"Sec. 113. Administrators are required to give bond with sufficient sureties, usually in double the amount of the personality in the estate, for the purpose of protecting interested parties against losses due to improper administration." Thomas E. Atkinson, *Handbook of the Law of Wills and Other Principles of Succession Including Intestancy and Administration of Decedents' Estates,* 2nd Edition (St. Paul: West Publishing, 1953), 621. Rondina _______________________ Rondina P. Muncy Ancestral Analysis 4008 Linden Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76107 682.224.6584 [email protected] www.ancestralanalysis.com On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Thea Baker via < [email protected]> wrote: > ​< > I am working on a case in which a son applied for Letters of > Administration in Sep. 1864 in Arkansas (a Confederate State). He named > three persons as security for a $30,000 Bond. The family was well-off but > $30,000 bond seems extraordinarily high. I have never seen a bond given > for that kind of amount in any probate I have worked. > ​>​ > > > Best, > Thea

Most of the time, the amount of the time was determined by law. I am not aware of any state that created it as a percentage of any value, though it is possible that this may have occurred in some place at some time. Generally the amount was intentionally an exorbitant amount. The penalty ensured that the duties would be performed. It is similar to contracts today; for example, a nondisclosure agreement may have a million dollar penalty. Michael Hait, CG(sm) [email protected] http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com Author of *Online State Resources for Genealogy* ebook More information at http://haitfamilyresearch.com/onlineStates.htm CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Thea Baker via Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 1:23 PM To: Transitional Genealogists Subject: [TGF] $$$Bond for Probate Letters of Administration Could someone help answer a question, please. How was the dollar amount set for bond for letters of administration of an estate determined? Was it determined as a representative fraction percentage of the projected worth of an estate? Or was it determined as a figure a certain number of times greater than the anticipated value of an estate? I hope I am wording those questions clearly enough for everyone to understand. I did not realize I am so ignorant about this matter until now. I am working on a case in which a son applied for Letters of Administration in Sep. 1864 in Arkansas (a Confederate State). He named three persons as security for a $30,000 Bond. The family was well-off but $30,000 bond seems extraordinarily high. I have never seen a bond given for that kind of amount in any probate I have worked. I have land records and have seen the 1857 and 1861 tax rolls, and the 1865 tax roll of the estate. The deceased owned 600 acres. There were no more than six slaves from 1830-1860, as far as I can determine. The 1865 tax roll of the estate indicates three slaves. The 1860 Slave Schedule shows six, so perhaps three had already been sold by the time the estate was assessed. (When would the assessments have been made on the 1865 tax roll?) The 1860 census shows real estate valued at $4000 and personal at $7895. So why such a steep bond? A daughter-in-law of the deceased filed for guardianship of her nine children in Dec. 1864 in which she stated that each child was expected to inherit $400 from the grandfather’s estate. The widow’s widowed mother-in-law (widow of the above deceased) was named as one of the securities for the guardianship. Settlement of the estate was complicated by the ending of the war in 1865 and the son had to re-file for letters of administration in July 1866 as the new government did not recognize the former “so-called Confederacy.” The estate inventory was approved in August 1866 but I did not find that inventory. However, a report of the settlement of the estate was filed in Jan. 1868 in which it was stated that an appraisement made on the first and second days of November 1864 was $8532.70, excluding the slaves which were sold by order of the Court of Probate and that the sale there amounted to $4594.47. Debts paid out of the estate amounted to $1509.43. Debts collected by the estate were $3435.00. An additional interest of $297.25 was collected. The administrator son concludes the report by saying that he “returns herewith the confederate and other worthless treasury notes charged to him in Inventory first made of said estate on 8th Octr 1864 of $235.” Certainly all of these were substantial amounts in 1864 but, again, why the $30,000 bond for administration? Whether made in Confederate or U.S. currency, the amount seems out of relation to the worth of the estate. I looked at other nearby entries for letters of administration and bonds and one was just over $8000 and one for $1150, I think it was. So, back to my question, how was the amount of a bond determined? Many thanks for insight on this. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Harold, Thank you for a chance to clarify the information. The re-filed documents were not changed at all. Seems it was more a matter of procedure that unsettled cases filed and pending during the Confederacy were declared “null and void” (per the 1868 report of the settlement of the estate) and had to be re-filed under the new government. I have not actually known where to look for the answer to this. I spent a significant chunk of time googling various combinations of terms to find a lead but anything with the word probate in it, even with an 1865 date, returns hits about how to file modern probates. Arkansas statutes were not digested until 1884 (see William W. Mansfield. A Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas: Embracing All Laws of General Nature in Force at the Close of the Session of the General Assembly of One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-three (n.p.: Mitchell & Bettis, 1884); available on google books). I have used this source several times since I discovered it about a year ago. The upshot is that it often mentions what Act and the date on which statutes were based or revised. However, I can not find anything that mentions how bonds were set. I looked in the chapters Courts of Probate; Official Bonds; and Sureties. None of the other chapter titles seemed relevant and plugging in search terms did not furnish an answer. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603 From: Harold Henderson Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:36 PM To: Thea Baker Subject: Re: [TGF] $$$Bond for Probate Letters of Administration Thea -- A great question. When they had to re-file letters, was the bond amount changed? Have you checked both Confederate and Reconstruction statutes? Or an Arkansas "manual of probate" or some similar book of practice directed to lawyers or judges? -- Harold Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center http://www.midwestroots.net/ Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Thea Baker via <[email protected]> wrote: Could someone help answer a question, please. How was the dollar amount set for bond for letters of administration of an estate determined? Was it determined as a representative fraction percentage of the projected worth of an estate? Or was it determined as a figure a certain number of times greater than the anticipated value of an estate? I hope I am wording those questions clearly enough for everyone to understand. I did not realize I am so ignorant about this matter until now. I am working on a case in which a son applied for Letters of Administration in Sep. 1864 in Arkansas (a Confederate State). He named three persons as security for a $30,000 Bond. The family was well-off but $30,000 bond seems extraordinarily high. I have never seen a bond given for that kind of amount in any probate I have worked. I have land records and have seen the 1857 and 1861 tax rolls, and the 1865 tax roll of the estate. The deceased owned 600 acres. There were no more than six slaves from 1830-1860, as far as I can determine. The 1865 tax roll of the estate indicates three slaves. The 1860 Slave Schedule shows six, so perhaps three had already been sold by the time the estate was assessed. (When would the assessments have been made on the 1865 tax roll?) The 1860 census shows real estate valued at $4000 and personal at $7895. So why such a steep bond? A daughter-in-law of the deceased filed for guardianship of her nine children in Dec. 1864 in which she stated that each child was expected to inherit $400 from the grandfather’s estate. The widow’s widowed mother-in-law (widow of the above deceased) was named as one of the securities for the guardianship. Settlement of the estate was complicated by the ending of the war in 1865 and the son had to re-file for letters of administration in July 1866 as the new government did not recognize the former “so-called Confederacy.” The estate inventory was approved in August 1866 but I did not find that inventory. However, a report of the settlement of the estate was filed in Jan. 1868 in which it was stated that an appraisement made on the first and second days of November 1864 was $8532.70, excluding the slaves which were sold by order of the Court of Probate and that the sale there amounted to $4594.47. Debts paid out of the estate amounted to $1509.43. Debts collected by the estate were $3435.00. An additional interest of $297.25 was collected. The administrator son concludes the report by saying that he “returns herewith the confederate and other worthless treasury notes charged to him in Inventory first made of said estate on 8th Octr 1864 of $235.” Certainly all of these were substantial amounts in 1864 but, again, why the $30,000 bond for administration? Whether made in Confederate or U.S. currency, the amount seems out of relation to the worth of the estate. I looked at other nearby entries for letters of administration and bonds and one was just over $8000 and one for $1150, I think it was. So, back to my question, how was the amount of a bond determined? Many thanks for insight on this. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Another book of interest: Garden of the world : Asian immigrants and the making of agriculture in California's Santa Clara Valley / Cecilia M. Tsu Oxford University Press, 2013 ISBN: 9780199734788 http://www.amazon.com/Garden-World-Immigrants-Agriculture-Californias/dp/019973478X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424726046&sr=1-1 Summary: “Nearly a century before it became known as Silicon Valley, the Santa Clara Valley was world-renowned for something else: the succulent fruits and vegetables grown in its fertile soil. In Garden of the World, Cecilia Tsu tells the overlooked, intertwined histories of the Santa Clara Valley's agricultural past and the Asian immigrants who cultivated the land during the region's peak decades of horticultural production. Weaving together the story of three overlapping waves of Asian migration from China, Japan, and the Philippines in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Tsu offers a comparative history that sheds light on the ways in which Asian farmers and laborers fundamentally altered the agricultural economy and landscape of the Santa Clara Valley, as well as white residents' ideas about race, gender, and what it meant to be an American family farmer. At the heart of American racial and national identity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was the family farm ideal: the celebration of white European-American families operating independent, self-sufficient farms that would contribute to the stability of the nation. In California by the 1880s, boosters promoted orchard fruit growing as one of the most idyllic incarnations of the family farm ideal and the lush Santa Clara Valley the finest location to live out this agrarian dream. But in practice, many white growers relied extensively on hired help, which in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was largely Asian. Detailing how white farmers made racial and gendered claims to defend their dependence on nonwhite labor, how those claims shifted with the settlement of each Asian immigrant group, and how Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos sought to create their own version of the American dream in farming, Tsu excavates the social and economic history of agriculture in this famed rural community to reveal the intricate nature of race relations there.” – from Amazon Tony L.

There may be specific laws, but I have never looked for them. Jo White Linn in "Tips for Genealogists" _Rowan County Register_, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1986, p. 57 stated: "The administrator's bond was commonly twice the estimated value of the decedent's estate." In my years of research, I have found that to be a close estimate. Your listing of the appraisement and sale of slaves is little over $13,100. When you add in the debts collected vs. debts paid, there is an additional $1900, making roughly $15,000, so an original bond of $30,000 would be a close estimate of twice the estimated value, before they did the appraisement and sale of slaves. The purpose of making the administration bond twice the estimated value is I assume to discourage fraud, or the administrator keeping the whole estate for themselves. As long as they carry out the administration, then the amount of the bond is just a number. Only if they fail to administrate the estate would the bond come into play. Rick Saunders -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thea Baker via Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 11:24 AM To: Transitional Genealogists Subject: [TGF] $$$Bond for Probate Letters of Administration Could someone help answer a question, please. How was the dollar amount set for bond for letters of administration of an estate determined? Was it determined as a representative fraction percentage of the projected worth of an estate? Or was it determined as a figure a certain number of times greater than the anticipated value of an estate? I hope I am wording those questions clearly enough for everyone to understand. I did not realize I am so ignorant about this matter until now. I am working on a case in which a son applied for Letters of Administration in Sep. 1864 in Arkansas (a Confederate State). He named three persons as security for a $30,000 Bond. The family was well-off but $30,000 bond seems extraordinarily high. I have never seen a bond given for that kind of amount in any probate I have worked. I have land records and have seen the 1857 and 1861 tax rolls, and the 1865 tax roll of the estate. The deceased owned 600 acres. There were no more than six slaves from 1830-1860, as far as I can determine. The 1865 tax roll of the estate indicates three slaves. The 1860 Slave Schedule shows six, so perhaps three had already been sold by the time the estate was assessed. (When would the assessments have been made on the 1865 tax roll?) The 1860 census shows real estate valued at $4000 and personal at $7895. So why such a steep bond? A daughter-in-law of the deceased filed for guardianship of her nine children in Dec. 1864 in which she stated that each child was expected to inherit $400 from the grandfather's estate. The widow's widowed mother-in-law (widow of the above deceased) was named as one of the securities for the guardianship. Settlement of the estate was complicated by the ending of the war in 1865 and the son had to re-file for letters of administration in July 1866 as the new government did not recognize the former "so-called Confederacy." The estate inventory was approved in August 1866 but I did not find that inventory. However, a report of the settlement of the estate was filed in Jan. 1868 in which it was stated that an appraisement made on the first and second days of November 1864 was $8532.70, excluding the slaves which were sold by order of the Court of Probate and that the sale there amounted to $4594.47. Debts paid out of the estate amounted to $1509.43. Debts collected by the estate were $3435.00. An additional interest of $297.25 was collected. The administrator son concludes the report by saying that he "returns herewith the confederate and other worthless treasury notes charged to him in Inventory first made of said estate on 8th Octr 1864 of $235." Certainly all of these were substantial amounts in 1864 but, again, why the $30,000 bond for administration? Whether made in Confederate or U.S. currency, the amount seems out of relation to the worth of the estate. I looked at other nearby entries for letters of administration and bonds and one was just over $8000 and one for $1150, I think it was. So, back to my question, how was the amount of a bond determined? Many thanks for insight on this. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603

Could someone help answer a question, please. How was the dollar amount set for bond for letters of administration of an estate determined? Was it determined as a representative fraction percentage of the projected worth of an estate? Or was it determined as a figure a certain number of times greater than the anticipated value of an estate? I hope I am wording those questions clearly enough for everyone to understand. I did not realize I am so ignorant about this matter until now. I am working on a case in which a son applied for Letters of Administration in Sep. 1864 in Arkansas (a Confederate State). He named three persons as security for a $30,000 Bond. The family was well-off but $30,000 bond seems extraordinarily high. I have never seen a bond given for that kind of amount in any probate I have worked. I have land records and have seen the 1857 and 1861 tax rolls, and the 1865 tax roll of the estate. The deceased owned 600 acres. There were no more than six slaves from 1830-1860, as far as I can determine. The 1865 tax roll of the estate indicates three slaves. The 1860 Slave Schedule shows six, so perhaps three had already been sold by the time the estate was assessed. (When would the assessments have been made on the 1865 tax roll?) The 1860 census shows real estate valued at $4000 and personal at $7895. So why such a steep bond? A daughter-in-law of the deceased filed for guardianship of her nine children in Dec. 1864 in which she stated that each child was expected to inherit $400 from the grandfather’s estate. The widow’s widowed mother-in-law (widow of the above deceased) was named as one of the securities for the guardianship. Settlement of the estate was complicated by the ending of the war in 1865 and the son had to re-file for letters of administration in July 1866 as the new government did not recognize the former “so-called Confederacy.” The estate inventory was approved in August 1866 but I did not find that inventory. However, a report of the settlement of the estate was filed in Jan. 1868 in which it was stated that an appraisement made on the first and second days of November 1864 was $8532.70, excluding the slaves which were sold by order of the Court of Probate and that the sale there amounted to $4594.47. Debts paid out of the estate amounted to $1509.43. Debts collected by the estate were $3435.00. An additional interest of $297.25 was collected. The administrator son concludes the report by saying that he “returns herewith the confederate and other worthless treasury notes charged to him in Inventory first made of said estate on 8th Octr 1864 of $235.” Certainly all of these were substantial amounts in 1864 but, again, why the $30,000 bond for administration? Whether made in Confederate or U.S. currency, the amount seems out of relation to the worth of the estate. I looked at other nearby entries for letters of administration and bonds and one was just over $8000 and one for $1150, I think it was. So, back to my question, how was the amount of a bond determined? Many thanks for insight on this. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603

Thanks for the suggestions and guidance on how to treat this problem. Michael Hait, I agree 100% that we should post nothing rather than post something wrong. The problem is the information has already been posted on FamilySearch Family Tree so we were trying to avoid that wrong information being perpetuated. Thanks to others for suggestions about the interchangeability of Jean and Jane which can very much sound alike. And, with spelling being so fluid until recent times, it makes sense that they could be interchanged. I did, in fact, go back through my notes. It had been a while since I had looked at this family as these ancestors were the first that I began researching when I started my family history. I found a note that the mother had been enumerated in the 1871 census as Jane. I didn't have a digital copy of this census, so pulled out my paper copy. Sure enough, both she and her mother are enumerated as Jane even though baptismal and birth registers show Jean. And, Janet is not listed in the household but "Jane" and Alexander, a 5 year old grandson, to the head of household are also listed. So for now, we will attach Alexander to Jane/Jean since he is the direct ancestor of my cousin. We will do a little more searching to find out what happened to Janet. Did she die or was she working outside the home? And James, the other boy died as an infant so it is a matter of separating Jean/Jane from Janet to assign him to the right mother. Finally, I also got out a Scottish research book and learned that Kirk records might give information on who the father is although, unfortunately, there don't seem to be any kirk records for this area at the FHL. Will have to see if they do exist in Scotland. Thanks again, Margie in Washington State

If I read this correctly, then with Family Search, you can add as many wives or mothers as you need to.  Then in the notes for the ambiguous mother describe what you have here.  As for your data management program, I would think you could do something similar.  The woman doesn't have to be a wife in Family Search and I wouldn't think your genealogy program would require anything else. Please tell me how it works out for you. Cheryl ProctorSnowy, iceySouthern Indiana On Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:36 PM, M. A. Beldin via <[email protected]> wrote: A cousin and I have a problem knowing how to add two boys to FamilySearch Family Tree and to our database management programs. The two boys were born to a mother named Jane when the only two girls in the Scottish family are Jean and Janet. I have seen one of the original birth records and it definitely shows Jane as the mother. I have not seen the other record in its original form but the extracted record shows Jane as well. The two girls are only 2 years apart and both could have been old enough to give birth to the boys who are 3 years apart. We are pretty sure the boys are in the right family because I have found him in the 1871 census as the grandson and the 1881 census as the son. I find him on the same passenger list as my gr grandfather. He lists his grandparents as his parents when he gets married. So we believe we have the surviving boy in the right family, our family. We are thinking of making a third person named Jane and adding the two boys to her as the birth records show and add her to the genealogy programs so as not to lose the boys. One of the boys lives to sire another child out of wedlock and that child gives birth to my friend's grandmother, so it is important that we keep track of these boys.  We just can't figure out how to "name" the mother in the interim until we can figure out if she is Jean or Janet or someone else. I suggested the name "Jane?, Janet? or Jean?" so that it is apparent there is a question as to the actual mother that needs to be researched. What does one do in a case like this? Thanks Margie in Washington State ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

A "family tree"---especially a public one---should reflect your conclusions. It doesn't sound like you have one on this problem yet. I would definitely recommend that you DO NOT "make up" a person "Jane" to any publicly viewable family tree. If you do, it will inevitably be copied everywhere, and will be a source of embarrassment to you years from now when the problem has been solved and seems (as they usually do after the fact) like an easy answer. Right now, based on your email, it appears that you have *the name* "Jane." A name is not a person. You have to focus your energies on identifying who the *person* that fathered these two boys was. Was Jean called Jane? Was Janet called Jane? Could Jean, Janet, and Jane all be one and the same? Are there existing relevant records that could shed some light on the situation: for example, probate records for the grandfather, baptismal or confirmation records for the possible mother(s), etc.? Have you fully evaluated the relevant records you already have: for example, who is he the "son" of in the 1881 census? I have also found that the Scottish tended to be quite liberal in their use of names. I have ancestor who was variously called Daniel and Donald. For every record, I have to prove that I am actually looking at the right *person*. Good luck! Michael Hait, CG(sm) [email protected] http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com Author of *Online State Resources for Genealogy* ebook More information at http://haitfamilyresearch.com/onlineStates.htm CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: M. A. Beldin via Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 4:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [TGF] Attaching illegitimate sons to ambiguous mother A cousin and I have a problem knowing how to add two boys to FamilySearch Family Tree and to our database management programs. The two boys were born to a mother named Jane when the only two girls in the Scottish family are Jean and Janet. I have seen one of the original birth records and it definitely shows Jane as the mother. I have not seen the other record in its original form but the extracted record shows Jane as well. The two girls are only 2 years apart and both could have been old enough to give birth to the boys who are 3 years apart. We are pretty sure the boys are in the right family because I have found him in the 1871 census as the grandson and the 1881 census as the son. I find him on the same passenger list as my gr grandfather. He lists his grandparents as his parents when he gets married. So we believe we have the surviving boy in the right family, our family. We are thinking of making a third person named Jane and adding the two boys to her as the birth records show and add her to the genealogy programs so as not to lose the boys. One of the boys lives to sire another child out of wedlock and that child gives birth to my friend's grandmother, so it is important that we keep track of these boys. We just can't figure out how to "name" the mother in the interim until we can figure out if she is Jean or Janet or someone else. I suggested the name "Jane?, Janet? or Jean?" so that it is apparent there is a question as to the actual mother that needs to be researched. What does one do in a case like this? Thanks Margie in Washington State ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

A cousin and I have a problem knowing how to add two boys to FamilySearch Family Tree and to our database management programs. The two boys were born to a mother named Jane when the only two girls in the Scottish family are Jean and Janet. I have seen one of the original birth records and it definitely shows Jane as the mother. I have not seen the other record in its original form but the extracted record shows Jane as well. The two girls are only 2 years apart and both could have been old enough to give birth to the boys who are 3 years apart. We are pretty sure the boys are in the right family because I have found him in the 1871 census as the grandson and the 1881 census as the son. I find him on the same passenger list as my gr grandfather. He lists his grandparents as his parents when he gets married. So we believe we have the surviving boy in the right family, our family. We are thinking of making a third person named Jane and adding the two boys to her as the birth records show and add her to the genealogy programs so as not to lose the boys. One of the boys lives to sire another child out of wedlock and that child gives birth to my friend's grandmother, so it is important that we keep track of these boys. We just can't figure out how to "name" the mother in the interim until we can figure out if she is Jean or Janet or someone else. I suggested the name "Jane?, Janet? or Jean?" so that it is apparent there is a question as to the actual mother that needs to be researched. What does one do in a case like this? Thanks Margie in Washington State

Thanks for posting that, Tony! It's fascinating, judging by the abstract. Not only that, but as a historian I study the site of one of those early Spanish colonizations, St. Augustine, Florida, and one of the things I'm working on is a longitudinal genealogical study of the town between 1784 and 1821, called the Second Spanish Period. This could be very useful. Karen Packard Rhodes Middleburg, Clay County, Florida On 2/20/2015 4:54 PM, Tony LaLuzerne via wrote: > Here’s an article that may be of interest titled "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, > and European Americans across the United States": > > Abstract: "Over the past 500 years, North America has been the site of ongoing mixing of Native Americans, European settlers, and Africans (brought largely by the trans-Atlantic slave trade), shaping the early history of what became the United States. We studied the genetic > ancestry of 5,269 self-described African Americans, 8,663 Latinos, and 148,789 European Americans who are 23andMe customers and > show that the legacy of these historical interactions is visible in the genetic ancestry of present-day Americans. We document pervasive > mixed ancestry and asymmetrical male and female ancestry contributions in all groups studied. We show that regional ancestry differences > reflect historical events, such as early Spanish colonization, waves of immigration from many regions of Europe, and forced relocation > of Native Americans within the US. This study sheds light on the fine-scale differences in ancestry within and across the United > States and informs our understanding of the relationship between racial and ethnic identities and genetic ancestry." > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf > > Tony L. > >

Sorry! - try this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2014.11.010 -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 2/20/15, Tony LaLuzerne via <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: [TGF] Article of interest To: [email protected] Date: Friday, February 20, 2015, 3:54 PM Here’s an article that may be of interest titled "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States": Abstract: "Over the past 500 years, North America has been the site of ongoing mixing of Native Americans, European settlers, and Africans (brought largely by the trans-Atlantic slave trade), shaping the early history of what became the United States. We studied the genetic ancestry of 5,269 self-described African Americans, 8,663 Latinos, and 148,789 European Americans who are 23andMe customers and show that the legacy of these historical interactions is visible in the genetic ancestry of present-day Americans. We document pervasive mixed ancestry and asymmetrical male and female ancestry contributions in all groups studied. We show that regional ancestry differences reflect historical events, such as early Spanish colonization, waves of immigration from many regions of Europe, and forced relocation of Native Americans within the US. This study sheds light on the fine-scale differences in ancestry within and across the United States and informs our understanding of the relationship between racial and ethnic identities and genetic ancestry." http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf Tony L. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Here’s an article that may be of interest titled "The Genetic Ancestry of African Americans, Latinos, and European Americans across the United States": Abstract: "Over the past 500 years, North America has been the site of ongoing mixing of Native Americans, European settlers, and Africans (brought largely by the trans-Atlantic slave trade), shaping the early history of what became the United States. We studied the genetic ancestry of 5,269 self-described African Americans, 8,663 Latinos, and 148,789 European Americans who are 23andMe customers and show that the legacy of these historical interactions is visible in the genetic ancestry of present-day Americans. We document pervasive mixed ancestry and asymmetrical male and female ancestry contributions in all groups studied. We show that regional ancestry differences reflect historical events, such as early Spanish colonization, waves of immigration from many regions of Europe, and forced relocation of Native Americans within the US. This study sheds light on the fine-scale differences in ancestry within and across the United States and informs our understanding of the relationship between racial and ethnic identities and genetic ancestry." http://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(14)00476-5.pdf Tony L.

Being assigned, elected or promoted a first sergeant may indicate prior military experience, but more likely it demonstrates someone who held the respect of the men under him in some prior capacity and has the ability to keep order, assign work and maintain discipline. He may have been a shop Stewart, or some type of work "boss" before enlisting. A first sergeant must be able to read and write because they are responsible for daily reports, organizing work details through sergeants and corporals under them and setting a good example for the men. Best Regards, Rick Frederick E. Walton Civil War historian

I hope this is an appropriate message for this group. A friend of my son's has been doing an internship at the Haas-Lilienthal House Museum in San Francisco this winter and he reached out to me for advice on researching some of the people associated with the house. Unfortunately, it's been a busy winter and I haven't had time to give other than advising him on some basic searches and his internship is now at an end. He says the museum is very committed to documenting the servants' lives, and would they would love to have some genealogical know-how and help. I think this would be a great opportunity for someone who wants to practice their California research skills. Contact information is below. SF Heritage at the Haas Lilienthal House is looking to do genealogical research on roughly 35 domestic servants who served the three generations of inhabitants at the home from 1886 to 1972. Much preliminary research has been done already, but an in depth search and study needs to be completed. The organization is: http://www.sfheritage.org/ The house is: http://www.sfheritage.org/haas-lilienthal-house/ The person to contact is John Adams Administrative & Volunteer Coordinator [email protected] <mailto:%[email protected]> 415-441-3000 x25

I have come across an individual who was mustered in twice during the Civil War as the unit's First Sgt. in PA. Would this indicate that he may have had military service prior to the CW? I located his two CW Veterans' Card Files and the age at enrollment of 25 does not match his current age (about 33) for the time of those two periods. Both units were Militia: D-10 Inf. Mil 1862 and K-29 I Mil 1863. This man married in 1855, is documented on the 1860 census with a wife and 2 of his 3 children and died before the 1870 census but not from the CW. Thanks in advance for any thoughts or guidance. Connie

Another new title: Sod busting : how families made farms on the nineteenth-century plains / David B. Danbom Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014 ISBN: 9781421414515 (pbk.) >From Amazon: “Prairie busting is central to the lore of westward expansion, but how was it actually accomplished with little more than animal and human power? In Sod Busting, David B. Danbom tells the story of Great Plains settlement in a way it has seldom been told before. Stretching beyond the sweeping accounts typical of standard textbooks, Danbom challenges students to think about the many practicalities of surviving on the Great Plains in the late nineteenth century by providing a detailed account of how settlers acquired land and made homes, farms, and communities. He examines the physical and climatic obstacles of the plains—perhaps America’s most inhospitable frontier—and shows how settlers sheltered themselves, gained access to fuel and water, and broke the land for agriculture. Treating the Great Plains as a post-industrial frontier, Danbom delves into the economic motivations of settlers, as well as the physically and economically difficult process of farm making. He explains how settlers got the capital they needed to succeed and how they used the labor of the entire family to survive until farms returned profits. He examines closely the business decisions that determined the success or failure of these farmers in a boom-and-bust economy; details the creation of churches, schools, and service centers that enriched the social and material lives of the settlers; and shows how the support of government, railroads, and other businesses contributed to the success of plains settlement. Based on contemporary accounts, settlers’ reminiscences, and the work of other historians, Sod Busting dives deeply into the practical realities of how things worked to make vivid one of the quintessentially American experiences, breaking new land.” http://www.amazon.com/Sod-Busting-Families-Nineteenth-Century-Plains/dp/1421414511/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424381569&sr=1-1 Tony L.

Due to the number of responses to my inquiry re NARA RG for NC 10th Regiment, it seems prudent to do a group reply of gratitude. To all who responded, your time and help are valuable and sincerely appreciated. Thank you. FWP Fran

Vicki Young asked me to send this to the list: Fran, The NC 10th was created as an additional Continental regiment 17 April 1777. It was under-strength, and enlisted personnel were incorporated into the three senior regiments in June 1778. The officers either resigned or retired. Having a soldier/officer identified as serving in this regiment is a bit of a nightmare, as in the 1790s Federal clerks unfamiliar with the NC Continental Line assigned many men and officers to the Tenth N.C. The North Carolina Genealogical Society published an article by Capt. Stephen A. Rails in its 1992 *Journal *on some guidelines to more properly identify the service of a soldier attributed to this regiment that you might find helpful. Best, Vickie -- *Victoria P. Young* Genealogy Research of NC 5033 Knightsbridge Way Raleigh, NC 27604-8400 (919) 880-6231 http://www.amazon.com/shops/A8DNPXAPIJ3OH www.linkedin.com/pub/victoria-p-young/37/910/aab/ www.ncgenealogy.net On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Patricia Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote: > They are on Fold3. Some libraries have a subscription if you don't have a > personal subscription. > > Patti > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Fran West-Powe via < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Samuel and William WEST were found among NARA Revolutionary War records of >> the NC 10th Regiment. >> >> I need guidance, please, in learning how to locate that information. From >> what I read, it seems I need to >> know the RG, Record Group, and that I know not how to find. >> >> Thanks for any instruction. >> >> FWP >> Fran >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >

A new title that may be of interest: The rush : America's fevered quest for fortune, 1848-1853 / Edward Dolnick. Little, Brown, and Company, 2014. ISBN: 9780316175685 Includes photos of prospectors and diary excerpts. >From Amazon: “In the spring of 1848, rumors began to spread that gold had been discovered in a remote spot in the Sacramento Valley. A year later, newspaper headlines declared "Gold Fever!" as hundreds of thousands of men and women borrowed money, quit their jobs, and allowed themselves- for the first time ever-to imagine a future of ease and splendor. In THE RUSH, Edward Dolnick brilliantly recounts their treacherous westward journeys by wagon and on foot, and takes us to the frenzied gold fields and the rowdy cities that sprang from nothing to jam-packed chaos. With an enthralling cast of characters and scenes of unimaginable wealth and desperate ruin, THE RUSH is a fascinating-and rollicking-account of the greatest treasure hunt the world has ever seen.” http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Americas-Fevered-Fortune-1848-1853/dp/0316175684/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424362055&sr=1-1 Tony L.