Month: December 2015

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

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?

When 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

Elizabeth 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.¹²

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

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).↩

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!

“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 F–i–s–h–b–i–t–e. 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. In 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.↩