Rookie Genealogy

One of the biggest resources available that you will use in your research is census records. They can be valuable in tracing not only your direct ancestor, but also extended family. For rookie genealogists out there- most of the 1890 census records were destroyed by fire and/or water in 1921. Some still do exist but are sparse.

Census records are not without flaws, however. One of the biggest cautions of census records is names. Names are notoriously incorrect on census records. In a time when social security was not yet established (pre-1935) and records were not meticulously maintained, people would often flip flop on the spelling of their names- first and last- without anyone caring.

Let’s take a look at reasons for the frustrating name game:

Phonetics: Schools taught using phonetics in the 1880’s. People learned to spell the way they heard the words pronounced. The first dictionary was not published until 1828.
Literacy: Only 65% of the population in the U.S could read in 1790. If people could not read and were giving the enumerator the names of people in their household, they probably could not help them out by spelling the names or places of birth.
One person for all: If an enumerator came to the door and only one person was there, that person would give information on everyone in that household. Relying on one person for the information of many would lead to common mistakes.
Accents: The enumerators would write what they heard and with accents of the many immigrants, mistakes would again be rampant.
Blending in: Often immigrants would purposely change the spelling of their last name to blend into the area in which they lived or to sound more American/English.
Numbers mattered most: The enumerators did not have genealogy in mind when they went door to door taking a census. The most important item was counting the population, not getting the names correct.

Considering the many ways in which names are seriously flawed on census records, it is easy to see why census records can be useful but with proper research and common sense.

Think outside the box

When looking at names on census records remember to think outside the box. What does that mean? Simply put- consider historical context, similarities and everyday lives of your ancestors. There was a period of time when ‘Polly’ was a nickname for ‘Mary’. That may not seem obvious to us in 2019 but in a point in history this may have been normal practice.

Similarities may include variations on names. A prime example is my 3rd great grandmother. I have seen her name as Carissa, Theresa, Teresa, Tracey and Tereza. Looking at these names you can see the similarity between all of them. When entering her information into my database I used the name she seemed to be referred by the most, Teresa. See the examples below of the different uses of her name (Yes, all records reflect the the same person).

My 3rd great grandmother’s name on the 1880 census as Carrissa

My 3rd great grandmother’s name on her marriage certificate as ‘Teresa’

My 3rd great grandmother’s obituary listed as ‘Tracey’

If one relative answered the questions of the enumerator and they only ever called their father by their middle name then that is most likely what they stated and not the formal first name of the father. Rigidity in your research can be your downfall. When it comes to census records, rigidity was certainly something they did not adhere to.

Another example of considering the historical context is a consideration for your family wanting to fit into America. I have a lot of Polish roots on my mother’s side of the family. For the most part they kept their full Polish last names. However, I do have one line in which the name was changed.

My 3rd great grandmother’s maiden name was Bohacz. She was born in Poland in 1826. She married her husband, Joseph Spychalski, and they immigrated to the United States. I always wondered why they came to small train stop town in rural Indiana. Believing that they had family there first, I looked for Bohacz in the area and could not find much at first. I then found marriage records for the church in this tiny town. There I found a record for a Frank Bohacz. However, that was all I could find. I decided to search the census records within that township and the surrounding townships. I finally found a possible match that corresponded with the church marriage record. The interesting part? He changed his name to Frank Bohart. Shortly after coming here he changed his name to be more American or perhaps, so that others could pronounce it.

Frank’s death certificate where her uses ‘Bohart’ instead of ‘Bohacz’ it also says ‘Bohart’ on his headstone

This church record lists Frank’s daughter getting married and has him and his daughter with the ‘Bohacz’ last name

Census records are one of the best resources out there if you think outside the box and realize that there is a gray area when dealing with censuses. It was a tedious job and very time consuming job for enumerators in an age without computers. Human error was bound to happen…and quite often.

Think like an immigrant, think like an illiterate, think like an exhausted enumerator.

After a hiatus I am finally back to blogging. The holidays and starting a new job after being at home for 12 years has kept me very busy. I am adjusting my routine to fit in my blog writing. Bear with me as I get back on track.

In this post I will discuss surprising, somewhat soap opera like, scenarios you may encounter when doing research. We may all want to think our family trees will be drama free with cut and dry marriages, families, and lives. This is not always the case. Be prepared for unexpected revelations. I have often seen other researchers dismiss trails of facts because they believe it is not possible for certain events to happen. Just like us today, our ancestors were not perfect and pure.

George Bader Senior and Junior in Portland, Oregon.

Here is one such scenario in my family.

My 2nd great grandfather, George Bader, was born in 1859. In 1880 he married my 2nd great grandmother, Mary Kearns. Neither had been married before. Their first child and my great grandmother, Anna, was born in Indiana in 1881. The rest of their 8 children were born in Illinois. Sometime after August 1881 and before March of 1883 they moved just over the border to the south side of Chicago. Their last child together was born in Illinois in 1895.

This is where is gets interesting. On the 1900 census (five years after their last child was born) my 2nd great grandmother, Mary, is now living back in Indiana with all of her children. She is listed as married but George is not with her but her single sister is now living with her. She also eventually sends one child off to live with her brother and another child to live with another sister. Considering this, she seems to be struggling and needed help caring for the children.

Mary listed here in 1900 in Indiana without George Sr. Her sister, Hannah is living with her.

“Is George dead?”

Logical question to most people and the obvious belief. No, he is not deceased. He is still living in Illinois in 1900. Now you may think he is just working and living there to provide for his family back in Indiana. Again, no. The evidence does not support that.

George is living with a widowed woman named Elizabeth Johnson. He is listed in the 1900 census as a boarder of Elizabeth Johnson. His marital status is listed as being single (not divorced or widowed). The age/year of birth matches, place of birth, and general area where he lived with my 2nd great grandmother all match. It is him. This Elizabeth Johnson has a few kids living with her including a George Johnson born in 1897 in Illinois (a few months before Elizabeth Johnson’s husband dies).

George Sr. listed here as a boarder and single. George Jr. is listed as a Johnson/Johnston.

Skip ahead to the 1910 census. George is still living in Chicago with Elizabeth Johnson as a boarder. However, this time he is listed as married and the child, George Johnson, from the 1900 census is now listed as ‘George Bader’ son of George Bader Sr. Whoa! wait a minute. He goes from being Elizabeth Johnson’s son to the son of her boarder. Could just be an error on the census takers part, right? That is what I thought in the beginning. That is until I found the birth certificate for George Junior.

George Sr. still living with Elizabeth as a boarder but now George Jr. is a Bader and not a Johnson.

Birth record leads to more confusion…

After much digging for George Bader Jr.’s birth certificate and coming up empty I took a shot in the dark and looked for a birth certificate for George Johnson and to my amazement I found it. Same birth date and listed Elizabeth Johnson and her deceased husband as parents. So confused.

George Bader Jr. birth record. Correct birth date and same address on census record.

Still believing an error occurred on the 1910 census I went to the 1920 census. I could not find either George in Chicago so I expanded my search nationwide looking for George Bader and George Bader Jr. with what ages they should be. I finally found them–in Portland, Oregon. They were together living with one of Elizabeth Johnson’s daughters. On this census George Sr. is listed as ‘widowed’ which makes sense because he never divorced my great great grandmother and she died in 1912 from cancer.

George Sr. and Jr. now living in Portland with Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary (after she had married and been widowed).

I am awfully confused at this point. Was Elizabeth Johnson the mother of George Jr. like the birth record says? But then why would George Jr. go with Senior and leave Elizabeth behind in Chicago? Were George Sr. and Elizabeth Johnson having an affair and that is why my great great grandmother moved back to Indiana in 1898?

In the 1930 and 1940 census George Sr. continues to live with George Jr. and his family in the Portland area until his death in July of 1940.

Basically after my great great grandmother left him he appears to have never lived with her again or even see his children again. He lives with Elizabeth Johnson for around 12-15 years and then heads to Portland with George Jr. and one of Elizabeth’s daughters.

I had my suspicions that George Sr. had an affair with Elizabeth Johnson (while her husband was alive) and the birth record for George Jr. was just listed as Elizabeth and her husband’s. Then after her husband passed away it was easier to say the child was George Sr.’s. Simply listing George Sr. as a boarder with a son didn’t raise suspicion in an age where this was highly frowned upon.

Elizabeth Johnson in the middle with George Sr. on the left and George Jr. in the back left. Taken in Portland when Elizabeth visited.

I am not alone in my assumptions and research.

This all seems so out there I always doubted my findings. Then several years after my research began I came in contact with a distant Bader cousin. She had done her own research and had come to the same conclusion. However, growing up she always heard that Elizabeth Johnson had run a brothel in Chicago. She had also heard that family members believed George Bader Jr. was not Elizabeth’s child but rather her daughter’s child. This is controversial because Elizabeth’s daughter would have been only 14 at the time (and George Sr. would have been 39). My relative said Elizabeth’s daughter, Mary, and George Jr. were always extremely close and Mary was the one who moved out to Portland with George Senior and Junior.

When you put the pieces together it all seems to fit. A sad, soap opera like scenario but many of the facts are there. Will I ever know the 100% truth? Probably not. To this day I cannot be sure that Elizabeth Johnson is the mother of George Bader Jr. I truly do not think her husband was the father because right after he dies George Jr. takes on the Bader name.

The take away….

The take away here is that not everything is what it seems. As a genealogist we have to deal in facts. The facts in this case tell me that my great great grandparents split up but never divorced. They tell me that my great great grandfather had an illegitimate child. The facts also lead me to believe the birth record was a lie. George Junior was not the child of Elizabeth’s husband (and possibly not even Elizabeth). He was not born in a hospital but rather at home and it is a birth record…not a certificate. Elizabeth also, according to census records, had a total of 18 children but only less than half survived and she had her ‘Own Income’. Running a brothel could be a possibility.

I will keep searching, trying to find anything to support the theories. Key take away here is: Don’t assume your family was perfect or that just because something seems odd means it isn’t true. Just like people today, our ancestors had flaws too. Embrace it and accept it as just a part of your family history.