no children named. 
     (Oh, and before everyone gets all “het up” over John C.’s terms of his will, that was very common, designed to protect his widow. While a widow, she would have control of her inheritance. If she remarried, her new husband had control of everything and she was helpless to stop her new husband from frittering away their wealth through bad investments, gambling, and etc. If she remarried, it would be for love and to a man who could properly support her, not because some money-grubber preyed upon her.)
     I still didn’t have anything to say that John C. was the father of Nathan. It appeared that he was, and I was confident that Sarah was Nathan’s mother, but I didn’t have anything to connect the men to each other.
     And then I found it – a four-page-long auditor’s report from the December 1864 court which found that Sarah remarried “about five years subsequent to the death of her husband [John C.] “and recommended that she be removed from the land and house that had belonged to John C. and all of the goods and property be divided among the children and heirs.
     We won’t discuss the unpleasantness that must have caused in the family at this point, but I will tell you that this lovely report, filled with all sorts of references to legal precedents and details of the law was just what I needed. In it are listed all of the children of John C. and Sarah Eakman, namely:
Nathan, deceasedAaron [alternatively referred to as Aaron and Adam], deceasedElizabeth, deceasedLucinda, deceasedLaura Hannah, deceasedIsraelMartha [now Johnston]Mary [now Davidson]



     Ultimately the court agreed with the auditor and Hannah received an additional $200+ from her father-in-law’s estate ($23,500).
     I still don’t have a date or cause of death for Nathan, nor have I found him in the 1850 or 1860 US Census, nor do I know in what year he was born, but I do have documentary evidence that Nathan Eakman was the son of John C. and Sarah Eakman and that Nathan, the husband of Hannah, died after his father’s 1844 death.
     Some might argue that my brick wall isn’t truly down. It’s banged up, but without the facts I listed as missing, this isn’t a complete record.
     True, it isn’t complete, but I have verified that Nathan Eakman existed and I have verified his parents, siblings, and wife. With no will and given the fact that Elmer was born between the 1860 and 1870 US Census reports, I doubt that I will ever find a document that says clearly “Elmer was the son of Nathan Eakman.”
     For some, that means this is still a brick wall. Circumstantial? Perhaps. But I am confident that the information I have is accurate, and the best that is available out there.
     Time to move on to the next brick wall.


Breaking Down One of My Brick Walls

     It started out so simple: trace my husband’s family back as far as possible. I zipped through Marvin and Edwin and Elmer and then slammed into a brick wall of epic proportions. Who was Elmer’s father???
     I searched and searched, I mean, after all, Elmer isn’t all that popular of a name. But it wasn’t until I found his death record after searching for months that I had a name for his father: Nathan.


     “Great! This will be easy!” I thought. Just find Nathan and Hannah and keep on moving back in time.
     And there it sat for the next four or five years. I could not find Nathan ANYWHERE! I found Hannah, a widow, with Elmer and his sisters in 1870:


     I even found Elmer in 1880 when he was working for his aunt and uncle. But no Nathan. I did the math and figured that Nathan and Hannah were married before 1859 and so looked for Nathan as a single man in 1850. No luck. How about as a married man in 1860? Nope. 
     Did the man exist?
     I always look at death certificates with a bit of reserve. I mean, after all, the person who knows the information isn’t really able to provide it. And grieving family members are not in the best shape to supply accurate information. My father had to call me after his mother died to get a proper list of her siblings, as well as her parents’ names. We don’t function at our best when we have suffered a loss.
     Maybe Nathan was not Elmer’s father’s name. Maybe it was something like that, or maybe it was completely different. So I searched and searched for Hannah. She should be in the 1860 U.S. Census with a husband and baby Alice. No luck again.
     How about Alice? Just look for an infant in the 1860 Census. Still nothing.
     And yes, I tried every possible spelling for “Eakman”: Ackman, Eckman, Aikman, Heckman, Oakman, Hackman, Eichman, and on and on. Same for Nathan: Nate, Nathaniel, Jonathan, Dathan, Nathon, and all of the other possibilities.
     So there the tree sat, waiting for someone to move it back in time.
     Finally last summer I got smart and wrote to the Armstrong County Clerk of Courts and found a lovely and friendly lady there who was willing to dig around for me. All I knew was that Nathan Eakman probably died between 1862 and 1870, and that he wasn’t a Civil War soldier. (I had searched the National Park Service Database as well as Fold3.com with no luck.)
     The next day I received a reply. They had found the estate records for Nathan Eakman and she was photocopying them for me in return for some puny sum of money which I gladly paid over.
     The envelope arrived with a cornucopia of information. I received the bill for Nathan’s coffin which you have already seen. I received the clothing bill for his burial suit.


     I am not sure what the final entry is…looks like “Ent Coffin” which makes no sense to me. Also somewhat senseless to my frugal mind is this bill:


     Four dollars and fifty cents for an alpaca coat to bury a man in? Really? That means Nathan’s entire suit – pants, socks, shoes, necktie, and alpaca coat – cost $12.35 or $1,740 in today’s money. And it’s not like Hannah was inheriting a lot of money. 
     The appraisal of Nathan’s estate was pathetic and bordering on the ridiculous. The total value of his possessions, including the value of the crops in the field, was $292.60, or $41,200, and included such gems as one old cooking stove, one axe, and a clock. The most valuable items were Nathan’s horses: a $50 mare and an $80 mare with a colt.
     Pennsylvania law allowed the widow to take $300 prior to any payments. But Nathan’s estate was not even worth the $300 minimum.

     After going through the papers I was convinced that Nathan was a real person, but I was no closer to finding his parents. And I still didn’t know why he didn’t show up in the 1860 US Census. Or the 1850 US Census. And I didn't know his date of death, let alone a cause of death.
     I wrote to Armstrong County again and asked for Nathan’s will. There wasn’t one. Any other paperwork relating to Nathan? No, nothing. How about Hannah? They sent me two bills of sale for land involving a Hannah Eakman, but I am not convinced that this is the wife of Nathan. She didn’t inherit any land from Nathan, so how did she end up with any land to sell?
     My head aching from banging it into that brick wall, I turned my attention to other genealogical pursuits.

Tomorrow: How I Finally Broke Through the Brick Wall.

Or: I created a small hole in the wall and can see through it to a certain extent, but I don't have the whole picture, but progress is progress, so I won’t complain.