Clearer identity of Fishbite Smith revealed

My last post featured discussion about names, particularly unusual names. Today, I continue the case study discussion which enabled me to learn more about the true identify of Fishbite Smith, a 6-year-old “female” who resided in Gates County, North Carolina, in 1850.1

Britton Smith and Elizabeth Vann, Fishbite’s assumed parents, had married in Gates County in 1834.2 By 1840 their family was identified as a resident household of Gates County.3 Although Britton was not featured as the head of household in 1860, B.H. Smith [Betsy H. Smith], perhaps his widow, had assumed that role as head of family in Reynoldson Township.4

W T Smith - 1860 census

Although Fishbite Smith was not featured in any United States census locality in 1860, W.T. Smith—a male not present in the Smith household of Gates County in 1850—made his first appearance with the Smith family that year. Where did he come from? Was Elizabeth (Vann) Smith his mother? His reported age, seventeen (est. birth of 1843/44) was suspiciously similar to Fishbite’s (est. birth 1843/1844). Could W.T. Smith, a male, possibly be the child formerly reported by the enumerator in 1850 as the young female named Fishbite?

Smith - muster roll cardWhen the enrollment of soldiers into Confederate units from North Carolina began in 1861, William T. Smith—a self-reported male of age seventeen (b. ca. 1844), was among those residents of Gates County that enlisted in Reynoldson Township.5 As a constituent soldier of the 33rd Regiment of North Carolina Infantry, William was discharged on 7 January 1862.

According to an online index and image database, on 30 June 1863, William married Mary E. Hozier.6 The bondsman who aided William in securing the marriage license was his uncle, Lewis Vann. Taking his 1860 census and 1861 military enlistment records into account, William would have been about nineteen or twenty years old at the time of marriage.

By 1870, William and Mary were established as a resident household of Reynoldson Township in Gates County.7

Nearby, only thirty-six dwellings away in the census order of visitation in Reynoldson Township resided Elizabeth Smith, widow.8 Her neighbors included Emeline Hofler, her mother Cinthia Vann, and her brother, Lewis Vann.

The 1880 census of Reynoldson Township in Gates County showed that the family of William Smith continued to live in that locality.9

Elizabeth Smith, widow, also was featured as a resident of Reynoldson.10

Will - Elizabeth B H SmithElizabeth died in 1891, as her will was crafted and admitted for probate that year.11 In lieu of her failure to name an executor, the court granted J. T. Carter letters of administration cum testamento annexo regarding the estate of Elizabeth B. “Betsie” H. Smith. My paternal great-great-grandfather, B.F. Piland (Benjamin Franklin Piland) was appointed guardian ad litem to Ima Bracey, Elizabeth’s granddaughter named as the sole beneficiary in her will.

William T. Smith was listed as a creditor of the estate.12Smith estate - account

By 1900, the family of William T. Smith continued to reside in Reynoldson Township.13 His birth data was reported as “Mar 1841.”

As in 1900, the family of William T. Smith was once again shown as a resident household of Reynoldson Township in 1910.14

CORRELATION OF EVIDENCE

Age correlation chart

Based upon the above correlated evidence, the estimated year of birth for both Fishbite Smith and William T. Smith is very similar. The evidence clearly shows that the further removed from the estimated year of birth, the older William T. Smith was represented in his records. Additional analysis introduces an even clearer possibility:

  • Fishbite was not accounted for by that precise name on any census beyond 1850
  • No evidence of an appropriate burial marker exists in known cemeteries of Gates county to attest to Fishbite’s death
  • Fishbite’s name and gender was likely an error due to faulty transcription introduced when the enumerator was making his required supplemental copies
  • Collectively, the censuses of 1850 and 1860 placed Fishbite Smith and W.T. Smith in the same hierarchical birth order immediately after Ugene Smith and E.L. Smith [could be Ugenia or Eugenia L.] and prior to the entry for Mary
  • Collectively, one can surmise from Elizabeth’s census records that the birth of her children occurred approximately every two years (very typical), thus it is unlikely she bore a child between 1842 and 1844
  • The marriage records of Gates County do not account for a bride named Fishbite Smith who married during the period of potential marriage without parental consent (1859), nor any year thereafter
  • No Smith bride with the middle initial “F” married in Gates County between 1859 and 1870

CONCLUSION
Of course, additional evidence yet to be discovered in a future realm of reasonably exhaustive research might provide contradictory evidence to refute any premature conclusion based solely upon the above evidence already studied. However, taking all of the above into consideration, the evidence and circumstance at this point strongly suggests that Fishbite Smith (female) was probably misidentified in 1850. Most important, the child was probably more accurately identified in later records as William T. Smith (male).15


SOURCES

1. 1850 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, no district stated, p. 15-A (stamped), dwelling 228, family 228, Fishbite Smith in household of Britton Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 631.

2. Gates County, North Carolina, Original Marriage Bonds, 1778-1868, Vols. R-Y, Britton Smith to Eliza “Vance” [Vann], 1834; State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh; database and digital images, FamilySearch (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 14 December 2015), path: Search > Browse All Published Collections > United States > Browse All Published Collections > United States > North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 > Browse through 889,672 images > Gates > Marriage bonds, 1778-1868, vol. R-Y > Gates > image 421 of 1049; imaged from FHL microfilm publication 418145 Item 3.

3. 1840 U.S. census, Gates County, North Carolina, no district stated, p. 176 (stamped), line 14, “Britta Smith” [Britten Smith]; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication M704, roll 361.

4. 1860 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, no district stated, p. 192 (stamped), dwelling 452, family 594, W.T. Smith in household of B.H. Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication M653, roll 898.

5. Compiled service record, William T. Smith, Pvt., Co. H, 33 North Carolina Inf., muster-in roll; digital image, Fold3 (http://www.fold3.com : accessed 14 December 2015), path: Browse Military Records by War > Civil War > Civil War Service Records > Confederate Records > North Carolina > Thirty-third Infantry > letter “S” > William T. Smith > image 2 of 4; imaged from Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organizations From the State of North Carolina, microfilm publication M270, 580 rolls (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1960), roll 384.

6. Gates County, North Carolina, Original Marriage Bonds, 1778-1868, Vols. R-Y, William Smith to Mary E. Hozier, 1863; State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh; database and digital images, FamilySearch (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 14 December 2015), path: Search > Browse All Published Collections > United States > North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 > Browse through 889,672 images > Gates > Marriage bonds, 1778-1868, vol. R-Y > image 484 of 1049; imaged from FHL microfilm publication 418145 Item 3. The surname of the bride in the database was possibly based upon information taken from a published abstract and interpreted as “Hozier.” Contrarily, that is not a surname found in the records of Gates County. Furthermore, the fourth letter of the bride’s surname on the marriage bond was not dotted, which leaves its interpretation an open issue. However, the surname “Hofler” was very prevalent in that county. It has origins akin to the surname “Hosler” [long “s” mistaken for an “f”] which could also be pronounced “Hozler.” Thus, the bride’s surname was possibly Hofler, which graphically looks comparable and phonetically sounds similar to Hosler or Hozler. Also, Lewis Vann, bondsman, was the brother of Elizabeth B.H. Smith, thus the uncle of William T. Smith (see brother/sister contestation of their mother’s estate in Gates County, Original Estate Records: “Smith, Cynthia, 1874”; State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh).

7. 1870 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, Reynoldson Township, p. 99-A (stamped), dwelling 160, family 160, William Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication M593, roll 1139.

8. 1870 U.S. census, Gates Co., NC., pop. sch., Reynoldson Township, p. 97-A, dwell. 124, fam. 124, Elizabeth Smith.

9. 1880 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, Reynoldson Township, Enumeration District [ED] 61, p. 2-B (written), p. 231-B (stamped), dwelling 21, family 21, William Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 964.

10. 1880 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, Reynoldson Township, ED 61, p. 231-B (stamped), dwell. 167, fam. 168, Elizabeth Smith.

11. Gates County, North Carolina, Record of Wills, vol. 4 (1867-1903): 318-320, will of Elizabeth B. H. Smith; State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh; digital images, FamilySearch (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 14 December 2015), path: Search > Browse All Published Collections > United States > North Carolina Probate Records, 1735-1970 > Browse through 1,147,259 images > Gates > Wills, 1867-1903, Vol. 4 > images 209-11 of 649; imaged from FHL microfilm 423,570.

12. Gates County, North Carolina, Original Estate Records: file “Smith, E.B.H., 1891,” administrator’s account, entry for W.T. Smith as a creditor against the estate; State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh; digital images, FamilySearch (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 14 December 2015), path: Search > Browse All Published Collections > United States > North Carolina Estate Files, 1663-1979 > Browse through 5,527,042 images > Gates County > S > Smith, E B H (1891); image 49 of 63; imaged from FHL microfilm 2,195,084 Item 1.

13. 1900 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, Reynoldson Township, enumeration district [ED] 47, p. 100-B (stamped), sheet 7-B (written), dwelling 127, family 129, William T. Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication T623, roll 1196.

14. 1910 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, Reynoldson Township, p. 278-B (stamped), enumeration district [ED] 40, sheet 9-B (written), dwelling 40, family 40, William T. Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication T624, roll 1101.

15.  “Public Member Trees,” database, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 December 2015), “Wells Family Tree Master 2011-07-09(1)” family tree by Charles P. Wells, profile for William Tishbite Smith (Mar 1841, d. Unknown) undocumented data to attest to William’s middle name, data updated October 2015. Interestingly, “Tishbite” was a Biblical term used to describe Elijah or his origins (see The Holy Bible (KJV) I Kings 17:1).

The day when the fish were biting

Years ago when I first began my genealogical quest, curiosity about my middle name eventually drew me into a discussion with my mother. When I asked mama what was the influence behind the name she had given me, she simply replied that she did so “…just because I liked that name.” Wow. I was taken by her reply, as I thought surely I was named after someone in our family, a close friend, or perhaps a favorite celebrity. As it turned out, research eventually showed there truly wasn’t a smidgen of historical evidence of that name in my family.

It was soon thereafter during my research of my family that the reality of what the above meant hit me—I wasn’t the only child in our immediate household to have uniquely received a name that was simply just “likable.” All of my siblings had received “likable” names not patterned after current relatives, ancestral forebears, or conventional naming patterns unique to our family. Stunning.

Granted, when I was born it was still very common for parents to name their children after relatives, ancestors, close friends or associates, persons of special interest, or as a matter of generational tradition. Thus, my mother’s approach was a surprising departure from that tradition (graciously, I did receive my forename in honor of my father). Interesting, yet perhaps to a lesser degree, that dominant, once-upon-a-time naming practice in the United States still remains viable within today’s social practice.

UNUSUAL NAME
On the subject of names, I got to thinking about the names I’ve encountered during census study. Man oh man, there have been some doozies that surely defy explanation. I’ll bet you too have come across uniquely humorous and strange names at one time or another in your research that garnered a double-take moment. The following case study contains a unique example:

Recently, while conducting followup study of my Piland ancestors of Gates County, North Carolina, I stumbled upon a family which was identified in that county’s 1850 federal enumeration with the proverbial common surname: Smith.1 In the Smith household was a 6-year-old child (reported as a female) who immediately caught my eye. The young girl (assumed to have been a daughter of Mr. and Mrs Smith) bore the most bizarre name I had ever seen in that county’s records—Fishbite Smith!

1850 census - Fishbite Smith

“Fishbite Smith? What in Adam’s house cat was mom thinking on the day Fishbite was born? Did her mother have a Johnny Cash, Boy-Named-Sue kind of moment? Poor child—that couldn’t have been her formal name. Maybe ‘Fishbite’ was just a nickname,” I rationalized. But I quickly concluded it would have been quite odd for parents to have bestowed such a stigmatizing name on a daughter. Seeking a sensible explanation, I asked myself, “Was Fishbite’s family perhaps Native-American with an attraction to nature?”

As the above image visually shows, the enumerator’s handwriting and precise spelling clearly identified the child’s gender as “F” (female), with her name intentionally written as Fishbite. So, that begs this question: was the enumerator’s 1850 census presentation flawed? At that point, I was stumped and couldn’t answer any of my questions with certainty. I needed more evidence concerning Miss Fishbite and her Smith family, so I began pursuit of additional records to see what could be learned.

STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE
Disappointingly, in a search of online census databases, I struck out. Fishbite was no where to be found beyond her 1850 appearance. Furthermore, search results of an even broader swath of record types revealed that name was virtually non-existent in the United States—either as a forename, given name, or even surname. FishhookIn lieu of this phenomenon and the scarcity of information, I concluded that perhaps little Fishbite had died prior to the 1860 census enumeration.

But that still didn’t help to answer the nagging question still in my mind: where was Fishbite’s mom on the day when the fish were biting?…

(This Smith case study will be further explored in next week’s post)


SOURCES

1. 1850 U.S. Census, Gates County, North Carolina, population schedule, no district stated, p. 15-A (stamped), dwelling 228, family 228, Fishbite Smith in household of Burten Smith; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 7 December 2015); citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 631.

Follow the road to Buckeye, Alabama

In last week’s post I introduced readers to a marriage record of two ancestors who married in Alabama. The record contained ambiguous language concerning the place of marriage. Further study indicated the event occurred within the community named Alabama Furnace instead of at the site of an iron-making blast furnace of same name. I gained a valuable education to learn that my ancestors were not as atypical in a marital sense as I had initially perceived—or so I thought.

Contrarily, today’s post features a research example in which another couple did in fact pursue, very convincingly, a most unconventional place to wed.

THE EVIDENCE
Taylor-Camp marriage recordYears ago while searching marriage records in Clay County, Alabama, I encountered the record of my maternal great-grandparents, Thomas Taylor and Bellzora “Bell” Camp.1 It revealed a “situation” previously unknown by me. At the time it was discovered, I found the information on that unique record to be both shocking and hilarious.

You see, the clerk who recorded the marriage record was gracious enough to indicate Tom and Bell were married by C.W. Swann, a local minister, N.P., and ex officio J.P., “at in the middle of the public road near Buckeye, Ala…” As you can imagine, I didn’t see that one coming! No church wedding. No expensive gown nor bridesmaids. No best man. No mounds of flowers to shower the bride and groom. No trading of vows at the house of the bride’s parents. No sir. Choosing instead to dodge the social-column tidbits in the local paper, those rascals legitimated their vows in just a plain, old fashioned, can’t-wait-to-get-hitched, roadside affair. What a mental picture. I can just see them now, lying in wait, ready to ambush that poor, unassuming preacher on his way to town!

Taylor - Camp marriage record - insert

MY REACTION TO THE EVIDENCE
It would have been real easy for me to have swept some of the undesirable evidence I had discovered under the rug.  I could have refrained from telling all and partially revealed to interested parties in my family that Tom and Bell were simply married by a minister or county official in Clay County on such-and-such date. It would have been the truth—yet only half the truth. Fortunately, I avoided that temptation. When it came to crunch time, I did what I knew was the ethical thing to do: I accepted my ancestors for who they were, warts and all, regardless of what the “record” said. I didn’t try to impose any modern, political correctness or social etiquette to their marriage situation.

TODAY’S LESSON
The word “sanitize” conjures up lots of interpretation when it comes to genealogy. We “clean up” photographs with digital-editing software prior to sharing, believing that a manicured photo is more desirable than one which displays defects. Digitized documents are cropped to remove areas we deem less important or not applicable. We even reduce our findings during research to “abstracts” which reflect only a portion of the evidence we find. You’ll agree, those are legitimate examples in which noise, clutter, or the likes are removed in a preferred fashion from our artifacts, documents, and research.

On the flip side, I’ve known of persons who doctored their research conclusions to fit a certain legacy or story, knowing all the time that they were cleaving to something that was profoundly untrue. Why heck, I even know about a person who wrote their own obituary—later published at death (1990s)—which contained events, occupations, and such that the decedent had never experienced. Talk about sanitizing…

Sweeping data under rugLike me, if you research long enough, you’ll eventually encounter unexpected “situations” in your own pedigree as well. Then you too will be faced with the same question about how to respond and treat the evidence you’ve discovered. When it occurs, don’t fall prey to the temptation to sweep undesirable or embarrassing information under the rug. Refuse to “sanitize” your perception.

Whenever a source reveals evidence about an ancestor that disappoints our human expectations, don’t fret. Avoid the inclination to accept any evidence at face value. Learn to be a diligent skeptic. Always subject your evidence to further research. Who knows, in time, new, comparative evidence may reflect a different meaning, perception, or interpretation. But if it doesn’t, just remember that our forebears weren’t perfect. We’re forever the product of their legacy—a fact that will never change—regardless of the size of our broom!


SOURCES

1. Clay County, Alabama, Marriage Records, Book H (1901-1904): 234, Tom Taylor to Bell Camp, 1902, license, return, and bond (not filled in); Probate Judge’s Office, Ashland.

Educational value of marriage records!

When you think of researching and obtaining copies of historical marriage records, what’s some of the thoughts that cross your mind? If you’re like me, you envision a notable document recorded somewhere on a mysterious page in one of those big ol’ heavy books down at the courthouse. To obtain a photocopy, you simply venture to the county courthouse. You photocopy the record and head back home. Pretty simple.

I know what you’re thinking. “Wait just a minute. Nobody goes down to the courthouse nowadays to get a copy of a marriage record! Haven’t you heard of the Internet?”

You’re absolutely right. Most of us have transitioned to the digital age in which older marriage records are now downloaded at the click of a mouse. The manner in which we access marriage documents is very important. Abstracting precise vital dates and the names of various parties named within marriage records is also a critical aspect of our research. Most important, however, we should study each and every marriage record we encounter in its entirety to gain the whole story. As the following recorded event attests, sometimes we encounter an unexpected story of matrimony that goes far beyond the minutiae expressed on the recorded page. It is a great example of the educational value of marriage records.

I arrived early that morning just when the courthouse door opened in Talladega County, Alabama. I made a beeline straight to the probate judge’s office. Upon consulting the marriage indexes, I located the marriage of my ancestors, James “Jimroe” Taylor and Susan Garmon. Taylor-Garmon marriage record Next, I identified the appropriate marriage register which reeked with smells of the bygone past. Lifting the bulky book from its shelf, I turned to the proper page and eagerly stared at the record.1 “Wow. They got married…in 1874…uh, where? Yep, I should have guessed,” I thought to myself. As I continued to read, it stated they were married “at Ala. Iron Furnace.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” I first reacted in disbelief. Then, I surmised, “My ancestors may have been anxious to get hitched, but choosing to elope and wed at an iron-making blast furnace of all places was taking the idea of marriage to a whole new level.” My curiosity was now stirred for sure. I just couldn’t wait to learn more about this outdoor “furnace.”

With photocopy in hand, I proceeded to the local public library. It didn’t take long to find out that in my rush to judgment, my premature conclusion was all wrong. From information gathered by Eugene Allen Smith, state geologist, Talladega’s sole iron furnace during the Civil War was destroyed by Union forces but was rebuilt by the Alabama Iron Company in 1873.2 (Please note that this furnace was rebuilt one year prior to James Taylor’s marriage to Susan Garmon.). Smith stated its location was in Section 17, of Township 17 South, of Range 7 East [of the Huntsville Meridian (in the upper, northeastern area of Talladega County)]. In March 1873, the town of “Alabama Furnace” was incorporated by the Alabama Legislature.3 The language of the act indicated that its corporate limits were to “…extend three miles in every direction from said furnace, near Salt Creek, on the line of the Selma, Rome and Dalton railroad…” It was to be no closer than one mile from the center of the town of Munford.

Further research revealed that one month later, in April 1873, a post office was established at Alabama Furnace.4 It serviced the community which surrounded the iconic iron-manufacturing facility. A historical map published in 1878 indicated that the town and post office were located in Township 17 just south of the Rome and Dalton Railroad line near Salt Creek, between the towns of Munford and Silver Run.5 On 18 February 1884, the name of the Alabama Furnace community post office was changed to “Jenifer.”6 The town was named after Jenifer, mother of Samuel Noble, the new corporate owner of the furnace.7

Today’s Lesson
So there, we now have the rest of the story concerning this confusing marriage record. Consequently, James and his bride had not tied the knot at an industrial edifice after all—it occurred somewhere within its surrounding community which also bore the town name and post office of same name. Yippee! I dodged a negative social bullet on that one, ’cause I had initially thought my “Jimroe” was a rather strange ancestor. The lesson to be learned is simple. We should never jump to premature conclusions in our research—even if the record we are viewing is original. If we don’t conduct thorough study before postulating our conclusions about the evidence in hand, we may get the “wrong picture.”

Next week, I’ll continue this discussion about marriage records and their “educational” value…


SOURCES

1. Talladega County, Alabama, Marriage Book D (1872–76): 239, James Taylor and Susan Garmon, 1874, recorded license, return, and bond (not filled in); Probate Judge’s Office, Talladega.

2. Geological Survey of Alabama, Report of Progress for 1875 (Montgomery: W.W. Screws, State Printer, 1876), 133, 149–151; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 23 November 2015).

3. Acts of the Session of 1872–1873, of the General Assembly of Alabama held in the City of Montgomery, commencing [18 November 1872] (Montgomery: Arthur Bingham, State Printer, 1873), pp. 280–81, “An Act To incorporate the town of ‘Alabama Furnace’ in the county of Talladega” (Act no. 274); digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 23 November 2015).

4. “U.S., Appointment of U.S. Postmasters, 1832–1971,” digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 23 November 2015), Talladega County, Alabama, 7 April 1873, Alabama Furnace, search path: Start > Alabama > County > Marion-Winston > image 402 of 603; imaged from Record of Appointment of Postmasters, 1832–September 30, 1971, microfilm publication M841 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, 1973), roll 3.

5. U.S. General Land Office, State of Alabama (New York: Julius Bien, 1878); digital image, David Rumsey Map Collection (http://www.davidrumsey.com : accessed 23 November 2015), search path: Start > Alabama > When [left menu] > Show More > 1878 > map 5 of 5.

6. “U.S., Appointment of U.S. Postmasters, 1832–1971,” digital image, Ancestry, Talladega County, Alabama, 18 February 1884, Alabama Furnace (late) to Jenifer, image 402 of 603.

7. Ethel Armes, The Story of Coal and Iron in Alabama (Birmingham: Chamber of Commerce, 1910), 316; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 23 November 2015.

Welcome Genealogists!

Welcome genealogists to my SoutheasternRoots Genealogy Blog!

My name is James Mitchell Brown. I’m a novice to the blogging community, yet I have much knowledge to share with you about genealogy.

I’m a native Texan but was raised in Gloucester County, Virginia, in the tiny oyster and crabber community known today as Glass. It is situated on the historic Severn River on a peninsula formerly known as old “Saddler’s Neck.” As a matter of pedigree and residency, at one time or another my paternal and maternal direct-line ancestors collectively occupied every southern state from Virginia to Alabama (with the exception of Florida). So, as you naturally might suspect, my expertise resides in genealogical research of the Old American South.

Regarding education, I believe we can agree that family history research is not a static endeavor, as we never quit learning. Any genealogical subject of value will be fair game for me to share on this blog. I especially enjoy state and local records. Those include vital records, land records, probate material, and tax records. The topic of DNA and its use in family history is intriguing to a growing audience. I’m also a stickler for methodology, so I’ll share posts on the how-to as well. Of course, I’ll certainly include moments of research humor, travel to historic sites, terminology, etc.

Even if your ancestors resided outside the region, that doesn’t mean that the content of my posts will be irrelevant to you. Federal records encompass all forebears who resided in our great country—regardless of where they may have lived. Therefore, I’ll also feature treatment of various types of government records too. So, if you suspect an ancestor may have made a temporary “flying visit” to the region or just simply passed through as a part of the general westward movement, there’s something here for you as well.

This introductory post represents the first of many informative and entertaining tidbits I hope to upload in the weeks and months ahead. My plan is to share new posts on a weekly basis, so I hope you will stop by often. If a featured post strikes a chord with you, feel free to share your comments.

So, sit back and enjoy the ride with me. I hope you’ll make my blog one of your favorite places to visit.

Thanks for stopping by.