There's a lot that you could narrow down by getting birth, marriage and death records for your family: 1. The death record for your GG grandmother would (should) give you her parents names............. 2. Her children's death certificates would give you her actual surname........... and the name of their father 3. Marriage records will give you more information about dates, parentage 4. Divorce records would at, the minimum, tell you where to look. 5. You did not give the date or place of death of her children; if they had Social Security, request the application. 6. You need all of this information to find the family in the census records that you need.............. only looking at one, you can't be sure WHO's date of birth is correct............... Don't dismiss the information about where she was born unless you have immigration records! 7. Find out where the children, as well as your Gggrandmother are buried and under what names. Start looking there and work backwards if you need to. 8. Look at the city directories for Detroit (once you confirm that she was or wasn't there!) Withot more information, I believe it is a huge mistake to start making assumptions............ Assumptions should be left as a FINAL piece when all other available information leads to a conclusion; not the beginning. There are just too many pieces missing and too much based on reported information rather than facts. IMHO, searching through census records should be left until you have the other available information, and then search. Glee Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net>

asprentz@hotmail.com wrote: > I have a ggrandmother who refuses to be found. All of the "facts" you give sound as if they are mostly unproven family memories. What documentation do you have for any of the information? Do you have anything except family tales and a 1930 census reading that sounds like it may not be your ancestors after all? You mention in one place that you've searched for the daughter using her married name, but in another place you indicate you don't know the daughter's name. You indicate that you found the brother and sister together in the 1930 census, and that they both said their mother was born in CT and their father in OH; but not only state that was incorrect, but the ages were also wrong. How do you know that? And if it wasn't correct, how do you know you even found the right brother and sister if you don't know her name? Where did you find them together in 1930? There were more Sprentz listings in the U.S. than just two by 1930. You mention that you've "thought about sending for marriage records but those won't tell me anything more than I already know...." As Dr. Phil now says on tv all the time, "How's that workin' for ya?" Have you considered that, in light of the fact that you can't find the documentation to prove what you think you "already know," maybe what you "already know" is not entirely correct? No matter how much you think you "know" from family tales, the best way to do genealogical research is to just follow the documentable evidence from you backwards in time step by step, finding complete records for probate, death, land, children, marriages, birth, each census and more without skipping any steps. All those documents you don't think are important because you "already know" the facts often turn out to have the most important detail you need that your family hasn't remembered quite right. You need to just *follow* the evidence wherever it leads, not try to force it to prove what you think you "know." Keeping in mind that the transcribed and indexed records you find online often don't include everything in the record, if you can give us a better idea of what *proven* facts you have, maybe someone can point you in the right direction. Do you have your grandfather's actual death, marriage and birth records from the county or state? What about the marriage record of your g-grandparents? You stated a year, but do you have a copy of the actual record? Diane genmail@1st.net

"Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote > > It is tempting, oh-so tempting!, to list as a source for > great-grand's marriage something like > http://members.NASA.edu/web/web_page/this.html > and skip the wearisome step of VERIFYING the info in the real > records. > > The problem will arise (that's WILL, as in guaranteed) when, two, > six, eight months or a year from now when you try to go back to > http://members.NASA.edu/web/web_page/this.html > and get a 404- file not found, or a No DNS. [snip] > It seems to me that one of several other approaches could be (should > be?) taken -- cite the source (1) as "Jerry Murphy's website, Jul > 2001" or (2) as "Private Communication" or (3) [a personal favorite] > "I read this somewhere." After that happened to me I started including the applicable text of the link in my "notes" section on each individual. Lately I have stopped using the source section, as it is too time consuming *for me*. I guess the purists will be upset but I simply put everything in notes where it is easy to edit. So one might see the following: Click on the name of the individual; look at the "notes" 1880 Census- text version printout from web (date) Film or fiche number: XXXXXX 1880 federal population census United States. Census Office. 10th census, 1880 State, County, Town. ------------------------------- Name SURNAME Male Facts and facts Etc etc ------------------------------- ....<http://www.whereever-I-foundit.fakecom.> It also helps to cite the "title" of the link in case you need to hunt for it later in order to update the link. (Servers change but often websites/webmasters simply move exact content elsewhere) Best wishes, "Tea Cup" <not-here@antispam.edu>

"Mario" <mandm@flashnet.it> wrote > I am just starting to look into my family name coat of arms ( code > of arms ) and some backgroung history and origins. > [snip] > Please tell me good sources from which to start investigating if > possible on the web. This may help you further: Reference: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/heraldry.faq [snip] 3: How can I find my coat of arms or my family's coat of arms? ================================================= This is a difficult question to answer; it requires a great deal of research and skill. In most countries in the world, you can bear any arms you want. This is the way in which arms were originally adopted, before codification and regulation by European heralds and rulers. However, many people consider it wrong to adopt someone else's arms. In some countries, notably Scotland, this is not only dishonourable but illegal. In particular, there are no laws regulating the use of _non-governmental_ arms in the US. The American government neither grants nor recognizes armory. You can adopt any arms you choose and use them however you want (unless you infringe on someone's trademark, which is an entirely different subject that has been beaten to death on this newsgroup so please don't ask about it); but you have no particular right to those arms or any other. If you are descended from someone who was granted arms by some heraldic authority then you may have some claim to those arms within the jurisdiction of that authority. The chances are very good that you do not have any claim on any actual arms. Most people in the world do not. Exactly what conditions you have to meet to establish such a claim vary considerably from one country to another. At the very least, you will have to prove that a recognized holder of the arms is your ancestor. In some countries, you would have to prove that you are the legal heir of that person. Getting an official recognition of your claim is likely to be expensive and time-consuming; in England, for example, it costs thousands of pounds. *** Your last name has nothing to do with the matter. *** Arms are not associated with surnames, but with individuals and, in some countries, with families. The important thing is who your ancestors are, not what surname you happen to bear. The fact that your name happens to be "Smith", for example, gives you no claim whatsoever on any of the thousands of arms borne throughout history by various people named "Smith." Unfortunately, there are lots of unscrupulous businessmen worldwide who are happy to promulgate false information about the subject of armory. They will happily take your money to tell you "Your Family Arms", which they supply simply by finding an armigerous family that happens to share your surname. We suggest that you avoid these companies; if you want anything more than a decorative wall-hanging, they are a waste of your money. And if you will be happy with any pretty picture to hang on your wall, you can save yourself the trouble of dealing with these companies, and simply choose arms that you like. 4: What about those outfits in the malls that'll sell me my arms? ================================================= See question 3. "Unless you pay them thousands of dollars, the companies [in the malls, and in advertisements in many publications] won't do that research; they'll just look in their books under your surname, and tell you what's there. All that will tell you is that there is (or once was) a person sharing Your surname who bore arms. Suppose your name were "Jones"; it wouldn't be very significant to learn that there was once an English armiger named "Jones". ---------------------------------------------------------- more info can be found here: http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/faq.htm http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/italy.htm#nobility rec.heraldry Best wishes, "Tea Cup" <not-here@antispam.edu>

> > I think at the time in question, the citizenship followed the > > husband's, at least in the US. I know that when my grandmother > > married my grandfather in the 30s, she lost her US citizenship and > > became a Canadian citizen, even though she, and all her ancestors > > for several generations prior, had been born in the US. She was > > naturalized when my grandfather was. > > > > Susie B <susie314b+nanae@justREMOVEtheCAPS.net.invalid> > >As you say, might be the year in question, but I've never heard of >losing your U.S. citizenship when marrying a citizen of another >country. But I could be wrong. It was Canadian Law, at least in >the 1930s that stated that when a Canadian married a citizen of >another country, they lost their Canadian citizenship and were >considered a citizen of the spouse's country. Problem was, that in >the 1930s, the U.S. did not recognize this law. In 1932, my mother, >a Canadian, by Canadian law, was considered a U.S. citizen. The >U.S. did not. She had to obtain a special authorization from the >U.S. Consulate in Canada to accompany my father into the U.S. She's >93, and still has her "green card". > >Andy Romano <romanoa@sdc.cox.net> Hi. Sorry, my grandmother married in 1915. This will teach me to post when I am tired. Just checked the photocopies. She was naturalized a US citizen in 1932 and my grandfather was naturalized in 1934. My grandfather came to the States when he was 4 and of course my grandmother was born here. -- Susie B and the Thundering Herd: Rambo, Miss Kitty, Rocky and Tabitha Low cost spay/neuter: SPAY USA 1-800-248-7729 Friends of Animals 1-800-321-7387 Susie B <susie314b+nanae@justREMOVEtheCAPS.net.invalid>

> Can anyone tell us when U.S. Social Security came into being? > > Bunny Turner <bunnypat@eastlink.ca> > Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada 1935

> > since i don't have a date of death or the location of the presumed > > death of the father, only the name, is there anywhere else to look? > > Perhaps he was born in the mid-19th century and too old to be > eligible for Social Security. > > Sandra <SGordon817@aol.com> His child was born in 1978 (the child died and her info is on the ssdi). The information i have on him is from the child's obituary of 2002. That's one of the reasons it seemed so strange. The mother was born in 1961.

This sort of thing does happen (person reported 'deceased' having to 'prove' they are alive). A friend of mine almost lost her mind trying to straighten this out. Just going in to the SS office was not sufficient to end it. She wrote and called this person and that for a few months trying to resolve the problem; it took about three months to the point where she was receiving benefits again. Our government (people) does make mistakes. And it seems that sometimes it is easier to refer the 'problem' to someone else. SadieOkate3@aol.com

Singhals wrote: > It is tempting, oh-so tempting!, to list as a source for > great-grand's marriage something like > http://members.NASA.edu/web/web_page/this.html > and skip the wearisome step of VERIFYING the info in the real > records. > > The problem will arise (that's WILL, as in guaranteed) when, two, > six, eight months or a year from now when you try to go back to > http://members.NASA.edu/web/web_page/this.html > and get a 404- file not found, or a No DNS. Download the data. Note the address. Print it if you wish, and date the printout. But in any case, file an image. That way, if you self-publish or if anyone asks, you can simply assert that you got the data from the specified address on the stated date. And you will at least have a copy of the original. Verification is a concern primarily for outside publishers and researchers who desire evidence from sources as close to original as possible. Personally, I believe that it does little good to provide exact Web addresses for images online with plenty of offline accessibility as well (such as census data). They consume space, they can be found online or off by the same fixed identifier as conferred by the original distributor of the data, and as Cheryl points out they are subject to drastic change without notice. Under these circumstances, a standard offline reference with an addendum like, "image file "*.jpg", downloaded from Ancestry.com, 23 Apr 2003" may suffice. The online accessibility of census data is one condition with which citation standards have not yet caught up. [snip] > It seems to me that one of several other approaches could be (should > be?) taken -- cite the source (1) as "Jerry Murphy's website, Jul > 2001" or (2) as "Private Communication" or (3) [a personal favorite] > "I read this somewhere." (2) and (3) are unarguable, not open to > verification, and no worse than an invalid URL; (1) at least gives > you a fighting chance of determining whether the website you find > today is the one you saw last year. > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> The accepted form is author, "title," online <address>, date of last update, date of download or viewing. In truth, any author regardless of medium has the ability to make any of these elements difficult to recover (except "online," which is also unarguable); only the volatility of Web addresses is new. A related problem arises when data are distributed among several different documents, as with most "books online" and Web-rendered "databases" of the GED2* variety. You cannot instantly recover a data-containing page or image from such a collection without typing its address in full; if you cite different documents repeatedly, you'll wind up with a a bunch of links to the same root directory, which under most circumstances cannot be shortened and remain functional. You'd better use a word processor to organize your research results for public display, and avoid splitting related facts when you can. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net>

asprentz@hotmail.com wrote: > > 1. Mary Helen Szedlovics was an immigrant from Hungary, but may not > have been Magyar.. > If I assume that mother stayed in Ohio a few years and got pregnant > by another man, would I assume that she married him and then moved > to Michigan? Or that she had a child out of wedlock? A little of both, maybe? She just started using his surname, people assumed they were married. > If mother remarried either while pregnant, or shortly afterward, > would her husband adopt the girl and give her his last name? Unnecessary expense if they were married at the time of the birth -- or even if they were representing themselves as a couple. Law *assumes* a woman's husband is the father of any child she bears during their marriage. > I have searched for mother with married name, maiden name, a zillion > varients of both married and maiden, and no last name at all. I > have searched for all Mary's, Maria's, Mariska's and Mar**'s who > would be the apx age in the 1910, 1920, and 1930. She has to be > somewhere! How about looking for Helen or Helene or Hellen ? For Polly or Molly? Many many people use their middle name because their first is an official baptismal name. Try EI again using the portal off JewishGen that will permit you to look for M as the given name and S as the surname with ethnicities? Worse-case scenario, she's on the EIdb under a nickname, so pull up all the Szedlovics sound-alikes and look for a female of the right age. Good luck. Cheryl singhals@erols.com

Mario wrote: > I am just starting to look into my family name coat of arms ( code > of arms ) and some backgroung history and origins. What are you looking for -- the device by which your family might have put on their forks, or the rules of fights? The Code of Arms is also called the Code Duello, and I imagine a GOOGLE search will turn up something. The Coat of Arms is called heraldry, and every country had a reference book of the "arms" that had been granted and to whom. Since I know nothing about Italian research, I can't point any direction. But the important point is to figure out which you want. Cheryl singhals@erols.com

I understand some site, not SSA!, has some SS-5 images up. Anyone familiar with the URL? Cheryl singhals@erols.com

Diane <genmail@1st.net> wrote: > You can either browse through one page at a > time, or you should be able to mathematically figure and fill in the > image number you wish in the "Go to image" box or come very close, > (keeping in mind that most page numbers have at least an A and B, > and some also have C and D. (As you browse, you'll usually notice > the same page number at the top of the screen at least twice, though > the actual page or sheet number originally placed on the census > image is different.) Diane and all: When you can see only one image at a time on your screen, as is the case for the on-line census images, it is difficult to get a grasp of how the pages are numbered. I've been doing some checking in the 1880 census and here is how I think the number goes. Keep in mind these two words: Recto and Verso. A "recto" is a right-hand page in a book. A "verso" is a left-hand page - the opposite side of a recto page. Some time before the census volumes were microfilmed (in the 1940s?) each page in each census volume was numbered using a stamp. Only the recto pages were numbered; the verso pages are the "other side" of whatever page number the recto is. As an example, suppose you start on the first page of a NARA microfilm. That recto page would be numbered (with a stamp) "1" in upper right-hand corner. The verso of page 1 is not numbered. The next page, immediately following is numbered "2" in the upper-right. Its verso also is not numbered. Thus each two images at one of the on-line census images is one page - the recto page (with the number stamped on it) and its verso with no number. What about the letters. This can provide a little bit of additional guidance but can also be misleading. The pages in the 1880 census carry printed letters in the upper right hand corner (for recto pages) and the upper left (for verso pages). The sequence starts with A on a right-hand page. Its verso is B. The next recto is C (upper right) and its opposite side is D (upper left). One thing to note is that you will not find a sequence such as 3A, 3B. 3C and 3D. Instead, there will be (on the images) 1A - B (no number but the verso of 1A, 2C and D (no number, but the verso of C. The letters are not essential to locating the page, but they can be of some guidance. Usually only A and C - the recto sides - are given in indexes. If B or D is given, then you know these images are on the page following the page with the stamped number. I am not certain why the 1880 census has sheets printed with A, B, C and D in the upper outside corner, for this is not always the case. Remember, as noted below each linked image in Genealogy.com, if you don't find your family be sure to go to the next image - a "page" consists of two images: the numbered image and the image following (the recto and verso images). If anyone has experience with using the indexes and census page numbers that is at variance with the above, I would appreciate a note on it. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

"Glee" <gleemc@earthlink.net> wrote: > What I do with the Family Search 1880 census records, is to use the > 'select all', copy and paste to Microsoft Word, and then convert the > table to text and change the font. I believe with Word, instead of selecting "Paste" you can select "Paste Special" and then double-click on the option to save as "unformatted text" you can eliminate the steps for converting from table to text and changing fonts. I am not quite sure, either, how you are using the FamilySearch 1880 listings. The LDS 1880 census material is an index and is not a "source document." Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

"fsuedu" <fsuedu@hotmail.com> wrote: > > My G-Grandfather changed the spelling of his name from > > Sutherland to Sutherlin and back again nearly yearly for a decade. > > He also changed his residence frequently. Perhaps he was > > staying one step ahead of the rent and/or bill collector. I dunno. > > i'm with sandra on this one...depends on the time period. and can > be for any number of reasons....my great-great grandfather came to > ny in the 1800's with documentation and a letter from the police > "chief" in his hometown in germany (we still have this stuff), and > lo and behold, when he got to ellis island, whoever filled out his > forms just decided that his name was easier to pronouce if spelled > another way and just changed it on the spot. if we didn't have > those original documents, we'd be up a creek trying to go back to > the german records.... Sandra and I have already had a conversation about her grandfather's name changes. She ascribes a deeper motive to them than I do - I think that they were merely random changes without special reason or meaning, the result of carelessness, perhaps illiteracy or - in particular - lack of any spelling standards. As for your belief that your great-great grandfather's name got changed at Ellis Island, this is almost without doubt not the case. "The Name Got Changed at Ellis Island" is one of the most prolific myths in American genealogy. The fact is that elaborate measures were taken to make sure that names were correctly rendered. Below are a some links to expert articles which will provide ample documentation supporting my contention. Two observations: First, you say your g-g-grandfather arrived in America "in the 1880s." Ellis Island did not open until 1892. If your ancestor arrived before that year, then we can be positive his name did not get changed at Ellis Island. If he arrived between 1892 and 1900, then the records are available (maybe even on line) and you can check to see whether his "name was correctly rendered or, as you believe, was changed by an arbitrary clerk. Second, suppose a slip-up did occur and someone's name on your ancestors arrival papers was incorrectly rendered. Did this mean that he was obligated to use the incorrect name the rest of his life? Of course not. As you will note if you read some of the articles linked below, names were easily changed, sometimes on purpose, sometimes not, and in a variety of ways. If you really did get a bummer at the immigration site, then all you had to do was select another name more to your liking. BTW: My observation is that if the "Ellis Island Name Change Myth" isn't a creation of Hollywood, the film industry certainly has been perpetuated it. "Godfather II" depicts officials forcing the young Godfather to take the name of his village, perhaps a necessary plot developer but one that is historically inaccurate. As interesting is that back in the 1930s many of the gangster movies featured immigrants being led or forced into lives of crime. At some point in the movie you could count on the protagonist including this line in his tale of woe: "The name got changed at Ellis Island." One week when I was laid up and passed the time watching the classic movie channel, I heard Humphrey Bogart say it twice - in two different movies shown only a day apart! If you doubt my word on Ellis Island name changes - the lack thereof - try these sites: "Name Changes at Ellis Island" is a topic for RootsWeb's Expert Advice, this one by Myra Vanderpool Gormley in response to the question, "Were names actually changed at Ellis Island?": "No documented case proves that any immigrant's name was changed by Ellis Island officials." (In other words, if any name did actually get changed at Ellis Island, so far no one has been able to prove it.) There is much more. See "The Myth of Ellis Island Name Changes": www.ancestry.com/library/view/columns/eastman/3893.asp?rc=locale% 7E&us=0 A similar article: "Ellis Island Name Change, Fact or Fiction?": http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/ancmag/4675.asp "They Changed Our Name at Ellis Island," by Donna Przecha: "How Spellings Really Changed." In this article, expert Donna Przecha dispels some common myths about name-changing at various points of immigration. http://www.genealogy.com/genealogy/88_donna.html?Welcome=1038768684 and: Myth or Not?," by Eva Holmes http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/italian_genealogy/79248 See also "Myths, Hoaxes and Scams" at Cyndi's List <www.cyndislist.com>. Look at Myth #7, "Our Name Got Changed at Ellis Island," where there are several other name-change links. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>

>...That's right, not a single one of the stories about >how IRS was abusing taxpayers turned out to be true! (And do you >recall hearing that on the nightly news?) > > >I am hard pressed to believe that a person's [SS] benefits would be severed on the basis of a piece of mail with "deceased" being written on it. ... > > >...I am astonished to learn that we have government employees >so dense that when a person presents himself with proper >identification that this employee wouldn't accept the fact that he >is alive. > >"Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> You are so fortunate, Richard, if you've never encountered any of the problems with government similar to the tales heard. Based on the experience you've demonstrated on this and other lists, I wouldn't expect that you unconditionally believe everything you see and hear about your ancestors when researching your family history, or that you believe everything you see in print or everything you hear on tv or the internet. I'm afraid to believe that the IRS or SSA doesn't make such errors and hasn't abused some citizens is just as naïve, if not more so. It's really hard to believe that we wouldn't have heard *somewhere* on the news that none of the IRS taxpayer abuse stories were true, as much as we heard about those problems. That should have been major news if that was indeed the commission's finding; though it's not surprising that a government commission might reach that finding (legit or not), since the government is so adept at developing employees to "cover their six." Most citizens who once blindly trusted and believed in their government never thought to keep records any longer than what the IRS said they neeeded, nor do they have the funds to afford adequate legal help to fight the IRS, not to mention that they are so traumatized when this happens that they just give up trying. I do know this for fact because my family has lived through such a fight when we were in the right, and we have come to know a few other families who had such legitimate problems. There's no point in going through all the horrid details here. Suffice it to say that it, too, all started simply because first some clerk somewhere at the IRS accidentally hit a delete button when they were switching over to computers and canceled out half our records, and then another clerk wasn't paying attention to address changes on our returns over the subsequent years. Had I taken that advice they give to keep copies of ordinary tax returns for only three years, we would have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and interest more than 10 years after the taxes had been filed! (IRS claimed they'd been sending notices to us for many years, but they were sending them to the address where we'd lived when we filed our taxes more than 10 years earlier...despite our having filed a return every year and received refunds at 4 newer addresses in that time! Funny thing, though, they had my husband's current employer's address when they tried to attach his salary...meaning they got their copies of the W-2s with our latest home address there too!) You can definitely believe such horror stories have happened to some people, with the IRS and the SSA. Keep in mind that the majority of government workers are just ordinary people, including a very broad range of capabilities, intelligence, integrity, and pride in work product, as well as the same naïveté as the citizens outside government. All it takes is just one person not doing his/her job well (perhaps through carelessness or maybe just a typo, or perhaps with good intentions thinking "Why would anyone send a SS check back with 'deceased' written on the envelope unless it were true")... and they could easily set a major nightmare in motion. Of course, SSA makes it extra easy for your records to get messed up by encouraging strangers with SS check envelopes bearing in the largest, boldest print on it "_*RECIPIENT DECEASED*_ *Check here and drop in mailbox*." The number of ways errors could occur in just these two agencies is staggering. Then, if you throw into the government work population the same percentage of crooks and malcontents found in the general population (many would say it's more), and you add the difficulty civil service regs have established in getting rid of the incompetents once there, you have great potential for many, many more problems. Certainly these days, the same principles that apply to our genealogy research also apply to dealing with the government or any other organization. The key in all instances is to take everything with that proverbial "grain of salt," gather all the information available, objectively analyze that info before drawing conclusions, and keep all your evidence in case you need it for verification in the future.. Diane genmail@1st.net

> From: fsuedu@hotmail.com (fsuedu) > > i ran across information in an obituary for an individual which > stated that the person's father was deceased. the father's full > name was printed in the obituary, so i check the ss death > index.....every way i tried, no matter what combination, the > individual's father didn't pop up on the index. It is my understanding that many/most individuals who died before a certain date (can't remember the date, but think it was early 1960s) are not shown on the automated index. For instance, my grandfather who died in 1958 is not listed although he was receiving SS payments when he died. I believe you can have SS Administration look up the individual for a fee. When they do the search and find the records, you get more data than what is shown on the automated index. Ron Edmond, OK ron48@aol.common (Ron Recer)

> > Maria Kelley wrote: > > > > ..Aassuming that you want hard copy files of your documentation, > > how do you make census records? Do you transcribe, print the image, > > print a blank form and fill in some/all of the census page? What do > > you all recommend? > > If you want a hard copy of the 1880 Census from FamilySearch, just > print it out. I you really want a hard copy of the Census, then get > the Census Enumeration film through a FHC and make a photocopy of > the part of the page that interests you. > > Why transcribe or enter into a form with the possibility of an error? > > bob gillis <rpgillis@bellatlantic.net> You can also make a jpg copy of the entire census page from Ancestry.com. Just choose save as and when the box comes up choose frame size and make the frame as big as possible 2028 x 2028 is the largest possible. That way you can save the entire page. Make sure you have already downloaded the entire page otherwise it may be fuzzy when you try to enlarge it. The typical size of the jpg file for an extremely clear page will be 500-700 KB. Then you can have an electronic copy and can easily print out a paper copy. Frank "Frank Cullison" <fcullison@yahoo.com>

> As for the "quite a few stories" about the effects of falsely > reported deaths, I think you're likely dealing with an urban > legend. > It is fashionable to take pot shots at our government employees, > but ... > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> It seems that the urban legend has some basis in fact, according to testimony here! My in-laws had almost the opposite problem, SSA refused to accept that my mother-in-law's mother had, in fact, died. They continued, sporadically, to deposit money on her behalf to my mother-in-law's account up to two years later. As to taking *potshots* at the government because it is fashionable--I was born in DC, as was my father before me, my grandmother came there as an infant, and grandpa in his early teens. As a member of a family of generations of federal government employees, including a former IRS lawyer, holidays and family gatherings were full of the latest crazy antics stories of what foolishness had gone on in the bureaucratic halls. While some people may tell these stories because it is *fashionable*, quite often they are told because they are true. Maria Kelley <mariakjek@juno.com>

HI: Thanks for your reply! I can answer some of the questions you posed. Kberry > No direct help, but some questions come to mind, seeing your > data for the first time: > > 1.) I presume you've verified Robert Baldwin's location in > Mason Co., KY via the 1860 census and now you're looking for the > balance of Moses' family with other slave owners in the area. If > so, I'd try to determine from the 1860 census or possibly platte > books (if any exist), which of the other potential slave owners was > geographically nearest and farthest from Robert Baldwin, eliminating > the latter (for now) and going after the one(s) nearest Baldwin > first. > Ok. I've checked the tax lists/census records for Robert H. Baldwin and I know he left Fayette County (an adjoining county) after 1844. He married SALLY T. METCALFLE in 1844. Have not checked land records, though. Great suggestion! I believe too, by checking tax records and noting that there is at least one Baldwin who bought slaves with him for a couple of years. I figure it's his uncle or other relative, helping him get his start with land ownership, etc. (I checked tax lists from 1844 onward.) Tax records show that Robert paid taxes on slaves in 1855, 1858, 1860, 1861, 1862, and he died in 1863. The possibility that he owned part or the whole Berry family is plausible for the tax years 1860 (2 slaves, 1 over 16); 1861 (6 slaves, 3 over 16); 1862 (7 slaves, 3 over 16) and 1863 (according to inventory of estate, 10 slaves, 5 over 16). > 2.) How close to an adjoining state is Mason Co.? Mason County is across the Ohio River from Brown County, Ohio. (It was a well-known site for slave escapes.) > Is it > possible the balance of Moses' family was outside of Mason Co.? Probably, but I don't know who Moses' relatives were. Just have the name JUDAH. > 3.) If Mariah was the mother of Moses' children, and she is > 24, then she is neither the mother of the Alex who was 17- making > Mariah 7 yrs old when she became a mother, nor is she the mother of > the Alex who was 14, since Mariah would still have only been 10. > Sure you've got the right Mariah? > Cap'n John I'm sure I have the right Mariah. I made a typo and mentioned Alex twice -- Alex would have been 17. There was a *14-year-old* slave on the census list. And yes, she would've been too young to be Alex's mother. (You wouldn't believe how long it took for me to figure this out, I was *assuming* she was his mother too, for years, without counting their ages!) Anyway, I believe, but have not documented, that Alex was Moses's son by another woman, perhaps someone who died. This would make Mariah the mother only of his younger two children, Arthur and Belle. I think it notable that Moses and Alex were paired together with the same slave owner. I think it's because Alex was young and strong, but also because he was in Moses's care. Again, it's just speculation. Kdberr1@aol.com