Barbara Archer wrote: > Judy's post raises an interesting question. Should we include the > migration for the family, or just for the individuals who actually > reached Nebraska? I have been including more than one generation, going > back to the immigrant ancestors who were long gone by the time their > descendants arrived in NE. Do you just want the birthplace for the > individuals who ended up in NE? > > Thanks, > Barbara I think it's appropriate to include the total pattern for their route across the US and the generations. Each place they stayed for awhile gives us a better chance to find some evidence that they've left behind. A hundred or two hundred years ago, it wasn't unknown for several families or whole villages to pack up and move west together. That's why knowing some history of each area can be valuable in our research. If we know that a disaster caused many people to move on, and they moved together, then we might have a better chance of knowing where they ended up together. Many communities in Nebraska were settled by ethnic or religious groups that traveled together. If all we have as a clue, is that our ancestor came from a specific location, before Nebraska, and we know they were a member of a specific group, then perhaps knowing where some of those people settled in Nebraska would help to narrow our research. I've discovered that my Wilson line moved several times, along with at least two other unrelated families. We're trying to trace all the families in the time period between the time they landed in the US, to their arrival in Illinois, hoping to find more information on them. Connie