I have many ancestors who served in the Revoutionary War-- on BOTH sides-- as well as a couple of great-great-great uncles who fought for the Union in the American Civil War. My great-uncle was in the Pacific during World War II.

Out of all of these relatives, the only one I know of who was killed in war was my uncle three times removed, Thomas B. MACE (abt 1842-1862). He was the eldest surviving child of John and Sophronia (BLY) MACE, and the brother of my 2nd great-grandmother Elizabeth (MACE) BEAN WINSLOW.

Thomas apparently left home very early, joining up with the Navy in 1857, when he was just 14 years old. His naval enlistment record, found courtesy of Fold3, gives his enlistment date (28 July 1857), his age (14 1/2), his birthplace (Plaistow, New Hampshire), eye color (hazel), hair color (brown), complexion (light), and height (4'8"). Going by the heights of all of the others on the page, men really were shorter back then, averaging about 5'6". Thomas was the youngest recruit on the page, as well as the shortest.

No, really. It was that simple.

Tonight I was doing a search for another record on FamilySearch.org (my favorite go-to site, and it's FREE), and noticed that results for the 1940 census were coming up. Really? I thought, I didn't think it was supposed to be indexed by name yet. I hadn't even bothered trying to search by name because I had assumed it wouldn't work.

Just for giggles, I typed in my maternal grandfather's name, and then entered "1940" in the "residence" field, and boom: there were my maternal grandparents and my not-quite-3-year-old mom. My grandfather Henry was only 27, and my grandmother Dorothy was only 21. Just kids themselves, really, though I'm sure people back in the early 20th century grew up faster than they do today.

So if you have relatives you can't find in the 1940 census, do a search for them on FamilySearch.org.

The problem is that census records are not infallible; they often contain errors and sometimes even deliberate falsehoods.

Another issue you may run into is finding someone who was enumerated in the same census more than once.

For example, my great-great grandfather James W. WINSLOW appears to have been enumerated twice in two different censuses.

James was born in 1838, one of ten surviving children born to William and Mary (SEVERANCE) WINSLOW. He was first married to Mary SMITH, with whom he had daughters. Mary died in 1876.

The 1880 Census

James Winslow was first enumerated for this census in Fremont, Rockingham County, New Hampshire on 9 June 1880. Here he is listed as aged 39, his occupation "teamster", widowed, with three daughters: Nellie E., 16, Laura A., 14, and Sarah A., 12.

Rob (God, he's gorgeous!) was in search of a relative named John Christopher East whose name his great-grandmother had submitted to the Daughters Of The American Revolution as a patriot.

Lowe, who is very patriotic and who was eager for proof that one of his forefathers fought for America's freedom, was disappointed to find that no connection to a patriot named John Christopher East could be proven.

The story takes a very interesting turn when

It isn't easy to pick just one, but for me I would have to say Reverend Stephen Bachiler (1561-1656), my 10th and 11th great-grandfather.

He was an Oxford-educated vicar of the Church of England and a prominent "great migrant." But he got into trouble for his outspoken Puritan leanings, and eventually immigrated to New England; he remained a controversial character even there, with his un-Puritan advocacy of separation of church and state. He became one of the founders of Hampton, New Hampshire, and lived to his mid-nineties. I'm descended from him through two of his daughters, Ann and Theodate.

I would like to meet him because he was so interesting, with a seemingly endles supply of energy-- a mover-and-shaker. Even in old age, he never ceased to pursue adventure, possessing more vigor at 80 than I do at 37. He also lived in fascinating times, during the period of civil war in England.

Will write more about Reverend Bachiler in a future entry...

100 years after the maiden voyage of RMS Titanic, I thought it would be appropriate to post some stories told from the perspectives of passengers and crew members who survived. ]]>http://www.theroadbackward.com/blog/rss-comments-entry-15827347.xmlKaren KThu, 12 Apr 2012 00:46:54 +0000http://www.theroadbackward.com/blog/2012/4/11/city-directories-can-help.html958411:11081656:15808720That's how I was able to find a couple of people I was looking for in the 1940 U.S. Federal Census-- ancestry.com has introduced many directories from the 1930's through the 1950's to help us find out where relatives might have been living around this time.

I also discovered something else last night:

Since we can't do that, the next best thing is to read old newspapers. They really are, more than anything else, portals into particular times and places.

Through them, we see historical events in real time, from the perspective of those who experienced or witnessed them. A newspaper from July of 1863 would give an account of the Battle of Gettysburg not from the points of view of today's historians, but from those of people living at the time. How much more insightful these sources are, uncolored by the lens of modern attitudes.

Newspapers contain more than news stories, of course, and we can glean a great deal from advertisements: fashions, business practices, food, and prices.

The following is the front page of the 23 March 1967 evening edition of The Portsmouth Herald. ]]>http://www.theroadbackward.com/blog/rss-comments-entry-15718909.xmlTechnologyU.S. Federal Census 1940Karen KMon, 02 Apr 2012 20:37:34 +0000http://www.theroadbackward.com/blog/2012/4/2/the-1940-us-federal-census-is-here-well-kind-of.html958411:11081656:15697334It would just be nice if we could access it.

Apparently the traffic has been much higher than anticipated, and has crashed the National Archives website. I had anticipated the problem of their servers being overwhelmed, so I don't know why The National Archives couldn't.

For me, you can go onto the site and search-- it just won't load any images. Irritatingly, though, the site makes you think that the images will load, because it tells you they're loading.

It lies.

From the above-linked ABC article:

"We are having a server problem," said Susan Cooper, director of public and media communications at the National Archives. "Because there is such a huge volume, they're having a hard time keeping up."

Cooper told ABC News that the website had 22.5 million hits in the first three hours of operation, far more than anticipated.

"We knew we would have high traffic volume, and we thought we were prepared for it," she said, 'but I think we've been very surprised by actually how popular it is."

As irritating as this technological SNAFU is, it indeed goes to show that genealogy is a widespread American interest-- the second or third largest hobby in the country, in fact-- and the folks at the National Archives seem to have underestimated its popularity.