Hidden in Plain Sight

Indexes and transcriptions don't tell the complete story of what's contained in a document. 

The actual document scan often includes interesting details that put a different light on an ancestor's life--hidden in plain sight, available only by looking at the image!

Draft registration reveals unusual occupation

In researching Charles Train Caldwell (1877-1929), my husband's 2c2r, I took a look at the scan of his WWI draft registration card. I can't remember ever seeing one typed before, which caught my eye.

What also caught my eye was the occupation: "prisoner."

Plus this man's signature, which looks as though he can barely write. All of these small clues helped me get a better sense of his life--and motivated me to dig deeper for more information.

Charles had married in 1901 and was the father of two sons. By 1910, he and his wife had divorced. When and why he wound up in prison by the time he was registered for military service in 1918, I don't yet know.

Civil war registration reveals physical condition

Charles's father was Sanford Caldwell (1843-1922). His US Civil War militia registration is on the last line of the above excerpt from an Indiana ledger book.

He's 19 years old, a farmer by occupation, and in the remarks column is a notation about his health: "diseased lungs, ex."

In other words, Sanford was exempt from service because of some sort of problem with his lungs. 

This detail was hidden in plain sight, visible only if I looked at the document rather than simply accepting the basic facts from the transcription.

Sanford's lung problem didn't prevent him from farming, marrying, having children, and living until the age of 79, by the way.

Always look at the original document if the image is available! 

I Did a Double-Take When I Saw This Date!

 

I do a lot of horizontal genealogy research, adding siblings, their spouses, and their in-laws to my family tree. More than once, I've discovered some of these folks are actually distant cousins of my ancestors!

This man's relationship to me is not very close: sibling of husband of sister-in-law of 1c1r.

Still, by looking closely at Ray Klein and his siblings, I'm seeking to determine whether and how their mother might be related to my maternal Waldman cousins from Hungary. 

I did a double-take when this database info turned up. Anybody think this is an actual birth date?? 

Um, no. 

Automated indexing and extracts don't always get the details right. That's why I aim to look at original documents myself. 

Lessons Learned in My Virtual Research Trip

Today, when I was clicking my merry way through online records pertaining to my husband's Slatter family, I discovered one shortcut and was reminded, yet again, of the value of checking originals.

Above, the shortcut I found to cut through the clutter of hints. My husband's Slatter family tree on Ancestry has more than 9,000 outstanding hints. Most of those are for ancestors too distant to be a priority. So I clicked on "records" to choose only those hints, then brought up the "filter by name" sorting option. (The default is "most recent" which means when Ancestry added that hint.)

By entering "Slatter" in the surname search box, I was able to view only record hints containing that name. Of course, I could have searched by first and last names, but given the creative spelling in so many records, I wanted to click through all Slatter record hints individually. Focusing on one surname enabled me to make progress, rather than being sidetracked by hints unrelated to my current research.

Now for the reminder about original records vs. transcriptions. The three dates on this record of marriage banns from a London church are 1 Dec, 8 Dec, and 15 Dec. The handwriting is very clear. At top of the page, not shown here, is the handwritten year--1907. Yet the transcription of this record says the year is 1908.

By reading the handwritten record, I was able to enter the correct dates for the marriage banns of Thomas Albert Slatter and Jessie Alice Elms. Also, the marriage license original confirmed the actual wedding day as 28 December 1907.

It's never safe to assume a transcription is accurate, let alone complete. It took only a few more clicks to view the originals and extract every possible data point.

My starting point for today's post was Elizabeth O'Neal's Genealogy Blog Party, July edition: Virtual Research Trippin'.

Who Holds the Genealogical Treasures?

I know several family researchers who are grappling with the question of who is the "keeper" of original treasures such as birth certs, death certs, photos, etc. More important, who keeps the originals once we, the genealogists of our generation, are no longer willing or able to continue the research? 

Some of the families have given specific items to different family members, knowing that one son might be particularly attached to a certain photo or another daughter might be more interested in her mother's side of the family tree. Some circulate copies and keep all originals in one place (the genealogist's choice). 

At times, the people who want the treasures may not be the best stewards of these often fragile items, even if it's "all in the family." I've also heard about family situations where no one is interested enough to want to safeguard the treasures--they might hold onto the items but not put them in particularly dry or safe places, know what I mean? 

My family's next generation genealogist has already raised her hand. I plan to get things in good shape for her. Ancestor photos are now in plastic sleeves but not yet fully labeled. And those little scraps of papers with scribbles that litter my files will have to be transcribed and put into the database so no one has to reinvent the wheel and start the hunt all over again. Looks like all the treasures will be hers to hold for future generations. What about your treasures?

2022 update: I've written a concise book on this topic, Planning a Future for Your Family's Past.