Most Common Research Mistakes

[major bill]

That's amazing (and troubling) that people would refuse to pay just because they don't like the truth. Your wife didn't slander or belittle anybody; she just reported the facts. And for the record, in the US only a living person can sue for slander (i.e. libel); the dead basically have no legal rights.

But I know that trying to win a case in small claims is most often not worth the money or time. That's happened to me twice (not with genealogists).

My wife found 2 US census lists where the ancestor's wife was listed as white, but two Michigan censuses listed her as mulatto. It was not uncommon for some census takers to list the children of free or enslaved blacks and Native Americans as (M) mulattos but others seen then as (I) for Indians. But as I told my wife "she" did not say the wife was a mulatto, she just sent two copies of Michigan censuses where she was listed as a (M). If a mixed black and Native American was raised in a French town they were see as mulattos or even dark skinned French whites, but if raised in a Natives American village they were often seen as Indians.

For those unaware, Ojibwa are fairly tall and light skinned with fine features. The Ojibwa raided the Pawnees for slaves and Pawnees are darker skinned and shorter. If a black married an Ojibwa the offspring could be fairly light skinned especially in the second generation. If a black bought a Pawnee slave for a wife, the offspring would probably be darker skinned. I am not trying to get in to race here, but Michigan Native Americans of the Three Fires groups are taller than most Europeans, with fairly light skin and fine features.

 

[John Winn]

My wife found 2 US census lists where the ancestor's wife was listed as white, but two Michigan censuses listed her as mulatto. It was not uncommon for some census takers to list the children of free or enslaved blacks and Native Americans as (M) mulattos but others seen then as (I) for Indians. But as I told my wife "she" did not say the wife was a mulatto, she just sent two copies of Michigan censuses where she was listed as a (M). If a mixed black and Native American was raised in a French town they were see as mulattos or even dark skinned French whites, but if raised in a Natives American village they were often seen as Indians.

Well, it do get complicated when we look back at how things were done a century ago. I think many people don't have any idea of history and just can't grasp such things. That such persons might get angry when faced with simple reality doesn't surprise me but it does cause me some disturbance as it reflects how out of touch so many are these days with the past. And I do wonder why someone who'd hire a genealogist would then become so antagonistic about simple revelations of historic records. Be careful what you ask for I guess.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Regarding people unwilling to change preceived notions about ancestors: plenty of folks on CWT over the years have clearly had their views of the Civil War determined by which side their ancestors fought for, especially if it was the Confederates. And anyone whose ancestors owned slaves was of course a kind master, per their family lore.

One mistake I see in modern entries is people using the Social Security record of where the last payment was made as the place of death.

Ancestry.com contributed to that problem for awhile before they finally changed things.

Also there is neglecting to pay attention to siblings. They have the same ancestry. Tracing John Smith isn't going to be easy--but if ancestor John has a brother named Hezekiah, matters become simpler.

I've definitely had times where I needed to drill down a generation or two to confirm something.

 

[lupaglupa]

In my work I have found several African-American families which jumped the color line over time. I wasn't tracing those families to the current day so I don't know if their descendants have found (or believed) those facts. Stories like these have come out on Finding Your Roots a few times. I'd be fascinated, not upset, to find some mystery like that in my tree!

 

[Fairfield]

I've definitely had times where I needed to drill down a generation or two to confirm something.

I'm a firm believer in cluster genealogy--that is, extending your research to an ancestor's family, neighbors, associates, etc. It's a great way to solve name changes and other "disguising" mechanisms employed by our forebears. It's also a good method in determining where someone may have moved to--whether within the same country or to another.

 

[Kurtlg]

My wife found 2 US census lists where the ancestor's wife was listed as white, but two Michigan censuses listed her as mulatto. It was not uncommon for some census takers to list the children of free or enslaved blacks and Native Americans as (M) mulattos but others seen then as (I) for Indians. But as I told my wife "she" did not say the wife was a mulatto, she just sent two copies of Michigan censuses where she was listed as a (M). If a mixed black and Native American was raised in a French town they were see as mulattos or even dark skinned French whites, but if raised in a Natives American village they were often seen as Indians.

For those unaware, Ojibwa are fairly tall and light skinned with fine features. The Ojibwa raided the Pawnees for slaves and Pawnees are darker skinned and shorter. If a black married an Ojibwa the offspring could be fairly light skinned especially in the second generation. If a black bought a Pawnee slave for a wife, the offspring would probably be darker skinned. I am not trying to get in to race here, but Michigan Native Americans of the Three Fires groups are taller than most Europeans, with fairly light skin and fine features.

In the 1720s Father Charlevoix described the Potawatomi in what is now southern Michigan as looking rather European with darker skin. The Pawnee were captured by many western tribes and traded as slaves to other tribes . They wound up as far east as Quebec . The French word for Pawnee was Panis and that word became used for any enslaved Indian. Black and mixed race black/ Indian individuals existed in the area around the northern part of Michigan's lower peninsula in the 1700s though they were few in number.
It can get very confusing. Part of my ancestry that settled in the Traverse Bay area of Michigan post Civil War is listed as white , black and mulatto . This group consisted of my great great uncles , their father and their families. The uncles passed as white and served in regular Union regiments in the war . They came from upstate New York and were direct descendants of slaves freed in Massachusetts in the 1700s.

 

[Kurtlg]

In my work I have found several African-American families which jumped the color line over time. I wasn't tracing those families to the current day so I don't know if their descendants have found (or believed) those facts. Stories like these have come out on Finding Your Roots a few times. I'd be fascinated, not upset, to find some mystery like that in my tree!

When I found out about 40 years ago that I was a direct descendant of black slaves freed in the 1700s I was fascinated as well. I think a few family members were puzzled and some didn't believe it but there was no doubt about it.

 

[Fairfield]

When I found out about 40 years ago that I was a direct descendant of black slaves freed in the 1700s I was fascinated as well. I think a few family members were puzzled and some didn't believe it but there was no doubt about it.

One of the items that I consider to be an important benefit of doing genealogical research is the realization of what a mixture we all are.

 

[east_beast]

That's amazing (and troubling) that people would refuse to pay just because they don't like the truth. Your wife didn't slander or belittle anybody; she just reported the facts. And for the record, in the US only a living person can sue for slander (i.e. libel); the dead basically have no legal rights.

But I know that trying to win a case in small claims is most often not worth the money or time. That's happened to me twice (not with genealogists).

Everyone always goes into genealogy research expecting to find that they're royalty. Everyone should go into genealogy research knowing full well they're going to uncover some less than glorious things.

 

[lupaglupa]

One of the items that I consider to be an important benefit of doing genealogical research is the realization of what a mixture we all are.

And how how important every ancestor is - not just the famous ones!

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

And how how important every ancestor is - not just the famous ones!

Two roads diverged.
My ancestors took one.
And that has made all the difference.

 

[Story]

1) Being wedded to preconceived notions. Gotta get your Jack Webb on if you want to be honest with yourself.

2) Ignoring the "Kentucky Windage" errors induced by multiple levels of transcription from the original documents (particularly on FOLD3 /ANCESTRY). You want to cackle like a madman, read some of the things Census Takers were told over the years [I recollect one child of a suspect was listed as F(emale) and I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts his older brother by a few years told the census taker that].

3) Accepting as Gospel anything because "it's online [FindAGrave, ad nauseum]. See also

Garbage in, garbage out - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4) Trying to force-fit notions and such from the 19th century into a current-day context. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there".

5) Ignoring that a vacuum of facts can be a clue/clues.

6) Not being willing to follow the evidence, because you think "it's too hard, I'll never get an answer".

 

[donna]

In checking census I always look at page before and page after on person I am looking for. I have found married children on the next page and brothers and sisters. That opens a lot of information.

As to Social Security Death notice. I can verify that they can be wrong as to places of death, My father lived with me and check came to my house. He then went in Nursing Home and died there. His last address on social security was listed as my house. Several of my cousins who did some research put my address down as place of death. I sent them death certificate and verified what nursing home he was in and that he died there the last day I saw him. They still won't change the place. People can be so stubborn.

 

[lupaglupa]

They still won't change the place. People can be so stubborn.

This makes me crazy. I understand people being stubborn over hard to believe or unpleasant facts but little stuff like this should be a no brainer.

 

[Kurtlg]

I do have a question about death records. My great grandfather had 12 children . He had a small farm and worked on a railroad. He had a son who died of whooping cough at 2 years old. On the death certificate the undertaker is listed as my great grandfather. I was told that was often done if the person was buried on the family property. Is that true ?. There is no information available about a cemetery.

 

[lupaglupa]

I do have a question about death records. My great grandfather had 12 children . He had a small farm and worked on a railroad. He had a son who died of whooping cough at 2 years old. On the death certificate the undertaker is listed as my great grandfather. I was told that was often done if the person was buried on the family property. Is that true ?. There is no information available about a cemetery.

I have not heard of that custom but it could well be true. A lot of people prepared their own dead and buried in family plots on their own land.

 

[Harms88]

1) Being wedded to preconceived notions. Gotta get your Jack Webb on if you want to be honest with yourself.

2) Ignoring the "Kentucky Windage" errors induced by multiple levels of transcription from the original documents (particularly on FOLD3 /ANCESTRY). You want to cackle like a madman, read some of the things Census Takers were told over the years [I recollect one child of a suspect was listed as F(emale) and I'll bet you dollars-to-donuts his older brother by a few years told the census taker that].

3) Accepting as Gospel anything because "it's online [FindAGrave, ad nauseum]. See also

Garbage in, garbage out - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4) Trying to force-fit notions and such from the 19th century into a current-day context. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there".

5) Ignoring that a vacuum of facts can be a clue/clues.

6) Not being willing to follow the evidence, because you think "it's too hard, I'll never get an answer".

I'd add a 7): Going to a single source and automatically accepting that statement as the truth. Many of our common notions of the CW fall apart once you go beyond the single source and start researching it in depth.

 

[Kurtlg]

I have not heard of that custom but it could well be true. A lot of people prepared their own dead and buried in family plots on their own land.

I was told that it was likely or at least possible by 2 friends who do a lot of genealogy. The property is still in the family though the old farm house is in bad shape. My great grandmother had 2 large rock gardens. I wonder if he may have been buried there. Sadly anyone who would know the answer has been dead for decades. This information was given to me only a few years ago. I have a copy of it but it has been temporarily lost when I moved.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It's frustrating how some folks don't seem to have a skeptical bone in their body. They don't want the truth to get in the way of a good story.

I gave a history presentation involving a larger-than-life individual who died under uncertain circumstances. I argued the death wasn't murder. Afterwards, an attendee thanked me for the presentation, but still believed it was murder. Why? "I watch a lot of crime TV."

I learned of two famous alleged Florida centenarians, supposedly 119 and 130+ (both now long deceased). The older had been conclusively debunked, but the other was somewhat obscure. I found a Facebook discussion about the other individual basically devoid of doubt about the claim. I pointed out skepticism was in order for what should be obvious reasons; some folks were shocked I would question it. I was pleased to have someone contact me months later, possibly inspired by my comments (not sure why else they would have contacted me) who had dug deeper and determined the guy had probably committed identity theft of his father, possibly for social security fraud.

It doesn't surprise me people fall for phone and email scams.

2) Ignoring the "Kentucky Windage" errors induced by multiple levels of transcription from the original documents (particularly on FOLD3 /ANCESTRY).

I'm not familiar with thus term. Please elaborate.

As to Social Security Death notice. I can verify that they can be wrong as to places of death

Social Security records have the birth year wrong by 1 year with shocking frequency.

 

[lupaglupa]

I was told that it was likely or at least possible by 2 friends who do a lot of genealogy. The property is still in the family though the old farm house is in bad shape. My great grandmother had 2 large rock gardens. I wonder if he may have been buried there. Sadly anyone who would know the answer has been dead for decades. This information was given to me only a few years ago. I have a copy of it but it has been temporarily lost when I moved.

My husband's ancestors had a family cemetery on their farm. The family moved west and when descendants returned the new owners had plowed over the cemetery and the stones and site were lost.