Luke R Cartrett and Celia/Circle Jolly/Dolly

While preparing this set of articles on Luke and Celia Cartrett, new information came to my attention. This new information helps to illustrate some of the genealogical problems I discussed in the just completed series, while casting doubt on the lineage from Luke to Kathleen Rogers.

Follow along as I discuss this family, and how the new information casts doubt on our ties to Luke.

It is clear that Luke R. Cartrett married Celia Jolley. It is also fairly certain that Luke's wife, Celia, was a Great Grandmother of Kathleen Rogers. What about Luke?

Here is the lineage we're looking at:

• (Luke R. Cartrett and )Celia Jolley
  
  • Martha Jane Cartrett and William L Wheeler
    
    • Blanche May (Mazie) Wheeler and Lloyd Franklin Rogers
      
      • Kathleen May Rogers

Luke R Cartrett was born in about 1831, in Columbus, North Carolina. His future wife, Celia, was born in June of 1834, in either North or South Carolina.

Next time, I will discuss what the 1860 Census record reveals. After that, we'll look at, Luke's civil war service, and one of the puzzles associated with Luke.

Introducing... Do you know who? #7

O.K. Here we go again! This relative says:

1) I was in a dolphin show.
2) I have run several 5Ks with my father.
3) I have swum further than 1,000 miles, in one year!
4) I have had three different surgeries, the shortest recovery lasting several weeks and the longest about a year.
5) I have walked on a glacier.
6) I have used the following modes of transportation: bus, car, truck, jet, biplane, turboprop, ship, boat, speedboat, helicopter, train, waverunner, my legs, wheelchair, golf cart, go-cart, four-wheeler, other people (piggy-back rides - LOL!), horse drawn carriage, hay-ride, tractor, horseback, and wagon, BUT never a motorcycle or dirt bike.

Can you guess who I am?

It's Alyse!

Alyse swims for GCC

What's in a name (Conclusion)?

By far the greatest problems that genealogists run into are deceit and poor record keeping.

I have been researching one ancestor who simply changed his birth date when he applied for his Social Security card. He was a known gambler, and my suspicion is that he figured that no one would notice his early "retirement". So, even though I had a relatively recent record, that he created himself, the information could not be trusted.

Sometimes people change their names, their birth locations, their parents names, or other personal information for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they wanted to join the military early, avoid being associated with a family member who was looked upon unfavorably, or get away from their own tarnished past. All such changes create confusion for genealogists, and might throw you completely off the right track.

Finally, we have to face that fact that vital records, such as birth certificates, are a modern device. For example, we have no record of Rachel Carson's death, in 1907, because Oklahoma did not keep death records until 1908. There is no birth record for Chester Carson, as birth's in Kansas were recorded on a voluntary basis until July 1, 1911. Before states kept vital records, they were held in a variety of places, if at all, including the county (which may no longer exist), the town they lived in (if you know that), their church (which may not exist, or may not have kept the records), or a family bible. In addition, there are a number of states and counties that did not secure their early records. There are plenty of stories of people rummaging through vital records, simply removing the ones relating to their research.

Because records on birth, death, and marriage events are often unavailable, genealogists turn to Census records. The problem here is that census records are filled with errors. Not only were many early American's illiterate, census takers often had literacy problems. So, names are frequently misspelled. In addition, on early census records the enumerator did not even have to interview someone in the home. After traveling long distances, often on foot, if they found that a home was unoccupied, they would simply ask a neighbor, and record that information. How many of your neighbors know your family's correct names, ages and birth locations?

All of this makes genealogy a challenge, but it also adds to the excitement when new information is discovered.

I'm convinced that I'll never have my end-to-end list, but I'm also convinced that there is more information out there that will eventually be added to the tree.

What's in a name (Part III of IV)?

SOUNDEX is a phonetic name indexing system. When you calculate the soundex code for a name, you use the first letter of the name, then assign three digits to represent what the name sounds like. The purpose of the soundex code is to help you find names that are spelled differently, but sound similar.

For example, the Carterette family name is spelled several different ways in the US Census records. You can find Cartrett, Cartret, Carterette, and Cotrell. In addition, the Civil War Soldier records add another variation: Catrett. When changed to soundex codes, all but Cotrell and Catrett have the same soundex of C636. Cotrell is very close, C634. Only Catrett, with a soundex of C363, is significantly different.

Using the soundex code to search genealogical databases can help by displaying forms of names that may have been misspelled or changed, but still sound like the original surname. Of course, you may also have to review significantly more data, but in genealogy, more tends to be better than less.

Of course, the soundex system is no good when someone decides to go to the courthouse and change their name to something that strikes their fancy. For example, there is a woman in California who decided to change her name to GoVeg.Com. Assuming that good records are not kept, one day an ancestor of hers will be researching the GoVeg.Com family, which will suddenly end in the early 2000's. It will simply disappear.

In the final article on names, we'll briefly discuss poor record keeping and deceit as problems for tracking your family name.

Mystery Photo Monday #20

I believe that I know three of the people in this photo (see the caption below the photo). Who are the others, and where was this photo taken?

UPDATED 21 November 2005: Everyone in the photo has been identified! See the caption under the image. In commenting on the curls in her hair, Kit (seated on the far right) says, "Mom used to curl my hair in 'rags'... Hurt like the devil, but it did curl... I think that picture was taken in Leonardtown, MD on a Mother's Day at the home of Helen and Fred, also Grandma Blache. Mom loved those white dogwoods. I have a Maryland dogwood tree that I pamper... in memory of Mom."


From left to right: Blanche (Wheeler) Rogers, Helen (Rogers) Sykes, Bernice (seated, center), Alberta Rogers on the shoulders of Kathleen (Rogers) Carson, and Kathleen ("Kit") seated on the far right. The photo was probably taken in Leonardtown, Maryland at the home of Helen and Fred Sykes.

What's in a name (part II)?

Now that surnames are in common use, at least in most parts of the world, our job of finding all of our ancestors should be simplified, at least back into eleventh century Europe, right?

Well, no. It's not that simple. Even with the use of surnames common practice, names still change. For example, we've already looked at the life of Rachel Truax, John K Carson's wife. Her family line changed the spelling of their surname several times. Some of the documented versions include: Truax, Truex, Du Trieux, du Trieu, du Tryheu, and Trewex. They may be more that I'm not familiar with.

Why so many versions? While I'm unaware of any documented reasons for any of the name changes, there are records of why many people in the USA have changed their surname. Many names were changed when a person immigrated to the USA, or some other country. Perhaps their name contained characters that did not translate easily in the new country, or perhaps they decided to simplify the spelling. It could be that they wanted to reduce some stigma that was attached to a name, to ease their assimilation into the new society. Other reasons frequently cited include illiteracy on the part of the surname owner or some other person they interacted with, and government officials who misspelled their name on an official document, which then became the official spelling.

I've run into this with several of the family lines I've been researching. The names suddenly change, requiring detective work on the part of the genealogist. This is probably one reason that the SOUNDEX system was developed. More on that next time!

What's in a name (genealogically speaking)?

You might think that identifying your ancestors would be fairly straightforward. When I started working on genealogy, I certainly thought so. I figured that I should be able to put together a neat list of couples who gave birth to children, who later met each other, married, then gave birth to other children, who would then meet other ancestors, and so on. At one end of the list should be Adam and Eve, with a family tree that became vastly simplified with Noah, and at the other end would be my family. I've learned that it's just not that simple, and there are numerous reasons why, chief among them are: name changes, poor record keeping, deceit, and mistakes.

By "name changes", I mean more than someone who legally changes their name, it also refers to the problem of changing forms of names. Think back to my imagined list of ancestors. It would start with Adam and Eve. But, neither Adam nor Eve had last names. In fact, last names are a fairly recent way to identify people, and they are not used world-wide. Since I believe that my primary family lines came from Europe, I have to face the fact that last names were not commonly used there until about one-thousand years ago. Before that, they just weren't needed. Had my family come from China I would find some surnames in use back about 2300 B.C. If our family originated in Tibet, they still would be known only by a first name.

The average person in Europe in the late 900's had relatively restricted interactions with other people. In fact, the number of people they knew was so restricted that a man they knew as William, was probably the only William they knew. If there were two, they might identify one of them by location, such as "William of the Forest", or by his parents, as in "William, son of Robin". You can see how over time names such as these would become William Forest, or William Robinson.

Next time: More examples of name changes, more problems for genealogical research.

Memorable Photo Monday #11

Here is a collection of three images from a 1975 family gathering in Brentwood, Maryland. I don't recall the occasion. It is certainly not Christmas (no decorations are visible). Perhaps it was a birthday, or an anniversary? Does anyone know?


Top photo (left to right): Jimmy, Joe Sr., Joe Jr., Jim
Middle photo: Helen, Nancy, Joanne
Bottom photo: Bernie

Mills and Robbins - Uncertain Paths

The Mills and Robbins trees end here, at least for now.

I have notes that indicate that the parents of John H Mills may have been Benjamin (1780-3 Aug 1857) and Sarah.

I also have notes that the parents of Delilah may have been Thomas Robbins and Elizabeth.

These possible links are based solely on the existance of census records for the same localities as we find John and Delilah as adults. Additional investigation is needed to resolve these questions.

Final notes on John and Delilah Mills

Very few records from the 1890 U.S. Census exist, so we do not know what the family was doing during that time period.

John Mills passed away on 2 September 1896. He is buried at the Robbins Cemetery at Mill Creek Baptist Church, in Town Creek, North Carolina.

In 1900, Delilah lived on a farm with the family of her son William, in Town Creek, North Carolina. He and his wife of ten years, Penelope, had a family of two sons and a daughter. In addition to Delilah, the family also hosted William’s sister Antonette ( called Annetta Salmon in 1900), a widow.

Delilah passed away 21 December 1904, and was buried in the Robbins Cemetery at Mill Creek Baptist Church, in Town Creek, North Carolina.

Mystery Photo Monday #19

Here is a photo of Kathleen Carson, doing one of the things she enjoyed most: dancing!

The mysteries are: with whom is she dancing, where was this, and what was the occassion? I have two other photos of this same event, which also show Kathleen dancing. In those her dance partners are her grandson Bernie, and a person who appears to be a family friend named Kevin.

UPDATED 10 November 2005: The event was the wedding reception for Jan and Mark in Potomac, Maryland. The date was 30 September 1978. Thanks to Mom and Jan for the information!

John and Delilah's family in 1880

The final time that John and Delilah are enumerated as husband and wife is in June of 1880. They continue to live in Town Creek (the Southern part) in Brunswick County, North Carolina.

John, at age 57, is a farmer. His wife, now 56, still keeps house. Their daughter Antonette continues to live with them. Now 32, she is described as "widowed or divorced", and helps her mother keep the house up. William and Benjamin are also at home. William is 31, and is some sort of superintendent in a business venture (the text is difficult to read - see below and let me know if you can read it).

Benjamin, age 20, is a cooper. Interestingly, his brother-in-law Thomas is also listed as a cooper, and also lived in Town Creek. Perhaps they worked together.

John and Delilah's family were enumerated on 15 June (Page 16). The next day (and only 13 houses away) Thomas and Mariah were enumerated with their young family.


An extract from the 1880 US Census for Town Creek, Brunswick Co., N.C.

John and Delilah's family in 1870

When the 1870 U.S. Census was taken, on the 20th of June, John and Delilah once again had only one child in their Town Creek, North Carolina home. Antonette (possibly Antoinette, sometimes also known as Annetta) is 22 years old and single. Three of their children, twenty-two-year-old William W., sixteen-year-old Mariah A., and ten-year-old Benjamin, live next door.

John, now 49, now describes himself as a farmer. His wife keeps the home. Antonette is described as simply “At Home”.

Next door(1), William is a “day laborer”. Mariah is keeping house. Benjamin is “at home”. Benjamin is also described as unable to read or write, and either “deaf and dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic”.(2)

1. “Next door” is either a separate building, or a living area completely separated by walls.

2. The 1870 U.S. Census Enumerator instructions for using this description state, “Great care will be taken in performing this work of enumeration, so as at once to secure completeness and avoid giving offense. Total blindness and undoubted insanity only are intended in this inquiry. Deafness merely, without the loss of speech, is not to be reported. The fact of idiocy will be better determined by the common consent of the neighborhood, than by attempting to apply any scientific measure to the weakness of the mind or will.”


Extract from the 1870 US Census