Giving Birth on the Atlantic Ocean

I have two documented cases in my tree of ancestors giving birth on board the ship taking them from Europe to America, one during colonial times, and the other from the late 19th century. It always makes me wonder why a woman would ever travel like this while pregnant, especially during the last trimester. It's not as though travel by ship, even in history, took nine months and she couldn't have known, but in both cases in my tree, it was a matter of the journey taking longer than expected. Not nine months long, but long enough that she could have reasonably expected to have arrived at the destination long before the birth, and maybe even before the last trimester. Maybe it was even a combination of a longer than expected journey and a premature birth. In the second case, I think that may have been likely, because the baby sadly did not survive.

The first case is of a well documented ancestor, Rachel de Forest, the daughter of noteworthy Jesse de Forest, and wife of equally well known Jean/Johannes de la Montagne. While perhaps not exactly famous in mainstream history, Montagne actually has a Society of Descendants, and was a notable figure in colonial New Amsterdam, serving on the New Netherland Council and as First Councillor to both Director Willem Kieft and Director-General Peter Stuyvesant. Jean and his wife Rachel left Holland (Netherlands) for New Amsterdam on 25 Sep 1636 on board the Rensselaerswyck, obviously while Rachel was pregnant. Exactly how far along she was, we can't say for sure, but she gave birth 25 Jan 1637 while at sea, and the reason is probably because the journey wound up taking a surprising 23 weeks, not arriving until 5 March 1637. Normally, at this time in history, the journey across the Atlantic took about 6-12 weeks. It was common for the ship to make several stops in Europe before making the crossing, but this usually only tacked on a few weeks, not the 14 weeks it wound up adding to the trip. If they left in September and the journey was only supposed to take 3 months at most, Rachel might have reasonably assumed they would be in New Amsterdam by or around Christmas, and if she wasn't due until late January, she would have no reason to think she might give birth on board the ship. What went wrong? Why did the journey take so long? 

First, immediately after leaving Holland, the ship hit heavy storms in the English Channel that left them at the mercy of the battering winds and sea swells for a brutal six weeks. During this time, another woman on board actually gave birth as well, though I am not related to her. Anna Van Rotmers had a son she appropriately named "Storm". Though the boy's father's surname was Bradt, Storm later adopted the surname "Vanderzee" which literally means "from the sea". Seems he was quite proud of being born at sea during a brutal storm.

The ship made attempts to dock at either Falmouth or Plymouth in England, and although they got close, the storm ultimately made it impossible to dock. The ship's sails were all badly damaged and it wasn't until November 16th that it finally limped into the harbor of Ilfracombe, in Devonshire, England. 

This wasn't the end of their troubles. Not only did the bad weather continue, making it difficult for the ship to set off again once repaired, but while they waited out the storms in Ilfracombe, the blacksmith (who was being sent to the colony by the Dutch West India Company) argued with his assistant, which resulted in the assistant killing the blacksmith! The ship's officers immediately turned the murderer into the authorities at Ilfracombe, but to be sure they wouldn't leave during the investigation, the authorities moored their ship and removed the rudder. Between this and the weather, they were delayed another eight weeks. 

They finally left England (presumably with no blacksmith or assistant) on 9 Jan 1637 and the crossing of the Atlantic took a mere two months, as expected, but by now, Rachel was much further along than she had originally planned and wound up having her 5th child, Maria, on 25 Jan 1637 while still on board the Rensselaerswyck. Fortunately, both Rachel and Maria survived the ordeal, and Maria went on to marry my 9th great grandfather, Jacob Kip (a clerk for the council Jean served on). By the time they left England though, Rachel must have known that she was nearing her due date, and I wondered why she didn't choose to stay in England for the birth, and catch another ship to New Amsterdam afterwards. Maybe they didn't have the money - they had, after all, already paid for their trip on the Rensselaerswyck and staying in England would mean paying for room and board somewhere, plus the cost of another ship later on, all presumably without income while they waited. Additionally, waiting for the next ship may have meant waiting for months after the birth, not just a few weeks. However terrifying the thought of giving birth on board a ship must have been, it's likely that Rachel didn't have a choice at that point. Fortunately though, her own husband was a physician, so at least he was there by her side to help her through it.

The second case in my tree took place much later in history, in 1880. My 3rd great grandfather, Giovantomaso Scioli, was a poor Italian farmer, who was apparently intent on making sure his first child was born in America, because he and his wife would leave for the US just weeks before she was due to give birth. A risky choice, if you ask me.

After marrying my 3rd great grandmother Lorenza Palladino on 27 Feb 1879 in Monteroduni, Italy, they left a year later for the US on board the SS Australia (shown above, from NorwayHeritage.com) from London, England on 14 Feb 1880, while Lorenza was, of course, heavily pregnant. I do not know when or how they got from Italy to England, but the journey from England to the US should have taken about 1-2 weeks, yet the steamer did not arrive in New York City until 10 Mar 1880, about 3 and a half weeks from when it departed. We know why the ship was delayed, because it was documented in the newspaper as having had engine problems while at sea. Described only as a "disabled engine", it must have been running at only about half the speed it was normally capable of.

In addition, I believe Lorenza may have also given birth prematurely. On 28 Feb 1880, she gave birth to a little girl named after the steamship she was born on, Australia Domenica Scioli, who sadly died a mere 2 days later. In history, infant deaths were not uncommon, even if they weren't premature, but it could help explain how Lorenza wound up giving birth at sea. Let's say she wasn't due for another 5-6 weeks when they left, so a journey that should have only take a week or two, or maybe even three at the most like it did, should have still meant she would safely be in NYC weeks before her due date. Only if the baby was a week or two early would it have been a problem, and unfortunately that's exactly what may have happened. Of course, it's also important to remember that due dates in history weren't as exact as they are today and Lorenza could have thought her due date was later than it actually was.

The idea of giving birth in history seems daunting enough to begin with. Before modern medicine, the leading cause of death among women of child bearing age was child birth. Add to that having to do it on board a ship (pre-stabilizers, which help reduce the motion of the ship), in some cases probably without a doctor or even a midwife present, sounds terrifying. Unless you were lucky enough to marry a doctor like Rachel, the most you could hope for was another woman on board who had experience either giving birth and/or assisting in a delivery to help you through such an uncertain event. When you consider all this, it's a miracle both Rachel and Maria survived in the first case, even with her doctor husband, and that Lorenza survived in the second case, even if Australia Domenica didn't.

Sources:

• Liner Transatlantic Crossing Times, 1833 – 1952 (in days), The Geography of Transport Systems
• A Walloon family in America; Lockwood de Forest and his forbears 1500-1848 Vol 1, Westward Again, Pages 75-80.
• Birth of Australia Dominica Scioli, 28 Feb 1880, Register of births at sea of British nationals, 1875-1891, FHL Film Number 1483321, Page 78
• Death of Australia Domenica Scioli, 02 Mar 1880, Register of deaths at sea of British nationals, 1875-1888, FHL Film Number 1483315, Page 92.
• New-York tribune. (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, March 11, 1880, Page 8, Image 8. Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Quaker Gibbs of Burlington County, NJ

My Gibbs branch has always been a brick wall for me. My grandmother had fairly extensively researched her and my grandfather's genealogies and over the years, I went about confirming most of it with records and expanding on several branches. But not the Gibbs branch. Here's what I know.

Hope's baptism confirms her parent's names but not
mother's maiden name

Hope Gibbs was born November 3, 1805 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Caleb and Isabella Gibbs. There is an adult Lutheran baptism record for her which confirms her birth date and parents names, and other records like her death record confirm her birth place. According to my grandmother, Isabella's maiden name was Peters but I haven't found any record of that and have only my grandmother's word to go on (and she is deceased so I can't ask her where she got it from). It's possible she got the name from her mother-in-law, or her grandmother-in-law and therefore the info is subject to the corruption of things being passed down the generations through word of mouth. Equally, I haven't been able to find any conclusive info on Caleb apart from the mention in Hope's baptism record.

What I did find was some Quaker records of a Caleb Gibbs in Upper Springfield, Burlington County, New Jersey and the timing is right that this could be my Caleb Gibbs, that he was originally in New Jersey and moved to Philadelphia before Hope was born. I can't find records of him in Upper Springfield after Hope's birth and to strengthen the ties between the two Calebs, I found a marriage record of Caleb Gibbs and Isabella Brannin (mis-transcribed as Browning) on April 29, 1799. Ancestry.com has the record of the marriage in Philadelphia, but this has been incorrectly indexed. Family Search has a copy of the record from the true location in Burlington, New Jersey.

Caleb Gibb's marriage without Quaker consent - lack of mention
of wife's name suggests she was not a Quaker

The trouble is I have no idea if my Caleb was a Quaker or whether he came from Burlington, New Jersey. The only links I have between them is that the Caleb from Burlington obviously married an Isabella, which matches with my info, and that there's no more Quaker records of him in Burlington County after 1800 (before Hope's birth), or seemingly any records at all of him in Upper Springfield after 1800 (though there are some Caleb Gibbs in neighboring townships). In fact, the reason for the lack of his mention in Quaker records after 1800 seems to be because there was a conflict with him and his marriage. It appears he married without the consent of the Quaker elders and he wasn't sorry for it. If this is my Caleb, this could be the reason he left Burlington (and perhaps even the Quakers) and went to Philadelphia.

Isabella's excommunication from the Quakers following
the birth of her illegitimate child

Interestingly, searching for Isabella Brannin in the Quaker records turned up a woman by that name who had a child out of wedlock in 1795 with Levi Webster. They were both excommunicated from the Quakers for it. This could be why Caleb's marriage to a disgraced woman and ex-Quaker was not approved. Isabella does not appear to have married Levi, which would have left her available to marry Caleb in 1799. Then all records of Caleb in Upper Springfield Township cease after 1800 - is it because they moved to Philadelphia, where their daughter Hope was born in 1805?

Quakers seem to be pretty well documented so I'm hoping someone who is researching Quaker Gibbs in the Burlington, NJ area might be able to help me link my Caleb Gibbs to them. It seems likely the two were one in the same, but I feel like I'm missing an affirmative link.

Online Exhibit of Coins & Currency in Colonial America

Colonial Williamsburg has presented an online "exhibit" - a little interactive tool with lots of interesting information about money used in America during colonial times.

Coin & Currency in Colonial America - Online Exhibit Presented by Colonial Williamsburg

US Immigration Stats in History

2000 US Census Data on Self Reported Ancestry

I often see people trying to determine which European ethnicity most Americans are descended from. Some attempt to use self reported ancestry from census data to show the major European groups Americans today claim to descend from. The trouble with this is that self reported data is unreliable and most Americans are a mix of ancestries but only able to report one. Many actually reported 'American', which although technically may not be inaccurate (if you have ancestors born in the US, then you have American ancestry - the census did not ask what our non-American ancestry was), it's not helpful for these purposes. Probably because of these reasons, the US Census has since dropped this question and therefore the most recent data for ancestry is from 2000.

Others try to calculate which group most Americans today have roots in by using immigration numbers plus basic multiplication to determine their population growth. The trouble with this is that the multiplication is an estimate, and again, so many Americans today are a mixture of European ethnic groups. In the end, we can only say that it's impossible to determine with any real accuracy which single European ethnic group most Americans today are descended from. But the immigration stats are still helpful by showing us the largest European groups to legally settle in the US.

Over the course of history, from colonial times up to 1969, the largest groups to immigrate were the Germans totaling just over 7 million, followed by the British totaling over 5 million. The Italians came in a close third, also equally just over 5 million, with less than 100,000 fewer than the British numbers. Finally, we have the Irish amounting to slightly more than 4 and half million. Those from Austria-Hungary came in fifth at a little over 4 million, and then the Russians with just over 3 million. Finally, we have those from Norway-Sweden with barely over 2 million, and if you add in the Danes and Finnish to maximize the Scandinavian results, it still only equals about 2 and a half million. The spreadsheet (linked below) shows numbers for more groups in case it interests you but none of them exceed 1 million.

When estimating the amount of descends today from each of these groups, it's important to consider the time periods in which they immigrated. The longer an immigrant has been here, the more descendants they will likely have because they had more time to multiple. For example, the Italians may have had more immigrants than the Irish, but the largest period of Irish immigration occurred decades before the bulk of the Italians arrived so theoretically, it's possible the Irish have more descendants. Considering many Irish and Italians intermarried, it would not surprise me if they were about equal though.

With this in mind, if you look at the stats I compiled in this spreadsheet, you'll see that the Germans and British not only have the highest immigrant numbers in total, but also are the only groups to have been consistently immigrating in mass numbers since colonial times all the way up to 1969. I think it's safe to say that most Americans today have German and/or British ancestry. It would probably be impossible to determine which out of the two of them would rank higher, and many people probably also have some other groups mixed in there - personally I also have Italian and Norwegian, but not everyone else will. But it seems obvious from these stats that most Americans with European heritage have some German and/or British ancestry, even if they don't know it.

Sources:

1. Demographic History of the United States
2. US Department of Homeland Security Yearbook 2008

The Patriotic Society of the City and County of Philadelphia

Never heard of this? Neither had I, but it played a noteworthy role in our state's and even our nation's history. Anyone with German ancestry in Pennsylvania might find this interesting.

In colonial times, the German population was strong, particular in Pennsylvania where by 1790, they made up about a third of the total population. It is not surprising therefore that the English were wary of their influence in the colonies, which was particularly strong in elections such as for the Colonial Assembly (the colonial governing body), because the Germans tended to all vote for the same candidate. The Germans themselves were largely influenced by their German newspapers in the colonies, particularly Christoph Sauer's newspaper in Philadelphia, which was known for having anti-English sentiments. In fact, it seemed to have made use of a little bit of propaganda by impressing upon the Germans that the English intended to enslave them and enforce compulsory military service among their young men, much like the circumstances from which they had fled their homeland. As a result, the Germans frequently refused to serve in the army for Britain's fight against the French over Canadian territory. In turn, the English feared that the Germans were strong enough in numbers to rise up and turn Pennsylvania into a German nation, thus there was a lot of prejudice among the English against the Germans. Proposals were put forward to bar the German's from having a vote in the Assembly, during which time they would also be forced to learn English. It never happened though, and as a result, the German language prevailed in America all the way up to World War I.

Benjamin Franklin, unfairly critical of Germans
in Pennsylvania

But in colonial times, the prejudice against the Germans was so strong that even our beloved Founding Father Benjamin Franklin shared harsh, negative views of them. In a letter from him to Peter Collinson in 1753, he wrote the following:

"I am perfectly of your mind, that measures of great temper are necessary touching the Germans, and am not without apprehensions that, through their indiscretion, or ours, or both, great disorders may one day arise among us. Those who come hither are generally the most stupid of their own nation, and as ignorance is often attended with great credulity, when knavery would mislead it, and with suspicion when honesty would set it right; and few of the English understand the German language, so that they cannot address them either from the press or pulpit, it is almost impossible to remove any prejudice they may entertain. The clergy have very little influence on the people, who seem to take pleasure in abusing and discharging the minister on every trivial occasion. Not being used to liberty, they know not how to make modest use of it. They are under no restraint from ecclesiastical government; they behave however, submissively enough at present to the civil government, which I wish they may continue to do, for I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling with our elections ; but now they come in droves and carry all before them, except in one or two counties. Few of their children in the country know English. They import many books from Germany, and, of the six printing houses in the province, two are entirely German, two half German, half English, and but two are entirely English. They have one German newspaper, and one half German. Advertisements intended to be general, are now printed in Dutch, (German) and English. The signs in our streets, (Phila.,) have inscriptions in both languages, and some places only in German. They begin of late, to make all their bonds and other legal instruments in their own language, (though I think it ought not to be), are allowed good in courts, where the German business so increases, that there is continued need of interpreters, and I suppose in a few years, they will also be necessary in the Assembly, to tell one-half of our legislators, what the other half says. In short, unless the stream of importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon outnumber us, that all the advantages we have, will, in my opinion, be not able to preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious."

It is therefore rather ironic that not long later, many of the "English" of the colonies, who previously feared the loss of British rule to the German settlers, were now unified with them against the British in the American Revolution. With the exception of many of the pacifist Mennonites who held an indifferent stance in the conflict, the Germans were firmly on the side of the Patriots. In 1772, the German residents of Philadelphia held a significant amount of influence in business and civic matters and created an organization called The Patriotic Society of the City and County of Philadelphia. Its intent was to prepare and support what they correctly viewed to be the inevitable struggle for the colony against the British. Though it gets little mention these days and does not even have a Wikipedia page about it, its existence shows the support of the German faction of Pennsylvania in the Revolution, despite the harsh prejudice previously against them. Understanding their vast numbers in the colony proves just how important their support was for the success of the Revolution and the creation of our nation.

Sources: 

• Archive.org. The Story of the Pennsylvania Germans; embracing an account of their origin, their history, and their dialect by William Beidelman, 1898, p. 81-91.
• Loc.gov. Chronology : the Germans in America (European Reading Room, Library of Congress). 

Happy German-American Day!

Germantown Seal

Today is officially German-American Day. I love this day because I have so many German ancestors, just as many other Americans do. One only needs to stop and consider the surnames of the people around them to see how many are German in origin. Even those that may not sound German have often been Anglicized from a German name. The day is used to observe and celebrate the date that the first significant group of Germans arrived in Philadelphia in 1683 and founded Germantown, 330 years ago today. Conveniently, it also usually coincides with Oktoberfest, often falling in it's final days or just after.

German heritage is so strong in America that myths have been created about it, such as the one that our official language was nearly German. This is false because for starters, America has no official language to begin with. What actually inspired this myth was when the U.S. Government considered making it a requirement that all government documents be translated into German. It didn't happen but if it had, it would have just meant that all government documents would be available in German as well as English, not that German would replace English. However, even the truth of the matter shows just how prominent the German language was in our culture.

Old Germantown, Philadelphia

When did this change? Mostly during World War I when there was a lot of anti-Germany sentiment in America. Germany were our enemies and speaking German was felt to be unpatriotic so there was a drastic decline in the language at this point. And if that wasn't enough, certainly the second world war put the nail in the coffin for the language. During this time, posters discouraging the use of languages like German and also Italian and Japanese were distributed. Only communities like the Amish and Mennonites retrained the language, further isolating them from the rest of society. For a long time after WWI and particularly WWII, we were unable to take much pride in our German heritage, even if our ancestors had come to the country well before the first world war, it was felt to be in bad taste to celebrate German culture or history at all. German-American Day had been informally observed up until WWI and it wasn't until 1983, on the 300 year anniversary of the first group of German's arrival in Pennsylvania, that it was revived by law as an official day of observance. Unfortunately, it's not enough to get a day off work/school though and even today, after 30 years as an official, national day of observance, it goes significantly overlooked. Though many cities across the U.S. host a Steuben Parade, it usually takes place in September, well before German-American Day.

German-American Day is significant to me not only because I have many German ancestors but because some of them were a part of the early Germantown community. My ancestor Jacob C. Gottschalk, arrived in Philadelphia in 1701 or 1702 and became a preacher in the Germantown Mennonite community alongside William Rittenhouse. After Rittenhouse's death, Jacob became the first Mennonite Bishop in America.

Why is German-American Day important to you? Should it receive more attention? Who were your German ancestors?

Eat a pretzel today, they're German!

Here's some good reasons to celebrate German-American Day:

• The Christmas tree originated in Germany.
• Food! Hot dogs (Frankfurters), hamburgers, bratwurst, sauerkraut, strudels, pretzels - all German influences. And foods like shoofly pie and funnel cake have their origins with the Pennsylvania "Dutch".
• Beer! German-Americans played a large role in beer production in America.
• Religion. Most Lutheran and Anabaptist churches in America were founded by Germans and let's not forget the leader of the Reformation was Martin Luther, a German.
• Farming and craftsmanship. Palatines in particular were revered as the among the best farmers in the world and helped make Pennsylvania's agricultural history as important as it was.
• Classical music. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, etc. It may not be your favorite style but they undoubtedly created iconic music that will last forever.
• The public school system in America was heavily influenced by the German concept of free common schools.
• Folklore and fairy tales. Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc... Disney got them all from the Brother's Grimm, who had collected them from oral story telling in Germany.
• The first anti-slavery protest was published in Germantown, PA in 1688, a mere 5 years after the area was founded, and some, if not all of the signees were German. Quakers and Mennonites of the area strongly opposed slavery and wasted no time making that clear to the world. Though the Quaker movement began in England, many German Mennonites had converted to the Quaker faith when William Penn and others preached their beliefs in the Rhine valley.

Have I missed anything obvious? Feel free to comment below.

Images thanks to Wikipedia.

Captured by Native Americans

I recently discovered my 7th great grandparents Noah Frederick and Margaretha Becker were attacked and killed by Native Americans and that their son, my 6th great grandfather Thomas Frederick, was abducted by them. This was in 1756 in an area of Pennsylvania near Jonestown, not too far northeast of Harrisburg, in what was then Earl Township, Lancaster County (now Lebenon County, Earl Township defunct). Thomas would have only been four years old so it's difficult to say if he even remembered the event. By one account, two of his siblings were also taken captive, though I have yet to discover their names (if anyone knows them, please leave a comment!). They could not have been with the Natives for more than two years though, since records say they were released to the French Fort Duquesne, which was destroyed and replaced by Fort Pitt in 1758 and later developed into the city of Pittsburgh.

Thomas, now an orphan, apparently grew up under unknown guardianship in Philadelphia where there was no longer threat of Indian attacks. He later returned to the area of his tragic youth where he married Ann Margaret Tibbens in Bethel, Lancaster County in 1774. Two years later, the Revolutionary War broke out and Thomas joined up, fighting for his nation's independence.

An 1860 map of Centre Township, Columbiana County,
Ohio with Frederick lands outlined in red. J. Frederick was
Thomas' son, John. Thomas may have own all three lots.

Later in life, Thomas made a somewhat surprising move out to Lisbon, Centre Township, Columbiana County, Ohio in 1804. This area was only just beginning to be settled, Ohio had been admitted as a state merely one year prior, and so it was still very much the frontier at the time, still susceptible to Indian attacks. For this reason, land was often cheaply or even freely available as an incentive to settle the land. It seems surprising that Thomas, who had been a victim of such attacks as a child, would uproot his settled family and take up this particular risk. However, as a orphan, Thomas probably inherited nothing and had to make his own way in life. We don't know what his situation in Pennsylvania was like, perhaps his family did not have much to live on and maybe the opportunity to freely or cheaply acquire a lot of land was too good to pass up. He and Margaret had a grand total of 12 children together so they had a lot of mouths to feed. Obviously, Thomas' experience as a child did not stop him from taking a chance and moving out to the frontier. It is this kind of courage and initiative on which America is founded.

To read more and view sources, check out my Frederick Family History.

What's The Point?

I get asked this by a lot of people, what is the point of genealogy? Of learning about people I never even knew? Do my colonial ancestors really have anything to do with me, besides some DNA? I've even seen genealogy enthusiasts question it themselves. What is it about this that we enjoy so much? For me, there are many reasons, among them are uncovering mysteries, upholding family tradition, finding parts of my self identity, personalizing history, and honoring the memories of my ancestors.

My grandmother, who would have loved
to learn about all my discoveries
of our tree.

Quite simply, I enjoy the research and detective-like work. It's exciting to spend hours, weeks, months, even years looking for something and then finally find it. It provides such a sense of accomplishment, as though connecting the dots and uncovering a mystery. Sure, the information I've uncovered may seem mundane to some, not exactly a great mystery that will change the world, and the task of getting there will be tedious to others, but we all have our hobbies and who is to say which hobby is more worthy than another?

But more importantly, for me, it's also about family tradition. I had picked up my family tree where my maternal grandmother had left off, with lots of information and photos that my mother had held on to and lovingly passed on to me. I had grown up surrounded by photographs of my ancestors on first my grandmother's walls and then my mom's and I'm sure someday, they'll be on mine. So immediately, this was something that was a part of my family, and therefore a part of me. It was important to me because it meant something to my mom and grandmother. When I work on my tree and make new discoveries, I can't wait to share them with my mom and we frequently agree that her mother would have loved to hear about them too. Working on our tree has become a family tradition in itself.

I know some people struggle to understand how the lives of people I never met (or anyone else that I knew had ever met) could be a part of my self identity so I'll attempt to explain. I started researching my ancestry not long after I moved to the UK to live with my English husband. I discovered that I had an English branch of my tree which came from an area only about a 45 minute drive from where I was living in England! There are many things about England (especially the north of England) which I have fallen in love with (not in the least of all, my husband) and so I started to feel an emotional tie to my English ancestors because I feel I understand and love their culture. Of course it's changed a lot since they lived here but after living here for 7 years myself, England has become a part of my self identity and that allows me to identify with English ancestors.

Old Mennonite Meeting House
in Germantown, Philadelphia.
Part of my family history, part of
my home.

At the same time, being so far from my native Pennsylvania, my heart really did grow fonder for it and so I was thrilled to discover that many of my tree branches have a long, strong history in Pennsylvania, particularly the Philadelphia region. I never realized until I left how this area has been a huge part of my self identity and so when I found out that I have some very early colonial ancestry in Philadelphia, it only strengthened the emotional ties I have to the area. They say that home is where the heart is and my heart is in Pennsylvania.

On the other hand, it can be easier to identify with more recent immigrants. My paternal grandmother, known to our family as Nan, though born in America, was 100% Italian with six siblings. For me, growing up in this family with so many Italian-American aunts, uncles, and cousins was a large part of my life. Nan's father had immigrated in the early 20th century when he was a teenager and though I never met him (he died before I was born), I grew up hearing stories about him and it was obvious how much my big-fat-Italian-family had respected and admired him. I wish I could have known him but the more I learn about him through my research, the more I feel like I did know him. Genealogy doesn't have to be about going back to the 17th century and learning about people who are so far removed from your world that it doesn't feel like there's any connection. Genealogy can be about your parents, your grandparents, or your great grandparents. It can be about the people who, if not a part of your immediate world, were probably a big part of the lives of the people who you do know and love. They are a part of your self identity, if not directly, then through the influences of others. Each generation is like a bridge, linking the generations on either side of them together, even if they were never linked in life.

My Italian great grandparents, who I never met but almost feel
I have, through family stories and research.

Does one have to know their heritage to complete their self identity? Of course not, but personally, it has become a part of mine.

The third reason I enjoy genealogy is because this is history, personalized. I have always had an interest in history and when I'm not researching my tree (or blogging about it), I'm usually reading a historical novel or history book. Genealogy takes this to a personal level, like when I discovered my ancestor's street was flooded in the 1907 Pittsburgh flood, or when I found a headstone of my ancestor's that says "A Soldier of 1812". These are historic events that are now a part of my own family history. I never had much of an interest in learning about the American Civil War but now that I know I had relatives who fought it in, I do want to know more.

The final reason I research my family tree is to honor the memories of my ancestors. Again, one might ask "why bother, if you never knew them?" Well, that's exactly why I do it. It really depresses me to consider that when I'm gone, and when everyone who knew and loved me is gone too, I will be completely forgotten to history, as though my life meant nothing in the grand scheme of things. I am an average person, I accept that I am probably not going to wind up doing anything so important as to get my name in a history book, but what I have difficulty accepting is that eventually I will be entirely forgotten, even to my descendants. And most of my ancestors were the same, they were average people just like me - but they laughed, they cried, they loved, they got angry. That is perhaps the biggest reason I do this, so that the lives of my ancestors won't be forgotten this way. Just because they may not have been famous doesn't mean their lives were meaningless because if they were, then mine is too and I don't believe that.

Perhaps some people still just don't get why I love it so much, maybe it's just different strokes for different folks, but those are my reasons. What are yours? Why do you spend all this time, energy, and money on this particular hobby?

July 15, On This Day in My Family Tree

199 years ago in 1814, my 5th great grandfather John Johnson Godshalk died at the age of 76 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He was buried in Doylestown Mennonite Cemetery. He was a Revolutionary War Veteran despite being a Mennonite, a pacifist religion. Entering the militia went against the traditional beliefs of his religion but some Mennonites joined anyway while others supported the cause by donating money, food and other supplies. Others still entirely refused to support either side.

Sources:

• Findagrave.com (1856). John Johnson Godshalk (1737 - 1814) - Find A Grave Memorial. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=55384087 [Accessed: 13 Jul 2013].
• Ancestry.com. U.S., Sons of the American Revolution Membership Applications, 1889-1970. Image 140 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 25: Springer and Sutch

Another two from opposite sides of my tree. Springer is an 18th century family who migrated from Pennsylvania to Ohio and married into the Pike family, though their European origins are unknown.

Sutch are also of unknown origins but settled in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and married into the Gilbert family (who married the Rorer family, then Fallows).

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 23: Scioli and Smith

Two families that probably could be more different! Scioli is an Italian branch from my dad's side that immigrated to Philadelphia sometime in the mid to late 19th century, I still don't know exactly when or from where. However, the Biello family, who married into the Scioli's and don't yet have enough info to have their own dedicated chapter, where from Monterodui. The Scioli's married into the Demore (D'Amore) family.

The Smith family, on the other hand, is on my mom's side and is a Scotch-Irish colonial family who initially settled in Virginia for a few generations before making their way to Kentucky and eventually, after a few more generations, to Alabama and Pennsylvania.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 21: Reiff, Rorer, Russell

Playing catch-up again here.

Reiff is another Swiss/German colonial Pennsylvania family who started out with the Reformed Church but converted to Mennonite and settled in the Skippack area of Montgomery County. They married into the Godshall family.

Rorer is yet another a Swiss/German colonial Pennsylvania family but not a part of the Mennonite community that settled in Montgomery and Bucks Counties. They settled in the Frankford area of Philadelphia and were founding members of the Presbyterian Church there. In later generations, they did move out to Montgomery County but to the Springfield Township area. They married into the Fallows family and much like them, were very involved in the community. 

The Russell family came from Northern Ireland and immigrated to Pittsburgh sometime in the 1870's. They married into the Bauer family (Anna Jane Russell was the woman previously discussed as the alcoholic who was estranged from her family).

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 16: Mills, Moyer, Narum

Yes, I'm behind now so I'm going to post three today!

The Mills family, supposedly descended from Dutch royalty but likely not, never stayed in one place for very long and eventually married into the Smith family.

The Moyer family, once Meyer, is another colonial Mennonite branch which eventually fed into the Godshall family via Kratz.

Narum is another Norwegian family who are a part of the Fries branch via Larson.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 11: Kratz

I've opted to skip one family, it would have been Hendricks today but there's still too much conflicting and unresolved issues that I don't want to publish yet. So instead I'm skipping to the Kratz family, yet another from the German colonial Mennonite branch!

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 10: Godshall

This is another one that's close to my heart because it's my grandfather's family and I am still close with my relatives on this side. The the same reason, a little bit of content has been removed for privacy reasons. Originally Gottschalk, the name went through many alternate spellings such as Gottshalk and Godshalk before finally settling on Godshall. They were a colonial Mennonite family before converting to Methodism sometime in the early 19th century and are descended from Jacob Godshalk, the first Mennonite bishop in America and worthy of his own Wikipedia page. He served as minister in Germantown, Philadelphia along side the more well known William Rittenhouse.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 9: Gilbert

Gilbert is another colonial family, probably originating from Germany or England and settling in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. They married into the Rorer family, who married into the Fallows family.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 6: Frantz, Knepper, and Lindesmith

I merged these three families into one chapter because they all get "daughtered out" after one generation so I didn't have enough detail to give them each a dedicated chapter. Frantz, Knepper, and Lindesmith are all believed to be Swiss or German colonial families who first settled in Pennsylvania before moving to Ohio. As with many colonial branches, there are some facts which are still up in the air.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 2 and 3: Cobb and Demore

I did actually complete Day 2's family history update yesterday and then, like a nincompoop, wound up forgetting to post it!

So Day 2's family history was Cobb, another colonial branch, this time from Kent, England and Virginia. The Cobb family married into the Smith family and settled in Kentucky.

And today's family history is one more recent and therefore closer to my heart. The family of my Italian paternal grandmother, Demore (which was originally D'Amore), who settled in Philadelphia. I have removed some of the information for the sake of privacy of living family members.

Join the Family History Writing Challenge.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 1: Clemens

In preparing to do a complete update on all my written family histories during the February Writing Challenge, it occurred to me that I have exactly 28 of them to update. I have 29 in total but I recently updated one of them when I found some new information on that family. So I have just the right amount to update one a day, which should not be overwhelming. Thanks to The Family History Writing Challenge, I am finally getting this done and doing it in a way that won't be too much all at once.

I will share my family histories here on my blog in case it's of use to anyone else researching the same families or in case anyone wants ideas on how to structure a written family history (though I will be editing out info on living people for privacy reasons). My style might be dry but at the moment, my goal is just to convey the information as thoroughly as I can, not necessarily to embellish my ancestor's lives. Remember, you can take this as far as you want or do it however you want - if you want to do more or less than I have or in a completely different way, you're only doing it to please yourself. Mine is written like a book with a chapter for each family name. I work in chronological order, opening with a history of the family name (this became difficult with some of my Norwegian branches!), and typically finishing it up with either a reference to the chapter a daughter married into or with the deaths of her parents. I tend to put the first mention of my direct ancestor's names in bold, so I can follow my direct line more closely. This is because I often include a lot of information on siblings too.

I will go in alphabetical order which means my first family to update is Clemens (click to read!), a colonial Mennonite family who married into the Kratz family (who married into the Godshall family). It's fairly short since it only includes three generations and not much is known about the women going this far back. I am linking to my Google Docs because when I tried to copy and paste it into Blogger, all the formatting went haywire (despite both pieces of software being owned by the same company, apparently that does not ensure consistency). These are formatted to be compiled into an ebook, which is why the photos are just displayed at the end instead of interspersed throughout the article, like they were when I originally published my (now terribly outdated) family histories with My Canvas. Eventually, I plan to do another more creative and visual printed book. Someday.

Colonial Facts and Stats: Culture and Life Part 2

The last installment of this topic involves less statistical information and is more focused on the roles within the family unit. Again, this is just a small portion of the wealth of useful information from Family Life in 17th and 18th Century America.

• Family feasts were popular to celebrate common milestones and events of life; there were feasts for a lying-in, births, baptisms, churchings, starting school or an apprenticeship, betrothals, weddings, anniversaries, house-warmings, recovery from an illness, and even after the setting of a gravestone. On the other hand, many Protestant sects were "hostile" to seasonal or annual feasts related to Catholicism like saints days but some could not be suppressed. 
• Younger sons were often able to follow their own path in life when the father could only afford to send one or two sons to college. However, it often meant they could only find work in "less desirable" careers like sailing, tailoring, blacksmithing, or carpentry. 
• In very rural areas, many children had only very basic writing skills with little more ability to spell out much more than their own name. In more populated areas, there were often laws requiring public schooling: in Connecticut every town of 80 families had an elementary school, and those with 500 families had to establish the equivalent of a high school. Similarly, Massachusetts required every town of 50 families to appoint a schoolmaster. Under Dutch rule, public schooling was not common in New York but under English rule the Dutch were more motivated to establish their own schools in attempts to maintain their culture in light of the increase in English residents. Higher education was still needed though and so college's began to be founded: In the northern and middle colonies were Harvard (1636), Yale (1701), Princeton (the College of New Jersey, 1746), the University of Pennsylvania (1751), Columbia (King's College, 1754), Brown (1764), Rutgers (1766), and Dartmouth (1770). In the south, there were William and Mary (1693), Hampton-Sydney College (1776), and Transylvania College (1780). 
• Prior to the American Revolution, Philadelphia had some of the best schools with the most comprehensive curricula. However, Quaker families were suspicious of any government-run organization and preferred to home school their children, providing them with adequate fundamental education.
• In the south, planters and merchants commonly hired private tutors or sent their children to private schools, often even shipping them back to England to attend private school.
• Just like today, college students would often explore their new freedom by behaving badly and binge drinking, even breaking the law. They would sometimes harass local women in town (the school body was all male) or take up with prostitutes. Students and sometimes entire classes could be expelled or dismissed for a term because of riots, abuse of the faculty, or vandalism.
• Unlike in some homes today where children are always welcome in their parent's home, once colonial children, particularly sons, left the home and established their own household, they would be expected to pay for room and board if they ever returned.
• A teacher's annual salary could range from around £75 to £150 depending on the level of instruction required.
• Men were expected to work to support their family and those who relied entirely on allowance or inheritance were often viewed with suspicion.
• The society was broken down into four classes: 
• Upper class, who were mostly politicians and plantation owners.
• Middle class, consisting of skilled workers such as tradesmen, craftsmen, and farm owners (not to be confused with large plantation owners).
• "Laboring poor" or lower class, who did mostly unskilled work (often on farms) such as digging ditches, rolling wheelbarrows, carrying timber, pitching manure and hay, etc but it also included sailors and fishermen. 
• "Miserable poor" or the unemployed, were often criminals and prostitutes. 
• The most abundant crop grown in the south was not cotton but corn (maize). However, the most profitable was sugar, adding about £3 million to Britain's wealth annually. Also common was tobacco, rice, and indigo. 
• Plantation owners, though members of upper class, were often cash poor and in debt, all of their money being tied up in their plantations.
• On average, farmers tended about 18 acres of crop per 100 acres. The rest was used as pasture and woodlots or left to recuperate after many seasons of over-farming.
• To solve the issue of coin shortage, each colony produced it's own paper money, Maryland's being most successful.
• Under Dutch law, marriage was an equal partnership with equal claim to their combined wealth. Upon the death of a spouse, the surviving spouse was entitled to half the estate and the right to administer the other half for heirs.
• Quaker women did not deal with business, economic, or legal matters but did carry authority in the community such as being responsible for approving marriage applications as a group.
• In English culture, a widow was entitled to 1/3 of the household goods and income of real estate but a husband could will her more. If he willed her less, it was often contested in court for the standard 1/3 and usually ruled in favor of the widow.
• Childbirth was the leading cause of death among women.
• 1 in 10 infants died within their first year and 4 out of 10 died before age 6.
• Once past toddlerhood, children spent the most time with their same gender parent, sons learning the occupational skills of their father and daughters learning domestic skills with their mothers. Girls as young as three were expected to help with the household chores and were taught to knit from age four.
• Diarying and gardening were among the most important of a farm woman's tasks (diary, especially cheese, was a more common source of protein than meats).
• Farm housewives spend their morning milking cows so breakfast was usually very simple and included toast and cheese or leftovers from meals of the previous day. Dinner, what we'd call lunch, was the biggest meal of the day and served at noon. Supper, an evening meal, was similar to breakfast. Southern plantations had bigger breakfasts with cold meats, fowl, game, hominy and hot breads.
• While many parents disciplined with physical punishment, not all parents condoned it.
• Many free black girls were apprenticed with another family to perform household chores where they would also learn to read. The indenture served as proof of their freedom, safeguarding them against being sold into slavery.
• Some indentured servants were criminals who were indentured for life, essentially an enslavement but one which did not pass on to their descendants. 
• Indentured servants had rights that slaves did not. When ill, they were entitled to care and the time of service lost could not count against them. They could not be sold out of the colony in which they arrived and could not be cheated out of the items due them at the end of their service. They could take their masters to court for neglect (not providing food or clothing). In many ways, they had a similar legal status to children.
• Colonial jails usually served only as temporary holding cells, not long term confinement. Whipping, flogging, branding, ear cropping, etc were preferred methods of criminal punishment than confinement.