This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Jennings Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/TZ.2ADE/4215.1.1 Message Board Post: Dear Suzanne, Thanks for your answer to my inquire fo Jennings Nichols. I really have no info. onf him, other than the baby picture I found with his name on it. I would just love to find out who he is. Thanks for your help Gladys

Dear Listmembers. I have noticed several postings of late regarding the KNAPP family. My late mother-in-law was an Elizabeth Mary KNAPP born in Wiltshire, U.K. in 1897. I have traced her family back to the late 1600's all based around the Great Somerford and Little Somerford area of Wiltshire. Can anyone tell me where the KNAPP's mentioned on this list might have come from originally in case there might be a connection? Many thanks. Stuart, Edenbridge, Kent, U.K.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4193.2 Message Board Post: I can't find a mailing address, but it's not at the actual synagogue. Their phone is (203) 358-2200. The cemetery is on Westhill Rd., but I don't think there is anyone there to receive mail!

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4215.1 Message Board Post: Gladys: There is a Shelton Rd. in Stratford,CT, where the Nichols' are quite famous. It is right by the Nichols family cemetery. Maybe that's where you should look?

The next meeting for the Westchester County Genealogical Society of New York (WCGS) is this coming Saturday at the Aldersgate Memorial United Methodist Church.  The talk will be "Crossing the Pond: Finding Immigrant Origins" by Larry Fermi.  The original planned program "Sleepy Hollow Cemetery: Past & Present" by Jim Logan had to be rescheduled to the Fall 2004.  Meeting starts at 10 a.m. but come earlier to network. Information on the meeting: Program: "Crossing the Pond: Finding Immigrant Origins" by Larry Fermi When: Saturday, March 13 @ 10 a.m. Where: Aldersgate Memorial United Methodist Church, 600 Broadway (route 9), Dobbs Ferry, NY, USA - plenty of free parking For information about Westchester County Genealogical Society ("Westchester Connection" or Surname List), visit WCGS home page -- http://www.rootsweb.com/~nywcgs/ MARK THESE DATES FOR WCGS Future Meetings: April 10, 2004 - The New Mahopac Library ** Meeting to take place at the Mahopac Public Library, route 6, Mahopac, New York.  Hosted by Don Haney and Patricia Kaufman May 8, 2004 - Real World DNA Testing with Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak June 12, 2004 - Family History Web Page Design with Susan Rogers.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4378 Message Board Post: Hello, I received word about an effort to restrict vital records access in Connecticut. The meeting in CT is scheduled this Thursday and requests have been sent out to mobilize a resistance. Below is a forwarded message from friend and fellow researcher, Lynn Marshall, with attached analysis from Dr. Rafford: "We need as many people as possible to volunteer to be at the Legislative Office Building on this Thursday, March 11, for a hearing in room 1D at 10 a.m. It is best to arrive much earlier if you wish to sign up to testify. If you are going to testify, or even if you don't, you can bring a copy of your testimony with you to be circulated to legislators. I count 23 members of the Public Health Committee, so you should bring at least that many copies. There are really no places around there to duplicate pages, so you must do it before arriving. If you personally know of a legislator, especially one on the Public Health Committee, you should contact him or her immediately and let them know your concern. Even if you don't know your legislator, you should make contact. The more they hear of our concern, the more they will have to listen to us. Tell them you don't want records closed to the public and that genealogists in particular, professional or not, need access to all records. Here is the address of the Adobe Acrobat file (pdf) of the bill. The major section that we are concerned about is from line 150 through 226, pages 6, 7, and 8." http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2004/tob/h/2004HB-05628-R00-HB.htm Thanks - this may be the most important legislation affecting genealogical research in the history of Connecticut, so we must prevail! Sincerely, Bob Rafford >> *** Lynn attached the following with the note: Effects of Bill 5628 on Vital Records for Genealogists Current law All birth, fetal death, marriage and death records: Complete access and copies from beginning to present. Proposed Law Birth and fetal death records less than 100 years old: No access to record or searches of them under any circumstances Copies only if strict requirements are met: You must provide notarized authorization from "eligible party" (i.e., the registrant if over 18; a child, grandchild, spouse, parent, grandparent or guardian) or You must prove your relationship to the registrant, if he or she is deceased Marriage and Death records less than 100 years old: No copies, access or searches unless you are a member of a genealogical society "incorporated or authorized by the Secretary of the State to do business or conduct affairs in this state." No searches of death records after July 1, 1997. No searches of marriage and death records with Social Security numbers on them. Robert L. Rafford March 2004 AND Analysis and Fact Sheet of Raised Bill No. 5628, March 2004 An Act Concerning Funeral Directors and Vital Records The bill is aptly named. If passed, we can all call our local funeral director to ask for a funeral and burial of much of our right and freedom as citizens to access our public records. If passed, this bill would constitute the most profound reduction of access to vital records in the history of our state. It would severely compromise access to vital records for all genealogists. It would repeal Sections 7-51 and 7-51a of the general statutes, the sections that allow genealogists and all citizens access to vital records and close records that have been open for centuries for the first time in the history of our state. It would render it extremely difficult to obtain any copies of records because of the severity of restrictions placed on researchers by enacting a maze of hoops through which citizens would have to jump. Ordinary citizens, not members of genealogical societies, would be prevented from searching or obtaining birth, marriage and death records less than 100 years old. In addition, because of the complicated conditions placed on gaining access to records, it would demand an extraordinary amount of time from town clerks and registrars of vital records. Genealogists have always treated all records with the utmost of respect, and since 1971 they and other citizens have responsibly accessed birth records pursuant to the general statutes with no adverse effects. In fact, the major abuse of records was perpetrated by the Department of Public Health when it was moving records from one facility to another in March 1996. A member of the state-contracted company that had been chosen to conduct that move by the Department itself stole thousands of birth certificates from the 1960ís, many of which have never been recovered to this day. The proposed legislation would force hardships on already fiscally overburdened and understaffed towns and cities toÖ Separate out and isolate all current birth, marriage and death records under 100 years old in order to restrict access to them. Purchase new locking cabinets. Allocate extra space for new locked cabinets in already overcrowded vaults. Spend much more time checking paperwork of genealogists and the public requesting access to records, and hold their fingers over death and marriage records from the past seven years. To the general public, the legislation would: Prevent access to all public vital records under 100 years old. Where a book of records overlaps the 100-year mark (for example, an index book covering the years 1880 to 1920), all would be closed to them. To the genealogist, here is a comparison of the current access and what this legislation would do: BIRTH and FETAL DEATH RECORDS Current law Birth records more than 100 years old: Complete access to and issuance of copies allowed. The law permitting this was initiated by the Connecticut Professional Genealogists Council and signed into law in 1996. Only certified copies may be issued (this was a provision of a law passed in 2001). Birth records less than 100 years old: Since 1971, over 33 years ago, access to and issuance of copies allowed to all members of genealogical societies incorporated or authorized by the Secretary of the State to do business or conduct affairs in Connecticut. Proposed Law Birth records more than 100 years old: Access to and issuance of certified copies allowed. Birth records less than 100 years old: Access to and issuance of copies of birth records would be eliminated for genealogists unless you can prove you are a relative of a deceased registrant or provide a ìnotarized authorization from a person who is an eligible party: If the registrant is dead, the only access to that record is to someone related to that person, i.e., a person's children, grandchildren, spouse, parent, guardian or grandparent. The criteria for proving relationship to the registrant are not delineated, but we may assume this will mean lengthy checks with photographic identification, etc. The Town Clerks and Registrars will have to photocopy the identification, drivers licenses and all other documentation provided, and store and maintain them in secure places in their vaults. Searching records would be eliminated for birth records less than 100 years old, even to those currently holding memberships in authorized genealogical societies. DEATH RECORDS Current law All death records: Complete access to and issuance of copies of death records for 375 years. Proposed Law Death records more than 100 years old: Access to and issuance of certified copies allowed. Death records less than 100 years old: Closed to all citizens except genealogists. Access to death records would be allowed to genealogists only, and issuance of copies would be limited to copies stamped "For Genealogical Purposes Only." Social Security numbers would be removed or redacted for any record produced after July 1, 1997. There would be no research allowed of records from July 1, 1997 to the present because of the presence of Social Security numbers. MARRIAGE RECORDS Current law All Marriage Records: Complete access to and issuance of copies allowed for 375 years. Proposed Law Marriage records more than 100 year old: Access to and issuance of certified copies allowed. Marriage records less than 100 years old: Access to marriage records would be allowed and issuance of copies would be limited to copies stamped "For Genealogical Purposes Only." Social Security numbers would be removed or redacted except for copies for the bride, groom, officiator, town clerk or registrar or other authorized by the commissioner. Searching of records after 1 July 1997 would be eliminated because of the Social Security numbers on them, the same Social Security numbers that are readily available free of charge to the world on the Internet. Why is this Legislation being Proposed Now? It is difficult to tell. There has been no effort by the Department of Public Health to discuss these changes with genealogists. Perhaps this is an attempt, misguided as it is, to ìsecureî records from foreign enemies, especially since "9/11." But there has been a legitimate concern about identity theft for decades, not just recently. There has been no evidence of abuse of current statutes by genealogists and the general public. In fact, Connecticut has one of the best environments concerning access to vital records in the nation. Current laws were carefully worked out cooperatively and deliberately between genealogists, Town Clerks and Registrars, legislators and custodians of records at Town Halls and the Department of Public Health, particularly over the past four decades. This "attack" on access is a break with the trust between the department and genealogists that had been built during that time. We do know one thing, however, that passage of this bill will greatly reduce the work required of those who deal with citizens' requests for vital records. The Connecticut Department of Public Health has long abnegated its statutory responsibility to provide vital record service for years. By law, state records should be available to genealogists each day of the working week. Yet officials there have allowed researchers to search records only part of two days a week, similar to the way officials in cities such as Bridgeport and New Haven have thumbed their noses at the public for years by refusing to honor current statutes and greatly restricting access. In addition, the Connecticut Department of Public Health apparently has been attempting to rid itself of dealing with the public as much as possible. While other state departments of health assist the public by supplying records themselves, even constructing helpful Web sites allowing for remote contact, the Connecticut Department of Public Health has refused to do this, rather detouring citizens to the individual towns and cities for these records. By further closing records and making it more difficult to access them, genealogists and other citizens will be further discouraged from even attempting to approach the Department of Public Health and local Town and City Halls for records, thus reducing their need to be helpful to the public. Why is this Proposed Legislation Misguided? Currently, extracts from all Connecticut death records from 1949 to 2001 have been sold to the Ancestry.com Company by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and have been available on the Web for years. These are available to subscribers of this site anywhere in the world for a small yearly fee (about $70). Anyone wishing to download these records could have done so completely by now. Currently, extracts from all Connecticut marriage records from 1959 to 2001 have been sold to the Ancestry.com Company by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and are available on the Web and have been since the spring of 2003. Likewise, they are available to all subscribers of Ancestry.com. Currently, the Social Security Death Index is available on the Web and has been for many years. It is entirely free and available at a number of sites and available to anyone with access to a computer and the Internet. This is a list of virtually every death in the United States since 1962, many before that date, current to at least November of 2003. For most records it contains the Social Security Number, the death date, the birth date and the last residence of each decedent. It contains more than 71,800,000 names of Americans in it. In addition, a copy of each personís SS-5, the application submitted to gain entrance into the Social Security program, is available to the public for a fee from the Social Security Administration. Almost all newspapers carry local marriage and death notices daily and have for over a century. Most carry continual lists of births. These are available on a daily basis, and virtually all back issues of newspapers in this state are available on microfilm at various libraries throughout the state. Birth, marriage and death records from Florida, California, and numerous other states are available for at least the last fifty years at Ancestry.com to all subscribers and have been for years. The Governorís Prevention Partnership of the State of Connecticut currently publishes a facsimile of the death record of a woman who died from an overdose of drugs in its advertising campaign against drug abuse in public newspapers. What Can and Should be Done to Protect Ourselves Against Records Abuse? It has been shown time and again that the most egregious abuse comes from insiders working within governmental agencies, not from the general public, as demonstrated in the 1996 theft of thousands of birth certificates. Focusing on the correct threat is a good beginning in protecting against records abuse. The towns and state should require stringent background checks of all those in state government and state-contracted workers who deal with vital records. The towns and state should print all certified records on specially designed paper that cannot be readily forged, as the state is currently doing with birth records alone. Birth records should be cross-indexed against death records in all towns and the state. Town Clerks should continue an excellent record of maintaining these records by the care they already exercise with customers, be they genealogists or other members of the public. The Town Clerks and Genealogists Action Group, founded in 2001, has worked cooperatively with Town Clerks and genealogists for over two years to find areas to improve security and facilitate the public's right to access our records. With working groups such as this, legislation to close records is unnecessary. Other ways of securing records can be designed without destroying our precious rights and freedom as a free people in an open society. . The analysis and views presented herein are entirely those of the author, Dr. Robert L. Rafford, professional genealogist, of Middlebury, Connecticut. No claim of legal or factual accuracy for its contents is made. . Lines 150-through 176. . Of course, birth, marriage and death records closed or restricted by courts are not open to genealogists. . "Registrant" means the subject of the record or certificate. Summary of Raised Bill 5628, March 2004 by the Connecticut Department of Public Health ***** Summary Prepared by Dr. Robert L. Rafford March 2004 ****

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Griswold, Gamet,Hyde and Hutchison Classification: Military Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.co.uk/mbexec/msg/5538/TZ.2ADE/4377 Message Board Post: Hi, Daniel G. was b.18 Feb.1755. Married Abigail Graves on 17 June1779. Two children were: Allan and Sophia. Sophia is my great3 grandmother making Daniel my great4 grandfather.I understand Daniel was captured when Fort Washington when it fell to the British. If you would share with me any information on this subject that I can use to join The Sons of the Anerican Revolution, I would forever be greatfull. Thank you for the consideration. Neil E-Mail [email protected] 11611 E. 37th Ave. Spokane, WA 99203 p.s. I would like to join the family association if possible as I have an interest in the Griswold family beyond Daniel.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Jones Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/TZ.2ADE/4376 Message Board Post: I am looking for information on my direct descendant and I am stuck at him from going any further back. His name was Daniel Jones, b 1745. He died May 24, 1835 in Manchester, Vermont. He had one brother that we know of, John Jones, May 25, 1747, location unknown, death unknown. Daniel is to believed to have married Sarah Bosworth of New Bedford, Mass. They had several children, Roswell, Daniel Jr, Lois, Mary, William Bosworth Jones and David Jones. Any help would be appreciated. I am really stuck on this ancestor.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Couch, Moore, Casey, Mills, Case, Welch, Brooks, Tindle, Jones, McNeill, Powell, Nance, McGregor, Stacy, Milam, Hoskins, Andrews, Jessup, Sturges, Hahn, Combs, Campbell Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/5519/TZ.2ADE/4375 Message Board Post: Looking for any information on Couch's in the CT area. I believe my ancestors may have come from that area. Any help is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to email me. Thanks.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/117.1.1 Message Board Post: I am very interested in continued Watkins Family research. I am searching for specific details regarding the family's move from Ct to PA and onward. Also, details and confirmations of family ancestors and descendants. Please contact me direct if you have information.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4374 Message Board Post: Hi Does anyone live near the Noroton River Cemetary. Could you take pictures of the graves of Susannah Bishop Pennoyer and John Pennoyer. They should be together. I can read Jpg files Thanks a million Catherin of Califonia [email protected]

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/TZ.2ADE/117.1 Message Board Post: Are you still interested in research of the Watkins Family. My relative is David Watkins from Conn. but moved to Penn. about 1800. Married Polly Seeley. Have pictures of their grave sites. Jessie Loris

I am looking for any information on George C O'BRIEN, last known address was Stamford CT. George was born 14 April 1886 in Lowell MA. In 1929, at the time of his father's death, he was living in Stamford CT. This is my father's half brother and possibly the only link to the O'Brien family. Thank you. Bob Brien Fitchburg MA [email protected]

GEORGE MARQUIS HAHN b. Saxony 4-26-1818 to US about October 1853 (port unknown) with six-month-old daughter Elizabeth Sarah Hahn - no mother mentioned Married DOROTHEA A. RUGER/RIIGER (dau of Maria) 2-14-1854 in New Haven CT. I would like to know (in Saxony) Germany) about life of this George Hahn...parents, siblings, 1st wife? anything and HAHN's continued to live in CT. These are the ones I am seeking contact with: children of GEORGE MARQUIS HAHN (1853-1887) AND DOROTHEA A. RUGER/RIIGER HAHN 1832 - 1903: being: ELIZABETH SARAH HAHN (1853 Saxony - 1935 CT she married Fred Bollerer she married George Staub MARGARET (OR) AUGUSTA HAHN b. abt 1854 CT - nothing known HENRY HAHN b. abt 1859 CT -nothing known [email protected] Gail Hahn Hutchcraft Ford County, Il volunteer (I hope I got the story all-together this time.)

I just wrote a nice description of my HAHN line hoping someone would recognize and contact...probably would help if I added my name? Gail Hahn Hutchcraft [email protected] Ford County, Il volunteer. THINK SPRING!!!!!

My GEORGE MARQUIS HAHN born Saxony 4-26-1818 Came to US (unknown port) about October 1853 with six-month-old-daughter ELIZABETH SARAH HAHN (no mother mentioned) Married 2-14-1854 in New Haven CT to DOROTHEA A. RUGER/RIIGER (daughter of MARIA RUGER/RIIGER 1800-1890) also born Saxony in 1832. All three eventually died Hartford County CT and buried in HAHN family plot East Cemetery @ Forestville, CT.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/2178.2180 Message Board Post: I have since found all of my O'Hara family. If any of these look familiar please contact me for more information. (Arthur O. m. Margaret Rice > children: Mary Ann, Rose, Maggie, Helen, Agnes, Theresa)

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Silliman, Macnie, McNie, McNee, McNeigh Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/TZ.2ADE/4373 Message Board Post: Does anyone have access to the following items and mind trying to find definite birth/death/parental information on Mary (Silliman) Macnie/McNie? Info I currently have: --Born ca1854 in CT (most likely in Easton, Fairfield, CT, as was perhaps baptized at Easton Congregational Church in 1854) --Married John Macnie/McNie on 19 Aug 1873 at Easton Congregational Church, Easton, Fairfield, CT --Son (John Silliman Macnie) born 1874 (in NY) --Died btw 1874-1880 (probably in NY or CT) Ha 38 C8 H35 1949 Hale Collection Of Connecticut Vital Records / [Microform] : 1949 ECSU Conn Studies Ref:LIB USE ONLY Ha 38 C8 B37 1949 Barbour Collection Of Connecticut Vital Records : 1949 ECSU Conn Studies Ref:LIB USE ONLY Ha 38 C8 L63 2000 Disc Local And Family Histories : Connecticut, 1600s-1900s / [Electronic Resource] : c2000 ECSU 4 hour reserve:LIB USE ONLY Author Silliman, Robert Taylor, 1920- Title Biography of the Sillimans : beginning with the three sons of second generation parents, Robert and Sarah (Hull) Knapp Silliman, the family sent out three distinct branches ... Starting with the seventh generation, this biography is limited to the descendants of the Fairfield, New Canaan and Chester branch Publisher Windsor, Conn. : Farmington River Printing, 1995 LOCATION CALL NO. STATUS NOTE SL Stacks CS71.S5834 1995 LIB USE ONLY

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Dunning, King, Murray,Burritt, Seeley, Hawley Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4372 Message Board Post: Capt Benjamin was with the Trainband in Newbury 4th Reg 1762. Does anyone know if he also served in the Rev War? Ezra, son of Benjamin, in the army- source? Edmund, son of Ezra at Valley Forge under Washington (cook) later Capt. CT Mil.

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Silliman, Macnie, McNie Classification: Query Message Board URL: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/TZ.2ADE/4353.1 Message Board Post: Seeking birth information on the husband and death information of the wife. Hubsand born "near Stirling" in 1836 or 1844 (central Scotland). Came to US in 1867. Wife died btw 1874-1880 in CT or NY. Add'l info from a kind researcher: Married Mary Silliman 19 Aug 1873 at Easton (Easton Congregational Church Records = "ECC") [Fairfield, CT]. [Mary] is possibly the daughter of Nathaniel L. or S. Silliman and Eliza M. Burr (m. 08 Jan 1850 (ECC). Theirs is the only Silliman family I found listed in ECC, and they did have a daughter Mary bap. 05 May 1854 (ECC), their oldest child. Other children: Charles, bap Jul 1856; Charlotte Helen, bap 02 Sep 1859, d. 10 Mar 1862; Jesse Maud bap 03 Nov 1865 and Frederick bap 1869 (all recorded ECC). Frederick was baptized as "son of Mrs. Nathaniel", possibly Nathaniel had died by then.