U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2011, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Southeast Missouri
5,812 posts, read 16,226,894 times
Reputation: 3321

Advertisements

That does help a lot, thanks. I had some of that info, but not all of it.

They could have taken Anderson with them to California. Being so old it makes sense that he could have died between 1914 and 1920 in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:00 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,037,563 times
Reputation: 5779
The 1917 WWI Draft registration for Guss Farris gives the following info:

Earnest Earl Gustive Farris (which is how he signed it) was born October 18, 1893 in Gad's Hill, Missouri. He worked for J. F. Ruble, and was single.

And yes, it was common to be enumerated more than once on the census. Especially in circumstances like his, where he was working one place (and maybe living there) but his mother still considered him part of the household.

As far as the 1910 census, it doesn't really say that he is Frank & Hannah's son, when you think about it. They're supposed to mark the relationship to the head of household. But what if it's the wife answering the question. She'd say he was her son. So that's how it gets marked. And if you look more closely, it also says this is Hannah's first marriage. If she was married to Mr. Farris, this would be her third. Like I said before, you can't take much of the census at face value.

Ernest Farris died in April 1874. His last residence was St. Ann, St Louis County, Missouri.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Southeast Missouri
5,812 posts, read 16,226,894 times
Reputation: 3321
I put that in and got a hit. According to my family tree maker Gus married Myrtle Ellen Brawley (1903-1957) and they had a child, but the info is private. It does not give Gus' parents' info.

I kind of wonder if Hannah was married to this Farris guy, reason being that she was 16 in 1893.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,037,563 times
Reputation: 5779
She may or may not have been. The fact that he used that surname, though, seems like she would have been. Illegitimate children usually took the mother's name.

As of the 1930 Butler County census, Ernest & Myrtle Farris had children: Eugene M. (9), Earl J. (7), Verna M. (5), and Catherine D. (2yrs 6mos). He was a laborer on the highway. It also says he was a veteran of WWI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Southeast Missouri
5,812 posts, read 16,226,894 times
Reputation: 3321
Here's the WWI record
Missouri Digital Heritage : Soldiers' Records: War of 1812 - World War I
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,037,563 times
Reputation: 5779
Just another note to add. I looked at the Family Trees in Ancestry, and see what the problem with the Texas birth and death place on this "imaginary" Anderson Plunkett. Looks like the one that was first entered just entered "Missouri" as the birth and death place. When someone else found that information, and plugged it into their tree, Ancestry expanded it to Missouri City, Texas. It will do that. And lazy researchers, who just plug any old thing into their tree end up posting garbage like this that seems never to go away.

It's very frustrating, and can confuse things enormously. As you've already found!

Oh, and to point out one other thing on this supposed Anderson Plunkett. The only real source for the information appears to be the marriage record, in 1895 (though they don't even cite that). Yet, this researcher gave him a birth date of 1875. Which is impossible, as the marriage record says he was over the age of 21.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 06:31 PM
 
Location: Pacific NW
6,415 posts, read 10,037,563 times
Reputation: 5779
Earnest A. Farris married Myrtle E. Brawley on April 1, 1920 at her father's (John Brawley) home. The license was issued, and marriage recorded, in Reynolds County, though they both lived in Piedmont, Wayne County. Her father (John A. ) gave consent, as she was under 18. Rev. C. A. Wright performed the marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Southeast Missouri
5,812 posts, read 16,226,894 times
Reputation: 3321
Looking at Farris families in Wayne county. There are a few possibilities. William R. Farris was born in Wayne county in 1874. He lived in 1900 in the home of somebody else who appears to be unrelated. In 1880 he lived with his father (C.M., born 1844) and 4 sisters. So he could have been divorced from Hannah. The ages close to match up. He would have been 19 when Earnest was born. Just a possibility, though.

There's a John Farris born in 1858, but in 1900 he had been married 17 years. He and his wife had children about Earnest's age. Based on their years married and kids ages, probably the only way this would have been possible is if he had had an affair with the 15/16-year-old Hannah. Seems unlikely.

There's a P. Farris born 1873 in Missouri. In 1900 he was single and living with the Bunyard family.

There's William R.'s father C.M. Farris born in 1844, but he would be 49 when Earnest was born. He was a widower. Still seems unlikely.

William L. was born 1849 in Wayne county. I don't see him after 1850, though I'm just looking at Wayne county records right now.

There's James P. Farris, born 1859, but by 1910 he was married and his oldest child was 18, born just before Earnest. He was married.

Rush Farrish was born in 1852. in 1880 he was married with 2 children. I don't see him anymore after that. Their son Charles Farrish was born in 1875.

Wow, I'm trying to find a pedophile from 117 years ago. Although Gus' father could have also been very young.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 11:29 PM
 
Location: Dalton Gardens
2,798 posts, read 5,362,724 times
Reputation: 1570
Keep in mind that a man who married a 16 year old was not considered a pedophile back in that era. It was quite common.

They may have never actually married, but the child used the father's name anyway, especially if it was common knowledge in the town regarding who the father was. And as Enrico has said, just because she claimed to have only been married once does not mean she was telling the truth. I've seen this lie stated a nimber of times on my own ancestor's marriage, death and census records.

By the way, kudos to Enrico for the fantastic info he has come up with
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 04:20 AM
 
11,686 posts, read 13,083,410 times
Reputation: 30973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyanna View Post
Keep in mind that a man who married a 16 year old was not considered a pedophile back in that era. It was quite common....
Yes, it seems to have been. And an extremely young girl marrying an older man had a number of very practical advantages for both sides.

I think sometimes we project our moral standards and political correctness back into times where conditions were such that they can be virtually irrelevant in some instances.

I know on my trees there are several instances where teenage girls become the second or third wife of a widowed man far into middle age....and end up very soon becoming a young widow with property, and step-children bound by the terms of the will to care for her until she remarries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top