The Slovak Yankee

Amanuensis Monday: Obituary of Winifred L. James

Portland Press Herald (Me.), August 6, 1964, p. 2.

MRS. WINIFRED L. JAMES

WESTBROOK -- Mrs. Winifred L. James, 79, widow of Augustus James, died unexpectedly Tuesday evening at the home of her daughter, Mrs. Leigh Hoar of Winthrop.  Mrs. James resided at 40 Waltham St.

Born at Naples, she was the daughter of Charles and Mary Stack Gammon.  She had been a resident of Westbrook for 45 years, coming here from Mechanic Falls.  Her husband died in 1928.

Mrs. James was a member of the Warren Congregational Church and belonged to Group D. of the church's Women's Fellowship.  She was a member of the Beulah Chapter, OES, of Westbrook.

She is survived by three daughters, Mrs. Leigh Hoar of Winthrop, and Mrs. Richard Wilson and Mrs. Leigh Flint both of Westbrook; a son Raymond C. of Westbrook; a brother, Philip Gammon of Revere, Mass.; 20 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren.

Funeral services will be at 2 p.m. Friday from 795 Main Street. The Rev. Clarence Clark of York will officiate. Interment will be in Woodlawn Cemetery.

Note: Her mother's obituary is here.

Surname Saturday: John Baisey of Hartford, Conn.

John BAISEY (or BAYSEY), a weaver and one of the founders of Hartford, illustrates another genealogical phenomenon for the 17th century.  Although he has millions of descendants no doubt, including me, he has them through three daughters.  Because most of genealogy has been and continues to be surname-driven, John has been given short shrift in the genealogical literature up to 2007.  There is no Baisey Genealogy.  John appears in very short (two sentences or so) entries in Savage's Dictionary of New England Settlers and Barbour's Founders of Hartford, Conn. and that's all in the secondary literature.  John left numerous primary records, however, including a will.

Luckily in 2007, Leslie Mahler wrote an article on his English origins.  I very much enjoy reading Mr. Mahler's articles (and he is prolific).  In this case, the clue is sitting right there and has been in print since 1905.  Richard Olmstead, of Norwalk, Conn., leaves legacies in his will to his cousin Bazies, his two daughters Elizabeth Peck and Lydia Baker.  Further in 1912, a Slaney will was found that connected both families.  Using those two things, Mr. Mahler found John Baisey's father's will--a typical English will, not in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and one in which he neglects to note that his son John was living in New England.  So, in this case, it is not the father's will that proves the origins, but two cousins' wills (and a rare surname in that part of England).

John's wife Elizabeth's surname is still not known.  They had three daughters: Mary who married Samuel² (Benjamin¹) Burr, Elizabeth who married Paul^2-1 Peck, and Lydia who married John¹ Baker.  The full article is: “The English Origins of John Baisey of Hartford” by Leslie Mahler The American Genealogist 82 (2007):32-38.

It should also be noted that there is no genealogical cross reference index for John Baisey being mentioned in the Olmstead Genealogy.  However, the first part of the Olmstead genealogy appears in the New England Historical & Genealogical Register which does have a print index and is available online.   Otherwise, how would one connect those two families?

Stream of Consciousness Research, Part IV

As I was thinking about Elsie (Shackley) Benson, it occurred to me that she may have died childless.  I know that Carrie (Pinkham) Corson had two sons, one of whom died at age 40 without kids, and another who lived to 80, but about whom I know nothing.  That means, I can only be certain that my great-great-grandparents George and Olive (Hurd) Pinkham had two children through whom they had descendants.  I can ballpark them as being roughly between 75-100 people.  That's not a lot for two people born in 1843 and 1851, respectively.  And even if we top it off at 100 living descendants, that means we've only got one genealogist among us.  My late cousin Dorothea knew things about the family, but wasn't a genealogist per se.  My other late cousin Janice asked for information that I had gathered, so she had some interest as well.   

I then realized that George Pinkham was only one of three children for Luther Hale and Mary Chamberlain (Wallis) Pinkham to have children.  It means that these people, one of whom remains a documentally-challenged brick wall, may only have 300-500 living descendants.  That doesn't seem like many for people born in the 1810s, now 200 years ago.  I'm guessing there's no cousin who's going to be coming to my rescue with the DOCUMENT to help me.

If we take a low number of average children having children, say 3 per generation, then there should be 243 in my generation and 729 in my nieces' and nephews' generation.  If you assume that the last three generations are all living that's a total of 1,053.  So, I think we [this Pinkham line] are below average propagationally.  If I take the numbers I actually know:

Luther had seven sons, three of whom died in childhood.  Of the four left, one died childless.  Those three produced sixteen children.  I know that George only had four of his six children live to adulthood.  Nathaniel also lost at least two of his eight.  So, at most, there were twelve grandchildren of Luther Hale Pinhkam who could have had children of their own.  George's grandchildren numbered eleven of which one died in childhood, two died childless, and two can't be verified. Even with everything I've ever posted on the Internet or published in print, no one from Nathaniel or Seth Pinkham's [George's two brothers] families has ever contacted me.  Indeed, the nearest relative to have contacted me on this side of the family was from a sister of Luther Hale Pinkham.

So, I will add another dimension to brick walls: Lack of descendants.  I think you need to hit critical mass of descendants to generate at least several genealogists in separate lines who can then pool their resources.  Basically, I've been flying solo on the Pinkhams my whole life.

Content Wars

Responding to Thom MacEntee's Open Thursday Thread on the Content Wars:

• Once a collection of documents is digitized and indexed, should they be made available to researchers for free or for fee? This means they would either follow the FamilySearch (free) or the Ancestry (fee) models. Note: there are many other vendors and providers both free and fee – I am only using the most recognizable vendors as examples.

My response: I think the digitizers have the right to recoup their expenses of digitizing and providing the documents online in a searchable format.  That said, anyone who has ever paid a toll on a highway knows that although the initial costs may have been repaid, the toll never dies.  There will always be a choice.  You can use it online and pay a fee (for convenience and the opportunity cost of travel) or go to where the actual document is and see it for free.

• Does it matter if the documents themselves are in the public domain when it comes to charging a fee for access? Does a good index and search mechanism add value to the record set, to the point of justifying a fee for access?

My response: No it doesn't matter and an emphatic yes, it matters if there is a good index/search mechanism.  Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis charge an arm and leg for their content, which is law, and in the U.S. the law is owned by no one.  (that is, cases and statutes, etc.)

• Think about the holdings that genealogical or historical societies have.  Should they place access behind a members-only website, even if the documents are in the public domain? What about making the index free but the images members-only?

My response: Yes they should.   Many societies may have debts or overhead to deal with.  Membership is key for those societies.  I think making the index free to entice membership is a great marketing ploy.

• Let’s say that 20 years from now, most records of use to genealogists are digitized and accessible – either free or fee. What will genealogy vendors need to offer consumers to keep them engaged in genealogy? What will genealogical societies need to do to survive if their public domain holdings are made available for free?

My response:  From your mouth to God's ear that most records are digitized within my lifespan.  It's all about the quality-added for the vendors.  Are records responsibly linked between individuals who created them?  Are the search mechanisms robust?  Can you keyword search entire documents or only subject search them?  If genealogical societies give their holdings away for free, they are doomed.  They should fold themselves back into their respective geographical area historical societies.  The content is online and the actual documents are protected in a society.  

Great questions!!!

Stream of Consciousness Research, Part III

After seeing the confusion of the 1900 U.S. Census and the double entries for two of my great-great-aunts, I noticed that I had never bothered to find marriage records for Eva M. Pinkham and Walter Shackley or Martha A. Pinkham and Richard A. Roberts.  Ironically, I had all four death certificates, the first two from California, the last two from Massachusetts.  I'm sure I must have searched New Hampshire where I found all the marriage certificates for Carrie M. Pinkham (Applebee, Corson, and Corson, she married three times).   It seems to me that at one point you could only search the certificates at Concord up to 1903.  

In any case, I thought it was a great chance to use the Family History Pilot Search that many people are using and, quite rightly, extolling.  So I searched New Hampshire Marriages 1720-1920.  Not there.  There are close to 650,000 records in this particular database, but it doesn't tell me if that represents 100% of the records or not.  Boo.  Hiss.  For whatever reason, I redid the search for all the databases in Pilot Search for Eva Pinkham's name, because I felt it was unique enough not to retrieve thousands of hits.  And it didn't.  And I found her marriage certificate in Massachusetts.  She married in Boston, and sure enough, so did her sister Martha.  Although I got a date, place, parent names, etc. from Family History Pilot, it gives a source film number as a reference, which I find inadequate.  So I looked up the marriages again at AmericanAncestors.org (the NEHGS site) to see the actual pdf of the registers and get a good citation. [Massachusetts Marriages for 1891, 8:647]  So I found two dates I didn't have before.  Both records re-confirmed that these women were daughters of George and Olive Pinkham.

It also showed me that Eva probably had her daughter at age 15 and married at age 16, which she did out of state.  This is not surprising as she would have been 13 at the death of her father in an asylum.  Evidently teenagers acted out back then as they sometimes do now.  Her older sister Carrie was 22 when she married and younger sister Martha was one month shy of 20.  It was Martha's daughter that sent me my first genealogical letter.  She noted incorrectly that Elsie was born in 1906, but clearly she is in the 1900 census age 9, in the 1910 census at age 19, and in the 1920 with her parents at age 28.  She married between 1920 and 1930 where I lose her.  My cousin said she died in 1963 as Elsie Myer.  However, her father's death certificate says the informant was Elsie Benson.  I've never followed up much to pin her down.  I have her parent's estate papers and she was clearly Elsie Benson at that time. 

So, I've dotted two more "i's."

Stream of Consciousness Research, Part II

So, I looked up my great-grandfather in the 1900 U.S. census to see where he was and determine when he moved from New Hampshire to Maine.  The search was longer than it ought to have been, but between Ancestry and the census taker, it's never so simple to find anyone.  Here he is.  

 To see the image better you can click on it.  However, I wanted to show the enter image.  The transcriber put the name as Bertin not Bertie and his mother as Oline not Olive.  I mean, seriously?  I've corrected them. However, what is interesting is that Burt's two elder married sisters are living with them.  Where were their husbands?  The Spanish-American War was over.  So I searched for the husbands and I found them:

 At the bottom is the Corson household.  And Carrie is there too, and with her son Earl L. Both census sheets are dated 11 June 1900.  And sure enough Eva Shackley was double counted also:

This is a bit less obvious but she is the Eva M. Shackley with husband (Walter) Augustus Shackley and daughter Elsie.  So how did this happen?  I believe it is all how the census taker phrased his question.  Did he say "Who are in this household?" or did he say "Who is in your family?"  If the latter, than either Olive, Burt or Martha, gave them a full list of their family.  Amazingly, Carrie is noted as a boarder in her mother's household, but a daughter-in-law in her mother-in-law's household.  And everyone's birth year is askew.  Carrie was born 31 December 1869, so the Corson record is right and the Pinkham record is a year off.  Likewise Eva was born 13 August 1875 and is correct in her own household and year off in the Pinkham record.  Burt and Martha's birth's are correct in their household.  

So this is a strange occurrence.  I previously posted about the errors for the Pinkhams in the 1920 census as well.

Why Do These Records Exist?

This is a great post.  We all wonder why it is so hard to do genealogy.  It's because the building blocks for genealogical research are for other purposes.

Stream of Consciousness Research

I have already spoken of the fact that although I am a Jersey boy, I have zero New Jersey ancestry.  In fact, other than my presence on the 1970 and 1980 U.S. censuses, there will be no governmental tie for me to N.J.  [I was born in N.Y.].  

So, too, my mother is a Mainer, and I consider myself half-Mainer too.  I went to college there, and have spent endless amounts of vacations and holidays there.  However, I have no known colonial Maine ancestry.  My mother's ancestors came to Maine as follows:

The Stacks from Ireland by way of New Brunswick ca. 1851.

The Pratts from Nova Scotia ca. 1877.

The Quigleys from New Brunswick ca. 1886.

The Smiths from New Brunswick ca. 1885.

The Kinmonds from Scotland in 1887.

The Pinkhams from New Hampshire between 1900 and 1903.

That is why I was rather excited that Deborah (--) Wallis was born in Kittery, Maine in the 1740s.  In any case, I knew all of the above, but was unsure of the Pinhkams.  Certainly my great-grandfather married in 1903 in Maine, but when did he move?  So I looked him up in the 1900 census and began a series of little research discoveries.  To be continued.

Tombstone Tuesday: Bethia (Bangs) Hall 1650-1696

Again from Cape Cod Gravestones.  She is the wife of Gershom Hall and the mother of Bethia (Hall) (Winslow) Hawes.   She was the daughter of Edward Bangs.

 

Amanuensis Monday: Deposition of William Bean 1803

From Strafford County Court Case #1805/48:

The Deposition of William Bean of lawful age who testifieth and saith on or about the 20th Nov^r 1803 at Capt. Senters I think Mr. Chase asked me to go to the Door to see the delivery of a horse and Mr. Wallace delivered to Mr. Chase a dark grey horse as his property free and clear of all incumbrences.

Qt. by Chase whether he knew any thing to the contrary when he delivered me the horse whether or no I had paid him for the horse.

Ans. I do not know neither did I hear them say.

Qt. by Wallas attorney: did you understand how or on what condition that horse was delivered to Chase

Ans. I do not know.

Qt. by Wallas attorney: was not Joseph Wallace then a prisoner by said Chase

Ans. No he was not.

Qt. by Wallas attorney: was not Nathaniel Wallace then a prisoner in Capt. Senter's house by Chase as an officer

Ans. I know that he was

Qt. by Wallace Attorney do you know of what sum

Ans. I do not

Qt. by Wallace attorney do you know who is known of

Ans. I do not

Qt. by Wallace attorney did you not you consider when the horse delivered by Joseph Wallace to Chase was in consideration of the execution, Chase, had against his father Nathaniel Wallace in part or full

Ans.  I thought the horse was delivered to Mr. Chase for the debt or security of the debt but do not know for certain

Qt. by Wallace attorney was not Nathaniel Wallace at his Liberty after the Horse was delivered to Chase

Ans. yes

Qt. by Chase do you know whether Mr. Wallace was released by the horse being delivered to me or not

Ans. I do not know

Qt. by Wallace attorney did you not consider that when Joseph  Wallace delivered the horse that Nath^l Wallace was released from Chase

Ans. I did consider it also

Fees

Notification     17

Notifying and Justice 17

Subpoena 10

Summoning witness 17

His travel 6 miles 24

his attendance 40

Writing deposition 34

Swearing Deponent 34

Justice travel 3 miles 10

Total $2.03