The Imperfect Search System: Finding Suitable Candidates for Deborah

I call this an imperfect search for many reasons.  In a perfect world the Kittery, Maine vital records and church records would be combined in one work, either in print or online, and searchable and/or indexed by first name.  But that world doesn't exist.  The next best thing is to search Ancestry.com's public trees which you can do by first name, state of birth and year of birth.  You must search year by year.  Now, you need hip boots to do this because what you find most of the time is sh** dreck.  Again, it's an imperfect system.  However, in the last thirty years, I'm guessing that we've hit some sort of critical mass on the entries in to personal databases of most of the information available in print.  The results of searching the name Deborah, born in Maine from 1754 back to 1742 follow.  What is given is:  Surname/Birth Place/Husband/Number of Trees.  I was amazed, although I shouldn't be, that so many people entered material so badly.  Although I said Maine, I got births from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and England.  No, I'm not kidding.  England.  Somersetshire.  More than once.

1754

• Cates, b. Gorham m. James Bangs: 7
• Durrell, b. Wells m. John Prendergast: 10
• Fisher, b. Dedham [Mass.] m. Thaddeus Stowell: 2
• Jacobs, b. Wells m. Jabez Dorman: 1

1753

• Bragdon, b. Scarborough m. Edward Plummer: 6
• Doane, b. Cape Elizabeth no husband, [see year 1745]: 1
• Dunning, b. York, m. Joseph Rains: 9
• Gifford, b. ?? m. Nathaniel Tobey: 1

1752

• Bradford, b. Turner: [s/b Kingston, Mass.], m. Barnabus Winslow:  2
• Dolliver, b. York, m. Elisha Dolliver: 14
• Lassell, b. Arundel m. Thomas Perkins: 11
• Morton, b. Thomaston m. Robert Jameson: 5
• Stacey, b. Somerset, England: 1
• Stover, b. York, m. Peter Heal: 34

1751

• Hussey, b. Biddeford, m. Paul Rogers: 10
• Jordan, b. Cape Elizabeth, no husband [but married Thomas Proctor] error for 1761: 4
• Rollins, b. Lincoln, m. Josiah Chase: 29
• Sylvester, b. Hanover, no husband, d. 1774: 1

1750

• Glass, New Gloucester, m. Barnabus Winslow [an error see 1752, Bradford]: 2

1749

• Aldrich, b. York, [s/b Rhode Island]: 1
• Lovell, b. Mass. [Cape Cod] m. Ebenezer Hamblen: 1
• Wentworth, b. Kittery, m. Joseph Ricker: 32
• Sawyer, b. Cape Elizabeth m. Benjamin Fickett: 17
• Webber, b. York, m. Paul Curtis: 47 [I particularly liked this one because the mother was named Meribah, a name Deborah (---) Wallis used for her second daughter.  However, this woman clearly married Paul Curtis and I even both on Findagrave.]

1748

• Lovett, b. Falmouth, m. Isaac Cobb: 5
• Sargent, b. York, no husband: 6* [parents: Jonathan and Mercy (Gray) Sargent]
• Soule, b. Woolwich, M. Isaac Savage:9
• Tuttle, b. Berwick, m. John Welch: 6

1747

• Bragdon: no further information [error, see 1753]: 1
• Strout, b. Brunswick, m. Benjamin Coombs: 8
• York, b. Cape Elizabeth m. George Copson Roberts: 19

1746

• Grant, b. Stonington, Conn.: m. Asa Brown: 1
• Tuttle, b. Berwick, same as 1748, m. John Welch: 1
• Yerington, b. Stonington, Conn. m. William Coats: 1

1745

• Berry, b. Kittery, no husband: 2* [parents: Josiah and Mary (Hidden) Berry]
• Doane, b. Falmouth, m. Joshua Westcott: 2
• Stover, b. York [see 1752]: 1
• Webber, [same as 1749]: 1

1744

• Hamilton, b. Berwick, m. James Marston: 5
• Ingersoll, b. Kittery, no husband: 2* [parents: John and Sarah (Tucker) Ingersoll]

1743

• Follett, b. Somerset (England), m. John Masters: 1
• Haley, b. Kittery, m. Mr. Dokam: 6 [as per her father's will of 1772]
• Holt, b. York, m. David Eames in 1770 in Woburn, Mass. which hardly seems likely: 3
• Metcalf, b. Rutland, Mass.: 3
• Small, Harpswell, m. Isaac Small: 34

1742

• Perkins, b. York, m. Stephen Littlefield: 53
• Ring, b. No. Yarmouth m. Josiah Cushman: 143
• Soule, [see 1748]: 1
• Turner, b. Cumberland, m. John Griffin: 1
• Walker, b. Kittery, m. John Parrott: 3

So collecting the starred (*) Deborahs we have the following candidates:

• Deborah Sargent, b. 1748 in York, daughter of Jonathan and Mercy (Gray) Sargent
• Deborah Berry, b. 1745 in Kittery, daughter of Josiah and Mary (Hidden)  Berry
• Deborah Ingersoll, b. 1744 in Kittery, daughter of John and Sarah (Tucker) Ingersoll

Starting with 44 separate Deborahs (some of whom are listed twice), only two are from Kittery, although York is close enough to call it Kittery.  In fact, Jonathan Sargent's land in York is described as abutting the Kittery town line.  Isn't Deborah Ingersoll, the same as the Deborah "Ingerson" who married William "Preast" on 15 July 1774 at the South Church in Portsmouth [NEHGR 82:290]?  And isn't Deborah Sargent the woman who married John Andros (i.e. Andrews) on 1 November 1772 at Georgetown, Maine? [Marriage Returns of Lincoln County, Maine to 1866 ed. Kelley and Adams (Camden, Me.: Picton Press, 2001), p. 13]  Indeed, known daughter Ruth Sargent married in Georgetown as well in 1767.  Eliminating those two leaves us with just Deborah Berry.  From 44 candidates to 1 in an imperfect search system.

Comments

[Randy Seaver]

Interesting process...I haven't tried doing something similar in Ancestry trees (at least in recent memory) but it gives me ideas! Thanks.

Of course, there may be a totally obscure Deborah who wandered out of the backwoods and is not in anybody's online family tree. I'm guessing that's why you called it an "imperfect" system.

Have you found any Berry land or probate record that ties Deborah Berry to her husband?

[Martin Hollick]

Yes, I partially covered some of this in another post: http://mhollick.typepad.com/slovakyankee/2010/03/was-deborah-berry-the-wife-of-nathaniel-wallis.html. I used the system to find a candidate; did real research on her and came up empty. Since Nathaniel and Deborah leave no deeds in York, it is indicative that Deborah was not even someone who walked out of the woods. Also, York Co. Probate is indexed through 1850. The imperfect word comes from two aspects: (i) there may be unaccounted for Deborahs not in databases or not in print; and (ii) not all that is in print has been transcribed into databases. I think though we have hit critical mass; that is, more than 50% (and I would guess much higher) of print works (either primary or secondary sources) have been copied by people into their own databases and uploaded into the larger online databases as trees. Most people do their lines and at least the siblings of their lines with spouses. Do try it. I would be interested if you have more success than I.