icon caret-left icon caret-right instagram pinterest linkedin facebook twitter goodreads question-circle facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Blog

Choosing Which Ancestors to Research

Starting with Dave's parents: the Dwights and the Richardsons.

 

Researching the Dwight family:

 

I decided to start my research with my mother-in-law's family because we knew they arrived in North America quite early.  Tracing the Dwight family turned out to be deceptively easy.  The first immigrant, John Dwight, arrived in North America in 1635, and the family didn't leave New England for a couple hundred years.  Many Dwights attained notoriety in one way or another, and the family had a reputation for being God-fearing, hard-working New Englanders of the most steadfast kind. 

 

Further assistance came from a 3-volume family genealogy published in 1874.  Apparently, genealogy was quite popular in the late 1800's and lots of genealogical tomes were written, some for wealthy Americans who longed to find royal or otherwise famous ancestry and whose desire for such inevitably captured the attention of charlatans only too willing to pose as legitimate genealogists and create royal ancestry out of nothing.  This was not the case with the Dwights.  The gentleman who penned the book, Benjamin Woodbridge Dwight, was a noted theologian and scholar before turning his attention to the family genealogy.  No scandals or royal ancestors turned up in the book; in fact, the family came across as rather ordinary.  This, however, may have been partly due to the book's format, a rather tedious list of so-and-so married so-and-so followed by a list of all their children, and all the children's marriages, and then then a list of all the grandchildren and their marriages and children, and so on.  This format is typical of family genealogies that begin with one ancestor and trace all his descendants through time.  Note the word "his".  The typical format ignores the history of the female line.  For a woman that means our mothers and fathers, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. aren't accounted for.  We are effectively erased from the ancestral story.  (See my article on the law of Coverture under the Works tab for more on this topic.)

 

Honoring the Women:

 

Personally, I have always found it irksome that genealogists emphasize the man and the surname and rarely focus on the woman (with some exceptions of course).  This infuriates me since children are equally the product of their father AND their mother.  I was determined to not ignore the women in the family history, so I traced their ancestry as well.  This meant going backward in time and tracing every person in the family tree.

 

Fortunately, modern databases make it easier to do this, but it adds a lot of information to the mix.  (More on handling that in a different post.)  Anyway, I felt like I was uncovering a much more full and engaging history that honored all ancestors, both male and female.  The bad news was that I was already a year into the research, and I hadn't even started on the Richardsons.  Doing that opened a whole new can of worms.

 

Researching the Richardsons:

 

The Richardsons were English Quakers who had emigrated first to Spanish Town, Jamaica, and then to Pennsylvania.   Samuel Richardson made a big splash in Philadelphia when, soon after landing and calling himself a "bricklayer" in legal documents, he proceeded to buy huge swaths of land, establish several successful businesses, and begin a 20-some-odd year political career, all activities well beyond the reach of your common bricklayer. 

 

This seemed promising, but soon a new glitch appeared.  Pennsylvania was one of mid-Atlantic colonies which also include New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.  New York and New Jersey were settled predominantly by colonists from the New England colonies who brought a New England sensibility to record-keeping, so their records are pretty robust.  The more southern mid-Atlantic colonies were not settled by detail-oriented Puritans but rather by a mix of people from different countries, different religions, and different cultures.  This seems to have led to a less rigorous approach to record-keeping.  Consequently, the records from this region are sparse compared to New England, New York, and New Jersey records.  This posed several problems. 

 

First, to augment the details of a person's life, I had to investigate more obscure resources.  For the Richardsons I researched Quaker meeting house records.  To find out more about the Herrs, who married into the Richardson family, I joined the Lancaster Mennonite Society to gain access to its wonderful records.  At one point I even considered establishing Virginia residency to gain access to its restricted records!  Fortunately, we only have a couple of ancestors there so for the moment I don't need to take drastic action. 

 

A second problem was that having fewer verified records meant that the crowd-sourced ancestry sites had an even greater quantity of bad information as amateur genealogists grabbed any data they could get, verified or not. 

 

A third problem was that it was much harder to figure out what these people were doing, why they were doing it, and with whom they were doing it.  I was still able to conduct the research but there were a lot more frustrating moments and "brick walls" (a dead-end that despite months or even years of research provides no definitive answer). 

 

I 'm still researching several of these particular ancestors and desperately trying to break through the brick walls created by the lack of a female ancestor's parentage.

 

 

2 Comments
Post a comment

A Note on Dates and Abbreviations

A Note on Dates and Abbreviations

 

Dates

Genealogical dates can be confusing!

 

The Julian Calendar: Early colonists used the Julian calendar, which was introduced by Julius Caesar in 46 BC.  The Julian calendar had a slight problem, which was that a small inaccuracy in it caused the calendar to "drift" over centuries and literally lose days.  By 1582 CE, the Julian calendar had drifted 10 days relative to the seasons, which was shifting Easter off its "seasonally appropriate" date.  The Catholic Church became concerned and decided to fix the calendar.

 

The Gregorian Calendar: Pope Gregorius XIII introduced a calendar reform in 1582 CE and so the new calendar is named after him.  To correct for the lost 10 days, the Church declared that Thursday, October 4, 1582 would be followed by Friday, October 15, 1582.  Voila, fixed!  This is the Gregorian calendar that we use today.

 

So why were New England colonists still using the Julian calendar?

Because England was a Protestant country and had no interest in adopting a Catholic calendar improvement.  Great Britain and her colonies used the Julian calendar until 1751.  Talk about stubborn…

 

Why does this matter?

It matters because historical and genealogical accuracy is important.  BUT there is a glitch.  Over time, historians, genealogists, and writers, even though striving for accuracy misread, misunderstood, and/or misstated dates.  People also mixed and matched the calendars, improperly using say, April 1, 1620 (Julian) interchangeably with April 1, 1620 (Gregorian) when they should be ten days off.  That makes striving for accuracy today even more difficult.

 

What's the solution for a genealogist?

Striving for accuracy is important.  That said, and with apologies to historians everywhere, my writing likely has dating mistakes.  Whenever possible, I try to recognize that the source of my information may have been using a different calendar, and I try to correct for that.  I also want to engage my readers and having a lot of date technicality seems like a sure turn-off if I'm not writing for academics.  So, I try to balance accuracy with accessibility.

 

More Info: 

If you'd like more information on the topic, check out this blog post by Tamura Jones: https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2020/07/mayflower-myths-2020/

 

Glitch Number Two:

As if fixing drift weren't enough of a headache, the Gregorian calendar also started on January 1st.  Yet again, England figured that if the Catholic Church was for it, England would stand firm against it.  The English continued to use March 25th as the first day of the new year.  March was called the first month.  In dating events, anything occurring before March 25th had a double year.  So, any date between January 1st and March 25th would say, for example, 1 January 1647/8 and 24 March 1647/48.  Only on March 25th would you write 25 March 1648. 

 

But it gets worse!  Sometimes people would date something as "the 5th day of the 11th month".  This meant February 5, 1647.

 

Our historical records are filled with wonky dates such as these.

 

How does this affect our family history?

A perfect example concerns the death dates of John Dwight and his second wife, Elizabeth.  Elizabeth threw herself down a well, committing the unforgiveable sin of suicide.  This had contemporary New England in a tizzy, and it presents a peculiar conundrum for us because it's hard to tell if she did this before or after John died.  The difference is stark.  If she did it after he died, well, we can imagine she was a distraught widow and feel sympathy toward her.  If she did it before, we're left with the question of "why" to which there are no easy answers.  Complicating things, John's will treated her a wee bit harshly.  Hmmm, happy marriage?  Methinks not!

 

Abbreviations

Commonly used genealogical abbreviations:

~          about

b.         born

bp.       baptized

bro.      brother

bur.      buried

c.         circa

d.         died

dau.     daughter

fa.        father

m.        married

mo.      Mother

NFR    no further record

rem.     removed (moved to)

sis.       Sister

unk.     unknown

unm.    Unmarried

 

Colony abbreviations:

CC                  Connecticut Colony

MD                 Maryland Colony

L.I.                 Long Island (disputed between the Dutch and the English colonies)

MBC               Massachusetts Bay Colony

NHC               New Haven Colony

NJC                New Jersey Colony

NY                 New York Colony

Penn. Col.       Pennsylvania Colony

PC                  Plymouth Colony

RI                  Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

VC                 Virginia Colony

WC                Wessagusett Colony

1 Comments
Post a comment