Surprises in your Ancestry

I discovered that I actually do have an ancestor that served in the ACW, after long thinking I did not. He and his brother joined the 6th Indiana, the very first regiment formed in Indiana, and fought in the battle of Phillipi. I could find no record of either him or his brother serving after their 90 days were up, so I guess they decided they had had enough and went home.

Same with me, on my maternal grandmother's side.

My Grandma, Mildred Day Meldrum, was related to Edward H. Day (1842-1917), who is recorded as a "90-Day Man" in the 1st Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. The First CVI had a rough day in the fighting at First Bull Run. The unit was mustered out after 90 days and I can find no record of additional military service by Edward Day of Danbury, Conn. I guess he decided he had enough of civil war, and just went home.
 
Same with me, on my maternal grandmother's side.

My Grandma, Mildred Day Meldrum, was related to Edward H. Day (1842-1917), who is recorded as a "90-Day Man" in the 1st Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. The First CVI had a rough day in the fighting at First Bull Run. The unit was mustered out after 90 days and I can find no record of additional military service by Edward Day of Danbury, Conn. I guess he decided he had enough of civil war, and just went home.
When I do cemetery research in the North I always find a few guys like this. They signed up for a short term, served, and were done. And who can blame them? Northern soldiers had the luxury of staying home. In the South, men were either in service, too injured to fight, or deserters.
 
Same with me, on my maternal grandmother's side.

My Grandma, Mildred Day Meldrum, was related to Edward H. Day (1842-1917), who is recorded as a "90-Day Man" in the 1st Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. The First CVI had a rough day in the fighting at First Bull Run. The unit was mustered out after 90 days and I can find no record of additional military service by Edward Day of Danbury, Conn. I guess he decided he had enough of civil war, and just went home.
Don't despair of Pvt. Day. According to Historic Data Systems, after his 3 mos. with 1st CT, he went on to enlist (1863) with the 20th NY Infantry (Co. K) and remained with that regiment until he was mustered out 31 July 1865 in Manchester, VA. He applied for a pension (granted) in 1890 on the Connecticut service.
 
When I do cemetery research in the North I always find a few guys like this. They signed up for a short term, served, and were done. And who can blame them? Northern soldiers had the luxury of staying home. In the South, men were either in service, too injured to fight, or deserters.
Well actually it wasn't a luxury. The South had male slaves to do the nessary men's work. That was a luxury the north didn't have.
 
I am pretty sure that the black Buffalo Soldiers were not formed until after the CW was over,
I believe "Buffaloes" was a nickname for North Carolina Confederates that deserted and Joined North Carolina Union regiments as my wife's gggrandfather did. Or even generally as a name for North Carolina (white) folk sympathetic to the Union. Has nothing to do with black soldiers.
 
Most Southern households did not own slaves and did their own work. And slave owners were largely exempt from the draft.
This isn't an area that I know much about but it seems, from what I've read, that the low number of slave owners was obtained by focusing on the head of a household. If the number of households that had slaves is counted, I believe that the percentage is higher.
 
Well one of my surprises in my genealogy was a census record for a great great something grandfather. It was him (white), a black woman and 4 in 5 black children. That was it. I think it was a Lafoon from Virginia. My DNA does show .9% African and my mother always said there was coal in the woodpile somewhere.
 
Actually not, about 25% of southern households owned slaves and the farther south you went it was even more.

from what I've read, that the low number of slave owners was obtained by focusing on the head of a household. If the number of households that had slaves is counted, I believe that the percentage is higher.
The data can be looked at a lot of ways and, no surprise, is manipulated to make a point at times. I certainly think 75% of a population qualifies as most and certainly differs from a popular impression that slavery was the norm in the South. But I don't want to hijack this interesting thread with a topic that's been debated multiple times elsewhere.
 
The data can be looked at a lot of ways and, no surprise, is manipulated to make a point at times. I certainly think 75% of a population qualifies as most and certainly differs from a popular impression that slavery was the norm in the South. But I don't want to hijack this interesting thread with a topic that's been debated multiple times elsewhere.
Yes you are correct. But I believe I should commented 1/3 of southern households which is no small amount of human power thus allowing the so called Confederacy to put every man available into the field except for the 1overseer for every 20 slaves but I think even that was repealed. Of my 6 gggrandfathers I know off, 4 northerners, 3 didn't serve. One I suspect had "consumption", and one was to old, the one that did serve was born in Virginia. Of the 2 from the south (Virginia), one fought for the Union from the get go, and the other was arrested as a civilian sent to Camp Chase OH, took the oath and sat the war out. 2 other gggrandfathers I haven't been able to trace. But my mother said one was shot for desertion. Like to know that story.
 
Well one of my surprises in my genealogy was a census record for a great great something grandfather. It was him (white), a black woman and 4 in 5 black children. That was it. I think it was a Lafoon from Virginia. My DNA does show .9% African and my mother always said there was coal in the woodpile somewhere.
A neighbor who was always very proud of his Cherokee ancestry and very involved in local Native American activities took a DNA test and discovered his ancestry is African, not Cherokee. He showed me a picture taken in the late 1800s in southern Illinois of his gg-grandparents with their children. Seated at the table are an older white couple and an older black couple. He said he always thought the black couple were family servants but now thinks they are his ancestors too.
 
A neighbor who was always very proud of his Cherokee ancestry and very involved in local Native American activities took a DNA test and discovered his ancestry is African, not Cherokee. He showed me a picture taken in the late 1800s in southern Illinois of his gg-grandparents with their children. Seated at the table are an older white couple and an older black couple. He said he always thought the black couple were family servants but now thinks they are his ancestors too.
It is amazing how many think they are part Indian and it turns out they have none.
Now days so many are getting into genealogy just to look for their Native history
I helped my step grandfather’s grand children do research. They said they were part Indian, but it turned out they didn’t have any. Many years ago one of them ask granddad if he would sign a paper saying they were Indian descendent so they could use it going to college. He said no and they didn’t know why. That should have given them a clue.
 
A neighbor who was always very proud of his Cherokee ancestry and very involved in local Native American activities took a DNA test and discovered his ancestry is African, not Cherokee. He showed me a picture taken in the late 1800s in southern Illinois of his gg-grandparents with their children. Seated at the table are an older white couple and an older black couple. He said he always thought the black couple were family servants but now thinks they are his ancestors too.
All my life my Mother's family "knew" we were of Native heritage. It was just something that every generation had repeated and many family features supported. Then while doing some research I read a book which included a long section on how many people think they have Native ancestry and don't. And furthermore how many times African, Jewish, or Gypsy heritage was concealed behind a claim of Native blood (since that was more acceptable). I told my Mother who was thrilled at the idea that we might be part Black! So - she took the test and found to her great disappointment that she is 100% British. Now our family mystery is - why did our pure WASP ancestors claim to be part Native?
 
A neighbor who was always very proud of his Cherokee ancestry and very involved in local Native American activities took a DNA test and discovered his ancestry is African, not Cherokee. He showed me a picture taken in the late 1800s in southern Illinois of his gg-grandparents with their children. Seated at the table are an older white couple and an older black couple. He said he always thought the black couple were family servants but now thinks they are his ancestors too.
Amazing. Everybody said gggramas on both sides was American Indian but just doing genealogy I couldn't find an Indian. Then had DNA done. No Indian. I think that's a surprise for a lot of folks
 
At the risk of staying where this thread was not meant to be, remember that four slave states stayed in the Union and fought against the Confederacy, so if some of the southern boys had that to fall back on, so did many Union boys as well.
The question was "northerners". I certainly don't consider my southern Unionists kin to be "northerners".
 
Don't despair of Pvt. Day. According to Historic Data Systems, after his 3 mos. with 1st CT, he went on to enlist (1863) with the 20th NY Infantry (Co. K) and remained with that regiment until he was mustered out 31 July 1865 in Manchester, VA. He applied for a pension (granted) in 1890 on the Connecticut service.
😊

Do you think it is the same Edward Day? I found a number of different Edward Days when I looked around on the net.

My Edward Day is buried in a cemetery in Danbury, CT, with a marker that cites his service in 1st CVI.
 
Back
Top