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.
It's special when you have a connection to history. I discovered that my great grandfather was born in 1859 in Missouri. His family was among those in the first county to have Order 11 applied to, which was the Union order issued in Missouri which depopulated any county with continued fighting, regardless of side, and a scorched earth policy applied. It makes the whole mess Missouri became a lot more real if your connected only a few generations back.
Ironically after they returned after the war, living in Illinious as many refugees did of both allegiences, they settled in another county also having Order 11 applied, but did not attempt to reclaim their land.
What a vicious thing to do to your own countrymen. But I guess that about sums up a lot to do with the CW. There are better ways to do things than killing. Imagine if they'd used economic sanctions or other peaceful means. If they'd made slavery unprofitable, that might have ended it sooner and with a lot less violence.
What a vicious thing to do to your own countrymen. But I guess that about sums up a lot to do with the CW. There are better ways to do things than killing. Imagine if they'd used economic sanctions or other peaceful means. If they'd made slavery unprofitable, that might have ended it sooner and with a lot less violence.
I actually found out a lot about the history of Missouri and Kansas and Iowa prewar and into the war when I was first looking up what counties they'd lived in. The family story of being burned out of the home was true, not just for the grandparent I thought. But Missouri had been engulfed in its own civil war before the offical one, one which was horrible and vicious. It had gone beyond slavery and become very personal. Civilians were not just killed for being on the other side, often brutally just as a message. Both sides had their share of that blame. When the union troops arrived in this bloodbath the Order was issued as a no compromise concequence intended to stop the violence. If either side, since they had no control over the union terrorists either, was to strike it could be applied and thus eliminate the possibility of more violence. There were five or six, would have to look that up, counties which had Order 11 applied, but they lived in the one next to Iowa where the Iowa troops arrived first.
But since the undeclared war had been going on for several years, I keep wondering what sort of things they'd dealt with before and even what side they were on. Most of the refugees left the state, many to Illinious since it was a traditional road. I haven't found any record of anyone in the immediate family supporting either side. But I'd guess they'd had enough.
There were also stories about how when the rail roads were coming through how the locals would shield the outlaws like the James gang since he was regarded as on their side. I suspect my family would have give them shelter as farmers, since the James gang was seen as on their side. Ironically my great grandfather ended up working for Union Pacific. The really neat thing is all these stories took place in some nebelious place with no defination until I placed the where in terms of where they lived. Even my g grandmother on the otherside who lived for a time in the wilderness, I finally realized that 'wilderness' was unsettled plains. I'd thought of forest or mountains. It's amazing how much you learn when you start putting the little pieces together.
Recently found out that the "Jane Doe may have been a Cherokee woman" claim is pretty bogus.
23andMe and Gedmatch don't show anything to suggest I have Amerindian ancestry, and it seems the "Cherokee bump" trait is pretty laughable because it's a trait you can find in populations all over the world.
My one great-great-grandfather had 8 siblings, and for the longest time, I only had info on 2 of them (brothers). So periodically I'll poke around and see if anything new comes up on the others. The sisters are the hardest, because I'm not sure who they married, so there's no surname to look for. But there is one male, James, that I could never find info on--no marriages, no household of his own. And he was still living with the family at age 32, according to the 1870 census. Just yesterday, I looked closer at the 1870 census document, as before I had only been interested in who was in the home, their ages, and maybe who the neighbors were. This time I looked way over on the right side of the document (which I guess I hardly ever do) and saw that James was labeled an "idiot." Before 1870, all I had seen on his line was "laborer" for occupation.
So James had a developmental disability and lived and worked on the family farm into adulthood. Sadly, I still can't find any record of him after 1870. In the 1880 census, the parents are both deceased and all the siblings have their own families (he's not listed with any of them). I even checked the county Almshouse and the county "Insane Asylum" for 1880, and he's not there either.
But at least I now know why he never seemed to get married and establish a family.
My one great-great-grandfather had 8 siblings, and for the longest time, I only had info on 2 of them (brothers). So periodically I'll poke around and see if anything new comes up on the others. The sisters are the hardest, because I'm not sure who they married, so there's no surname to look for. But there is one male, James, that I could never find info on--no marriages, no household of his own. And he was still living with the family at age 32, according to the 1870 census. Just yesterday, I looked closer at the 1870 census document, as before I had only been interested in who was in the home, their ages, and maybe who the neighbors were. This time I looked way over on the right side of the document (which I guess I hardly ever do) and saw that James was labeled an "idiot." Before 1870, all I had seen on his line was "laborer" for occupation.
So James had a developmental disability and lived and worked on the family farm into adulthood. Sadly, I still can't find any record of him after 1870. In the 1880 census, the parents are both deceased and all the siblings have their own families (he's not listed with any of them). I even checked the county Almshouse and the county "Insane Asylum" for 1880, and he's not there either.
But at least I now know why he never seemed to get married and establish a family.
That is interesting to learn and definitely makes you want to learn what happened. One of my ggf's had his brother in his house until the brother died, but the brother had been a functioning adult before that. I've often wondered if his health had deteriorated or what the reason was for him living with his brother as a mature adult.
Is it possible James lived with one of the daughters with an unknown surname?
That is interesting to learn and definitely makes you want to learn what happened. One of my ggf's had his brother in his house until the brother died, but the brother had been a functioning adult before that. I've often wondered if his health had deteriorated or what the reason was for him living with his brother as a mature adult.
Is it possible James lived with one of the daughters with an unknown surname?
That's what I think, but I can't find the names of the husbands of the sisters (yet).
My one great-great-grandfather had 8 siblings, and for the longest time, I only had info on 2 of them (brothers). So periodically I'll poke around and see if anything new comes up on the others. The sisters are the hardest, because I'm not sure who they married, so there's no surname to look for. But there is one male, James, that I could never find info on--no marriages, no household of his own. And he was still living with the family at age 32, according to the 1870 census. Just yesterday, I looked closer at the 1870 census document, as before I had only been interested in who was in the home, their ages, and maybe who the neighbors were. This time I looked way over on the right side of the document (which I guess I hardly ever do) and saw that James was labeled an "idiot." Before 1870, all I had seen on his line was "laborer" for occupation.
So James had a developmental disability and lived and worked on the family farm into adulthood. Sadly, I still can't find any record of him after 1870. In the 1880 census, the parents are both deceased and all the siblings have their own families (he's not listed with any of them). I even checked the county Almshouse and the county "Insane Asylum" for 1880, and he's not there either.
But at least I now know why he never seemed to get married and establish a family.
Excellent example of why it's so important to look over every detail of a document, especially the censuses.
Although it took a long time to research primarily using sources on the Internet, I finally found out I have some American Revolutionary War (AMR) patriots in my family. I honestly never thought I could get research done into the 1700s, so that alone is exciting for me.
I don't have the information handy right now, but I think I went back about 8 or 9 generations to find this out about having a distant relative serving in AMR. I hope in time I can find out relatives names in the 1600s or so. I think some of this lineage is well documented, but I would need to take time to confirm on my own.
What gets mathematically complicated to me personally is just how many ancestors we have in just 200 years or so.
I wonder, how far back can anyone trace their ancestry? I have been working on mine for 12 years and I have recently been able to trace one line of my ancestry on my paternal side as far back as my 102nd great-grandfather. To me that's an interesting accomplishment considering that up until about eight years ago I knew absolutely nothing about my paternal side of my family. That's my most recent discovery..
I wonder, how far back can anyone trace their ancestry? I have been working on mine for 12 years and I have recently been able to trace one line of my ancestry on my paternal side as far back as my 102nd great-grandfather. To me that's an interesting accomplishment considering that up until about eight years ago I knew absolutely nothing about my paternal side of my family. That's my most recent discovery..
At an average of 30 years per generation, that would be over 3000 years. Considering the lack of written records through much of that time, how did you document that far back? Surnames are a relatively new convention (about 1300). Even royal pedigrees would be difficult to prove over that many generations.
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.
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.
