“It seems that we had a witch in the family”

October 24, 2013

I have been reviewing some data in my genealogy database management program of late, because I found a “new cousin”. This new cousin had a blog called The Barefoot Genealogist. She also can be found on her YouTube Channel. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting her in person.

In one of her online events, I saw a place name and several surnames that I am very familiar with. I did a blog post on that not too long ago.  Re-Read what you have That really talks about what I am doing with my database.

I am re-looking at about 100 Family Group Sheets that I was given by a cousin who has been doing family research for years. In fact my Grandfather’s brother’s family all have been part of this work. About 15 years ago, we even gathered “to tell stories”. My notes reflect that I worked with these Family Group Sheets 13 years ago. Documented everything AND cited my sources.

My major task was to move the source information into the appropriate Evidence Explained format. But because of who the Barefoot Genealogists is, I thought I better get my act together. In doing so, I looked at every Family Group Sheet that I have, but focusing on this specific “line” to make sure I captured everything. I didn’t miss much the first time. In fact, I hadn’t done too bad of a job. But my genealogy database management program has added many features, I wanted to make sure I had the data entered to take advantage of those features.

Note where notes belong, research notes where they belong, remove timelines as my software can do that more accurately, and really identify the source material that made up the research for these Family Group Sheets.

But then, I came across a NOTE that I must not have read, as it’s not in my file, but its on one of the pages with the Family Group Sheets. The note said: 1

“It seems that we had a witch in the family”


In an article (not documented yet) is has terms like “Widow Burt”, “old goody Burt”, “awld wich” in it. It talks about a complaint against her “for witchcraft”. Hmmm. There was no indication that there were any actions taken against her.

But wait, this is in Lynn, Massachusetts and I am working on a line in Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey. Same person, same family ??? What’s going on here?

What are Quakers from the Massachusetts Bay Colony doing in Fenwick’s Colony?

Looking around a little more in my New Jersey folks are mentions of several other families from Long Island, also within a generation moving “south”. So, what is going on? Witches, Quakers, mid-1600’s ??

For grins and giggles my daughter did a Google Search for “Quakers In Mass”. The hint may be here.

I knew of the Puritans in Massachusetts, and that there were Quakers there as well. In fact I have “The Naked Quaker” by Diane Rapaport (Commonwealth Editions –  Carlisle, Massachusetts, 2007) sitting on my bookshelf, in my Must Read section of my library. But it’s what I didn’t know that the Google Search helped me understand.

They didn’t like one another, I guess.

Here are a couple of links:

  1. Quaker and Puritan Interactions in the Massachusetts Bay Colony

    Aug 14, 2013 – Looking specifically at the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the relationship between the Puritans and Quakers is intriguing

  2. Quakers fight for religious freedom in Puritan Massachusetts, 1656

    Massachusetts Bay Colony. Location Description: Boston and surrounding locations. View Location on Map. Goals: The Quakers (Religious Society of Friends)

  3. Boston martyrs – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Boston martyrs is the name given in Quaker tradition to the three English Mary Dyer was an English Puritan living in the Massachusetts Bay Colony at


  4. Mary Dyer – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1611 — June 1, 1660) was an English Puritan turned Quaker who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony (now in present-day Massachusetts), for

  5. First Quaker colonists land at Boston — History.com This Day in

    Ann Austin and Mary Fisher, two Englishwomen, become the first Quakers to immigrate the ship carrying them lands at Boston in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

To name a few.

Since Salem and Lynn are on or near the water, I guess that some of the Quakers got on boats, traveled south, dropped some off in Rhode Island, maybe picked some passengers up along the way, like on Long Island. Perhaps they heard of Fenwick, in West Jersey and headed in his direction (gotta read more on this).

Something must have taken them to what is Tuckerton, New Jersey. Egg Harbor, Little Egg Harbor and found some of Fenwick’s folks in the area. I am finding the connection with Fenwick and this south Jersey area with the West Jersey Quakers. Sounds like what WAS Burlington County, West Jersey was “Quaker Friendly” as compared to Lynn, Mass.

I should mention that I made a comment on the New England Geneablogger Facebook Group about this finding, and within about 1/2 hour, I had 2 new cousins, both of whom I have met. Heather Wilkinson Rojo of Nutfield Genealogy and I are 10th cousin’s according to our records.

Heather said “Just in time for Halloween!”

All of this because I “Re-Read What” I have.

1 Fayette Loomis Worthington, Worthington Family Group Sheet Collection; Fayette L Worthington, Tacoma, WA  98498, 1999.  Family Group No. 01248; dated Aug 1987. Record for Roger Bassett.

News at 11: Just found out that my “brick wall” may now be a ” black sheep”

October 10, 2013

Don’t you like the Questions and Answer sessions where someone asks a question and the person responding says

So.. blah, blah, blah. Drives me crazy.

So, I get this email response to a question about the Worthington Family History Society DNA Project. Of the group who were tested, 36, I was in a group of 4. The four of use all are in the US, and close to our common ancestors home. In fact, one lives in the SAME TOWN as our 6th Great Grandfather.

Not long ago, I made this Blog Post: New Thoughts on “Brick Walls”. I still think that is true. When I started to do my Family Research I kept running into information that just didn’t look right. When I tried to “cross the pond” there was conflicting information, names and dates that didn’t make any sense. So, I stopped.

Not that long also, I posted a message for a trial “peer review” and one comment was that you don’t have Negative Evidence but Negative Findings. Thank you Elizabeth Shown Mills of EvidenceExplained.com fame and author of a book by the same name.

Also, I learned a lot while we did the Mastering Genealogical Proof a book by Dr. Thomas W Jones where we learned how to work with the Genealogical Proof Standard. I have blogged about that, and won’t talk about it here now.

I changed my thought process about the term BRICK WALL.

I had stopped for 10+ years about trying to find Who were the Parents of Capt John Worthington (1650 – 1701).

At least i have a specific Question to answer. Didn’t even know about that until a couple of months ago, thanks to Dr Jones. I followed a Shaky Leaf and actually saw a Baptismal Record from the early 1600’s in the right location. Wow, I can start to look for Capt John. But life got in the way. I have been working with a lot of data from the Worthington Family History Society 17th Century Project where a team of Worthington researchers at look at gathering, verifying information and creating 17th Century Pedigree Views.

I am still not making a connection. One of my US based cousins put together a very credible view of the ancestry of Capt John. Resolved conflicting information after putting his research together, lots of great documentation. However, some of his conclusions were part of what I had looked at a very long time ago. I wasn’t uncomfortable with what his conclusion was as there was nothing to argue about. Totally credible information.

Every once in a while, I would check the FamilyTreeDNA project status. No change: Y-DNA Haplagroup numbers:

  • Haplagroup E – 2 people
  • Haplagroup G – 1 person
  • Haplagroup I – 13 people
  • Haplagroup R1b1b2 – 16 people
  • Haplagroup J2 – 4

J2 is what my results are. All 4 are in the vicinity of Maryland.

So, I sent an email to the Worthington Family History Society for a Status Update on the Larger Project hoping the someone from the United Kingdom had been or will be tested. Hoping someone from across the pond would be  a J2. No such luck.

Just as I was loading the car for a 3 hour drive to Baltimore, I did a quick, final check of my Email. A RE: (reply) to my email question. OK, here comes the answer, gotta read it.

As I read it, I see:

 If a distant relative cannot be found to confirm this there are two possibilities: one, that your line is from a founding family in the 14th century and we have not discovered a matching line or two, that you should match another known W(orthington) line but that there has been “Non Paternal Event” (illegitimacy, adoption etc) sometime before Capt John resulting in a different Haplagroup.

So, my “brick wall” may have become a Black Sheep. OK, that sort of backs up my earlier concern about the relationships that I had seen early on; the stuff that didn’t quite make sense to me.

Elizabeth Shown Mills was right, I haven’t looked in the right place. But thinking about what Dr Jones brought up, maybe I haven’t asked the Right Question.

Driving down all of the information that I could remember was running through my mind. What did I miss? What do I want to go back to look at again. I thought about the term FAN Club (Family, Acquaintance, and Neighbors). (Wish I could note who presented us with that term). I have followed some of the FAN Club, but who did I not look at close enough?

I am going to re-look at the FAN club and change my research Question. I have a couple of thoughts on both. I have had a couple of Why questions that have been around from the beginning.

It would appear that today’s DNA Technology may disprove a number of conclusions that I have seen all over, if these DNA results are right.

Off to go chase a Sheep

Re-Read what you have

October 4, 2013

I have made a family connection that came as a surprise. Some of you know that DearMYRTLE and I are cousins. That came about by some computer screen sharing during a couple of presentations. The new cousin, Crista Cowan, The Barefoot Genealogist was giving a presentation on livestream/ancestry, and like Myrt saw a name, location, and timeframe that I knew.

Now, this IS a challenge. Related to someone at Ancestry?

What a golden opportunity to try to demonstrate how I use a connection, through an Ancestry Member Tree (AMT), to collaborate. I live within 2 hours of the “common place”. It was a Quaker Meeting, had hoped with an attached Burial Ground, so I started to see if we had a connection. I certainly knew the Surname that got my attention, found it very quickly in my genealogy database. We shared our links to our AMTs, sure enough, not just one surname but several.

I have blogged about this in another Blog, if you are interested:

FTM2014 – Ancestry Member Tree Connection – Part 1

FTM2014 – Ancestry Member Tree Connection – Part 2

FTM2014 – Ancestry Member Tree Connection – Part 3

But, I haven’t looked at that branch for a very long time. I better get to work and clean it up, as I have been doing. So, I thought I would share a lesson, already learned in the past, GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE, and I have.

I started with about 300 Family Group Sheets from my Dad’s first cousins. I worked with them over 10 years ago. So, I had all of those Family Group Sheets entered into my database.


So, I am taking this time to Scan these Family Group Sheets, putting the Citations into the correct Source Template for this type of document. Then I go back and check that all of the facts / events on these sheets are properly cited. Although done 10 – 12 years go, I hadn’t done too bad of a job.

So, why blog about that ?

Because I also read the notes that I already had in my database. It came from this page of that Family Group Sheet.


I am sure you can’t read that, but this is what it said, that got my attention and the reason for this blog post.

“Sixty or seventy years ago [that would be ca 1800], some of the farmers of Little Egg Harbor, who had not farms for all of their sons, sent the farmless over to Philadelphia to lean the brick layers trade, and especially this was the case among the Willits; and this is the cause of so many of them being residents of that city. Those who were sober and industrious amassed clever fortunes, but those who embarked in the craft of dissipation, went down to the grave in utter destruction, “unhonored and un____”!

“Among the youngsters of Little Egg Harbor who were apprenticed to the brick layer’s trade, was Allan, son of Thomas Ridgeway, 3rd, Eben, John, and James, sons of Thomas Willits, Sr. Jeremiah [18], son of Jeremiah Willits, Sr., [36] and Archelan R., son of Timothy Pharo, Jr., also Job, Nathan and Edmond, sons of Nathan Bartlett, 2nd.”

That little, re-read note, with 10 years of learning under the belt, NOW I have a Hint about why this family left Little Egg Harbor and moved closer to Philadelphia. The family did have a large farm, and I need to go back to Little Egg Harbor to find the farm, but the mentioned children headed to Philadelphia to learn a trade. Sounds like a reasonable reason to relocate.

That last name, Nathan Bartlett, may be connected to The Barefoot Genealogist family.

Lesson Learned: Re-Read what you already have. You may have learned something between the time you entered it, or last looked at it. May have given you new eyes to see what you want to find.

New Thoughts on “Brick Walls”

September 23, 2013



Brick Walls

A couple of weeks ago, I read a blog post by James Tanner Analyzing Brick Walls — a genealogical myth or reality? and saw a presentation given by him. It was a video of a live presentation. I couldn’t find a link to that video, for which I am sorry. It was a great presentation.

After working through Mastering Genealogical Proof (MGP), DearMYRTLE’s study group on that book, and a dialog with Elizabeth Shown Mills (Evidence Explained) I think I am going to stop using that term. In fact, I rarely use it, but see it a lot on Facebook and other places where Family Historians hang out.

I know that IF I hit my head against a brick wall, I am going to get a headache, or definitely warn out. It’s exhausting just running up to that brick wall, only to be pushed back.

When working with a friend about their “brick wall”, I observed that they were so focused on that brick wall, that they didn’t see the answer, right in front of them.

In Mr Tanner’s August 25, 2011 blog (link above) he said:

“Let me give my definition of a “brick wall.” I consider a brick wall to be a researching situation where records should exist and a person should have been recorded, but for whatever reason is not found and records are not easily located. This rules out the end-of-line situations where you can no longer find records back in the 1500s or so.  “

Isn’t that like Exhaustive Research, that we talked about in the study of the Genealogical Proof Study in Dr. Jone’s book?

It’s like, to me anyway, the difference between Negative Evidence instead of Negative Findings, as Elizabeth Shown Mills taught me.

When I run up to that Brick Wall, I am starting to STOP, and see if there is a way around it. Or, Look somewhere else. Another Genealogy friend, Judy Russell, The Legal Genealogist has a category on her Blog on Methodology. I have heard her speak in person, and each time reminded of “other” places to look.

In cleaning up my genealogy database, my clean up is focused on my Sources, putting them into the correct, Evidence Explained!! format. A long project, but so worthwhile. I was doing this clean up for one reason, formatting of the Reference Notes, that what I found was a number of pieces of information that I had over looked the first time (OK, couple of times). Right there in front of me, was the piece of information that I was looking for. It wasn’t a brick wall after-all, I just didn’t look enough. I think that a number of folks in the MGP Study Group had the same experience. Of course, I have learned much about research since that first time I looked at those sources.

In another example, I was trying to prove or disprove that a gentleman served in the Civil War. That’s when I learned about Negative Findings instead of Negative Evidence. I had been looking at this one document, a couple of other helpers looked at it, but missed the one small piece of information that was in the Log Book. To make a long story short, the County was wrong for MY person. Right state, wrong county.

Learned Lesson: I am going to change Brick Wall to Keep Looking and sooner rather than later.

Negative Evidence or Negative Findings

August 10, 2013

Lesson Learned: There is a difference.

I have been struggling with my search results for this Mastering Genealogical Proof study. My genealogical question is, Did James A Wake serve in the Civil War?

How can you prove that he did not serve, when you can’t find a positive piece of information that states that.

During the peer review of the Source Analysis I had done, I said that my search on Fold3.com was Negative, as I didn’t find anything. The review by the Evidence Explained team challenged me on this. In fact, the recommendation was that it is INDIRECT evidence. Looking at what that meant, was simply “keep looking”. That indirect term is a warning that you haven’t answered the question yet. All that to say that what I really had was “Negative FINDINGS“.


I have adjusted my search results for Fold3.com to Indirect. Haven’t found the answer.

From the information collected so far, I will only be able to infer that he did not serve and will not be able to prove it. The inference will come from the understanding of the Classification in the Congressional Registration and not being able to find any reference to his serving in any other source that is available.

Mastering Genealogical Proof – Chapter 2 revisited

August 10, 2013

Chapter 2 – Revisited

Russ Worthington
10 August 2013

Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof , (Arlington, Virginia: National Genealogical Society, 2013), p 7-16

Book available from the publisher at http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/cs/mastering_genealogical_proof

If you have been following my Blog on the book, Mastering Genealogical Proof, you may has seen that I put a Source Analysis Report out for Peer Review. Never in my wildest dreams did I expect to receive comments from Elizabeth Shown Mills. I have had the pleasure of meeting her a couple of times, in person, but did not expect to have a review of my struggle with this book.

Her comments were very clear AND very helpful. But what it did for me was to cause me to go back are read Chapter 2 again and see what I was missing. Also, I am using the Evidentia software program to help me learn. That is practice what I am learning. (for me)

When I went back at the chapter AND how I was using Evidentia I missed something that was right in front of me, but didn’t see it. The book, and Evidentia are walking me through the steps, I wasn’t DOING the steps in order.

The report I was running, and putting out for peer review was a Source Analysis Report. But what I was missing, I was creating that report with the eye of one who has already done detailed analysis on the data collected. I had already been through the cycle and was returning to document the analysis. Like reading the last chapter of a book, then judging the book by its cover.

Let me try a different way of explaining this. I see a Container of something, then describing the container after I already opened the package that was inside of the container. If I consider a SOURCE as being a Container, for this report, I should be trying to describe the CONTAINER. Is it Round, is it Square, Did it come by truck, by plane or by boat.

I should be trying to describe that its round or not. If its not round, it could get to me by truck or boat. For the topic at hand, is the SOURCE an Authored Work, or is it a Record, and that Record could be original or it could be derived from records.

The container being Round or Source an Authored Work, it might contain someone interpretation of records, but it will never be a record. The Square container or Record, might come in two forms, an original record or derived, but these two records will never be Round.

Evidentia does help me through this step. I just didn’t see it that way. The opening screen:

We start with this screen, then we select Document Source.


I have created a Source using the Template Feature, that walks me through the fields that need to be in a Source Statement that will become a Citation later. I must Classify what this Source is. The options are Original Record, Derived Record, or Authored Work. Is the CONTAINER Round, or Square, and if square did it come by boat or truck. Evidentia helps us with that on this screen in that. It asks if we are looking at an Image Copy, then it would be Original, or is it an Image copy that is derived. Derived from something else. Is it a Clerk’s Copy, a Transcript, and Extract, Abstract or an Index, all of which would be derived.

I got that piece right, in that I made a selection, but I was looking at a Registration book. Just thinking about that, perhaps it really is a Clerk’s Copy, and that is based on the fact that the page had names in alphabetical order and would appear that they were written at the same time. I have now changed my choice from Image Copy (Original) to Clerk’s Copy (Derived). I had to go back to that image and look at the fact that the list was in alphabetical order and written about the same time. It would appear that there was some other record or piece of paper that was then put into this Register in the proper order. My Container was Square but came by boat not by truck (Derived not Original)

The next step is to Catalogue the INFORMATION in the Container. Not analyzing the information, but cataloging the information. We start, in Evidentia, by identifying the Claims from the information that we are presented with. Is it Primary, Secondary, or we can’t determine (Indeterminable).

For a US Census Record, until the 1940 Census, we could NOT tell who the Informant of the information was. All US Census until 1940 would be “Indeterminable”. We just don’t know, nor can we guess.


Can we determine from each claim who gave the information. That’s simple, or is it? Information collected from that container, could be a mixture of Primary or Secondary. Did the Informant give the information directly, from experience, or from someone else or was told about the information being asked.

In the case of my Civil War Registration record, all of the information that was recorded in that book have been concurred in by other records. So, if James A Wake gave the information to the clerk for recording into that register, the informant and Classification would be Primary.

So far, I have classified the Source as Derived, and the Information as Primary, trying not to confuse the content with the container. My peer review document had confused, but my data entry, the content then the container or source.

I didn’t see any signature, nor statement of who the informant was, so I had selected indeterminable. But the information provided would have been answered by someone who knew or witnessed making it Primary information.

The third step, sticking with this first Container or Source is to evaluate the Information Collected or Evidence from This Source. Evidentia helps with that as well.


We have to choices when evaluating the Claims. Direct or Indirect or Negative. The claim makes a clear statement or we have to pull information together or to be able to answer the question.

Lesson Learned: Answer the questions, in Evidentia, in the order asked. Don’t read the last chapter of the book to find out how the story ends, before reading the book.

Lesson Learned:
This experience does NOT mean that the information is correct or incorrect. I won’t find that out until I have followed these steps, in order, several times, before I can analyze ALL of the information that I have collected. That’s the next step AFTER I have found more sources.

Evidentia–Source Analysis Report – Revised

August 10, 2013

As posted yesterday (previous blog post) there was a very lively, VERY informative discussion on this report on Facebook: The dialog include my Cousin DearMYRTLE, developer Ed Thompson, Evidencia User Jenny Lanctot and Elizabeth Shown Mills. What an honor and privilege it was to see her name at the beginning of the discussion and her contribution to this discussion.

At Elizabeth Shown Mills suggestion, I submitted it to the EvidenceExplained Forum for review. It was reviewed with some very helpful recommendations.

I have made the changes, based on ALL of the learning from this experience, and have included them in this updated report.

Source Analysis

Source: U.S. Civil War Draft Registration Records, 1863-1865 Digital Image Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010, http://www.ancestry.com, 26 July 2013 ARC Identifier: 4213415; Archive Volume Number: 3 of 6, Record Group: 10, NARA; Washington, D.C.; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal Generals Bureau Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records)

The source reviewed was a clear unaltered Image Copy of an original record.

Source Citation:

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal General’s Bureau; Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865); Record Group: 110, Records of the Provost Marshal General’s Bureau (Civil War);

Collection Name:

Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); ARC Identifier: 4213514; Archive Volume Number: 3 of 6.

Source Information:

Ancestry.com. U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.

Original data:

Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865. NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. ARC ID: 4213514. Records of the Provost Marshal General’s Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110. National Archives, Washington D.C.

Ancestry.com Search URL:


Information and Evidence Analysis

Citation: “Archival Research Catalog (ARC),” digital image, Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010, http://www.ancestry.com, accessed 27 July 2013, ARC Identifier: 4213415; Archive Volume Number: 3 of 6, Record Group: 10 citing NARA; Washington, D.C.; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal Generals Bureau Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records)

Draft Registration for James A Wake is found on Line 6

Claim: This reference asserts that On the registration the subject’s name is James A Wake. The information is believed to be Primary (meaning the person providing the information was a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in the event).

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct (meaning it adequate to answer the question directly) when applied to the question of the Name Variation of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake registered in the 6th Congressional District in New York

Claim: This reference asserts that Registration Classification 2. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Military of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake was in the Registration Classification 2, meaning married and over 36 at the time of the registration. (see Registration assertion)

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake appeared in the 6th Congressional District Registration record in New York. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Registration of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake registered for the Civil War Registration in the 6th Congressional District in New York.From Ancestry.com: This is a collection of lists of Civil War Draft Registrations. There were four drafts between 1863 and 1865, which included 3.175 million records. Historically, the 1863 draft was one of the most tenuous moments in the Union outside of the battles fought on Northern soil. Most of the concern was due to the draft riots that took place in New York in 1863.

    These records include 631 volumes of registries and are basically lists of individuals who registered for the draft. The records are split into two different classes, Class I are those aged 20-35 as well as those 36-45 and unmarried. Class II is everyone else that registered.

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake reported his residence to be New York on Christopher Street. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Residence of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake resided in New York, New York on Christopher Street

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake is 36 years as of 1 July 1863 and would have been born about 1827. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Birth of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake was 36 as of 1 July 1863

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake reported Place of Birth to be New York. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Birth of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake was born in New York

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake reported marriage status to be Married. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Marriage of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake is married at the time of the Registration

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake reported his occupation to be a Foreman at the time of registration in 1863. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Occupation of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake was reported to be a foreman

Claim: This reference asserts that James A Wake reported No military service James A Wake reported No military service. The information is believed to be Primary.

  • The evidence supporting the claim is considered Direct when applied to the question of the Military of James A Wake. The Civil War Registration reports that James A Wake had no prior military service


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,882 other followers

%d bloggers like this: