June 7, 2009 - The Party Is Over... And Compounded Non-Errors.

Morning,

The wedding is over, and the honeymoon has begun. Brittany and Joel are on their way to the whiter sands and bluer waters of the Lesser Antilles. And the patter of 24 paws and many more nails clip their way over the tile floors. Six dogs, ten days.

Well the green in my Mr. Green Jeans overalls is beginning to fade. It appears that the rain we've had in the past month may have been just too much water for the vegetable plants. I picked the first red tomatoes this morning and there are at least four Japanese eggplants looking like they are going to make it to the dinner table. The herbs are doing fine, but the pepper plants are giving up one after another. But I'm not giving up as yet. Guess I'll have to become "obsessive" about suburban farming.

Following up with my search for the 10 or 11 children revealed a couple of issues that are frustrating, me the researcher. There appears to be a number of errors that compound the search and has me chasing after ghosts... so-to-speak. Many thanks to those of you who answered my questions and were able to provide me with possible answers, or at least expectancies of errors that I should be made aware.

The first problem is the attempt to coordinate the number of offspring to the fact that there were actually more than expected living at a time when they were not expected to be. Stats: 1900 Census - 10 born, 2 passed away; 1910 Census - 11 born, 8 passed away; 1954 knowledge - 4 living. As points of note, I have not found any record of any more siblings being born after 1910, and the mother passed away in 1921. Living family members recall that there were supposed to be only nine children.

I then discovered that there was a first husband, and two children were born to that union... and that sort-of resolves the 9 versus 11 issue. But the 1900 and 1910 Census enumerators never did indicate an "M2". They both show an "M1" and an "M". The "M", "M1", and "M2" were general notations indicating how many times an individual had been married... "M2" meaning married twice. So you know what problem number two is. There is no physical Census record that the mother had been married twice. But the 1880 Census certainly proves the point and resolves the number issue, sort-of. There was a first husband and there were two sons born of that marriage.

But have I resolved the issue of two versus four surviving offspring? No.

So what's my take home message? I can not rest on the laurels of only one piece of historical documentation. The research doesn't stop with one find! I have to constantly keep aware that there may be errors and/or contradictions, or incidental errors.

Enjoy,

Jim