Elizabeth Ulrich (c 1720 – 1758/1782), Not a Cripe, 52 Ancestors #134

Posted on October 9, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Elizabeth Ulrich, the wife of Stephen Ulrich (Jr.), has been rumored as long as I’ve been researching this family to be a Cripe, supposedly the daughter of Jacob Cripe, but she isn’t.

Unfortunately, we don’t know much about Elizabeth, and most of what we do know, including her name, is because she signed deeds selling land with Stephen, her husband. Thank goodness for that!

Assuming she was Stephen’s only wife, and he was her only husband, they were likely married about 1740 or so, very probably in York County, Pennsylvania where Stephen lived at the time. Stephen’s father, Stephen Ulrich Sr. had purchased land there and Ulrich was a surname listed as a founder of the Brethren congregation there in 1738. At that time, and for some time thereafter, the Brethren met in homes and barns and didn’t build church buildings.

There weren’t a lot of Brethren families in this area early. Many German families were Lutheran and some were Mennonite. Elizabeth was almost assuredly Brethren, or Stephen would have been unwelcome in the Brethren Church. Her family could have been a sister religion, like Mennonite, but when she married Stephen she would have to have converted. Two Mennonite families related to the Brethren Miller family, who also lived in the area, were Berchtol/Bechtol/Bechtel and Garver/Garber.

If Elizabeth’s family was Brethren, the Brethren families that we are aware of in York County that early, based on the “History of the Church of the Brethren in Southern District Pennsylvania,” are as follows:

Leatherman
Martin
Ulrich
Greib/Gripe/Cripe
Becker
Stutzman
Miller (may not have been there in 1738, but arrived shortly thereafter and was related to the Stutzman family)
Dierdorff
Bigler

Unfortunately, Morgan Edwards, writing in 1770 also added the phrase, “and others.” Perhaps other Brethren family researchers will know some of those “other” surnames that were in York County before about 1745.

The Brethren men tended to stay out of the record books, out of court, and out of the deed offices. They didn’t believe in obtaining marriage licenses, and often didn’t have wills. The Brethren churches didn’t keep membership rosters or other types of minutes. Brethren didn’t serve in the militias either, but thank Heavens they had to pay taxes because often, that’s our only record that they were living in a particular place and time – if the tax records survived.

Brethren did sometimes register deeds, and they had to have surveys for land grants, warrants and patents. There was no choice in that matter. However, Stephen’s surveys for his 1742 land warrants weren’t returned until 1800 and 1802, many years and several owners after his death.

We can presume, and that’s a dangerous word, that Stephen Ulrich was married or marrying in 1742 when he was granted land. Single men typically didn’t set up housekeeping by themselves.

Our best resource would be a family Bible, but we don’t have one of those either. If you’re thinking to yourself, Brethren research sure is difficult….yes it is!!!

Based on the fact that Stephen Ulrich, Jr., would sign his name in German script in 1773 when his close friend, Jacob Stutzman wrote his will in German, it’s unlikely that Stephen or Jacob spoke English, or if they did, it was minimal. This also tells us unquestionably that Stephen’s wife was German as well, and the logic tells us that she was also Brethren, although there was an entire German settlement in York County.

According to the “History of the Church of the Brethren of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,” in 1770, the Little Conewago Church had 52 families, and Edwards reports the entire Brethren population in all churches to be about 419 families. By 1770, these should be second or third generation, so if you divide 419 by 5 (children per family) you would have 83 families 30 years earlier in 1735. Of course, their children all married each other’s children. If there were a total of 83 families in 1735 or so, or roughly 10 families per congregation, assuming no conversions between 1735 and 1770 and that all congregations were the same size. Of course, the older churches were certainly larger, so perhaps the only Brethren families in Little Conewago were actually the families mentioned by Edwards. Maybe there weren’t “others” or, at least, not many “others.”

Prior to 1742, according to Edwards on page 79 of the same book, there were only about 8 congregations, including the following:

That means Elizabeth was likely the daughter of one of those early Brethren families, or maybe the daughter of one of the unnamed “others.” Perhaps other Brethren researchers can add to the list of Brethren families in York County prior to 1745. York County was Lancaster County prior to 1749.

The Elizabeth Cripe Confusion?

I do know where some of the confusion arises relative to Elizabeth being a Cripe.

Jacob Greib/Cripe was Elizabeth’s purported father and the only known Greib/Cripe in York County. Jacob wrote his will in 1779 in Bedford County, Pennsylvania, but it wasn’t probated until 1801. His wife’s name was Elizabeth and in his will, he thankfully tells us that she was “born Ulrich.” Given Jacob’s age, his wife, Elizabeth would have had to have been the daughter of Stephen Ulrich Sr., and therefore the sister of Stephen Ulrich Jr. whose wife’s name was also Elizabeth.

So we do have Elizabeth Ulrich Cripe. This family liaison also explains why Jacob Cripe moved to Frederick County, Maryland with or near Stephen Ulrich Jr. in the 1750s.

Jacob Cripe, several of Stephen Ulrich Jr’s children along with Stephen’s two brothers, John and Daniel Ulrich, moved on to Bedford County, Pennsylvania in the 1770s.

What Do We Know About Elizabeth’s Life?

If our Elizabeth was born about 1720, she was probably born overseas, most likely in Germany. Elizabeth was assuredly German, based on the fact that the German’s didn’t speak English, so to communicate with Stephen, she would have been a German-speaker.

Stephen and Elizabeth probably married about 1742, the year Stephen Jr. bought land in York County.

Stephen’s land was probably located along Narrow Drive, along Indian Run where it intersects with the South Branch of Conewago Creek, according to Stephen’s deeds.

While some of this land is beautifully groomed farmland today, other parts are still wooded and probably look much like they did when Stephen and Elizabeth lived here. The photo above shows the land along Indian Creek, patented by Stephen Ulrich. The tree line runs along the creek.

We do know that Elizabeth and Stephen’s land included part of the “Old Conestoga Road,” which is now Hanover Pike, shown below.

Then, it would have been nothing more than a wagon trail, and probably only wide enough for one wagon. There would have been ruts and they would have been mudholes when it rained. Wouldn’t Elizabeth be surprised to see this land today. And paved roads. There weren’t such things in the 1740s. Only paths and dirt.

We know that Elizabeth had son, David Ulrich, about 1746 while they lived in York County, but we don’t know if he was the first child born to Elizabeth and Stephen Ulrich. They could have had a child or children that died earlier, or David could have been born earlier than 1746. It would have been very unusual for a couple to marry in 1742 and not have a child until 1746.

Elizabeth’s son, Stephen the third, was born about 1750. A 4-year gap between children strongly suggests that at least one child died.

In 1751, Elizabeth and Stephen moved from York County to Frederick County, Maryland, a move of about 50 or 60 miles nearly straight west.

This move would have been made with the hope of escaping the conflict in York County surrounding land and the incessant bickering brought about by the “border war” between Maryland and Pennsylvania.

Daughter Christina was born about 1752 and eventually married Jacob, a son of their neighbor, Jacob Stutzman.

Samuel was born about 1754.

Elizabeth was born about 1755/1757 and she married Daniel Miller, son of Philip Jacob Miller who was about the same age as Stephen Ulrich and wife, Elizabeth. Philip Jacob’s father, Johann Michael Mueller/Miller was also one of the early Brethren settlers in York County.

There could have been another child born between Samuel and Elizabeth.

Mary was born about 1760.

There could have been a child between Elizabeth and Mary.

Hannah was born about 1762 and Lydia about 1764.

Given those birth dates, it’s possible that in about 20 years of child bearing, Elizabeth buried 3 or more children.

It’s actually surprising that they didn’t lose more children, considering the upheaval that surrounded them as they lived in the borderland between whites and Indians.

Not only were they living in a war zone in Pennsylvania – with the border being disputed by both Pennsylvania and Maryland for 30 years, but the ownership of their land was in question as well.

In York County, a murder occurred at their neighbor’s mill. Stephen had a land grant from Pennsylvania, but a man named Digges had a Maryland land grant for that same area – and he tried to force the Germans who obtained Pennsylvania grants to surrender them to him, or at least repurchase their land. Needless to say, that didn’t go well. Digges tried to force the miller to surrender his deed, and the miller’s son shot Digges son, Dudley, in the ensuing scuffle. Danger and violence was ever present – a frightening prospect for a Brethren woman whose religion forbade even self-defense.

Finally, in 1751, the Ulrich family sold their land, packed up and headed for Frederick County with a few other Brethren families as well – namely Leatherman, Martin, Miller and Cripe. The Brethren were converting other settlers as they went too – and Maryland was becoming a popular location for other German-speaking families because there were other Germans there. When you don’t speak English, you need a German community.

It’s difficult for us to remember today that these people were at a distinct disadvantage, given that they did not speak English, nor would they have understood American customs well. Letters written to the governor of Pennsylvania explained that these people, who spoke only German, didn’t understand the circumstances surrounding the land sales at Digges Choice and were being taken advantage of by Digges aggressions. It didn’t help any, of course, that Digges was a slippery sheister and was very likely targeting the Germans who he felt were opportunistic targets.

The land Stephen and Elizabeth bought in Frederick County may or may not have had “improvements.” Waggoner, the man they bought the land from sold two halves, and one of the two halves included the following:

One dwelling house 20 by 16 feet made of hewd logs and covered with lap shingles, a stone chimney, one dwelling house 27 by 22 feet of hewd logs and covered with lap shingles, plankd above and below, a stone chimney, a new barn of hewd logs covered with lap shingles, 49 feet by 27, 69 apple trees, 72 peach trees and 6 acres of cultivated land well fenced.

While a house 20 by 16 doesn’t sound very large by today’s standards, it was typical for the time. Most cabins, even when referenced as the “mansion house,” were not very large. But the barn, that’s another story indeed. The husband would have been one very happy man with a barn more than twice the size of the house. Dare I say he would have been in “hog heaven?”

In 1767, when Stephen and Elizabeth had their property resurveyed to include two new parcels into a homestead they would call Germania, there was only “a quarter acre cleared and 230 old fence posts.” That certainly doesn’t sound like there were many improvements, nor does it reflect “6 acres of cultivated land,” so apparently, Stephen Ulrich didn’t purchase the half with the two houses, peach and apple trees and cleared land.

If their land in 1767 had only one quarter acre cleared, how did they live and how had they lived since 1751? Clearly, they weren’t farming the way we think of farming today. If Stephen wasn’t clearing his land, what was he doing with it? Did they only farm enough to provide food for the table? How did they earn money for the rest of their needs?

More Issues and Warfare

I’m sure these families believed they had moved far enough south and west to avoid border issues, but ironically, when the Mason-Dixon line was completed in 1767, Stephen’s neighbor Jacob Stutzman’s land would straddle the Pennsylvania/Maryland border, and it’s probable that Stephen’s land did as well, given that a later deed for part of his land that was able to be accurately placed is located just north of the state line.

This picture, below, is take on Fort Loudon Road, which would have been the main and probably the only road at the time Stephen lived there. This land is just north of the Maryland/Pennsylvania border, looking east. The land on the west side of the road is elevated and truly does begin the mountain range – so this land was literally at the foot of the mountains. The land to the east is flat. Perhaps this is what Elizabeth saw, if she could get high enough to see over the trees. Of course, not much was cleared at that time, so maybe all she saw was trees. And behind the trees….Indians.

In 1755, Elizabeth’s life would have been turned upside-down. When General Braddock was killed after marching his red-coasted soldiers through Frederick County on his way west, those same soldiers were soundly defeated. The French and Indians saw that defeat as an opportunity to remove the settlers – and by remove, I don’t mean in a friendly way. The Indians descended upon the settlers with tomahawks and torches, killing settlers and burning homesteads, and the people who would not defend themselves were easy pickings. Elizabeth must have been terrified.

In 1755, Elizabeth had a 9 year old child, a 5 year old, a 3 year old and a baby. She and Stephen packed the children, and probably as much as they could take with them, if anything at all, into a wagon and they evacuated – abandoning everything left behind to flames.

They were gone for at least three years. The only clue we have as to where they went during that time is that in 1758, Stephen and Elizabeth sold land in York County, Pennsylvania from Baltimore County, Maryland.

The war officially ended in 1758, but the attacks didn’t stop at once, but slowly subsided over the next few years. Taxes weren’t collected in Frederick County until 1762. We know that at least some of the Brethren returned in 1761 – the Michael Miller family being one.

In 1761, Elizabeth and Stephen were back in Frederick County, rebuilding their home, and they also had at least one baby while they were gone – Elizabeth. Depending on when they returned, Mary, born in about 1760, was probably born elsewhere as well.

Now Elizabeth is raising 6 children and living in conditions much like camping, minus the fun, while they rebuild their home and farm. Elizabeth must have cooked over an open fire. Perhaps they lived in their wagon during this process. Or they may have lived with others as they rebuilt their homestead. The Brethren, Mennonite and Amish were well known to have barn and house raisings, even yet when I was growing up 200+ years later.

By early 1761, Elizabeth and Stephen were selling land in York County, again, and they list their residence as Frederick County. Furthermore, Jacob Stutzman who had bought land in York County from Stephen sells his land there and purchases the land next to Stephen in Frederick County. I wonder if Stephen and Elizabeth returned to York County and stayed with Jacob Stutzman for at least part of the time they were in exile. Surely those two men welcomed each other’s presence back on the frontier in Frederick County when Jacob moved next door to Stephen in 1761. Stephen named his land “Good Neighbor” and Jacob named his “Good Luck.”

Hannah, Jacob’s wife would have been good company to Elizabeth as well. We do know that there were other Brethren in the area, but the Miller family was located further east by at least 5 miles and possibly more – near present day Mauganstown. The Leatherman and Martin families lived in the area too, but I don’t know where. Jacob Cripe lived near Stephen Ulrich, as did Daniel and John Ulrich, brothers of Stephen Jr.

As the rhythmic cycle of planting and harvesting resumed after their return in 1761, and some semblance of normalcy returned, it would be short lived.

Just two years later, in 1763, the families had to evacuate again when Pontiac’s Rebellion reached Frederick County. Reports were that the attacks were even worse than they had been in 1755. Elizabeth must have been heartsick. After all, they had just rebuilt and they had to leave the farm to flames once again.

By this time, Elizabeth had born another child, about 1762, and was probably pregnant again for Lydia who was born about 1764, most likely while the family was once again in refuge elsewhere.

Elizabeth was most assuredly tired. Tired from taking care of 8 children, tired of burying children, tired of evacuating and living someplace not her home. Tired of fearing for her life, and the lives of her children, and tired of fleeing in terror. She would have been tired of her home burning – and it assuredly burned twice from warfare – and that’s assuming it never burned any other time. Many cabins did.

We know that Elizabeth and Stephen were back in Frederick County by 1766, because Stephen sells land then. However, Elizabeth does not sign or release her dower, nor does she sign in 1768 when Stephen sells additional land.

It’s tempting to think that perhaps Elizabeth just didn’t sign for some reason, but given the history of Elizabeth signing deeds, that’s unlikely.

The following deed history is extracted from the Stephen Ulrich Jr. article as well as from Dan Olds work. Unfortunately, sometimes our knowledge of early deeds comes from later deeds that reference unrecorded earlier deeds. From their reports, Elizabeth signed every deed until 1761, although I am uncertain about 1755. I feel that all of these deeds actually need to be verified against the original records.

1753 – To Lodowich Miller, son of Johann Michael Miller
1754 – To Lodewick Miller
1754 – To Daniel Ulrich
1755
1758 – Sold land in York County
1761 – Sold to George Wine, probably related to Michael Wine who would marry Lodowich Miller’s daughter. This transcribed record does not show Elizabeth signing. The original record should be checked. If Elizabeth had children in approximately 1762 and 1764, she was clearly alive in 1761. Since we don’t know the exact birth years of Elizabeth’s last two children, it’s possible that both were born in or before 1761, and Elizabeth had died by the time the deed was signed.
1766 – multiple deeds, none of which include Elizabeth.

We don’t know that Elizabeth didn’t die while they were in exile, and we don’t know that she wasn’t killed. The commentary from contemporaneous writers was that nearly all families lost someone in the depredations.

In 1766, Stephen Ulrich and Nicholas Martin sold their tract of land that they had patented in 1761, in several pieces, giving Elizabeth several opportunities to sign…but Elizabeth did not seem to be present. Ironically, they deeded part of the land to another Elizabeth Ulrich, thought to be the sister of Stephen Ulrich Jr. Is it any wonder that Elizabeth Ulrich, Stephen’s wife, is so confusing and so often confused with other people?

By the way, Nicholas Martin is also rumored to be married to Elizabeth Ulrich, the daughter of Stephen Ulrich Sr., but since the Elizabeth Ulrich who received the 1766 deed married Jacob Snively, who sells that same land two years later, Nicholas Martin certainly can’t be married to her at this time.

If Stephen Ulrich’s wife, Elizabeth, died sometime between about 1764 and 1766, she may well have died in exile, leaving Stephen with children ages 19, 15, 14, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3 and a newborn.

Stephen did not remarry until 1782, to Hannah Stutzman. How did he raise those children from roughly 1765 to 1782? By 1782, the children would all have been on their own, except for perhaps the very youngest who would have been about 18. Did he marry between Elizabeth and Hannah? Or did Elizabeth not die in 1765 or so, and simply fail to sign all of those deeds?

Elizabeth would have been about 45 when she died, assuming she died about 1765 – not old by any measure. I cannot help but wonder if she died giving birth to a final child, who also died.

If in fact Elizabeth did not die in 1765, but simply stopped signing deeds, for some reason, she was assuredly gone by 1782 when Stephen Ulrich remarried to Hannah Stutzman, Jacob Stutzman’s widow. In 1782, Elizabeth would have been about 62 – still not elderly. So we can say with certainty she died between 1758 when she positively signed a deed and 1782 when Stephen remarried.

I wonder if Elizabeth is buried in Frederick County or if she died and was buried while the family was gone? Did she die in the wagon along the road? Did she die in childbirth? Did she succumb to Indian raids? It’s unusual that there are absolutely no stories about an early death and what happened to the children. But by the same token, there were absolutely no stories about the Indian raids forcing the residents to remove, twice, and their homesteads burning either.

Did Stephen and the children ride home in that wagon alone – ending their exile. It would have been a long, joyless, silent ride, punctuated only by the clip-clop of horse hooves as they propelled the family ever closer to home – or what had once been home.

How did the family feel to finally arrive where their home had been to only find charred rubble? Did they pull up in front of where they had once lived and sit in silence looking at the shadow of what had once been, and now lay before their eyes in ruins? If Elizabeth was gone, how were they going to survive without a mother? Their home was gone and their mother was gone. How could life get any worse? They must have sat in that wagon feeling utterly dejected, staring at their former home, gone up in smoke and taking with it their hopes and dreams. Now there were only charred remains, perhaps with weeds and vines growing in the cracks, returning to nature. Not only did they have to rebuild their homestead, they had to rebuild their lives. How did they do that?

Fortunately, they had other Brethren families to help them and provide moral support too. Assuredly, someone helped Stephen with the younger children. As the older children married, perhaps they took the younger ones under their wing. Stephen physically could not watch young children and work in the barn and fields.

Elizabeth Was Not Jacob Cripe’s Daughter

The final nail in the coffin that proves that Elizabeth was not the daughter of Jacob Cripe is found in Jacob Cripe’s will, written in 1779 in Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Marian Corya was kind enough to provide me with this transcribed copy:

Will of Jacob Gripe (1801), Huntingdon County Will Book 1: 195, Huntingdon County Historical Society, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.

Last Will & Testament of Jacob Gripe Deceased

June 4^th 1779

As I live and not know how long and must Die and not know how soon so is this my Will after my decease. My Son Jacob shall have Three hundred Pounds in all in Money of the Piece of Land which I bought in Frankstown he shall have One hundred and fifty Acres where he used to live and it shall be paid out of the Three hundred Pounds and the Remainder of that mentioned Money he shall have from that Money arising of that sold place.

The two Daughters of my Daughter Elizabeth shall have One hundred Acres in Frankstown where their Mother used to live and they shall pay for the Land Thirty Pounds, their Mother & Stepfather shall live unmolested on the Land during their Natural Life and after their Decease the two Daughters of the Elizabeth shall have it free if the thirty Pounds are paid.

Christian Shively shall have Two hundred Acres where he used to live, whereof he shall pay One hundred and fifty Acres.

John Wise shall have One hundred and fifty Acres whereof he shall pay One hundred Acres.

My Daughter Catharine shall have my hundred Acres where John used to live but she must live herself on the Land and shall give to Easter Thirty Pounds.

My Son Daniel shall have One hundred Acres where he used to live and shall give to Easter Thirty Pounds.

My Daughter Hanna shall have One hundred Acres adjoining Daniel and shall pay to Easter Thirty Pounds.

The remainder of the Land shall have my Son Samuel and shall pay to Easter Thirty Pounds.

And my Wife Elizabeth a born Ulrich shall have the right to one half of Samuels Land during her Natural Life for her own Use and Benefit with the House, Garden, Meadows and Improved Land to have it at her own Discretion, further she shall have, One Mare and all the House furniture and the Horn’d Cattle Samuel shall have the Horses, Cooper Tools, Plough, Hoes and Axes and that such shall be kept and done shall my Wife a born Ulrich with her Son Samuel have the Right as Guardian in my Name to give the others Titles according to the Rule of the Country, And herewith all under the Commands of God.

Jacob Gripe

As you can see from this will, Jacob did indeed have a daughter Elizabeth who was clearly living in 1779, and living in Frankstown which is either in Bedford County or the adjacent county. Furthermore, Elizabeth, the wife of Stephen Ulrich Jr. had 5 daughters, not three, and Elizabeth and Stephen Ulrich never lived in Bedford County.

Elizabeth and Stephen’s first two children were males, as was the fourth. The third and fifth children were daughters. The fifth child was Elizabeth who married Daniel Miller. All of Stephen and Elizabeth’s children mentioned above were accounted for when they sold Stephen’s land in 1785, after his death. In fact, that’s how we know who his children were and who they married.

Lastly, there is nothing to indicate that Stephen’s wife, Elizabeth, was married twice, but Jacob Cripe in his 1779 will clearly refers to the step-father of the two daughters. If Stephen’s wife, Elizabeth, was still alive in 1779, she was living in Washington County (formerly Frederick County,) Maryland, not Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Stephen and Elizabeth never moved to Bedford County.

We can’t say unequivocally that Elizabeth was dead by 1779, but given that she stopped signing deeds, it’s likely. We know positively, however, that she is gone by 1782 when Stephen remarries and we know that Elizabeth, Stephen’s wife, never lived in Frankstown.

And so ends the myth that Stephen’s wife, Elizabeth Ulrich, was Jacob Cripe’s daughter.

The challenge here, of course, is that we know who Elizabeth Ulrich isn’t, but we don’t know who she is!

Pure Speculation

Given that most of Stephen Ulrich’s land sales of Germania (later resurveyed as Good Neighbor) were to either Ulrich family members or people in or related to the Miller family, I have always wondered if Elizabeth was a daughter of Johann Michael Miller. Jacob Stutzman was either Michael Miller’s step-brother of half-brother. Regardless of the exact relationship, Michael was very close to Jacob, and the two men immigrated together. Lodowich Miller was Michael’s son. There is no way to know if Elizabeth was Michael Miller’s daughter, unless Stephen Ulrich’s Bible, or Michael Miller’s Bible shows up on e-bay one day. Keep in mind that the Bibles of both of these men, unless they managed to be put inside the wagons when evacuating, probably burned when their homes burned in 1755 and 1763.

Again, this is simply thinking out loud and trying to put puzzle pieces together. Please do NOT list Elizabeth as Michael’s daughter in any trees due to this speculation. I’m simply hoping that perhaps this line of thought could lead to additional research or a discovery by another researcher down the road as other records become available.

Can Mitochondrial DNA Help?

Mitochondrial DNA is passed intact from a mother to all of her children, but only daughters pass it on. Fortunately, it’s not admixed with any DNA from the father, so many generations later, it stays the same, except for an occasional mutation. That means that if Elizabeth is the daughter of Suzanna Berchtol and Michael Miller, her mitochondrial DNA would match exactly to other women who share the same common ancestor.

Michael Miller and his wife, Suzanna Agnes Berchtol, had no proven daughters, so to be able to utilize mitochondrial DNA, which Elizabeth would have inherited from her mother, we need to reach back to Suzanna Berchtol’s sisters in Germany.

To see if Elizabeth’s descendants match Suzanne Berchtol’s mitochondrial DNA, we would have to find a descendant of the sisters of Suzanna Agnes Berchtol, descended through all females to the current generation, where the descendant could be male or female. Suzanna Berchtol did have two sisters, according to baptismal records in Germany, Barbel (Barbara) born in 1693 and Ursula born about 1696. We don’t know for sure if these women lived or married, so there may be no descendants today, but hopefully there are.

To prove that Elizabeth is Michael Miller and Suzanna Berchtol’s daughter, or not, we would also need an individual descended from Elizabeth through all females, to the current generation, which can be male or female.

If Elizabeth is the daughter of Suzanna, the mitochondrial DNA of anyone descended from her through all daughters will match the mitochondrial DNA of anyone descended through all daughters from either Barbel (Barbara) born in 1693 or Ursula born in 1696.

If a descendant of each line tests, and they don’t match (except for perhaps a mutation), then we know that Elizabeth was not the daughter of Suzanna Berchtol Miller, and we can look at the oldest ancestors of other people Elizabeth’s descendant matches to see if any of those matches come from Brethren families.

Fortunately, Elizabeth had 5 daughters who could have had daughters, highlighted below…on down the line to living descendants today.

Elizabeth Ulrich’s children were:

David Ulrich born about 1746 and died in 1823, married Barbara and had 7 children. They lived in Montgomery County, Ohio.
Stephen Ullery born about 1750 and died in 1835. He married Susan Rench and they lived in Morrison’s Cove in Bedford County, PA and then in Montgomery County, Ohio.
Christina Ulrich born about 1752 and died about 1810. She married Jacob Stutzman (Jr.) who later became her step-brother when their widowed parents married. They eventually moved to Montgomery County, Ohio.
Samuel Ulrich born about 1754 and died in 1822. He married Mary Brumbaugh and they lived in Bedford County, PA.
Elizabeth Ulrich born about 1757 and died in 1832. She married Daniel Miller and they moved first to Bedford County, PA, then to Clermont County Ohio, then to Montgomery County, Ohio.
Mary Ulrich born about 1760 and died about 1842. She married George Butterbaugh and they lived in Bedford County, PA.
Hannah Ulrich born about 1762 and died in 1798. She married Henry Butterbaugh and they lived in Washington County, Maryland.
Lydia Ulrich born about 1764 and died about 1810. She married Jacob Lear, Jr and they lived in Cambria County, PA.

I have a DNA testing scholarship for anyone who descends from either Barbara or Ursula Berchtol, the sisters of Suzanna Agnes BerchtolI in the manner described above, through all females to the current generation which can be male or female.

I also have a DNA testing scholarship for anyone descending from Elizabeth, wife of Stephen Ulrich, through all females to the current generation, which can also be male or female.

Why Can’t Autosomal DNA Solve this Riddle – At Least Not Today?

Many times autosomal DNA can help identify families and parents, but in this case, it’s unlikely. Why?

To begin with, Elizabeth Ulrich is 7 generations back in time from me. That’s a long time, genetically speaking. Autosomal DNA is divided approximately in half in each generation, so I could only expect to carry less than 1% of Elizabeth’s autosomal DNA.

This doesn’t mean that I can’t match people who also descend from this couple, because I can and do, but it means that I’m unlikely to be able to tell with a combination of both DNA and genealogy who Elizabeth’s parents are. Obviously, in this case, the genealogy is entirely missing, so we have to rely entirely on DNA.

Also making this even more difficult is that I have one other wife with an unknown surname in this same family grouping, from about the same time and place.

Philip Jacob Miller’s wife’s name was Magdalena. Philip Jacob married Magdalena about 1751, also probably in York County, or possibly in Frederick County, Maryland. She too would have been Brethren. Clearly, both Elizabeth and Magdalena could have been from any of the other Brethren families, and they could also have been related to each other, or any number of other Brethren families. In other words, it’s not impossible or even unlikely that they shared some DNA, then. The Brethren lines continued to intermarry, and many Brethren carry the DNA of these early founders. The only family lines we can eliminate, positively, as Elizabeth’s (or Magdalena’s) parents would be Jacob Cripe, Stephen Ulrich Jr. and Sr. and Jacob Stutzman whose will was probated in 1776 and lists his children. Aside from that, all Brethren families are candidates.

Therefore, if I did receive a “Brethren” match from a line whose genealogy was complete, with no unknown ancestors, and who did not descend from either the Miller, Stutzman or Ulrich lines, I would not be able to tell if the match was from Magdalena’s line or Elizabeth’s line – because I carry DNA from both of those women. Furthermore, I don’t know if there are any lines out of this area that have not intermarried by this time. The Brethren moved together, intermarried and founded churches together, for generations, and can still be found living adjacent today.

Still it’s fun to see who I match that is descended from Stephen and Elizabeth Ulrich. If you descend from these families and have taken an autosomal DNA test, please do let me know. We might share a segment of Stephen and Elizabeth’s DNA. I share segments of DNA with other descendants of Stephen and Elizabeth through four of their daughters and one son.

My mother, who is one generation closer than me is at Family Tree DNA under the name of Barbara Jean Ferverda and her kit number at GedMatch is T167724. She isn’t at Ancestry, because she passed away before Ancestry began autosomal testing, but I’ve tested at Ancestry.

In Summary

I hope that one day we can resolve the question of who Elizabeth’s parents were. That resolution could happen because of DNA testing, or it could happen as more records become available and indexed at genealogy sites, or some combination of both. Even today, if other Brethren researchers can eliminate a few more York County families as candidates by providing the names of their children, or add some additional Brethren families known to be in York County before 1745, that would be most helpful.

Regardless, of who Elizabeth’s parents were, she was clearly one very brave lady, facing the trepidations of warfare from the time she married in the early 1740s until the mid-1760s. That could have been her entire adult life, depending on when she died. I hope that she lived longer than we think. I so want her to be able to see her children grown to adulthood – to cry at their weddings – and to be able to hold her grandchildren.

I want her to be able to sit in a rocking chair on her porch, overlooking the vistas in the distance, without fear, telling stories from “long ago” to wide-eyed grandchildren about living in the wagon when the Indians came, cooking in a pot over a fire under the starlight when they returned and building houses in the woods where no settlers had lived before. I want her to be able to pluck peaches and pears and apples from the trees she and Stephen would have planted when they returned in 1766 and bake pies when her grandchildren come to visit. I so want Elizabeth to have had some good years.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Radegonde Lambert (1621/1629-1686/1693), European, Not Native, 52 Ancestors #132

Posted on September 18, 2016 by Roberta Estes

The first Acadians began arriving on the island of Nova Scotia in eastern maritime Canada in 1604, settling in 1605 near to what is today Annapolis Royal.

By Mikmaq – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1351882

Today, the original location of Port Royal is a national historic site known as the Habitation at Port-Royal. After it’s destruction in 1613, Port Royal was re-established about 6 miles away as Annapolis Royal (Fort Anne), shown below, but was still called Port Royal at that time.

By paulhami – http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulhami/3455802235/in/photostream/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7920932

This drawing shows Port Royal in 1753. Even half a century after Radegonde Lambert’s death, this village is still very small.

The first decade in “New France” was difficult, at best, with many false starts. Most of the men that settled in this region were interested in fishing and fur trading, not farming. Politically, the land in Canada was subject to the political winds in Europe, so the “ownership” of the region was not only disputed, but changed hands, being ruled by the French, the Scots and the British.

Ships came and went. Many settlers died. Those settlers that lived, male or mostly male, intermarried with the Micmac Indians.

Beginning in about 1610, some French women may have arrived with their husbands, but the dates are uncertain, as are the number of woman.

Because of this, most of the early births are presumed to be a result of a marriage, “legal,” meaning Catholic and blessed by the church, or not. I’m guessing that young men with no available European women, not to mention no priests for many years, didn’t much care about the sacraments nearly as much as they cared about female company.

Radegonde’s Birth

Radegonde Lambert was probably born between 1621 and 1629.

It’s believed by some that she was born in Cap-du-Sable, according to the compiled records of professional genealogist, Karen Theroit Reader, assuming Radegonde is the daughter of Jean Lambert, which may not be a safe assumption at all.

However, Jean Lambert is the only Lambert male in Acadia at that time, so if Radegonde was born in Acadia, it would have been to Jean.

Cap-du-Sable, meaning Sandy Cape, is an island off the far southern tip of Nova Scotia that was settled by Acadians who migrated from Port Royal in 1620. The men who lived on this island specialized in the fur trade.

Radegonde in the Records

The first actual peek we get of Radegonde Lambert is in the 1671 Census, in Port Royal. Thankfully, the women are listed by their birth surnames. Thank you, Acadians! Without this information, we would surely be lost.

You can see the original script of the entire 1671 census at this link.

In case you can’t read the entry for Radegonde’s husband, Jean Blanchard, it says that he is a laborer, living in Port Royal, Acadia, age 60. His name is spelled Jehan and his wife is Radegonde Lambert, age 42. They have 6 children and 3 are married. They have 5 arpens of land under cultivation, 12 cattle and 9 sheep. An arpent of land is about .84 acres.

From this census, we see that Radegonde is born in 1629.

However, and in genealogy, it seems like there is always a “however,” in the 1686 census, Radegonde’s age is given as 65, which would put her birth year as 1621.

In the 1693 census, she no longer appears, so she died sometime between 1686 and 1693, between the ages of 57 and 72, depending on what year she was actually born and in which year she died.

Radegonde’s Mother

Many of researchers believe that Radegonde Lambert’s mother was Micmak (Mi’kmaq). Why?

Primarily because if she was the daughter of Jean Lambert, one of the earliest settlers, it was believed that his wife had to be Indian because there were no French women in Acadia at that time.

Several researchers have reported variations on the story for many years, causing significant controversy.

Adding fuel to the fire for Radegonde to be Native, genealogist Alexandre Alemann, the ex-director of the Drouin Institut, assembled a list of those he believed to be Native – and Radegonde was on that list.

A second story about the origins of Radegonde Lambert claims that she was French, and came to Acadia with her husband, Jean Blanchard.

The following excerpt is from “The Origins of the Pioneers of Acadia” by Stephen A. White in relation to depositions taken in France after the deportment of the Acadians from Canada in 1755:

It is well known that there is very little original documentation that provides data regarding the places of origin of the earliest settlers of the French colony of Acadia. None of the colony’s parish registers for the seventeenth century survive, except one slim record book containing the sacramental entries for Beaubassin from 1679 to 1686. Additionally, there are but a couple of extant notarial records from the same period. And, unfortunately, the various Acadian censuses, beginning in 1671, make no mention of places of origin, unlike the detailed enumeration made in the small neighbouring colony of Plaisance in Newfoundland in 1698. (For more information about the early records of Acadia and Plaisance, see the bibliography of the present writer’s Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes, Première partie, 1636 à 1714 [hereinafter DGFA-1] [Moncton: Centre d’études acadiennes, 1999], Vol. I, pp. xvii-xxv, xxxix-xl, xlv-l.)

On the level of racial origins, there is a source that provides a considerable amount of information. This is the series of fifty-eight depositions of the heads of the Acadian families that were taken down on Belle-Île-en-Mer between February 15th and March 12th, 1767, pursuant to an order from the parliament of Brittany at Vannes. The deponents were required to provide under oath, in the presence of witnesses including other Acadians, the local parish priests, and the Abbé Jean-Louis LeLoutre, former Vicar General of the diocese of Québec and “director” of the Acadian families settled on Belle-Île, all the details they could regarding their own civil status and that of their immediate families, plus their direct-line genealogies back to their first ancestors who came from Europe, “with indication of the places and dates as much as they can remember.” The depositions were intended to take the place of the registers of the parishes in Acadia that had been lost “during the persecution by the British.” In practical terms, they would also furnish the French authorities a means of identifying those who, as refugees from said persecution, were entitled to the King’s bounty and protection.

Two sets of the depositions were made up in 1767. One set of copies was left on Belle-Île, and the other was sent to the district court at Auray. Both sets have been carefully preserved, the latter of the two being now housed in the departmental archives at Rennes.

LAMBERT, Radegonde, came from France with her husband Jean Blanchard, according to Jean LeBlanc, husband of her great-granddaughter Françoise Blanchard (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 43). The deposition of Françoise’s nephews Joseph and Simon-Pierre Trahan is to the same effect (ibid., p. 123). Both depositions mistakenly give Guillaume as the ancestor’s given name. Jean LeBlanc’s makes an additional error regarding the name of Jean Blanchard’s wife, calling her Huguette Poirier. The censuses of 1671 and 1686 meanwhile clearly show that she was named Radegonde Lambert (see DGFA-1, pp. 143-144). The source of these errors is probably a simple confusion arising from the fact that Jean LeBlanc’s wife’s grandfather Martin Blanchard had a brother Guillaume who was married to a woman named Huguette, as this writer explained in an article published in 1984 (SHA, Vol. XV, pp. 116-117). This Huguette was not named Poirier, however, but Gougeon, although her mother, Jeanne Chebrat, had married a man named Jean Poirier before she wed Huguette’s father Antoine Gougeon, and all her male-line descendants in Acadia were Poiriers. Unfortunately, we do not know just what questions Jean LeBlanc asked in trying to establish the Blanchard lineage, but he might certainly have had the impression that Huguette was a Poirier from the fact that so many of her relatives were Poiriers, including her grandnephew Joseph, who was also on Belle-Île in 1767 (see Doc. inéd., Vol. III, pp. 13-15).

It’s not surprising that the husband and nephews of Radegonde Lambert’s great-granddaughter were confused, three generations by marriage (the husband) and 4 generations by birth (nephews) later. Most people today who aren’t genealogists can’t tell you their grandmothers’ maiden names. Did they perhaps have at least part of that story correct? Did Radegonde come to Acadia with her husband instead of being born there to Jean Lambert and his wife, either Micmac or European?

The quick answer is that we don’t know the exact circumstances of when or how Radegonde arrived, and probably never will. But we do have a very important clue about where she was born.

Radegonde’s DNA

Several descendants of Radegonde Lambert through all females have had their mitochondrial DNA tested. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother to both genders of their children, but only females pass it on.

In Radegonde’s case, her DNA, for several years, also proved as puzzling as the records regarding her birth and mother’s ethnicity. No one but Radegonde’s descendants seems to match her DNA. It’s like Radegonde wanted to play a joke on all of her descendants. And a fine job she did too!

Fortunately, that question has now been resolved, and Radegonde’s DNA, haplogroup X2b4, which is exceedingly rare – as in chicken’s teeth rare – is found only in Europeans, to date, and not in any Native people.

Haplogroup X2b4 was born sometime around 5,500 years ago, in Europe, and given that the Native people migrated to the Americas sometime between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago across the land bridge from Asia into what is now Alaska, it would be impossible for X2b4, born in Europe, to be found among the Micmac women in 1621-1629. There were no European women in Canada in the early 1600s, early enough to be considered Micmac and be bearing children with French men by 1621.

I wrote an article recently about the evidence supporting the fact that Radegonde was indeed European, based on her mitochondrial DNA.

However, the question of whether Jean Lambert is her father, or if she came to Acadia with her husband still remains.

Radegonde’s Children

Karen Theroit Reader provides Radegonde’s children, as shown below. In two census records, in both 1671 and 1678, Radegonde and her husband, Jean Blanchard, are living next door to their son, Guilliame Blanchard who was age 35 in 1686.

Madeleine Blanchard born about 1643, probably in Port Royal, died 1678-1684 and married Michel Richard. She had 10 children.
Anne Blanchard was born about 1645, probably in Port Royal, died after 1714 in Beaubassin and married first to Francois Guerin, having 5 children, then to Pierre l’aine Gaudet, having 9 children.
Martin Blanchard was born about 1647, probably in Port Royal and died after July 4, 1718 in Cobeguit. He married first to Marie Francoise Le Blanc having 3 children, then to Marguerite Guilbeau having 8 children.

The three children, above, would have been the three that were married by 1671. The three below would have been the children still at home.

Guillaume Blanchard, born about 1650, probably in Port Royal, died before October 18, 1717 and married Huguette Gougeon, having 12 children.
Bernard Blanchard born about 1653, probably in Port Royal and died after the 1671 census but before the 1686 census.
Marie Blanchard born about 1656, probably in Port Royal, died after 1701, married to Pierre le jeune Gaudet, having 10 children.

Sadly, at least one and probably two of Radegonde’s children died before her, but as adults. She probably stood in the Garrison Cemetery overlooking the bay and buried these adult children, just as she buried the babies that had probably died decades earlier.

The youngest child of Radegonde was born in 1656, according to the 1671 census, in which Radegonde was shown to be age 42. This certainly makes me wonder why Radegonde had no children in her last 15 years of fertility.

The most likely explanation is twofold. First, this suggests that perhaps she was born closer to the 1621 date, which would make her 50 in 1671. If that was the case, then that would only leave 7 or 8 years of infertility to explain, not 15.

Jean Blanchard was age 60 in 1671. It’s possible that Radegonde was actually 60 instead of 42, although that’s a stretch in terms of the census taker not realizing that her age was in error. There’s a pretty big difference between 42 and 60. After all, there were only 392 people in total in that census, in all locations, including children, so about 65 families. Clearly, the census taker knew Radegonde and was unlikely to make an 18 year error.

More likely Radegonde had several children that died, some of which were probably born after Marie.

If Radegonde’s first child actually was Madeleine, and her first child did not die, then Radegonde’s marriage date would have been roughly 1642 which would suggest her birth year was closer to the earlier 1621 as opposed to 1629.

If Radegonde lost any children before Madeleine’s birth, that would push her marriage year back further, and possibly her birth year as well.

Radegonde’s Burial

The early burials in Port Royal took place in Fort Anne where an Acadian and English garrison cemetery are located. You can visit both on St. George Street at the Fort Anne National Historic Site, today.

Garrison Graveyard location courtesy of FindAGrave.

Radegonde’s daughter-in-law, Huguete Gougeon Blanchard, wife of Guilliame Blanchard is shown at FindAGrave as being buried in this Garrison cemetery which was established in 1632. She died in 1717. Guilliame Blanchard is reportedly buried at Amherst, but this makes little sense since he and his wife died the same year and presumably lived together in the same place prior to death. Amherst is not close to Port Royal, located just south of Moncton on the connecting peninsula to the mainland. Therefore, it’s more likely that the family is buried in the Garrison Cemetery known then as the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Cemetery.

Before the cemetery in Port Royal became the British garrison graveyard in 1710, it was the Saint-Jean-Baptiste parish cemetery and was used by the Acadian community of Port Royal and by the French Garrison.

When the British took the fort in 1710, they destroyed all of the headstones, except for 2, which are still standing today. Unfortunately, neither is for Radegonde.

I hope to visit Radegonde in the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Parish Cemetery, aka the Garrison cemetery, someday soon. I know she is there, even though her grave is no longer marked, and was probably originally only marked with a wooden cross.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank cousin Paul LeBlanc for pointing me in the right direction with my Acadian research, for hosting the Acadian Rootsweb list, and for telling me that, “If you’re related to one Acadian, you’re related to all Acadians.”

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Haplogroup X2b4 is European, Not Native American

Posted on September 14, 2016 by Roberta Estes

For many years, there has been a quandary in the genealogy community relative to the genesis of mitochondrial haplogroup X2b4.

The source of this question was the mitochondrial DNA test results of several of Radegonde Lambert’s descendants.

Radegonde Lambert, an Acadian woman, was born about 1621, possibly in Cap-de-Sable, Acadia according to the compiled research of professional genealogist Karen Theriot Reader. She is thought by some to be the daughter of Jean Lambert, born in France but one of the original Acadian settlers, and a female reported to be a Mi’kmaq (Micmac) Indian, but with no confirmed documentation, despite years of looking. An alternate origin for Radegonde is that she came to Acadia with her French husband, Jean Blanchard.

The DNA results of Radegonde’s direct matrilineal descendants proved to be haplogroup X2b4, but unfortunately, for a very long time, the ONLY people who took the full sequence mitochondrial DNA and had that haplogroup were descendants of Radegonde or people who did not know where their most distant matrilineal ancestor was originally from. So, the answer was to wait on additional test results – in other words, for more people to test.

Recently, I had reason to look at the results of one of Radegonde’s descendants again, and discovered that enough time has elapsed that new results are in, and based on full sequence matches and other evidence, it appears that X2b4 is indeed European and not Native.

X2b4 Mutations

Haplogroup X2b4 is characterized by several distinctive mutations, as follows.

Haplogroup or Subgroup	Required Mutations
X	T6221C, C6371T, A13966G, T14470C, T16189C!, C16278T!
X2	T195C!, G1719A
X2b	C8393T, G15927A
X2b4	G3705A

Of the above mutations, only two, the mutations at 16189 and at 16278 are found in the HVR1 region, and only the mutation at 195 is found in the HVR2 region. The balance of these mutations are found in the coding region, so a haplogroup cannot be predicted at a higher level that X or perhaps X2 without the full sequence test.

Radegonde’s Mutations

Radegonde’s descendants carry all of these haplogroup defining mutations, and more. In fact, Radegonde’s descendants also have extra mutations at locations 16145 and 16301. We know this because at least a dozen of Radegonde’s descendants match exactly at the full sequence level, with no mutations. In other words, in those descendants, Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA has remained unchanged for just shy of 400 years – and because they all match exactly, we know what Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA looked like.

Turning now to other full sequence matches, we find that one of the individuals who matches Radegonde’s descendant with 3 mutations difference is from East Anglia in England, and his ancestors have never lived outside of England. In other words, this isn’t a case of someone whose ancestors immigrated and they may have incorrect genealogy.

Two more full sequence matches live in Norway and their ancestors have never lived elsewhere.

One match’s ancestor, Ally Lyon was born and married in Glenisa, Scotland in 1760.

Another match was born and lives in Germany and her ancestors were born there as well.

In summary, for matches, other than Radegonde and people who don’t know where their match was from, we have ancestors proven to be born in:

East Anglia
Norway
Norway
Glenisa, Scotland
Germany

Of Radegonde’s descendant’s matches, 5 individuals who tested still live in the country or location where their ancestor was born and their family/ancestors have never lived elsewhere.

Furthermore, there are no Native American mitochondrial DNA matches for haplogroup X2b or X2b4 in either contemporary testers or ancient burials

Base Haplogroups

It’s certainly possible and feasible for Native people to have base haplogroup matches from locations other than America, meaning haplogroup X in this case, but not for full sequence haplogroup matches, like X2b4, which suggest a common ancestor in a much closer timeframe.

Looking at the history of the migration of the Native people, if haplogroup X2b4 was indeed Native, and matched people in Europe, that would mean that haplogroup X2b4 would have been born more than 12,000 years ago when it’s believed that the Native people crossed the land bridge from Asia to the Americas. In order for migration to both the Americas and Europe from a common location to occur, probably in the Altai region of Asia, that date would probably have to be pushed back further, probably more in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 years ago to a common ancestor for descendants to be found in both the New World and Europe. It just isn’t feasible that haplogroup X2b4 was born that long ago.

When Was Haplogroup X Born?

Dr. Doron Behar in the supplement to his publication, “A Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root” provides the creation dates for haplogroup X through X2b4 as follows:

Haplogroup	Created Years Ago	Statistical Variance
X	31,718.5	11,709.2
X2	19,233.8	2640.9
X2b	9675.9	2466.0
X2b4	5589.2	2597.2

Statistical variance, in this instance means plus or minus, so this chart would read that haplogroup X was born 31,718 years ago plus or minus 11,709 years, so most likely 31,718 years ago, but sometime between 20,639 and 42,979 years ago. Think of a bell shaped curve with 31,718 in the center, or the highest part of the peak.

X2, on the other hand, was born roughly 19,000 years ago. We do know that haplogroup X2a is indeed Native, as is X2g and possibly X2e. So some of haplogroup X2 went east, incurring mutations that would become Native American haplogroup X2a, X2g and possibly X2e while others went west, winding up in Europe and incurring mutations that would become haplogroup X2b and subclades.

The X2b4 Project

Moving now to the X2b4 haplogroup project at Family Tree DNA, in addition to the X2b4 matches mentioned above for Radegonde’s descendants, we find other occurrences of X2b4 in:

The Czech Republic
Devon in the UK
Birmingham in the UK

The three locations in France, shown on the map below, are individuals who descend from Radegonde Lambert and believe her most distant ancestor to be French, so that is what they entered in their “most distant ancestor” location.

Other locations on the map (below) not noted as X2b4 (above) are X2b, the parent haplogroup of X2b4.

Taking a look at the map, below, from the larger haplogroup X project that includes all of haplogroup X and all subclades, we see that haplogroup X is found widely in Europe, including X, X2 and X2b, among other subclades.

National Geographic, Genographic Project

As a National Geographic affiliated researcher, I am privileged to have research access to the Genogaphic Project data base of just under 900,000 international participants. While the identity of the participants is not held in the data base, their ancestor information, as they have provided, is included. For haplogroup X2b4, there were 62 results, indicating just how rare this haplogroup is worldwide. Unfortunately, not everyone provided the place of birth for their earliest known maternal ancestor.

Of the 37 individuals who did provide a birth location for their earliest maternal ancestor, none were Native American and the following locations for places of birth for their earliest maternal ancestor were listed, other than the United States and Canada. Many of the participants and their grandparents are still living in the regions where their ancestors were born:

Ireland
Czech
Serbia
Germany (6)
France (2)
Denmark
Switzerland
Russia
Warsaw, Poland
Norway
Romania
England (2)
Slovakia
Scotland (2)

Conclusion

As you can see, based on Radegonde’s descendants full sequence matches in multiple European locations, Dr. Behar’s paper dating the birth of haplogroup X2b4 to approximately 5500 years ago, the Genographic Project X2b4 locations and other X2b and X2b4 haplogroup project members’ matches in Europe, it’s impossible for X2b4 to be Native American.

Therefore, Radegonde Lambert did not have a Native mother. Her mother was very probably French, like the rest of the Acadian immigrants.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

National Geographic Society Genographic Project and Dr. Miguel Vilar, Science Manager
My Haplogroup X2b4 project co-administrators, Marie Rundquist and Tom Glad
The haplogroup X project administrators, Carolyn Benson and Tom Glad
Radegonde Lambert’s descendants and others for testing, joining projects, and making their results public for all to share. Without public projects and results, discoveries like this would not be possible.
Family Tree DNA for providing the projects and support that enables us to further both scientific and genealogical research.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Elizabeth Ulrich Miller (c1755-1832), Listening for Samuel’s Voice, 52 Ancestors #131

Posted on September 12, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Elizabeth Ulrich was born about 1755 to Stephen Ulrich and his wife, Elizabeth, surname unknown, probably in Frederick County, Maryland. Elizabeth lived about 77 years and died in 1832 in Montgomery County, Ohio, the widow of Daniel Miller.

Based on the birth years of her children recorded in the Bible her husband, Daniel Miller, would inherit from his father, it appears that Elizabeth Ulrich (Ullery, Ulrick and other spellings as well) married Daniel Miller in early 1774. Her first child recorded in the Bible was born in March of 1775, so a marriage in the spring of 1774, probably between March and June, would make sense.

Elizabeth would have likely been about 20 at that time. Dr. Daniel Wayne Olds, Ulrich researcher, in his document “Ulrich Line,” published in 2003, estimates Elizabeth’s birth to have been about 1757, although he doesn’t say how he arrived at that date. Daniel Miller was born in 1755, so it’s logical that she was close to his age. Another gauge for Elizabeth’s age was that her last child was born in 1796, according to the Bible, so if she was 42 at that time, her birth year would have been 1754.

Frederick County, Maryland

Elizabeth grew up on her father’s farm in Frederick County, Maryland. I visited the area in the fall of 2015 and this land is her father’s land or very near that land.

If this isn’t the Ulrich homestead, it probably looked a lot like this.

I can see Elizabeth in her apron, long dark skirts, black shoes or barefoot and prayer bonnet running through the fields in the shadows of the Allegheny Mountains which rose behind her father’s farm.

These fields probably look no different today than they looked when Elizabeth frolicked here – except perhaps there are fewer trees.

The Conococheague Creek, shown above, snakes along the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania, also behind her father’s farm. This riverine region would have been very familiar to Elizabeth as she grew to adulthood, in the literal shadow of the mountains she would one day cross.

The Valley of the Shadow

Elizabeth’s parents were of the Brethren faith, as were many of the other German families who settled in Frederick County on what was at that time the frontier. In fact, by the time Elizabeth was born, her parents, some of the very first settlers, had lived in Frederick County for several years, although exactly how long is uncertain.

While growing up in farm county as a Brethren daughter sounds idyllic, it wasn’t always, because danger seemed to be lurking behind every tree, literally. It helped as more settlers arrived, but even increased numbers wouldn’t keep them safe.

In 1756, after General Braddock’s defeat, the entire region was subject to Indian attack as the French and Indians, as a combined force, tried to push the settlers back towards the coastline. Twenty people were scalped in the Conococheague Valley, where Frederick County is located, and by August, the entire valley was vacant, except for two families, according to a report received by George Washington.

We don’t know where the Ulrich family went to take shelter. It must have been heartwrenching to leave the farmstead they had carved with sweat equity out of the wilderness, knowing full well what would happen to anything left behind. And pretty much everything had to be left behind. An evacuation is not a planned move.

It’s most likely that the Ulrich family returned to Pennsylvania to stay with family members or other Brethren families. If this is the case, Elizabeth may have been born in Pennsylvania, or wherever they took shelter, if she was born in or after August 1756.

The family remained wherever they went until at least November of 1758 when the French and Indian War officially ended, but probably stayed longer, until the region was once again stable. We know the Miller family, Elizabeth’s future in-laws, returned to Frederick County by 1761, but not earlier, and that the Indian attacks had diminished by 1762. Elizabeth would have returned as a toddler or young child.

If Elizabeth was born between 1754 and 1757, she would have been between 4 and 7 in 1761. As a child, she would likely have had a favorite doll to play with and helped on the farm with minor chores, such as taking something to someone or carrying a bucket of vegetables. Perhaps her doll helped too. Maybe Elizabeth was old enough to wash dishes and help her mother in the kitchen. Certainly, there was work for all from sunup to sundown, especially rebuilding a farm.

Elizabeth also had younger siblings by this time. Mary was born about 1760 and Hannah about 1762, so Elizabeth would have been able to be the big sister and help her mother.

But them came 1763. Elizabeth would have been between 6 and 9 when the family had to evacuate again. This time, Elizabeth would have remembered the panicked exodus. Her parents packed Elizabeth and their other children 6 children, ranging in age from 17 to an infant, into a wagon with whatever they could pack quickly. The Indians were attacking again, and again. The family had to leave, as did everyone else in Frederick County. Reports were that the devastation and panic were worse in 1763 than in 1756 and that lines of wagons headed east.

The Ulrich family may have gone to Conestoga, near present day White Oak in Lancaster County, PA.

The only hint we have during this timeframe is that Stephen Ulrich, Elizabeth’s father, along with Nicholas Martin, another Brethren, is found attending the Great Council of the Brethren which took place in Conestoga in 1763. I surely wish they had a sign-in sheet with where they were currently living, originally from, and while I’m wishing…their wife’s maiden name. Some people dream of winning the lottery. I dream of things like this.

By 1765, the Brethren families were returning to Frederick County to rebuild their farms for a second time. Elizabeth would have been between 8 and 11 at this time, with yet another baby sister, Lydia, the youngest, born about 1764, probably while the family was sheltering elsewhere.

Elizabeth would spend the next decade doing what Brethren girls did at that time. She would have helped her mother, learned to cook and sew – in other words, “wife training.” She would have attended church on Sundays and as she matured into a young lady, she would have begun flirting with Daniel Miller, as much as Brethren girls were allowed to flirt. I believe I read someplace that teenaged children held hands though the board that separated the male from the female side of the church. Although, at that time, I don’t think any actual church buildings had yet been built in Frederick County. The Brethren met in homes and barns, so maybe flirting took place outside the “church” before her mother or father saw what was going on and quickly shuffled Elizabeth to safety inside and away from boys. Perhaps Stephen Ulrich and Philip Jacob Miller exchanged meaningful glances…knowing what was coming one day. Perhaps their mothers rolled their eyes a bit, remembering their own courtship, or maybe smiled behind their hands. Life was so much simpler then.

One day, Daniel Miller, with his boyish grin and full of optimism, would probably have spoken to his father, then gone to visit Stephen Ulrich to ask for his daughter’s hand in marriage, which he clearly agreed to give. Perhaps Philip Jacob went with Daniel. Or perhaps, Daniel rode the horse alone. Was Elizabeth expecting him. Was her heart beating faster with every minute waiting for his arrival? Was she watching for that spec in the distance? Did she know?

Stephen Ulrich would have been concerned about whether or not Daniel had the necessary skills to support his daughter, and whether he was a good Brethren boy. The answer was clearly yes, in both cases – otherwise Stephen Ulrich would not have allowed his daughter to marry Daniel.

The Ulrich, Miller and Stutzman families reached back a long way, so they were already well known to each other. They may already have been intermarried. Members of these three families arrived in 1726 and 1727 from Germany together and they were found in a German village together before that. Their roots ran deep. They had been together in one form or another for more than 40 years, and possibly significantly longer. And that’s not just 40 years of living nearby, but 40 years of religious persecution, living on the frontier, going to church together, praying together, burying family members together and both evacuating and returning to rebuild their farms, twice, together. Nothing bonds families quite like that.

The Brethren marriage between Elizabeth and Daniel would have been solemnized by one of the Brethren clergy, probably an elder. No license would have been filed at the courthouse where they lived, as the Brethren didn’t believe in obtaining marriage licenses, a trait which makes Brethren genealogy all that much more difficult.

If there was no marriage license, how do we know that Daniel Miller married Elizabeth Ulrich? After Stephen Ulrich’s death, a settlement in 1785 lists his heirs, including Daniel Miller. Women, in that place and time, had no rights separate from their husband, so their husband would inherit their share of any estate “on their behalf” and sign any legal documents.

However, Elizabeth and Daniel didn’t just settle down and begin farming in Frederick County. Another adventure, or two, or three awaited them.

Across the Mountains to Bedford County

Those mountains that Elizabeth had grown up underneath were beckoning. Shortly after their marriage, Elizabeth and Daniel Miller packed up their wagon and set out for Bedford County, Pennsylvania.

Today, Bedford County is only 61 miles from Daniel Miller’s father’s land just south of Maugansville, but the journey is through the mountains. Even today, that 61 miles takes an hour and a half, and rest assured, before the days of brakes on wagons, which didn’t happen until roughly 1790, traveling through and across the mountains was treacherous at best. The pioneers tied logs and trees to wagons to slow the speed of their descent. It must have been a harrowing experience, especially if traveling with small children who could not just get out and walk. Of course, the journey was also fraught with the constant threat of Indian attack and wild animals would have lurked in the woods as well.

At least four and possibly five of Elizabeth’s siblings went to Bedford County as well as her uncle, John Ulrich.

An October 1775 road petition in Bedford County lists Daniel Miller along with Daniel Oulery who owned the mill at Roaring Springs. Elizabeth’s brother, Daniel Ullery married Daniel Miller’s sister, Susannah who was born in 1759, so I suspect this Daniel Ullery was too old to be Elizabeth’s brother – and was much more likely her uncle. Regardless of which Daniel owned the mill at Roaring Spring, the mill would have been very familiar to Elizabeth who probably visited often. I took this picture of the mill pond. The original mill stands no longer.

We don’t know exactly where Daniel Miller and Elizabeth Ulrich’s first child was born in March of 1775, but if that child was born in Frederick County, they moved to Bedford County in a wagon with that infant child between March and October of 1775. Elizabeth was probably incredibly relieved to arrive so that she could get out of that wagon in relative safety – well, such as that was.

Return to Frederick County

Unfortunately, Bedford County was becoming very unsafe at this point, as the Revolutionary War descended upon the colonies. In 1776, Daniel was no longer on the tax list nor a subsequence road petition submitted in April of 1776, and it was reported that many of the Bedford families removed to the east – in particular, to Frederick County. No sooner were they settled in Bedford County, than they had to reverse course, through those same treacherous mountain passes.

As it turns out, Daniel and Elizabeth left none too soon, because 1777 brought what was known as the Dunkard Massacre to Bedford County in which 20-30 Brethren lost their lives, unwilling to defend themselves against the Indians. There was one Brethren who did defend himself, and the Ullery Mill, one Jacob Neff. Neff, Daniel Ullery’s miller, killed two Indians and the result was that the Ullery mill was burned. Neff was the exception and was later excommunicated from the Brethren faith, not so much for acting in the heat of passion, but later bragging about it.

It was reported, years later, by the Indians themselves, that the Brethren repeated over and over again, in German, “God’s will be done” as the Indians massacred the Brethren and their families. I’d wager that Elizabeth was one praying machine. What else could she do?

Of course, for Elizabeth, returning to Frederick County would have been “going home” so perhaps she didn’t mind at all – aside from the danger inherent in the journey itself.

She was, after all, busy having a second child in November of 1776, which means she likely made that trip back to Frederick County while pregnant. Clearly she carried that child to term, even without shocks on that wagon, but she likely felt every bump in the road. Elizabeth probably welcomed the opportunity to be near her mother and sisters.

This wagon is not the wagon used by Daniel and Elizabeth for their trip, but it is the conestoga wagon used by the Reverend Jacob Miller in 1788 during his migrations, including to Montgomery County, Ohio about 1800. Daniel knew Jacob well, although they don’t appear to have been related, as least not on the Miller side, as proven by Y DNA testing. The wagon used by Daniel and Elizabeth was probably much like this one.

There is a suspicious gap in the Bible birth records between November 1776 and March 1779 which suggests a baby was born and died.

Elizabeth had a third child in March of 1779 and then son David in July of 1781.

David Miller’s census record in 1850 indicates that he was born in Maryland, which tells us that Elizabeth and Daniel were still living in Frederick County as of July 1781 and hadn’t yet moved back to Bedford County.

In 1783, Daniel Miller is listed on the Frederick County tax list.

Elizabeth had another son, Samuel, in March of 1785, bringing the total of living children to five.

We don’t know exactly when Elizabeth and Daniel moved back to Bedford County, but the 1850 census tells us that their son, Samuel, born in 1785 was born in Pennsylvania.

However, Samuel was “deaf and dumb” and was living with his nephew, so we can’t really say if Pennsylvania is accurate. We know Samuel would have been born in either Pennsylvania or Maryland.

By 1786, we find Daniel Miller, along with David Ulerick, Stephen Ulerick, Daniel Ulerick and John Ulrick (single), along with Jacob Stutzman back in Bedford County, living in Woodbury Township. Samuel Ullery was granted land in Morrison’s Cove in 1785 and is noted as one of the first preachers in that region, living near New Enterprise on Yellow Creek where the Yellow Creek (now Hopewell Grace Brethren) congregation was formed, shown on the map below today.

Elizabeth and Daniel probably settled near what is today New Enterprise. The man that Daniel Miller rented land from was known to own land in this vicinity and we also know that Samuel Ullery lived there too. Elizabeth’s brother Stephen was granted 380 acres of land on “Three Springs Branch of Yellow Creek.”

After Daniel and Elizabeth settled into Bedford County in 1786, their lives seemed to have been rather stable for several years. They lived in Bedford County longer than they lived anyplace else during their married life – 13 years.

Elizabeth had another son in December of 1787. The next child’s recorded birth is in 1794, which again suggests that probably three children died in succession; in 1789, 1791 and 1793. Depending on how quickly these children died after birth, there could have been more than three that perished. It appears that these German families only included children who lived in the family Bible. By “lived,” that could well mean beyond childhood, because there are no children’s deaths recorded.

Regardless of how many children died, it would have been a devastating time for Elizabeth. I wonder if she came to dread each birth for fear of the child passing, especially after two or three deaths in a row.

The 1790 census shows us that Daniel and Elizabeth have 7 boys, but we only have Bible records for 6, so at least one child was living in 1790 that died shortly thereafter, possibly the youngest child who would have been born in either late 1789 or early 1790, before the census. We at least know that child was another boy, but that is the only record we have that that child existed at all.

In 1794, Elizabeth had yet another boy, but in 1796 her last child was finally a girl who was named Elizabeth. By this time, given that Elizabeth had borne at least 9 boys. I’d wager she was glad to have a girl.

By 1796, Elizabeth was a miller’s wife. Daniel is listed on the tax list with a sawmill, so people would have been coming and going every day except Sunday, the day of rest. The local sawmill was a bustling place.

This building, located at Yellow Creek and 3 Springs may have been Daniel Miller’s sawmill. If not, their mill probably looked much like this.

In 1797 and 1798, Elizabeth and Daniel are still living in Bedford County, according to the tax lists, but in 1799 they would once again sell many of their belongings, pack up the family, and head for the next frontier.

Elizabeth would have visited the graves of her children one last time. She knew she would never see the family left behind in Frederick County again either. After leaving Bedford County, that door was forever shut.

Daniel rented or leased land in Bedford County. The best land in Bedford was already taken, and Daniel was a miller by trade, so he had to have land on a creek that would support a mill. Their best option to own land was to leave, so leave they did.

The Mighty Ohio

Daniel’s father, Philip Jacob Miller, roughly 70 years old, sold out back in Frederick County, traveled by wagon to Pittsburg, then floated down the Ohio River on a flatboat in 1796. After getting the lay of the land, Philip Jacob subsequently purchased land in Clermont and Warren Counties in Ohio, although he lived across the Ohio in Campbell County, Kentucky. Eventually, all of his children except for possibly one would join him and partake of their share of the 2000 acres. Yes, it was a newly opened frontier and land would need to be cleared, but Daniel was no stranger to work and was perfectly capable of clearing land. How many times had he done this before???

Furthermore, Daniel’s brother David had already left Bedford County and joined his father.

Elizabeth’s departure from Bedford County must have been a tearful goodbye. Elizabeth may or may not have known at that time that three of her siblings would migrate to Montgomery County, Ohio, and she would indeed see them again. In this case, at least for those three, goodbye wasn’t forever…but for others, it was – and those moving on and staying behind all clearly knew it. The only form of communication that allowed them to keep in touch were letters…except Elizabeth couldn’t read or write.

In 1799, Elizabeth’s children would have been 24, 23, 20, 18, 14, 12, 10, 5 and 3. The older children would have helped with the younger, which would have been necessary to prevent falling overboard and drowning on the raft trip down the Ohio.

Daniel and Elizabeth would have arrived in 1799 right around the time Daniel’s father, Philip Jacob Miller, died. I surely hope they made it in time to say goodbye. Daniel probably hadn’t seen his father in more than a dozen years and most of their children had never met their grandfather. Wouldn’t that be a devastating greeting, to be informed that the family member you were traveling to join had just passed away?

Regardless, Elizabeth and Daniel weren’t turning around and going back to Pennsylvania. Neither did they wait for their inheritance. In May of 1801, Daniel purchased land in Clermont County, Ohio next to his brother David, about 50 miles north of the Ohio River via the old Indian trail, where the family helped to form the O’Bannion Church. Daniel became an elder in the Brethren church and Elizabeth, then about 45 years old, was an elder’s wife.

But Daniel and Elizabeth weren’t done moving yet.

Montgomery County, Ohio

Better land called to Daniel from Montgomery County. By 1804, we know that Daniel and Elizabeth were in Montgomery County based on tax lists. Once again, Daniel cleared the land and built a farm and a mill.

By 1804, Elizabeth’s older children were marrying and her youngest was age 10. Elizabeth has having that half-century birthday and she may have felt her age bouncing along in a conestoga wagon, once again. However, this time the move was only about 40 miles, would have taken less than a week, and there were no mountains involved!

Daniel would have been 60 years old and Elizabeth was about the same age. Most men of that age aren’t really interesting in homesteading, especially not having homesteaded at least 4 times as an adult. Elizabeth was probably interested in staying near her children and grandchildren. Elizabeth had to be getting weary of the constant cycle of move, settle, sell out, pack up, say goodbye and move again.

Daniel and Elizabeth bought land on Bear Creek just west of Miamisburg and would live in the same location more than a decade, until 1815 when Daniel would sell, at a handsome profit, once again.

In 1812, while they were living in Miami Township, their son, Daniel (Jr.) died, according to the Bible. We know from the deed of sale in 1815 that a cemetery existed on Daniel Sr.’s land. Is this where Daniel Jr. was buried, or did Daniel Jr. remain in Clermont County? There was no estate in Montgomery County, only an entry in Daniel Sr.’s Bible. We will likely never know, as the 1800 and 1810 census for Ohio is missing. It would be unusual for a Brethren man, age 33, to be unmarried and without children. Perhaps Daniel was impaired as well, given that we know that son Samuel was. In subsequent generations, other Millers were impaired too, especially when Miller cousins had intermarried.

Randolph Township

In 1815, Daniel sold his land on Bear Creek in Miami Township in Montgomery County and bought land not far from his brother, David, in Randolph Township, in the north part of Montgomery County, about a mile from Happy Corner Brethren Church and about 14 miles from his land on Bear Creek.

According to the deed of sale, Elizabeth made her mark, indicating that she could not write her name. This is the only known instance of Elizabeth signing anything other than her will.

I found the Randolph Township property today, and a house reportedly build in 1832 still stands. The ages of older homes are notoriously incorrect, so this home could have been standing when Elizabeth was living, or could have been built by later owners. It probably was not built in exactly 1832.

The location of this house, above, is shown in the exact location on this 1851 map, on what was Daniel’s land, shown below in purple.

In 1820, Daniel apparently sold 100 of his 140 acres in Randolph Township to his son, Jacob, but never recorded the deed. This became a point of contention after Daniel’s death, but thankfully Daniel’s estate provided us with a great deal of information about his children.

In the 1820 census, Jacob and Daniel Miller were living side by side in Randolph Township. Daniel’s household consisted of him, age over 45, a male age 26-45 and a female, Elizabeth, also over age 45. Son Samuel, born in 1785, so age 35 in 1820, was listed as both “idiotic” and “deaf and dumb” in several documents. He would live with family members for the duration of his life and was assuredly the male living with Elizabeth and Daniel in 1820..

Daniel died in August 1822 and Elizabeth was appointed his executor along with his son-in-law, John Bucher (Bugher, Booher, Booker) The final estate settlement was made by David and John Miller in 1828 as administrators, so apparently at some point Elizabeth stepped aside.

August of 1822 was a brutal month for Elizabeth. In addition to her husband, Daniel, who reportedly died unexpectedly, her son Isaac died as well. While Daniel was 67, Isaac was a young man of 33. Was there an epidemic that killed both men?

In 1830, Elizabeth is not listed individually on the census, but Jacob has a female age 70-80 living with him, which would have been his mother who was about 75 by that time. Interestingly, there is no male in the age bracket to be brother Samuel. Samuel is also not living with his brother Stephen. Where was Samuel?

Elizabeth’s Son Samuel

Elizabeth’s son, Samuel was impaired or disabled, or what we would today called “differently abled.” But that description is contemporary, in an age where we can help people with disabilities. Samuel wasn’t as fortunate.

Did Elizabeth know that Samuel had an issue immediately? She had already given birth to 4 children that lived, and probably at least one that hadn’t. Was Samuel’s birth difficult? Did he not breathe right away? Or was Samuel fine at birth, his issues not becoming apparent until somewhat later?

Did the realization that something was different about Samuel creep over Elizabeth slowly, as he grew, but couldn’t hear her? Was it a slow “dawning” that something was very wrong? Did it begin when Samuel didn’t talk when he should have, at the age when her other children had begun to chatter? How much did Elizabeth know? How much was Elizabeth able to help Samuel? When did she realize that this was a child she would have with her forever? Did she worry about what would happen to Samuel after her death? Surely, she must have. As a parent, I worry about that with my fully capable children. Did she believe that Samuel’s issues were “God’s Will?”

The saving grace for Samuel was that he apparently had several good-hearted siblings, who had several children each. Samuel lived with various family members for the duration of his lifetime, beginning with his brother, Jacob, after his mother’s death.

We know two things about Samuel. He is referred to as “idiotic” which was the description generally given to people who were not able to function under their own recognizance, in particular, those who suffered from “Downs syndrome” or who would have been later called “retarded,” although neither of those terms are politically correct today. In 1832, in Montgomery County, Samuel was legally declared as such in court by a jury of 7, probably as a result of his mother’s death.

The second thing we know about Samuel is that he was mentioned on two census schedules and in a court document as being “deaf and dumb” meaning he couldn’t hear or speak. So now we have a chicken and egg situation, which came first the hearing/speech impairment or the cognitive impairment?

Being either deaf and dumb or cognitively impaired could have been caused due to oxygen deprivation during birth.

However, if Samuel was genetically deaf, and his issues did not result from birth trauma or Down’s Syndrome, Samuel would have not learned to speak, couldn’t have been educated and therefore couldn’t communicate or do anything “productive” to earn a living. How incredibly sad, because today the inability to hear is no longer a prescription for life-long dysfunction or misery. Samuel’s life would have been very different if he had been born in 1985 instead of 1785.

In 1785, when Samuel was born, his mother would have been 30 or even perhaps a couple years younger. It’s very unlikely that Samuel was afflicted with Down’s Syndrome, typically a genetic disease in which chromosome 21 is broken that plagues older mothers. Elizabeth went on to have 4 more children over the next 11 years that survived and were not impaired.

We don’t know if Samuel was considered “idiotic” because he was “deaf and dumb” and couldn’t be educated, or if he was “deaf and dumb” in addition to being developmentally disabled. I shudder to think that he was mentally competent, understanding but locked inside himself because he couldn’t hear, which meant he never learned to talk, which meant he couldn’t communicate.

The 1840 census doesn’t show Samuel living with Jacob, so something apparently happened after Elizabeth’s death. Perhaps what Elizabeth feared was coming to pass.

In 1850, we find Samuel noted as “deaf and dumb” living with Abraham Miller and wife Lydia in Montgomery County. Abraham was the son of Stephen Miller, Samuel’s brother who died in 1851.

In 1860, Samuel Miller was living with David Y. Miller in Elkhart County, Indiana, son of Samuel’s brother John Miller (who died in 1856) and wife Esther Miller. Samuel is once again listed as “deaf and dumb,” but he is not listed as “idiotic” in either 1850 or 1860.

Court notes variously show Samuel living with Jacob Y. Miller and John J. Miller, sons of his brother John, in addition to Abraham and David Y. Miller. I hope he didn’t feel unwelcome and like he was being passed around.

Samuel died on November 27, 1867 in Elkhart County, Indiana and is reported by the family to be buried in what is now the Hoke-Miller Cemetery, beside his brother, John. He would have been 82 years old, pretty succinctly removing the possibility that he suffered from Down’s Syndrome. Down’s patients seldom live long lives and Samuel certainly did that, living beyond the age of both of his parents..

Elizabeth’s Death

The Brethren were known to live very simply and austerely. Elizabeth’s husband Daniel had died in 1822, ten years before her death. His estate was rather large, but many of his things were farming related.

At Daniel’s estate sale, Elizabeth would have watched her household items being sold, although the only buyers were family members, which was very unusual. The family Bible was sold to son John. Elizabeth’s spinning wheel was sold as well. She had probably brought that with her from Pennsylvania. John Bugher (also spelled Bucher, Booher, etc., elsewhere) purchased the spinning wheel and a frying pan along with it for $2. John was married to Elizabeth’s only daughter, Elizabeth, so let’s hope that Elizabeth’s spinning wheel is still much cherished by a family member someplace today.

When Elizabeth Ulrich Miller died, she had very little. I think this may be the smallest estate I’ve ever seen. Most estates this small simply are never registered.

Elizabeth died sometime between the time she wrote her will on January 5, of 1832 and September of 1832 when the estate inventory was taken. The fact that she made a will suggests that she was ill or simply old and probably knew the inevitable was about to occur. However, Elizabeth’s will says that she was in good health.

Elizabeth’s will was recorded in the Montgomery County Will Book B, pages 339-341.

In the name of God Amen, I Elizabeth Miller of Montgomery County…being in perfect health of body and of sound and disposing mind memory and understanding considering the certainty of death and the uncertainly of the time hereof and being desirous to settle my worldly affairs and thereby be the better prepared to leave this world when it shall please God to call me hence do therefore make and publish this my last will and testament.

I commit my soul into the lands of Almighty God and my body to the Earth to be decently buried…I give and bequeath to my son Samuel Miller all moneys and affects in any wise belonging to me to be sold and turned into money and to be applied to the use of his maintenance by loaning the principal and applying the interest. If the interest shall not be sufficient the principal shall and may be applied for his maintenance to the best advantage that my executor shall see proper and in case of the death of said executor my son John Miller shall be fully empowered to execute this my last will. Son Jacob to be executor. In witness whereof I Elizabeth Miller have to this my will consisting one half sheet of paper set my hand and seal this fifth day of January 1832.

Signed Elizabeth (her X mark) Miller

Witness J. A. Riley and Abraham Hess state that she was of sound mind and not coerced. Their statement was dated September 24, 1834.

After I originally published this article, Dale Langdon offered me a copy of Elizabeth’s original will, not the copy written into the will book. Typically, the original copy is returned to the family, but in this case, it was not and it still resided in the Montgomery County archives in a packet, which Dale personally photographed and was kind enough to share.

This document in particularly important because it holds original signatures. Of course, Elizabeth couldn’t sign her name, but she did put her mark, “+” on this page in January 1832 after someone, probably J. A. Riley, wrote her will for her, then read it back to her, in front of Abraham Hess.

Elizabeth’s will was not probated until the September term of court in 1834 and the court ordered an inventory be taken and her bills submitted. However, her estate inventory is very clearly marked as taken in 1832, not 1834. I photographed the contents of the estate packet during my visit to the Montgomery County archives in 2004.

Her estate inventory says “Elizabeth Miller of Randolph Township,” so she was very likely living with her son, Jacob, and died there as well.

Elizabeth’s Burial

We have no documentation, but circumstances lead me to believe that Elizabeth is very likely buried in what is today the Happy Corner Cemetery, just down the road from where she and son, Jacob, lived. In fact, you can see on the map below that the distance is certainly walkable. The Happy Corner Brethren Church was located at the southwest corner of first crossroads intersection on west of the cemetery. Perhaps Elizabeth walked to church.

The first marked burial in the Happy Corner cemetery, according to FindAGrave, is for one Daniel Stouder who died in 1830. Keep in mind the Brethren affinity for “plain” which likely did not include a headstone. So it’s very likely that several other early burials are here as well.

The second marked grave is for Elizabeth Metzger Miller, wife of Jacob Miller and daughter-in-law of our Elizabeth Ulrich Miller. Elizabeth Metzger Miller died in February of 1832, just a month after our Elizabeth Ulrich Miller made her will and a few months, at most, before she died. It would appear that Jacob had his hands full. We don’t know what caused Elizabeth Metzger Miller’s death, but we do know she was born in May of 1771, so age 61 at her death. Elizabeth Ulrich Miller followed in short order, or may have died at about the same time. It’s not beyond the stretch of one’s imagination that whatever claimed the life of Elizabeth Metzger Miller also claimed the life of Elizabeth Ulrich Miller who we know died sometime between January and September of 1832. Jacob lost both his wife and mother within a short timeframe.

If there had been a family cemetery on the land owned by either Jacob or Elizabeth Ulrich Miller, Elizabeth Metzger Miller would have been buried there, not at the Happy Corner Church. Jacob was also buried at Happy Corner when he died in 1858, so the most likely place for Elizabeth Ulrich Miller to be buried was at Happy Corner as well, since Jacob probably made the arrangements.

Keep in mind that Elizabeth’s husband, Daniel, was buried someplace in the southwest portion of the County, or even perhaps just over the border in Preble County, a decade earlier. The family later moved Daniel’s grave to Sugar Hill Cemetery in Preble County, so it’s extremely unlikely that Elizabeth was buried with Daniel, or both graves would either have been moved together, or left together where Daniel was originally buried.

Somehow it just seems wrong after being married to Daniel for approximately 48 years that they were not buried together for eternity.

Elizabeth’s Estate

Elizabeth’s estate paperwork for executorship and administration of the estate was not filed by son Jacob until November 18, 1834, and the estate was not settled until 1849, 15 years later. There was also a chancery suit filed in 1849 (if I made a copy, I can’t find it), so there may well have been a lot of “foot dragging” going on by Jacob and later, Jacob and John, Elizabeth’s sons who were her administrators. The rest of the children may have objected to these delays. The final settlement in Elizabeth’s estate wasn’t made until November, 1849.

So no matter how pious, even the Brethren run out of patience and file lawsuits. In Jacob’s paperwork, he said that because she had so little, and he had custody of the “idiotic” brother Samuel, he kept what little she had to care for Samuel instead of having an estate sale. In her will, Elizabeth had specifically left everything to Samuel or for his use.

This explains why Elizabeth had a will at all. As a mother, she very clearly knew that Samuel could not take care of himself, and at age 47, he would never be able to do more. She wanted to do what little she could to assure his care. Bless her heart, she certainly tried.

Regardless, an inventory of Elizabeth’s estate had to be filed with the court and it was, as shown below:

Item	Description	Value
1	1 kettle	1.50
2	1 skillet	.03
3	One side saddle	4.50
4	1 box and spools and tape	.50
5	3 bottles	.25
6	Plates, coffeepot and canister and ? pan	.62 1/2
7	2 cups and saucers ??? and pitcher	.40
8	Coffee mill	.50
9	Rocking chair	.31
10	1 buraugh (bureau)	4.00
11	1 small bascuit (basket)	.06
12	1 bedstead and bedding	5.00
13	1 sorrell mare of no value
	Total	18.17

Elizabeth apparently only kept enough to furnish one room of the home she shared with son Jacob.

The only furniture she had was a rocking chair, and what grandmother is without one, a bureau, a bedstead and bedding. She didn’t even have a table. She didn’t appear to have a stove, so she must surely have been living with someone, although cooking may have still been done in the fireplace. For some reason, she kept a skillet. Perhaps it had sentimental value. I have my mother’s iron skillet which I cherish, and use.

Elizabeth had her old horse, a mare of no value, so she must have loved that horse dearly. I hope someone was kind to it. That horse was probably a very old and dear friend to Elizabeth and she probably no longer rode her with the side saddle. Elizabeth probably walked out to the barn and fed her equine friend apples and sugar, petted her neck and talked to her lifelong confidante, who, of course kept all of her secrets. Maybe Elizabeth shared her loneliness for her husband and children who had moved away or died. Elizabeth was 75 or older when she passed away and had been a widow for 10 years. The horse was probably 25 or 30, having been with Elizabeth for one third of her life or half her adult life. That mare had probably been with her since shortly after her arrival in Ohio. And Elizabeth could have had the mare’s mother before her. Many horses traveled down the river on flatboats.

What I wouldn’t give for Elizabeth’s old sewing box with the spools and measuring tape. She may have had little, but I bet she sat in her rocking chair and sewed. She probably quilted, from scraps of old clothes, and the bedding probably included quilts, but not “too beautiful” as a good Brethren woman didn’t want to seem prideful or vain. She probably sat in that chair and rocked and pondered how to provide for Samuel – and how her other children would feel about the various options.

What was in the basket? Is that where she kept the bottles? Were they medicine bottles perhaps? Surely not whiskey bottles, although Daniel’s estate included a barrel of whiskey. The Brethren believed in moderation and temperance in everything, not just drinking, but they did imbibe in that timeframe. In later years, they embraced total abstinence in terms of alcohol.

Elizabeth had a fondness for coffee. She had a coffee mill, a coffee pot and two cups and saucers. At first I thought one cup for her and one for company, but then I realized, the woman didn’t have a table or a second chair, so perhaps there was one for her and one for her son Samuel, and that’s it. Did he share Elizabeth’s room and sit on the floor or bed, or had he already gone to live with one of his brother’s families to help work the farm, if that was possible?

An 1829 receipt and the 1830 census may hold a clue for us. There is a receipt registered in the Montgomery county deed books from Elizabeth to son Abraham for unspecified items in 1829. Elizabeth could indeed have sold him the majority of her household goods. Perhaps this was when she moved in with her son Jacob. She probably only kept what she absolutely needed personally or truly loved. I notice there are no personal items which are typically listed in estates of this era.

In the 1830 census, Jacob Miller, the son of Elizabeth Miller, who also lived in Randolph Township and had purchased 100 acres of his parents’ land in 1820 had a women, age 70-80, living with him. However, he did not have another male living there, so if the older woman indeed was Elizabeth, Samuel, the challenged son, was not living with them.

Elizabeth does not appear as a head of household in this census, so either she is living with one of her children or she was simply missed, an unlikely scenario since, if she were still living on the home farm, it was on a main road. More likely is that she was living with Jacob, and the kids were farming the home farm for her.

The final settlement for Elizabeth shows the amount of her inventory, $18.17 and money plus interest due to Elizabeth from Emanuel Flory? in the amount of $320, due to 1844. So was this money paid to the executor in 1844, but the estate not settled until 1849? Is this why the chancery suit was filed? Why did Emanuel owe Elizabeth this money? Was this what Elizabeth meant by loaning out the money for interest in her will? Is that what she had done with her dower right from Daniel’s estate, perhaps?

Unfortunately, we don’t have any answers. It’s too bad that some of the money wasn’t used for a gravestone for her, although I’m sure Elizabeth would have preferred the money be used for Samuel – which is probably why we don’t know where she is buried today.

There is no entry in either Daniel or Elizabeth’s estate for a grave stone, although someone, maybe Elizabeth, had placed a simple stone on Daniel’s original grave. Elizabeth’s life is only marked by the memory of her that we can distill and condense from frustratingly few details held in old and dusty records, not by anything earthly remaining today.

Elizabeth’s Children

Elizabeth and Daniel’s children were recorded in the Bible that originally belonged to Philip Jacob Miller that would eventually belong to his son, Daniel Miller and then Daniel and Elizabeth’s son, John. You can read more about the Bible in Daniel’s and Philip Jacob Miller’s articles.

Elizabeth and Daniel’s children are recorded above and as follows. probably by Daniel:

My son Stephen was born March 1 (or 7) 1775.
My son Jacob was born November 20, 1776.
My son Daniel was born March 30, 1779. He died June 25, 1812.
My son David was born July 30, 1781.
My son Samuel was born March 17, 1785.
My son Johannes was born December 15, 1787.
My son Isaac was born December 8, 1789.
My son Abraham was born March 16, 1794.
My daughter Elisabeth was born April 2, 1796.

Stephen Miller was born March 7, 1775 in Frederick County, MD and died January 13, 1851 in Jackson Twp., Montgomery County, Ohio. He is buried in the old Brower Cemetery in Preble County, Ohio. He married first to Anna Barbara Coleman who died in January 1813 in Clermont County, Ohio and secondly to Anna Lesh in October 1813 in Preble County, Ohio.

Jacob Miller was born November 20, 1776 in either Frederick or Washington County, Maryland which was formed in September 1776 from Frederick County. Jacob died October 20, 1858 and is buried in the Happy Corner Cemetery, just a mile or so down the road from where he lived. Jacob’s first wife was Elizabeth Metzger who died in February of 1832. Jacob’s second wife, 30 years his junior, was Catherine Zimmerman.

Daniel Miller (Jr.) was born on March 30, 1779, probably in Washington or Frederick County, Maryland and died on June 25, 1812. We know nothing about him other than this information from his father’s Bible, but he may well be buried in the now defunct and abandoned Troxel Cemetery which is/was located on the land Daniel Miller Sr. owned in 1812 on Bear Creek in Miami Township, Montgomery County, Ohio.

David Miller was born July 30, 1781 in either Washington or Frederick County, Maryland and died in Elkhart County, Indiana on December 1, 1851. David was first married to Catharina Schaeffer who died in Montgomery County in 1826, then a woman named Elizabeth, last name unknown, who died in Indiana 1838. David married last to Martha Drake who outlived him. David is buried in the Baintertown Cemetery in Elkhart County, Indiana on land that he originally owned.

Samuel Miller was born on March 17, 1785, probably in Frederick or Washington County, Maryland, but possibly in Bedford County, Pennsylvania. He was both hearing and speech impaired but his family members took care of him for the duration of his life. He may also have been cognitively impaired. He died on November 27, 1867 in Elkhart County and while there is no headstone, he is reported to be buried in the Miller Cemetery near his brother John. Samuel was allowed to purchase a knife at his father’s estate sale in 1822. He probably cherished that knife for the rest of his life.

John Miller, listed as Johannes in the Bible he purchased from his father’s estate, was born December 15, 1787 in Bedford County, PA and died June 11, 1856 in Elkhart County, Indiana. His wife was Esther L. Miller, his first cousin, daughter of Daniel’s brother, David Miller.

John is Buried in the Miller Cemetery in Elkhart County, Indiana overlooking Yellow Creek where his house originally stood.

Isaac Miller was born December 8, 1789 in Bedford County, PA and died in August of 1822, the same month that his father died. Isaac was married in 1812 to his first cousin, Elizabeth Miller, daughter of Daniel’s brother, David Miller. It’s unclear where Isaac died, although it’s believed to be in either Darke or Montgomery County, Ohio. We don’t know where he is buried. There is no estate packet in Montgomery County.

Abraham Miller was born March 16, 1794 in Bedford County, PA and died on May 19, 1855 in Marshall County, Indiana. He is buried in the Blissville Cemetery. He married Elizabeth Lasure on March 21, 1827 in Montgomery County, Ohio and had moved to Marshall County, Indiana by 1850.

Elizabeth Miller, the only daughter in this family of boys, was born April 2, 1796 in Bedford County, PA and died on November 8, 1871 in Miami County, Ohio. She is buried in the Old Harris Creek Cemetery in Darke County. She married John Bucher/Boogher/Booher/Booker in Montgomery County on October 10, 1815.

Elizabeth’s death is reported in the December 1871 Gospel Visitor, page 382, as follows:

Died, Nov. 8th, 1871, in the Stillwater Congregation, at the residence of her son-in-law, Emanuel Hoover, Miami county, Ohio, formerly near Salem, Montgomery County, Ohio, after an illness of four months and sixteen days, ELIZABETH BOOCHER, our beloved sister and mother in Israel, aged 75 years, 7 months and 6 days. Her husband John Boocher, died near Salem, June 24th, 1861.

She has raised twelve children – one of them has gone before her. She had over one hundred grand-children, thirty-one great-grand-children, and many other friends to morn her loss. We hope our loss is her great gain.

Funeral services by the brethren, from Heb. 4. 9. “There remaineth a rest to the people of God.”

Elizabeth Ulrich’s DNA

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from a mother to all of her children, but only female children pass it on. When males have children, their wife’s mitochondrial DNA is inherited by their children.

This means that Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA was inherited directly from her mother, with no admixture from her father. In other words, the Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA is unchanged from that of her mother, and Elizabeth’s daughter, Elizabeth, inherited her mother’s mitochondrial DNA intact as well.

What can we tell from her mitochondrial DNA? We can tell where Elizabeth’s ancestors were from, her ancient clan, so to speak. We may be able to connect her mitochondrial DNA with the DNA from other female Brethren wives – and by doing do, we may one day be able to identify Elizabeth’s mother. In fact, that is probably the only way her mother’s parents will ever be identified.

Since Elizabeth Ulrich Miller had only one daughter, the only prayer we have today of discovering what her mitochondrial DNA has to tell us is through either the children of that daughter, or through the DNA of Elizabeth Ulrich’s sisters in the same way.

Hopefully, some of daughter Elizabeth’s daughters had daughters who had daughters to the current generation. In the current generation, males or females can test, because women give their mitochondrial DNA to both genders of children.

This list of Elizabeth Miller Booher’s children is from Frontier Families at http://www.frontierfamilies.net/family/Miller/C6/E10EM.htm, a compilation of records by Karleen and Tom Miller, along with Gale Honeyman of the Brethren Heritage Center, webpage by Eric Davis. I am only listing Elizabeth Miller Booher’s nine female children and descendants because their descendants would carry Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA. Elizabeth’s grandchildren are from various primary and secondary sources and I have not confirmed their accuracy.

Katharina Boogher born October 26, 1816 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died December 28, 1903 in Allen County, Ohio, married October 26, 1835 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Jacob Altstaetter, born February 21, 1811 in Hess-Darmstadt, Germany and died November 10, 1898 in Allen County, Ohio. They are buried in the Altstaetter Cemetery near Cairo, Ohio. Katherine had the following female child:

Elizabeth E. Allstaetter 1836-1905, married first Christopher Nass and had daughter Sarah who died at age 20. After Christopher’s death in 1863 she married Michael Roederer and had daughter Louisa Anna Roederer 1872-1956 who married Thomas Jefferson Watt.

Hannah Boogher born November 16, 1817 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died January 3, 1867 in Randolph County, Indiana, married first, August 2, 1838 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Stephen Smith, born April 15, 1808 and died May 30, 1860 in Randolph County, Indiana. Hannah married second on May 30, 1863 in Randolph County, Indiana to John Dull, born December 12, 1813 in Pennsylvania and died July 20, 1883 in Randolph County, Indiana. Hannah is buried Steubenville Cemetery and is reported to have had two daughters:

Elizabeth Smith
Sarah Smith

Elizabeth Boogher born October 10, 1820 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died September 6, 1872 in Union City, Indiana and married October 4, 1839 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Emanuel Martin, born Sept 1, 1804 in Fayette County, Pennsylvania and died November 26, 1889 in Darke County, Ohio. Emanuel and Elizabeth are buried in the Union City Cemetery in Union City, Indiana. Elizabeth had daughters:

Abigail Martin 1844-1922
Eliza Martin 1854-1880
Susannah Martin 1857-1881
Mary Ann Martin 1859-1948

Mary “Polly” Boogher born August 18, 1822 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died March 12, 1905 in Montgomery County, Ohio, married first on September 10, 1844 in Montgomery County, Ohio to John “Long John” H. Warner, born May 20, 1805 in Bedford County, Pennsylvania and died Sept 25, 1878 in Montgomery County, Ohio. She married second on April 6, 1884 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Samuel Arnold, born June 24, 1817 in Rockingham County, Virginia and died on November 18, 1887 in Brookville, Ohio. Mary had the following daughters:

Elizabeth Warner 1847-1924
Mary Warner 1849-1921
Sarah Warner 1855-1947

Susannah Boogher born January 4, 1824 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died April 6, 1900 near Bloomer, Ohio and married on January 18, 1846 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Jacob Warner, born February 24, 1826 in Montgomery County, Ohio and died on April 7, 1916 in Miami County, Ohio. They are buried in the Harris Creek Cemetery near Bradford, Ohio and had the following daughters:

Sarah Warner born 1850-1935
Elizabeth Warner born 1865-1953 (another source shows an 1857 birth)

Rachel Boogher born December 14, 1825 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died September 10, 1910 in Covington, Ohio and married on November 9, 1848 in Montgomery County, Ohio to Emanuel Hoover, born September 9, 1817 in Blair County, Pennsylvania and died on May 6, 1896 in Miami County, Ohio. Rachel and Emanuel are buried in the Harris Creek Cemetery near Bradford, Ohio. Rachel had the following daughters:

Lidia Hoover born in 1858
Sarah A. Hoover born in 1862-1910
Nancy Hoover born in 1868-1932, married Samuel Gilbert and had daughters Rosa Gilbert 1894-1979 who married Leo Small, Sylvia Lucille Gilbert 1911-1954 who married Robert Young and had one daughter, and Etta Gilbert.

Margaret Rebecca Boogher born September 18, 1829 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died March 18, 1914 in Fostoria, Ohio and married first on March 2, 1848 in Montgomery County, Ohio to George Schell, born March 15, 1809 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and died September 21, 1881 in Darke County, Ohio. She married second on January 22, 1885 in Darke County, Ohio to John Fields, born circa 1812 in Greene County, Ohio and died prior to 1900. Margaret is buried in the Fountain Cemetery in Fostoria. She had the following daughters:

Leah Schell 1849-1930
Sophia Schell 1850-1919
Amanda Schell 1852-1910
Abigail Schell 1855-1940
Martha Anne Schell 1858-1937
Mahala Ann Schell 1861-1888
Emmaline (Ernatine) Schell 1864-1930
Margaret Rachel Schell 1873-1965
Charlotte Lottie Schell 1874-1920

Abigail Boogher born January 10, 1832 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died January 16, 1874 near Bradford, Ohio and married on January 25, 1866 in Miami County, Ohio to Jacob F. Gauby, born December 7, 1837 in Berks County, Pennsylvania and died in 1905 in Darke County, Ohio. Abigail is buried in the Old Harris Creek Cemetery. Her only daughter died the same day she was born.

Sarah Boogher born June 24, 1836 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died May 14, 1896 in Hemet, California and married August 17, 1854 in Montgomery County, Ohio to George Washington Priser, born October 28, 1829 in Montgomery County, Ohio and died April 16, 1918 in LaVerne, California. Sarah is buried in the Oakdale Cemetery in Glendora, California and had the following daughters:

Elizabeth Jane Priser
Mary Idella Priser
Ida May Priser
Rose Alice Priser

DNA Testing Scholarship

If anyone descends from these daughters of Elizabeth Miller Booher, through all females to the current generation, which can be either male or female, I have a DNA testing scholarship for the first person to come forward with reasonable proof of descent.

I would love to be able to add to the story of Elizabeth Ulrich Miller with her own DNA.

If you descend from Elizabeth Ulrich Miller, even if you don’t descend through all females, and you’ve taken any of the autosomal DNA tests through either Family Tree DNA (Family Finder), 23andMe or Ancestry.com, give me a shout. Maybe our autosomal DNA matches! It would be great fun to see if we share the same bits of Elizabeth’s autosomal DNA.

Closing Thoughts About Elizabeth

As I think of Elizabeth’s life, my heart keeps going back to her relationship with her son, Samuel. He would have been born when Elizabeth was about 30, and she spent the duration of her life worrying about him.

He wasn’t a normal child. It would have taken a lot of special effort to keep him safe. She must have listened for his voice until she finally gave up that last shred of hope that she would ever hear it, at least not in this lifetime. He couldn’t talk because he couldn’t hear. But I’m sure his baby smiles were beautiful and she loved him all the more because he was special and needed extra care and love.

He couldn’t hear, so he wouldn’t know if he was in harm’s way. He couldn’t hear a wagon coming towards him. Elizabeth couldn’t yell at him to get out of the way, or yell for him to see where he was. If he got lost, there would have been no way to find him. He couldn’t talk to his mother and tell her that his stomach hurt, or anything else, for that matter. He could cry, I’m sure, as could Elizabeth – and I’d wager they both shed a lot of tears.

As her other children went to church, learned how to read the Bible and about the Brethren faith, and learned how to be adults by gaining skills like sewing and cooking for daughters and farming for sons – Samuel was forever childlike, even though he assuredly was of a normal adult size.

Elizabeth surely shed some tears as her other children married and left home. All mothers do, whether simply because of the symbolic passing of the torch, or because they are truly happy or sad to see them go. No mother wants to see her child endure pain, and part of life is surely painful. When children marry and leave the nest, the mother can no longer protect them. That’s why it’s called “leaving the nest,” but it’s anything but easy for the mother, regardless of how “well” the child married. Still, a mother doesn’t really want her children to stay forever – she wants to give them wings to soar on their own.

Elizabeth knew there would never be a marriage for Samuel, no happy celebration and no grandchildren. He would never have a life of his own, on his own, nor would he ever be able to care for himself. There would be no soaring and no fledging flight.

What was concern for his immediate safely when he was young would have become an over-riding concern for his wellbeing as an adult after her own death. Elizabeth didn’t worry about him in the normal adult way that we all worry about our adult children. Elizabeth would have worried about him in the way one worries about a young child – except he wasn’t. He was 47 years old when his mother died. He would have looked like a man, but was a child in a man’s body.

After Daniel’s death in 1822, for the last decade of her life, Elizabeth’s concerns would have worsened.

What would Samuel’s future be? Who would care for him? Who would make sure he was safe? Who would be sure he was fed? Who would wipe his tears when she died? Who would try to explain or convey that to Samuel? Was there anyone to love Samuel, or would he simply exist as a burden for the rest of his life? It’s hard enough to leave a child, but to leave a child that can never grow up must be the ultimate torture.

There were no answers for Elizabeth. I’m sure the last thought as she passed from this world was for Samuel’s wellbeing. She had done what little she could for him, and I’m sure, absolutely positive, that she had left explicit instructions with every single one of her children as to how Samuel was to be treated.

Samuel outlived all but one of his siblings, the youngest, Elizabeth, his sister. It’s not surprising then that Samuel spent many years living with his nephews. The fact that he lived with the family of only male family members might suggest that his care necessitated a male presence.

While he did live with at least four different family members after Elizabeth’s death, he was always provided for and cared for by the family. Elizabeth must have rested easier seeing that from the other side.

I know that indeed, if “Heaven” is a place where we are healed of our afflictions when we arrive, the most joyful thing to Elizabeth’s ears would have been hearing Samuel’s voice and seeing that he heard and understood her, and the most joyful thing to Samuel’s ears would have been to hear his sweet mother’s voice. In his own voice, he could thank her for those 47 years, those 17,000 days, two thirds of her life, of constantly caring for him when he could not do so for himself.

It’s amazing the things we take for granted that neither Elizabeth nor Samuel ever could. I’m glad that both Elizabeth and Samuel can finally rest in peace, together.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Writing Ancestor Articles in 12 Easy Steps

Posted on August 14, 2016 by Roberta Estes

You might notice that this article is in place of my normal 52 Ancestors article I publish every weekend. That’s because I didn’t get this week’s article finished. Sometimes life just gets in the way, plus, the ancestor I was working on has a HUGE amount of research data to sift through. I’ve worked on this family for decades now, as have others and I want to be sure to include everything that is correct and relevant, and exclude those items that are not. Easier said than done in some cases.

Lots of people have asked how I go about the research for these articles, so I’d like to share that with you, in the hope that you too will do something similar. If you don’t publish accurate information about your ancestor in one form or another, who will?

Not The Same As A Book

I’ve written books before, both specialized books in the technology field and books about specific ancestral lines. The weekly articles I write about just one ancestor are really different from books, although when I began the 52 Ancestors series two and a half years ago, I didn’t realize how different, or why.

First of all, if you look at writing a book, that’s an overwhelming task that you’ll do “someday.” Do you know how many books have gone to the grave in people’s heads? Surely more than have been written. But anyone can write just one article, then one more. Then, one day, before you know it, you do have a book. Voila.

These articles are different from books in other ways too.

When I was writing a book about a line or lineage of ancestors, I was not focused on just one person, but on the story of that particular lineage, which of course included every ancestor in that line. However, I never focused on just the story of any one person disconnected from the rest. I focused on all of the people in that line in the context of their relationships to the other people. In other words, I never looked at John Doe from birth to death, from only his perspective. Instead, in a book, John Doe is a son, he marries, moves to another state, has children and dies. There is little in the story about what was happening in his life at different times. How those events like warfare or drought or economic conditions might have affected him. In other words, the 52 Ancestors stories take each individual person from cradle to grave and it’s their story and theirs alone. I also write it as a story, their story, with as much empathy and detail as I can muster. In other words, I try to walk in their shoes.

Of course, this too has presented some challenges, because I don’t want these stories to be boring and repeat information presented in parents’, children’s and spouse’s stories, so I try to utilize different information so that these individual stories could be combined into book format without too much duplicate information. So no, you won’t find the same level of detail about the 1816 famine in Europe in the father, mother, son, son’s wife, son’s wife’s parents, or their children’s stories. You may find mention of it, but only one story will have the details. Therefore, to really have the whole picture, you probably should read the story of each ancestor.

For example I generally list the children for John Doe, but I often go into more detail about the children, who they married and what happened to them in the wife’s story. Why? Because often the wife has less information – she didn’t own land, she didn’t vote, she (generally) didn’t go to court and normally didn’t get herself thrown out of church for drinking and swearing – so I save the children’s detail for her story so the stories are more balanced.

Research, Then and Now

While I attempt to compile and finalize a story each week, most of the research is not performed today. In fact, these stories have been an attempt for me to organize my information and file information away forever. I have a rule that the file folder cannot go into the file cabinet before the information in the folder is processed. Once it is in the file cabinet, it really should NEVER have to come out again.

And yes, I’m dead serious. I know that when I pass over, it’s likely that those folders will never see the light of day except maybe in the trash truck on the way to the dumpster – so I’m making sure all of that cumulative information is scanned and published which will hopefully make it more permanent. Yes, I’m also printing it, and donating it to relevant libraries. However the internet being what it is, I’m counting on the folks who are “gathering” to attach these stories to their tree records at Ancestry, etc., where, as we know, they will live into infamy! Yes, in essence, I’m hoping my ancestor stories become a sort of genealogical virus, infesting the genealogical community to last forever. I figure it’s going to happen anyway, so I might as well take advantage of the phenomenon.

Let’s take a look at the various steps in the process.

Step 1 – Gather All Information

Step 1 is to gather all the information you have. I guarantee you, if you have researched very long, you will have information you’ve forgotten about and it’s probably scattered in various folders. Mine is. Gather it all together in one place.

Step 2 – Add Local History Resources

In addition to information directly about my ancestor, I check local and county history books for information about the family. You never know what you may find in a child’s vanity article that will provide information about their parents – or grandparents – for example. It was through a vanity story that I discovered that my Brethren ancestor married a German Lutheran and secondly, a non-German BAPTIST!!! Holy chimloda. Today, this isn’t remarkable, but when he did it, it was.

Many local genealogy societies have published genealogical history books where their membership has been encouraged to write articles about their ancestors. Often, these include photos and stories as well, so it’s always wise to check both local history books and more contemporary publications by genealogy societies.

Step 3 – Make a Timeline

Often, but not always, I make a timeline. When I have multiple people and families in the same location, I always make a timeline. This makes it easier to understand chronological order as well as see relationships. When you write the story, you can write it in chronological order as well. In some cases, where I have extracted huge amounts of information by surname in order to discern family relationships, I have created a spreadsheet that is sortable by column, so I can find surnames, locations, and more. In the example spreadsheet below, the Places column would include locations in deeds such as stream names.

Obviously, a timeline can be done in this manner as well. This is particularly useful when employing the FAN principle, Family, Associates and Neighbors. In other words, if I found Joseph Abbott consistently witnessing deeds for my family, I would begin to ask if and how he might be related. As it turns out, this Halifax County spreadsheet served to help me DISPROVE the family connected to John Moore. There were at least two Moore families, not related as eventually proven by Y DNA, in Halifax County quite early. DNA was a Godsend to the Moore lines, but so was the timeline spreadsheet because between the two, it allowed me to sort the families.

Step 4 – Add Events Into the Timeline

Normally, the events we track for people are:

Birth
Marriage
Children’s Births
Death

There is a lot more that affected their lives. Did their grandparents live during their lifetimes? When did the grandparents pass away? Do we know where they are buried, because if you do, you know what your ancestor was doing that day, and where.

Religion

Whatever religion they followed, it’s likely that religion was fundamentally important to your ancestors. One common thread in my family seems to be that they were extremely devoted to their chosen religion. I have hard core Catholics, Lutherans, Brethren, Mennonites, Protestants (1709ers), and more. What was happening in that time and place relative to their religion? Add this information into the timeline.

Warfare

Did your ancestor serve in the military? Was your ancestor the wife waiting at home? If so, how might she have survived? How did the war affect the life of your ancestors? Were the wars fought on their home ground? How did they go to war? Did they walk? Can you find a regimental history? If your ancestor served in the US, don’t forget to order their entire record packet from the National Archives and check Fold3.com.

Whatever you can find, add into the timeline.

Deaths

Did they have children that died? If you don’t know the answer, are there “gaps” in the census of more than 2 years between children’s births that suggest a child might have been born and died? Where would that child have been buried? Was there a cemetery on their property, such as was common in colonial America, especially in the south, or was it customary to bury the dead in a churchyard, such as in Europe?

Is the grave still there today? Have you checked Find-A-Grave?

How do local customs affect burials? For example, in Europe, graves are reused, but often in the same family. In one case, in the Netherlands, we found my ancestors grandchildren buried in the plots he bought, so he too was likely buried there at one time.

Step 5 – Find or Scan Documents

Everyone loves a story book with pictures. Obtain relevant documents for your ancestor and include them. The best item is one with their signature because a signature is so personal.

Deed and will books are not original signatures, as the clerks copied the deeds and wills into the book. Only the original deed or will, which went with the owner, had the original signatures, sadly.

However, applications for bounty land, receipts, some estate documents, some marriage license applications, some naturalization applications and petitions all have original signatures. Chancery suits are Godsends because often some records from those suits are retained, and even if your ancestor isn’t the plaintiff or defendant, they may be mentioned in a relevant way.

I’ve also found my ancestors’ signatures and information about their life in other people’s chancery suits. Like the time a couple got divorced and my ancestor, a Methodist preacher, had originally married them. He testified he though they were “simple” at the time he married them and told about their wedding day. He also signed his deposition. The Library of Virginia has indexed every chancery suit by every name in the suit and it’s a goldmine. Not all counties are complete, but many are

In addition, finding your ancestor’s deeds from the deed books, wills, estate inventories, and naturalization records all lend to the historic feel of the articles.

Sometimes an article is delayed when I discover an item exists that I don’t have, or that I have not checked all relevant sources. The good news is that today, many times, the clerk or other official, depending on the item type, will scan and e-mail you the requested items, so obtaining them is easier than ever before.

Don’t forget libraries in your search either. You never know what kind of resources of files they might have. I’ve had wonderful items from local newspapers sent from librarians more than once.

Step 6 – Be Anal

After you assemble everything, go back over what you have to answer the question “What don’t I have?” Go back and check one more time. Check Genweb, Rootsweb, Ancestry, WikiTree, Fold3, AmericanAncestors.org, Newspapers.com, MyHeritage, FindMyPast, FamilySearch and any other subscription source you follow. You never know what new record sources are available now that were not before. Records are being indexed every single day.

You also don’t know who might have posted photos, stories, etc., that are new.

Furthermore, check your original records and notes in your file. You will, I guarantee, see things you didn’t see before. In one case, I realized that somehow, I had overlooked in one census that the oldest child was listed with the wife’s maiden name – but just in one census. In subsequent census schedules, the child was listed with the husband’s surname which he used throughout his life. Later, DNA testing confirmed that the child whose surname was not that of the husband in the first census after they were married was not the child of the husband. Obviously no secret then, but being “discovered” now, it could be a scandal, had that census not recorded that the child was the wife’s, clearly before the marriage.

Step 7 – Document

Document your sources. Yes, I know, you’re groaning and I do too. I initially thought I would, of course, never forget, so I didn’t document some of my early sources. Pox on me. I don’t make that mistake now.

If you check a source and your ancestor is NOT there, sometimes that’s just as telling too. Don’t just omit that information and not write it down. Absence is informational as well. Document the source and that they were absent.

In one case, who is IN the census and on tax lists, and ABSENT from the militia rosters tells us who was likely a member of the Brethren faith in a particular county during the Revolutionary War when militia duty was mandatory.

When you have an unidentified wife, which happens constantly with the Brethren who did not believe in civil marriages so they didn’t obtain marriage licenses, this is one way to identify who her family might have been. Early Brethren also didn’t keep church records. Pox on them.

A Brethren male would only have married a Brethren female (or been thrown out of the church, unless she converted), so the list of who is absent from the militia rosters is a virtual pick list of who the wife’s family might be. Later, when you begin to get DNA matches on that line to unexplained Brethren families, look on the “non-militia” list. You might be surprised. So, in this case, “absent” might just the clue to breaking down a brick wall!

Step 8 – Find Their Land

I love to actually go back to where my ancestors lived and as one of my genealogist friends says, “walk the walk.” On my own personal list, that is a #1 priority and my bucket list items are almost all comprised of “walk the walk” places.

My top 3 right now?

Acadia in Nova Scotia
Plymouth Plantation
Germany

Yes, I’m making plans for all 3.

When possible, and with permission of course, I take a rock from each place and bring them home to my garden, so my ancestors are all with me, both outside, in the garden, and inside (DNA.)

However, there are other ways to find their land that are almost as good. Google maps is an incredible tool. Old deeds often include landmarks such as creek names, churches, cemeteries, etc. Often, old plat or tax maps still exist that can help as well, especially if you can track their land backward or forwards to the time of that map to locate the land through the then-current owner.

Using Google, or in person, you can locate the land today and view the old homestead if it still exists, the land, their church and even cemeteries. All without leaving your chair. I know there are places I’ll never be able to visit in person, so Google maps is quickly becoming one of my best friends.

Even in Europe, where Street View is not utilized, satellite viewing is enabled and you can still “see.” Additionally, along the bottom bar, often Google Maps links to photos where the photographer has tagged the location you are searching for, or nearby, and you can then view their photographs.

Step 9 – Find Their DNA

After testing yourself and any family members you can convince to test, you’ll discover which ancestors DNA you have and which you do not. By this I mean, if you are a male, you automatically have available to you information about your mitochondrial and Y DNA. This means, of course, that you have information about your father’s Y DNA, his father’s Y DNA, on up the tree – shows by the blue squares to the left below.

Conversely, your mtDNA is inherited from your mother, her mother, on up the tree, so you have some information about those ancestors directly. These are shown in the red circles to the right, below. Unfortunately, females only carry mitochondrial DNA, so they have to find males, such as brothers or fathers or uncles to identify their paternal line DNA.

For other people whose mitochondrial and/or Y DNA you don’t personally carry, you will have to find people who descend appropriately to test.

For example, you don’t carry your father’s mtDNA, because he carries his mother’s DNA and males don’t pass mtDNA on to their children. To find your father’s mitochondrial information, you’ll need to test your father. Don’t have access to test your father? Then test one of his siblings, or his sister’s children, since only women pass mitochondrial DNA on to their children. You may have to be creative with hunting for specific relatives whose DNA you need to complete their, and your, ancestral genetic information.

Here’s an example of what my DNA pedigree chart looks like.

You’ll notice that I have managed to identify the haplogroup information for several lines, but there are still others I need, and a few that have died out.

When you’re out of cousins to test directly, check MitoSearch and YSearch.org.

Also check trees at Ancestry to see if you can find someone who descends appropriately and ask them if they have had their Y or mtDNA tested. If not, offer to provide that test.

Autosomal matches at Ancestry show you how you and your match descend from a common ancestor – so check those matches for people eligible to take either the Y or mtDNA test.

Unfortunately, we still don’t have any good tools to discover genetic lineage and who has tested for mtDNA. By this, I mean you can’t enter your ancestor’s name and find out who descends from her that has tested. But I have my fingers crossed that this will be a feature someday.

Sometimes, just publishing the article will be the key to finding a tester. You never know. And let’s face it, these articles are cousin-bait.

If there is any, and I do mean any, question in your mind about how valuable and informative Y and mitochondrial DNA can be – just read these two articles.

Y- DNA – Jakob Lenz (1748-1821), Vinedresser, 52 Ancestors #128

mtDNA – Elisabetha Mehlheimer (c1800-C1851) and Her Scandinavian Mito-Cousins, 52 Ancestors #24

The Y and mitochondrial DNA provides information that isn’t possible to discover any other way – the deep ancestry of that particular line. You have shortchanged yourself, and your ancestor, if you don’t make every attempt to discover their Y and mtDNA haplogroups and the historical information that comes along with the haplogroup designation.

Step 10 – Google is Your Friend

Aside from Google maps, Google is your friend. Google your ancestor’s name and location. Google his wife’s name, both maiden and married, and location. Google just the location with the word “history” following. Google in different ways to find information that might not appear on your first Google search.

People write blogs now and it’s easy to create a webpage. They contribute to GenWeb. They post photos and memorials to Find-A-Grave. The old Rootsweb list and boards, which are often sadly inactive now, are wonderful resources. Ancestry bought the Genealogy.com boards and while you can no longer post, they have preserved the postings and threads which were already there, which are also goldmines. Don’t forget about social media resources like Facebook. Some people have started family pages there.

Furthermore, many local history books, especially those whose copyrights have now expired are available through various scanning initiatives.

So, Google, Google, Google.

Step 11– Revisit Earlier Conclusions

There is nothing I hate worse than proving my own work wrong – and I can’t tell you how often I’ve done just that. The only person who doesn’t make mistakes is the person who does nothing. My only possible excuse is that I never set out to be a genealogist, there were no “instructions” in those early years, I’ve been doing this for 38 years now and I’ve learned one heck of a lot!

Today, you may have far more information than you did when you formed earlier opinions. You may have learned more about cultural and social norms affecting your ancestor where they lived. You may have been flat out wrong or just overlooked something that is obvious now, but wasn’t then.

Don’t just accept what you, or anyone else for that matter, has previously written, without scrutiny in light of the information you currently have.

In one case, I made a logical assumption that was wrong. After a woman’s husband died, in the next census, an older invalid male was living with her. My assumption was that it MIGHT have been a sibling, hence, his name MIGHT have been her maiden name. I did phrase it that way. Unfortunately, when that information was repeated, the word MIGHT never got included, and today, after later finding her husband’s War of 1812 pension application that contains not only her maiden name, but the name of her father as well – I constantly have to do battle with records that reflect my own logical, but incorrect, earlier surname commentary. Often, people have grown attached to that wrong name, and refuse to change it.

If you don’t know, say you don’t know. If the information is ambiguous or confusing, say so, and why. Perhaps someday someone will find something that clarifies the situation.

Step 12 – Be With Your Ancestor

I know this sounds a bit bizarre, but when I write these articles, each article gives me the opportunity to “be with” that ancestor, focusing on only them, for a week, or more, at a time. I get to see through their eyes, as much as I can in this lifetime. I get to experience what they experienced, as best we are able from our perspective today. The ONLY way I can do that, though, is to understand their world, not just within the family in terms of who was being born and baptized, but in terms of what was going on around them at that time.

One of my favorite items that allows me to “be with” my ancestors are estate inventories. Those are the closest we will ever come to peeking inside their homes. I’ve learned a great deal about what they do, their skills, and even if they distilled liquor. I just can’t tell you how much I love estate inventories.

Often, after I’m done researching and organizing, I take a walk or otherwise just allow my ancestor’s experiences and life to just kind of simmer and percolate for a day or two.

Write Your Article

You may have noticed that I name each 52 Ancestors article. Each person has something that is defining or remarkable about their life.

My friend knew that her great-grandfather had been shot and killed. The story was rather hush-hush and no one would discuss it in her family. She ordered the old newspaper films from that location into her local Family History Center.

I was there the night she found the newspaper article about her great-grandfather’s death. She emitted a shriek that rivaled any smoke detector. We weren’t sure if that was a death rattle or just what, so all of the patrons and librarians went running in her direction. She couldn’t even talk. As we’re all fawning over her, she just gasped and pointed to the microfilm reader in front of her where the front page newspaper headline said, “Shot on the Whore House Steps.” Yep, it was her great-grandfather and yep, I’d say that was a defining event.

Now that you’ve gathered the information about your ancestor, sifted and sorted the correct and relevant from the chaff, organized it as best you can, you’ll need to decide how to write the article. In general, I utilize the timeline methodology, with a few segways. I find this to be easiest to follow, in most cases. The segways are often for historical discussions about things that were occurring or relevant socially and adds flavor to their life. After the segway, which is in the timeline-appropriate place, I continue with the events of my ancestor’s lives. I try very hard to write these articles with a narrative story feel and not the dry names and dates feel that genealogy often has. I want their life experiences to come through, for people who read the article to know them as people and see life through their eyes.

I want you to leave the story knowing what a vinedresser is, even though you had never heard this word before. I want you to know what they do, when, and why. I want my grandchildren to be inspired by these stories and to know the people well enough that when the story is over, they want to go and play “Jakob the vinedresser” and have enough information to do so.

I often don’t name these articles until during or after I write them, because it’s really not until after I utilize every scrap of information that I can discover about their lives, and percolated a bit, that I feel I “know” them well enough to select an article name. More often than not, the article pretty much names itself…or maybe it’s my ancestor helping out.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Maria Margaretha Grubler (1748-1823), A Woman of Steel Resolve,52 Ancestors #129

Posted on August 7, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Maria Margaretha Grubler or Gribler (present day spelling) was born on May 4^th, 1748 and baptized the same day in Beutelsbach, Wurttemberg, Germany to Johann George Grubler and Katharina Nopp, both also of Beutelsbach. This family is indexed incorrectly at Ancestry, under the surname Brabler and a wide variety of other ways as well that don’t remotely resemble their actual surnames.

We don’t know much about Maria Margaretha’s youth, except that she was Lutheran much as everyone else in Beutelsbach, and she was an only child – a rare occurrence in a time when pregnancies routinely occurred every 18-24 months and there was little, if anything, one could do to prevent that aside from abstinence.

Like other German girls, she was likely called by her middle name, Margaretha – an enchanting and beautiful name.

Margaretha may have originally been a Scandinavian name, where it means pearl. It’s found in some format in almost all European languages.

Beutelsbach has provided an invaluable service to genealogists seeking their family by reassembling the historical families from church and other records and providing the information online, and for free.

These records allow us to search specifically at Ancestry in their Wurttemberg Germany, Lutheran Baptisms, Marriage and Burials, 1500-1985 (which includes Buetelsbach) records collection for events like baptisms, marriages, births of children and burials. In German families in the 1700s, these are the activities and events that defined your life, especially if you were a female.

Margaretha grew up in this small village of just a few hundred people not far from the Rems River, where the hillsides sloped upwards and were filled with grapevines and vineyards. Beutelsbach is dab smack in the middle of the German wine region and the countryside is dotted with small villages, either within sight of each other or nearly so – scattered just far enough apart to have their own church and for people to walk to the nearby vineyards to work daily. In German villages, people lived centrally and walked a mile or so to their fields, or the fields they rented or worked for the landowners, the gentry. In Beutelsbach, the people who owned the fields would have lived in the Manor House, up on the hillside, overlooking the village. You can see the manor house in the drawing below. Today, the manor house is a hotel and conference center. I’d love to visit!

This beautiful view of Beutelsbach from 1598 was found in the forest register books created by Andreas Kieser. It probably didn’t look much different in 1748 when Maria Margaretha was born.

Beutelsbach and other nearly small villages have been joined together today administratively as the city of Weinstadt.

Margaretha’s father, Johann Georg Grubler, died on November 27, 1764 when he was 55 and she was 16 years old. They buried him the next day. This was probably Maria Margaretha’s first dealing with death up close and personal, as two of her grandparents died before she was born, one died a year after her birth and one when she was 4, so she never knew her grandparents – nor would she remember their funerals.

Church records don’t reflect any additional children for Maria Margaretha’s parents, but it would be highly unusual for a couple in that time who clearly could have children to have only one child. However, information unearthed by my friendly German genealogist, Tom, indicates that Maria Margaretha’s mother didn’t marry until she was 37 years old, on October 26, 1745, had Maria Margaretha in May 1748, at age 40, and never conceived another child. Knowing this, the fact that Maria Margaretha had no siblings makes a lot more sense – but she was probably the only “only child” in the entire village!

Eight years after Margaretha’s father’s death, she married Jakob Lenz, a vinedresser, on November 3, 1772. Given that Jakob’s parents had also lived in Beutelsbach their entire lives, Jakob and Margaretha likely had known each other since they were small children playing in the sunshine. They were only 3 months apart in age and were 24 years old when they married.

The document above, from the Lutheran church in Beutelsbach shows their marriage record. It says they were “married the 18th Sunday after Trinity and that Jacob Lenz was the legitimate unmarried son of the citizen and vinedresser, Jacob Lentz from here. Maria Margaretha is the legitimate unmarried daughter of the late Johann George Grubler, citizen and vinedresser from here.”

So both of their fathers worked in those vineyards above Beutelsbach. Their fathers had probably known each other their entire lives as well.

While Margaretha’s father didn’t join them on their wedding day, he was nearby, most likely buried in the churchyard just outside. The cemetery beside the church was the burial site for the House of Wurttemberg until 1311 when the official burials took place in Stuttgart. Certainly the local people continued to use the church burial ground.

Jakob Lenz and Maria Margaretha Grubler had 9 children, their first child being born just days after their first wedding anniversary.

Katharina Barbara Lenz was born November 17, 1773 and died September 4, 1817 in Beutelsbach of epilepsy. She never married. This makes me wonder if she was epileptic for her entire life. I expect she lived with her parents. Perhaps it was a blessing that she died before they did.

Katharina Barbara’s birth and baptism records are shown above, and death entry in the church records, below.

Katharina Barbara’s parents, now age 69 would have weeped beside their firstborn child’s grave. They buried their first child 44 years after she was born. They buried their second-born within weeks of his birth.

Jakob Lenz was born July 12, 1775 and died September 1, 1775 in Beutelsbach.

Jakob’s birth record above, and death entry in the church records, below.

On a late summer’s day, holding their first-born daughter, now 22 months old and perhaps with epilepsy, they would have buried their son, not yet 6 weeks old. This was not a happy family portrait.

Maria Magdalena Lenz was born October 1, 1776 and died November 1, 1849 in Beutelsbach of weakness of old age. She too never married.

Maria Magdalena’s birth is recorded above, and her death in the church records, below.

Johannes Lenz was born January 16, 1779 in Beutelsbach and died October 29, 1813 in Beutelsbach. He was single and the cause of death; stickfluss (bronchitis or pneumonia). Occupation not given. Tom indicates that the word gebrachi is used which means frail or infirm, so he may never have been well.

Johannes’ birth record is shown above, and his death entry in the church records, below.

Philipp Jakob Lenz was born April 30, 1781 and died March 1, 1789 in Beutelsbach.

Philipp Jakob’s birth is shown in the records above, and his death, below. He lived to be almost 8 years old, past the dangerous first year or two. His parents must have been devastated at his death. His death record doesn’t indicate a cause of death.

Maria Margaretha’s mother, herself a widow, likely lived very close to Margaretha, if not with Margaretha and Jakob. On July 26, 1781, Margaretha’s mother died. Being an only child, Margaretha would have laid her mother to rest beside her father who died 17 years earlier.

Given that Maria Margaretha had no siblings, her mother’s death would have been her last immediate family member to pass over. Siblings help to cushion the blow, but with no siblings, Margaretha may have truly felt orphaned at 33.

On the other hand, with 4 living children at home, including a 3 month old infant, Maria Margaretha would have been very busy. Perhaps that was a good thing because she did not have time to dwell upon her mother’s death. On the other hand, in a small village, every time she would have passed by the house where she was raised, she would clearly have remembered her parents. Every Sunday attending church, she would pass by her parents graves. Did that make Maria Margaretha feel comforted that they were close, or sad that they were so close, yet so far away?

Life moved on, and Maria Margaretha continued to have 4 more children.

Jakob Lenz was born March 15, 1783 and left to emigrate to America just before his 34^th birthday. This is my ancestor whose story is absolutely incredible. So incredible, in fact, that we had to tell the story in two parts, plus a third for his wife, Johanna Friedericka Ruhle whom he married on May 25, 1808 in Beutelsbach. The church records tell us that Jakob left with his family to immigrate on February 12, 1817.
Katharina Margaretha Lenz was born November 2, 1785, died January 6, 1858 and married Johann Conrad Gos on April 21, 1807 in Beutelsbach.

Katharina Margaretha Lenz’s birth is shown above and her death is shown in the church records below.

At Katharina Margaretha’s death on January 6, 1858, she is listed as daughter of Jakob Lenz, vinedresser and Maria Griblerin, the trailing “in” often added to maiden names of single women. Griberlin, the way it’s written, indicates that Gribler was her mother’s maiden, not married, name. Katharina Margaretha is also noted as the wife of Joh. Conrad Gos, bricklayer assistant who emigrated. She died of weakness of old age.

Katharina Margaretha had 5 children. Her husband, Johann Conrad left for Russia in 1817 where he died before the 1823 birth of Katharina’s last child, Jakob Freidrich Gos in Beutelsbach. Jakob Freidrich’s birth record is shown below.

Jacob Freiderich died in the poorhouse of emaciation and “wasting” in 1857, according to the church record below, which according to Tom, means he had tuberculosis. His occupation was that of a hafner (potter). He died the year before his mother.

It was initially unclear to me whether Jakob Freidrich was the son of Johann Conrad Goss, perhaps home for a visit, or the son of a different father. However, Tom translated the original records and answered that question, although it’s not exactly forthright.

Jakob Freidrich Gos’s baptismal record states:

Child’s parents: Katharina Margaretha, the late Konrad Gos, citizen and brickmaker, from here surviving widow.

The father according to the record extracts, noch ………..16 January 1824.

According to Tom, Jakob Friedrich Gos was considered illegitimate. His birth entry indicates his father was deceased and his death entry call him Jakob Friedrich Lenz, not Gos.

This is highly suggestive that Katharina Margaretha, while either married or a widow, conceived Jakob Freidrich and perhaps the clergy didn’t quite know what to say. Maybe the village knew Konrad Gos was dead, but didn’t know exactly when he died – and Katherina Margaretha wasn’t telling. Maybe the presumption of illegitimacy was not enough to pronounce Jakob Freidrich illegitimate at his birth.

However, the recording clerk or minister when Jakob Freidrich died 33 years later seemed to have no problem making that distinction by reverting him to his mother’s maiden name and labeling him “spurious,” meaning illegitimate.

In Tom’s words, “his father is clearly a mystery. If the child’s father acknowledged the birth at the time of his baptism or even later (in writing or as an affirmation to the minister), then the child would be considered legitimate. This was not done in this case as far as I can determine.”

We’ll never know for sure, because Jakob Freidrich Gos or Lenz never married, so never had children, at least none that we know about. If he had produced sons, we would have the possibility of Y DNA testing to see if his sons’ direct male descendants match Gos men or men by some other surname. Katharina Margaretha’s secret, if in fact it was a secret at all, has already gone to the grave. In a small village, there may have been very few true secrets.

While Katharina Margaretha was probably a bit scandalous as a widow bearing a child, we always have to consider the possibility that the conception wasn’t consensual and she may not have been the merry widow at all, but a victim. That would also be one reason the father would never have acknowledged the child.

Jakob Freidrich may never have been healthy, and Katharina Margaretha was apparently left to raise him alone. There was no happy ending to this story.

Johanna was born June 22, 1788 (although the Beutelsbach history information says July 2) and died October 10, 1788 in Beutelsbach.

Johanna’s birth record is shown above, and her death entry in the church book, below. Her mother only got to love her, in this world anyway, for three and a half months.

Christina born January 1, 1793, died “8-13” but no year given. The Beutelsbach history information says “probably 1793,” but as it turns out, this was incorrect.

Tom found Christina’s actual death record, shown below, on August 13, 1872 in Beutelsbach of cholera nostras, an acute bacterial disease caused by drinking fecally contaminated water.

There were cholera epidemics in Germany in both 1871 and 1873. The 1873 episode was noted as the worst cholera epidemic Germany had ever suffered. No cholera was listed in Germany for 1872, although obviously it was still lurking and was found in both Russia and Hungary in 1872. It’s only 400 miles from Beutelsbach to the border with Hungary, so that’s about the distance from Raleigh, NC to Washington, DC, an easy half day drive today.

Of Maria Margaretha and Jakob’s nine children:

3 children, 2 boys and 1 girl, died as children at 2 months, 3 months and 8 years of age
2 died as adults, but before their parents, having never married
2 married and had children
The son who had children immigrated to America in 1817
The husband of the daughter who had children left for Russia in 1817
2 daughters lived to adulthood but never married
Only 4 children outlived their parents
There were no sons left in Germany to care for either their aging mother or unmarried sisters upon the parents’ deaths
Two of Maria Margaretha’s sons were named Jakob. A third was named Philipp Jakob and was probably called Jakob. No confusion there!

It’s not terribly unusual in German records to name a second child the name of a child that died, but I still find that custom a bit disconcerting. In my very 20^thCentury American way of thinking, each child needs their own name so that you can remember and honor them properly. How do you differentiate the first child Jakob who died from the second child Jakob who lived? There were a total of 5 Jakobs in this family; grandfather, father, son who died, son who lived, son Philipp Jakob who would have been called Jakob, who also died, but after the second Jakob was born. In other words, for a few years, they had two sons who would have been called Jakob.

When you speak about Jakob Lenz, for example, do you speak about the one who was born and died at just over 6 weeks of age in 1775 as “the first Jakob,” His father might have been referred to that way, or even his grandfather who was also Johann Jakob Lenz. Or do you refer to that first child as “the dead baby Jakob,” or do you just never refer to that child that passed? Unlike stillborn children or those who died shortly after death, the first Jakob survived for more than 6 weeks. Not in this family, but I have seen even a third child given that same identical name if the second child died. In this case, I suspect they wanted to have a child named Jakob after his father, and grandfather.

It’s somehow ironic that of 9 births recorded in the church records, only two of Margaretha’s children would give her grandchildren. One of those, Jacob left in 1817 for America, taking his four living children of course, who would have been ages 11, 8, 3 and 6 months old. Maria Margaretha never knew the rest of his children, born in America, and youngest two born in Germany would not have remembered their grandmother.

In 1775, Maria Margaretha buried her second-born child at about 6 weeks of age, in 1781 she buried her mother, then in 1788, she buried a child three months old. The next year, in 1789, another child died just before their 8^th birthday. That must have been particularly difficult, because after infancy, you feel somewhat safe that they will survive.

Other than friends and distant family who lived in the village, Maria Margaretha had a reprieve for a few years, but the family deaths began again in October 1813 when her adult son, born in 1779 died of pneumonia.

Maria Margaretha would have stood by the small grave of her grandchild, Johannes, when they buried him five months later, on March 9^th, 1814, a baby of 2 years and 3 months old, nearly the same age as one of her own children when she buried them. Another child she loved and lost.

A third grandchild, Elizabeth Katharina Lenz, died on the ship en route to America. In many ways, when Maria Margaretha kissed and hugged her grandchildren goodbye for the last time in the winter of 1817, they would have been functionally dead to her, given that she would never see them again. But receiving the letter that told of Elizabeth’s death, at age 4 or so, would have been devastating news. Maria Margaretha thought she was sending Elizabeth off to a new, better, life, not to a watery grave.

After son Jakob left for America in the later winter or early spring of 1817, he became shipwrecked in Norway in the fall after nearly starving to death on the high seas, and was stranded in Bergen, Norway for nearly another year. Surely, if Jakob was able to get a letter to Germany, Margaretha would have known about his predicament and been worried sick. Jakob and family managed to get themselves on another ship a year later, only to nearly perish on that voyage as well, and then had to sell themselves into indentured servitude to pay for their second passage after arrival in America.

Maybe Margaretha didn’t know those details. Maybe she did, afterwards, and was simply glad they were alive. Where there is life, there is hope. There were other Beutelsbach residents on those ill-fated ships as well, so Margaretha wasn’t alone in her grief.

In September of 1817, while Jakob’s ship was floundering on the high seas, Maria Margaretha buried another child, Katharina Barbara, who died of epilepsy at age 44. I have read accounts of people who died of increasingly worsening epileptic seizures and the reports are horrific. A small part of their brain is destroyed with each seizure and the damage is cumulative over the years, until they are often childlike, then infantile, as adults, ravaged by seizures they dread, terribly, can often feel beginning, and can do nothing to control. Maria Margaretha, after caring for her firstborn for 44 years, may have thanked God for taking her “home” so that she didn’t have to worry about if and how Katharina Barbara would be cared for after Maria Margaretha herself passed over. Maria Margaretha must have been keenly aware of her own mortality.

If Maria Margaretha believed in literal “Heaven,” she would have taken comfort in knowing that she would see her child again, on the other side of the pearly gates and Katharina Barbara would be “whole” in Heaven. That is probably what Maria Margaretha wanted more desperately than anything else in her life. But it was not to be in this world.

I can only imagine the horror Maria Margaretha felt to see her child convulse for the first time, and the second, and the third…for 44 long years. Maria Margaretha obviously took very good care of Katharina Barbara or she would never have lived for those 44 years.

Maria Margaretha’s other child who married and gave her grandchildren, her and her mother’s namesake, Katharina Margaretha, married on April 21, 1807 to Johann Conrad Gos. Katharina Margaretha had children in 1808 and 1812, but then in 1814, the third child died 12 days after birth, just before Christmas, on December 19^th. This was the second grandchild that Maria Margaretha buried in 1814 with three burials of children and grandchildren in just over a year. I have a feeling there was no joy in that Christmas season.

A fourth grandchild was born to Katharina Margaretha in 1817, the same year that her husband immigrated to Russia, leaving Katharina Margaretha and the children behind. This is an odd situation. We don’t know if Katharina Margaretha refused to leave for Russia, so he went without her. We don’t know if she planned to join him later, then didn’t. Did her pregnancy interfere? Did he go for work and perish? Did he return to visit in 1822, hence the conception of Jakob Freidrich?

What we do know is that Katharina Margaretha had another son, Jakob Freidrich, on February 19, 1823, according to the church records, whose surname was Gos at his baptism. She is mentioned as a widow, although the baptism didn’t take place until 1824. However, Jakob Freidrich’s death record shows him as illegitimate and with the surname of Lenz.

On July 2, 1821, Maria Margaetha’s husband, Jakob Lenz died of a fever typically found in people with tuberculosis. In other words, she likely had to take care of Jakob for weeks or months before his death. Maria Margaretha would have been 73 years old, no spring chicken herself, that’s for sure. Perhaps her daughters who never married and lived at home helped their mother.

On July 5, 1823, Maria Margaretha died – two years and 3 days after her husband, Jakob.

Her death record in the church book, above, translates as follows:

Page 25.
Entry 22.
Maria Margarethe Lentz,
Born here 4 May 1748
Evangelical
Parents: the late Johann Georg Grubler, citizen and vinedresser here and Katharina nee Nopp.
Wife of the late Jakob Lentz, citizen and vinedresser here.
Age: 75y2m
Cause of Death: Dropsy or Edema
Place and Time of Death: here, 5 July 1823 at 3 pm
Place and Date of Burial: here, 7 July 1823 at 10 am
Folio 421 (Family Register)
Ist hier geschult und aufgezogen worden. Has been schooled and raised here.

They even tell us what time she died and what time she was buried. Gotta love those precise Germans.

Dropsy is an old term for edema, which means the collection of fluid in the cavities of the body. Often, this is a symptom of congestive heart failure. People with pulmonary edema often pass away of pneumonia. I hope she died quickly and in her sleep without suffering so that she could see her children, grandchildren, husband and parents once again.

Maria Margaretha’s son, Jakob, was in America. Her daughter Maria Magdalena never married and didn’t die until 1849, so she must have been living at home with her mother, as was her daughter Christina who died in 1872. Perhaps the third daughter, Katharine Margaretha, whose husband left in 1817 and subsequently died, lived in the family home as well, along with her children and infant son born February 19, 1823, just under 5 months before her mother would pass away.

I have to wonder, who took care of these 4 women after Jakob Lenz died in 1821, and the three adult daughters after Maria Margaretha died in 1823? How did they earn money to survive? Did they become charity cases? Their death records don’t mention the poor house.

I’m sure friends attended Maria Margaretha’s funeral, but only three children and four grandchildren stood by her grave. That a very, very low number for a woman born in the mid-1700s in Germany. Of course, Maria Margaretha buried 3 offspring as children, two as adults, waved goodbye to one who emigrated to America and cared for 2 daughters who never married and outlived her. That only leaves one child in Germany having children among 9 who were born.

Maria Margaretha’s DNA

As hard as it is to believe, given the children that Maria Margaretha had, there is only one daughter who had children, and of those children, only one granddaughter. The church records tell us that Friederika Gos was born on January 12, 1817 in Beutelsbach and the Beutelsbach records indicate that she died after 1842 in Steinreinach. We don’t know if she married.

If she married and had daughters, she would have passed Maria Margaretha’s mitochondrial DNA on to them. If that daughter has descendants today who descend from her through all daughters, they would carry Maria Margaretha’s mitochondrial DNA.

You can see how the different kinds of DNA are passed to offspring in this short article.

If one of those descendants, through all daughters, took the mitochondrial DNA test, we could discover additional history for Maria Margaretha Grubler Lenz.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed unmixed with the father’s DNA, so it reaches back in time relatively unchanged, except for an occasional mutation, and we can tell a great deal about population migration and where our ancestors came from. The story of our ancestors is written in our DNA, and the story of Maria Margaretha’s matrilineal ancestors is written in her mitochondrial DNA, if it still exists in descedants today.

If someone does descend from Maria Margaretha through all females to the current generation, which can be a male, I have a DNA testing scholarship available for that person.

I hope that the final chapter for Maria Margaretha has not been written.

In addition to mitochondrial DNA, current descendants could well carry part of Maria Margaretha’s autosomal DNA – passed to her from both of her parents and representing her ancestors, which of course, are our ancestors too.

It’s possible that if someone descended from Maria Margaretha through any child (not just females) would match other descendants today autosomally. I would be fourth cousins with someone in my same generation descended from Maria Margaretha’s daughter, Katherina Margaretha. Some people who are 4^th cousins don’t carry any of the same autosomal DNA of their common ancestor, but some do.

I would be third cousins with anyone descended from Jacob Lentz, Maria Margaretha’s son, through a child other than Margaret Lentz (also my ancestor). Third cousins share more DNA than 4^th cousins, and I do match two Lentz third cousins.

If anyone else descends from Maria Margaretha Grubler/Gribler or Jakob Lenz, or these lines from Beutelsbach, I’d love to make your acquaintance.

Summary

I’m sure there were moments of great joy in Maria Margaretha’s life. Some of those are recorded as her marriage, her children’s marriages and the births of her children in the church records. Other than that, we don’t know what was joyful in Maria Margaretha’s life and made her smile. What did she like to do? Her favorite food? I wish we knew.

Great griefs and sadness are recorded in those ancient church books as well – the saddest of days were when parents, your spouse and children passed to the other side.

Aside from what is recorded in the church records, we know that beginning in 1803, the Napoleonic Wars spread fear, turbulence and social strife throughout Europe.

In 1816, following the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815 in Indonesia, the atmosphere was so full of particulate matter that 1816 was known as “the year without a summer” when the weather was so cold that crops failed throughout Europe and America. Some people starved. Harvests failed, including grapes. Prices skyrocket and riots for food ensued. This was not a good time to be alive and it probably seemed like the Biblical end of the world. Maria Margaretha was taking care of an adult epileptic daughter who clearly would never be able to take care of herself. Maria Margaretha must have worried increasingly about her daughter as she herself aged. Providence would soon step in and take care of that question, but what a grief-filled solution. There was no good outcome possible – only bad and worse.

Life was difficult and sometimes devastating for the last 20 years or so of Maria Margaretha’s life. However, she persevered.

In my mind’s eye, I can see her marching forward, through whatever she had to march through, scratched up, bleeding, perhaps very thin, a tearstained face, but head held high and still marching forward through whatever adversity fate served up next. That is the picture I will always hold of Maria Margaretha Grubler, a woman of steel resolve.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Catharina Schaeffer (c1775-c1826) and the Invisible Hand of Providence, 52 Ancestors #127

Posted on July 24, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Catharina Schaeffer was born about 1774 to Johann Nicholas Schaeffer and Susanna DeTurk in Berks County, Pennsylvania. While many church records still exist and are available for the genealogist, it appears that none of Nicholas Schaeffer’s children are found in the existing records – at least none that I’ve been able to find.

Although we do have Catharina’s father’s estate documents, there is no final distribution that includes Catharina by her married name, nor a mention of her husband, Peter Gephart. In fact, there is no final distribution in that estate packet at all.

Catharina didn’t marry until 1799, half way through the estate settlement, so it’s not like she is absent in something where she should be present. However, given this tiny shred of ambiguity, I was very pleased to have autosomal DNA matches to descendants of Catharina’s parents and Schaeffer grandparents through other children.

Catharina’s father, Johann Nicholas Schaeffer, died on November 2, 1796, according to his estate documents.

A petition filed on April 3, 1798 relative to real estate lists Nicholas’s children, as follows:

John Schaeffer, Esther wife of Jacob Miller, Catharine, Daniel, Susanna, Mary, Elizabeth and Jacob, the 4 last of whom are minors. Nicholas’s widow is noted as Susanna.

Catherine is the anglicized version of the German Catharina. The one document where she signs her name with an X, her name is given as Catharina so that is the name I’m using.

The 1798 document from her father’s estate tells us that Catharina is at least 21 years old, meaning she was born before April 3, 1777. Furthermore, I suspect that these children are listed in age order, given that we know from other estate documents that John is the eldest (born on May 30, 1771) and we know from this document that the youngest are listed last.

If the children were born every 2 years, and none died, then the 4 youngest would have been roughly 19, 17, 15 and 13. By inference Daniel would have been 21 and Catherina 23. So we can comfortably say that Catherina was born about 1775 and unquestionably between 1773 and 1777, even if the middle three children are listed out of order.

Initially, Susanna, Nicholas’s widow, is awarded executorship, but she petitions the court to find another executor, at which point Valentine Gephart/Gebhart is appointed.

Nicholas’ estate mentions several Gephart men both in the list of accounts and at the estate sale, so these families were closely affiliated and probably near neighbors.

Catharina Schaeffer married Johann Peter Gephart Jr., known as Peter, on March 24, 1799 in Christ Lutheran Church in Berks County, known today as Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church.

The church, built in 1743, is still functioning today and this beautiful photo is from their Facebook page. I would like to think that Catherina’s memories of this church were glowing and beautiful, full of the freshness and hope of new love. That chapter in her life wouldn’t last long.

Peter was born on June 10, 1771 and was the son of Johann Peter Gebhart and Eva, last name unknown.

On November 2, 1799, Catharina had daughter Elizabeth Gephart followed by son, John Gephart born on February 26, 1801.

It’s likely that Catherina had a child that was born and died in 1803, or perhaps the child didn’t die until 1804 sometime. It would be terribly unusual for a woman to not become pregnant at that age from 1802 through December 1804 without having a child in-between those dates. According to Peter’s estate papers and later guardianship records, there was no child born, that lived, after 1801. Neither was Catherina pregnant when Peter died in December 1804.

The Western Fever

According to research by Kierby Stetler and Gene Mozley:

In the year 1803, four men from Tulpehocken Twp., Berks County, went to Ohio to see the country and if they liked it, planned to buy some property and move their families onto it. They found some land they liked about 60 miles east of Cincinnati which was owned by a man in Virginia. They met with the owners’ agent in Ohio and contracted to purchase 1000 acres, then started for Virginia to close the deal with the owner. However, by the time they arrived at the man’s residence, he had died. Disappointed and exhausted from the trip, they returned to their homes in Berks County.

They gave such glowing accounts of the State of Ohio that the “western ern fever” became an epidemic in the neighborhood. As a result, 24 families decided to sell out and move to Ohio the following spring. A few in the meantime had moved to Center Co, PA but arrangements to join the group were made with them by letter. It was agreed that all would start as such a time as to meet in Pittsburgh on or about the same day. In this group from Berks County were our George Stettler, his children and grandchildren. George was nearly 65 years of age at this time.

The Stettler family would be Catharina and Peter Gephart’s neighbor to the south, in Montgomery County, Ohio.

In 1804, as one of the group of 24 families from Berks County, Catharina and Peter Gephart, along with their 2 young children joined the wagon train and made their way from Berks County, Pennsylvania to Montgomery County, Ohio.

The distance between Maiden Creek Township in Berks County and Miamisburg, in Montgomery County, near Peter Gephart’s land, is about 513 miles, which equated to about 51 days in a wagon. I would have been a long and tiresome journey, that’s for sure. However, there was a better route. The History of German Township, Montgomery County, Ohio tells us more:

The following are the names of those heads of families who came to this valley from Pennsylvania in the 1804 colony, some of whom, however, settled outside the present limits of German Township: Philip Gunckel, Christopher, John and William Emerick (who were brothers), George Kiester, Jacob Bauer, George Moyer, John Gunckel (who subsequently returned to Pennsylvania), John and Christopher Shuppert. Peter Gebhart, George Stettler and his five sons, William, Henry, Daniel. George and Jacob, John Barlet, Abraham Puntius and George Kern (who came with them as far as Cincinnati, where he remained two years, coming to this township in 1806). There were twenty-four families of them when they started from Pennsylvania, but they did not all get to the Twin Valley. Some dropped off on their way hither and settled elsewhere, while others remained so short a time that they cannot be claimed as pioneers of this valley. The names of all such have been omitted.

We can see from the above list that the 24 dwindled to 19, and then to 18 when one family returned to Pennsylvania, then to 17 with the death of Peter Gephart. The following year, in 1805, another group arrived that included Valentine Gephart, among others.

There is actually a very important clue in the History of German Township information, and that is that George Kern came as far as Cincinnati. This tells us that these pioneers only came part way by wagon, likely as far as Pittsburg, where they purchased rafts and floated downriver to Cincinnati. Had they come overland, they would not have dropped south to Cincinnati, as it would have been out of the way.

From Cincinnati, they would have headed north to what is now Montgomery County.

It’s “only” 270 miles to Pittsburg, or 27 days in a wagon, from Berk’s County.

From Pittsburg, the caravan of German settlers would have floated down the Ohio from Pittsburg to Cincinnati on a flatboat.

In Cincinnati they would have unloaded the flatboat and purchased or hired wagons once again in order to head for Montgomery County. It’s only 50 miles or so from Cincinnati to Miamisburg, in Miami Township, only a mile or so from where Catharina and Peter Gephart would settle, beside the Stettlers.

This “Miami Township” article by Jacob Zimmer, probably written in the 1880s, given that John Gephart died in 1887, tells us more:

It was in the spring or summer of 1804, that John Shupert, wife and six children, Christopher, Frederick, Jacob, Eva, Peggy and Tena, came from Berks County, Penn., locating about one mile southwest of “Hole’s Station,” where he and wife lived until death. Christopher was married and had one son, John, when the family located here, the latter of whom is now residing in the township. In the same colony from Berks County, Penn., came Peter Gebhart, wife and two children, John and Elizabeth, settling a short distance southwest of the station, where Peter died the same year. His son, John, now a very old man, is still a resident of Miami Township. Most of this colony from Berks County settled in German Township.

Hole’s Station became Miamisburg in 1818.

Another account of the 1804 journey is given in the book “Twin Valley” b J. P. Hentz, published in 1883:

They set out on their westward journey in the spring of 1804. Such a journey was at that time no small undertaking. It required many weeks for its accomplishment and was attended by no small degree of danger and hardship. The goods, women and children had to be conveyed by wagon over rough mountain roads. The country through which the emigrants had to pass was yet but thinly settled; wild beasts such as wolves, bears and panthers were still abounding in the forests; and Indians, more savage than savage brutes, were still lurking in forest and mountain fastness. At night they usually encamped by some stream, and whilst one party laid down to sleep, another kept watch around the encampment. Exposure and malaria often caused serious illness, and not unfrequently one fell victim to disease and was buried by the wayside. Our friends, on their way through Pennsylvania experienced many of these evils; they arrived however, at the time agreed upon in Pittsburgh without having met with any serious accident. Here they engaged river boats, on which they put their chattels and families, and then paddled down the Ohio River. Cincinnati was their destination by water. After a trip of about a week they landed at the latter place. This event occurred on the 20^th day of June, 1804. From Cincinnati they went to New Reading, a hamlet not far distant where they arrived a fortnight, considering what next to do or where to next to direct their steps. A few of them found employment here and remained, but to the majority this did not seem as their Canaan.

They again took up their line of march, this time their course lay northward. They had heard of the Miami Valley and desired to locate in it, but they had no definite objective point in view, trusting rather to fortune and the guiding hand of Providence. Some distance north of Cincinnati they entered this Valley and were delighted with the country. It was so very different from the rugged mountain country which they had left in Pennsylvania. No mountains and rocks were to be seen here. The forests were much taller, the soil was more productive and the surface much more level than in the country from which they came. They passed over many an attractive spot where they might have located, but they moved on, doubtlessly prompted and guided by the invisible hand of Providence, until they reached the vicinity of the present site of Miamisburg. Here lived a wealthy farmer, whose name was Nutz, who spoke German. They were glad to meet a gentleman who spoke their own tongue. With him they stopped to rest and refresh themselves and after forming his acquaintance and finding him a genial and kindhearted man, they concluded to encamp awhile on his farm. It was now midsummer and the weather being warm and pleasant, they took up abode in the woods where they lived in wagons and temporary huts, for about two weeks.

A Mr. Philip Gunckel, being a man of superior intelligence and the only person among them who spoke the English language with any degree of fluency was for these reasons looked upon as a leader of the group. He searched the area looking for a proper location to build a mill, as he was by occupation a miller, “and at last found the object of which he was in search on Big Twin Creek, a branch of the Miami River. The precise point chosen by Mr. Gunckel was about 6 miles from the mouth of this stream, now within the corporate limits of Germantown. When he made known his decision to his companions, they all concluded to settle near around him. Upon this the encampment on the Nutz farm was at once broken up, the immigrants forded the Miami River, crossed over to the western bank ascended the steep bluffs adjoining and then traveled on in the direction of the Twin creek. And here, by the side of this stream, they rested at the end of their long and wearisome journey. Here now was their future home.”

Before winter set in, they had secured land and erected some sort of dwellings. The first winter was a long and lonely one. They had harvested no crops the previous year, nor had they earned anything with which to procure the necessaries of life, having spent nearly the whole summer in their journey. Provisions, even if they had the means would have been difficult to procure, as the settlers were but few and had just begun to clear away the forest, and did not raise more than their own wants required. Game was plenty, however. They did not starve during this winter, but they were obliged to live on a small allowance.

Early the following spring, they went to work to clear away the trees, turn up the soil and sow and plant. Their hardest work such as clearing, log-rolling buildings and harvesting was mostly done by crowds, collected together for the purpose from the entire settlement. They made, as they called it, a frolic of it; that is they united into a sort of one-family arrangement, and did their work by succession, first on one place, then on a second and third, etc., until they had made the round and had got through with all. They continued this habit of mutual assistance for many years and great harmony and good feeling prevailed among them.

Religiously, they were either Lutherans or Reformeds, and as in those days it used to be said that all the difference between the denominations was that in the Lord’s Prayer, the one said, “Vater Unser,” and the other said “Unser Vater.”

Unser Vater translates to “Our Father.”

Catharina’s husband Peter Gephart along with George Moyer filed a joint land claim after their arrival in 1804 and agreed upon how they would divide the land.

Widowed

By December 1804, Peter was dead and Catharina, about age 30, was left in Ohio just months after arriving with 2 small children and few resources. Losing a husband is tragic, but losing your husband on the frontier just months after arrival and before becoming established, with no food or resources is a disaster. It’s a good thing there was a group of settlers, even though there were only 17 families, otherwise Catharina and her children might not have survived that initial winter. They obviously shared their food with Catharina and her children. By the winter of 1805, Catharina had remarried.

Were it not for the fact that Catharina was widowed, we would have little information about her life. For that matter, were it not for the fact that she was widowed, she would not be my ancestor.

Daniel Miller was appointed by the court to be the executor of Peter Gephart’s estate. We don’t know why, especially given that Catharina was Lutheran and Daniel was Brethren, but regardless of why, it was a fortuitous turn of events. It could possibly have been because Daniel also spoke German, although so did the rest of the Berks County group, although perhaps the Berk’s county group was not yet considered “established” or could not post the required bond. Furthermore, Daniel Miller may have spoken English as well, an important asset in dealing with the court. Daniel was also an Elder in the Brethren Church, so certainly considered to be a respectable man. And he lived close by.

Daniel’s son, David Miller, was 5 or 6 years younger than Catharina and either unmarried or a widower himself. I’d wager a bet that David set about helping Catharina with clearing her land and farm chores. After all, Catharina had a 3 and 5 year old child and couldn’t leave them alone to go out to chop trees and work the fields.

Catharina Remarries

One thing led to another, and well, let’s say that human nature, being what it is, Catharina became pregnant in September of 1805, followed by Catharina and David’s marriage in Warren County, Ohio on December 13, 1805. Their first child, David B. Miller, was born the following June. In a small, conservative, community, that must have been somewhat of a scandal, because it’s not like no one would notice. Furthermore, while they were both German, they were religiously “mixed,” she being Lutheran and he being Brethren. That probably didn’t go over well with either group. However, it’s not like there were other Lutherans to choose from in terms of a spouse – the community was quite small, so maybe marrying a German was “the best” they could hope for at that time and both communities were more tolerant than they might otherwise have been. At least, I hope so.

Subsequently, David Miller was appointed guardian for Catharina’s two children, a very common event for a step-father. This guardianship would have been in relation to the land and any other resources that the children would stand to inherit from their father’s estate when they came of age, in 1820 and 1822, respectively.

The 1806 guardianship order records Elizabeth Gephart as being age 8 and John is noted as being age 5.

Probably about this time, Catharina would have converted to being Brethren from Lutheran. We know that David Miller remained a Brethren, as he would have been dismissed from the church had Catherina not converted. Whether she truly converted, or did so in name only to keep peace in the household and larger community, we’ll never know. One hint might be if we could determine whether or not her Gephart children were Brethren. If they were, she was. If they weren’t, then it’s unlikely that she converted in more than name only.

Given that Catharina’s son, John, is buried in the Stettler (Lutheran) Cemetery just down the road half a mile from Peter Gephart’s land and Elizabeth Gephart Hipple is buried in a non-Brethren Cemetery in Miamisburg, it’s unlikely that either child was Brethren. So, I’d wager that Catharina was technically Brethren, in name if not entirely in spirit.

In 1810, Daniel Miller as executor of Peter Gephart’s estate, Catherina Miller as his former wife and the mother of his 2 children, and David Miller as her current husband and guardian of her children petition the Montgomery County court and tell the court how Peter and George Moyer divided the land they patented together.

I wondered why this was done in 1810, and not before, or not later, for that matter. It turns out that the patent was applied for earlier, but not actually issued until October 1809 and then it was issued in the names of George Moyer and Peter Gephart’s two minor children, precipitating the need for a court order to sign deeds.

Montgomery Count court note on page 341 reflect the following:

May term 1810– Daniel Miller and Katharine Miller (late Katherine Gephart) with the consent of her husband David Miller administrators of the estate of Peter Gephart [state] that Peter together with George Moyer were [in] possession of 2 tracts of land as tenants in common in Township 2 range 5, section 9 and fraction of 10…land sold to Daniel Mannbeck, land sold to Christopher Shuppert…land sold to John Shuppert…to Miami River…corner George Moyer’s land…425 acres (Moyers share was 447 acres). Peter surveyed in his lifetime…sold quietly to George Jeaceable. Request to execute deed. Elizabeth and John Gephart are Peter and Catharina’s children. Daniel Miller, David Miller and Catharina Gephart sign.

This land is located on both sides of S. Union Road between Upper Miamisburg Road and Lower Miamisburg Road. Union Road divides sections 9 and 10.

Peter Gebhart/Gephart and George Möyer’s property ran between modern-day Upper Miamisburg Road and Lower Miamisburg Road from Jamaica Road east to the Great Miami River, across the river from Miamisburg. An irregular strip comprising a northern third of nearly 448 acres was allotted to George Moyer. Peter Gephart was allotted the middle third of over 445 acres. The southern third was arranged to be sold to Johannes “John” Shuppert (Shüppart), Christopher Shuppert, and Daniel Mannbeck, in three 106-3/8-acre parcels for $200 each, but Peter Gephart died prior to concluding the transactions, hence the petition to the court to complete the transactions as administrators of Gebhart’s estate.

Christopher and Hannah Shuppert sold their tract, the south-central tract, to Peter’s cousin, Heinrich “Henry” Gebhart, Sr., for $300 later in 1810.

The middle third is shown above, probably the area roughly demarcated by the brown field to the right of Union Road, if you drew lines east and west on the top and bottom of the field east to the Miami River and west to Jamaica Road. In fact, you can see the field lines, which likely followed the property lines, although the tract was irregularly shaped.

Interestingly, the Miamisburg Indian mound, attributed to the Adena culture, is located less than a mile away from the Schaeffer land. This would have been a familiar sight to Catharina. While cleared today, shown in a Google street view today, the area would originally have been forested as depicted in the drawing above.

1811 – A Year of Change

In 1811, Catharina served as executor for the estate of Peter’s uncle, Valentine Gebhart (1751-1810). This may have been the same Valentine Gephart that served as Catherina’s father’s estate executor, which would explain how Catharine met Peter. It’s unusual that Catharina was chosen to serve as Valentine’s executor. Perhaps she had a particularly close relationship with Valentine. Catharina and Peter’s cousin, Philip Gebhart sold three 160-acres tracts in Township 3, Range 5 East, Section 2 (Jefferson Township) around the town of Drexel. To me, Catharine settling the estate and affairs of Valentine feels like life coming full circle. Valentine probably functioned somewhat as a parental or favorite uncle role for Catharina.

Catharina’s mother died back in Pennsylvania on September 26, 1811. That sad news would have arrived by letter with the next courier coming to Ohio. It’s hard to imagine not being able to be with your mother at the end to comfort her, and to bury her once she had passed over. There was no closure, no life celebration, only the sad news and grieving alone or with anyone in the group who would have known her mother and shared Catharina’s sadness. To the best of my knowledge, none of Catharina’s siblings settled in Ohio, so other than Peter Gephart’s relative, Valentine, who arrived in 1805, Catharina was without family.

Fortunately, David Miller’s father, Daniel, lived just a couple miles away, so Catharina married into a new Brethren family when she married David.

Life on the Farm

Catharina’s life probably calmed down substantially and began to run much more smoothly after her marriage to David Miller, settling into the seasonal rhythmic routine of sew and reap, cooking and laundry, church on Sundays, marriages, births and burials in the churchyard. That never ending cycle.

From 1806 to 1818, Catharina had 7 children, so she was perpetually busy with 9 children and a husband to look after.

David Miller farmed the land that Peter Gephart owned, probably on behalf of the “orphans,” his step-children, and his wife’s share.

The 1810 tax list of Miller men shows David paying taxes on land in that same location, and the 1814 tax list is even more specific.

On this list, the last column indicates the individual who entered the land, meaning the original grantee. The land David is farming is listed as Moyer and Gephart – confirming that indeed, David is farming the Peter Gephart land. The second David Miller entry in Randolph Township is David’s uncle. Millers and Brethren Millers in particular are often very difficult to unravel, so it’s fortuitous that our David Miller did indeed farm Catherina’s land – because the location and land identifies the family uniquely.

That farming arrangement would work fine, until Elizabeth and John came of age, which happened in 1820 and 1823, respectively. At that time, the part of Peter’s land that was not Catharina’s dower right, typically one third of the value of the estate, would have become the property of the children, or would have been sold and the proceeds divided between the children.

That would leave David only to farm one third of the land, if that much, because the house would have been considered in that valuation as well, so the total acreage allotted to Catharina would have been less than one third of the total.

The 1820 census schedule in German Township, Montgomery County, shows us David Miller living beside John Gephart, his step-son.

David Miller has the following household members:

Male 0-10 Samuel Miller b 1816
Male 0-10 John David born 1812
Male 10-16 David B. b 1806
Male 26-45 David (the father)
Male 45+
Female 0-10 Lydia Miller b 1818 or Catharine b 1814
Female 10-16 Mary b 1809 or Elizabeth b 1808
Female 16-24 Susan b 1802 or Esther
Female to 45 Catharina (the mother)

It looks like spaces for 3 daughters are missing, unless Esther has already married.

In 1822, David Miller’s father, Daniel dies. Apparently Peter Gephart’s estate has not yet been finalized, and David Miller along with Catharina both sign a receipt that was found in Daniel Miller’s estate papers.

This one “signature” of Catharina is her only known signature, and it appears that she cannot read and write. Obtaining Valentine Gephart’s estate packet might yield additional information about Catharina and additional signatures of hers as well.

Sadly, Catharina died about 1826, at about age 51, leaving 9 children in total, 7 of which had been born to Catharina and David Miller. Their youngest known child was born in 1818, when Catharina would have been about 44.

For a long time, for some reason, it was assumed that Catharine died in childbirth in 1826 – probably because so many women did. Now, based on her father’s estate records being located, we know that it’s very unlikely that Catharine died in childbirth in 1826, because she would have been roughly age 51, give or take a year. Given that her last child was born in 1818, this reinforces her birth year as about 1775 and reduces the probability that she died in childbirth 8 years later.

Burial

I wish we knew where Catharina was buried, but we don’t.

We can speculate a bit, based on what we know of the history of the area.

David may have buried Catharina near Peter Gephart. Of course, we don’t know where Peter is buried either, but the Gebhart cemetery was in use quite early – at least by 1815 and probably earlier. However, since Peter died so soon after arrival, it’s questionable whether a burial ground had been established in the location that would become the Gephart Church at that time.

David could have buried Catharina in a Brethren Cemetery, and if that is the case, it is likely Happy Corners, then known as Lower Stillwater, although that church was several miles away, in Randolph Township.

David could also have buried Catharina in the old cemetery on the land his father, Daniel owned up through 1815, which was only a couple miles away. It’s possible that if Catharine and David lost any children, they would have been buried there as well. However, since the Miller family no longer owned this land in 1826, this location is questionable as well.

David could have buried Catharina in the Old Lutheran Cemetery in present day Germantown. The cemetery was in use by this time.

David could have buried her in the Schaeffer Cemetery in German Township, although that’s probably not terribly likely either. It is unclear if and how Catharina would have been related to these Schaeffers.

A Miami Township map drawn in 2001 and copyrighted by Tom Midlam shows an unnamed cemetery on the northern part of section 10 of Miami Township which is the land owned by Moyer and Gephart. If the cemetery “cross” is located accurately, it would appear to be on the Moyer land. This cemetery is not named on the map, nor is it in the Miami County Cemetery Index. Given that information, it’s clear that this cemetery is an old family cemetery about which little information is available.

The area today is wooded, although it was likely cleared at one time. If Catharina was buried here, and the cross on Tom’s map is accurate, the cemetery would have been someplace in the forested area bordered on the northwest by Upper Miamisburg Road and South Union Road, at roughly the arrow below.

It’s also possible that Catharina was buried in the Stettler Cemetery, located about a mile to the south of where they lived. The Stettler Lutheran Church was formed when the Berks County group settled in the area and it’s also where Catharina’s son, John, is buried as well.

Hill Grove, where Catharina’s daughter Elizabeth is buried wasn’t established until 1863, so we know Catharina’s not there.

My gut feel would be that either Catharina was buried in the cemetery on the land just north of theirs that was presumably in George Moyer’s portion of the tract, or that she is buried in the Stettler Cemetery, because it was close by and her son is buried there as well. We know that the Stettler church was established very early and the residents would have had to establish a group burying ground as well, with perhaps Peter Gephart being the first – especially if the Gephart church wasn’t established yet.

One thing is for sure – wherever Catharina’s final resting place, it was a very sad day with a long line of stair-stepped children, ages 8 to 27, weeping for their mother.

The Early Churches

The Stettler Family tells about establishing the Stettler Church on the land owned by George Stettler who died in 1815 and is buried in the cemetery at the Stettler Church. This is also where John Gephart was buried in 1887.

There were two church congregations established early, the Lutherans and the Reformeds, commonly referred to as the Gebhardt Church and the Stettler Church, respectively. The land for the Reformed church was donated by the Stettler family in 1808.

The Stettler church is located just a mile south of the land owned by Peter and Catharine Gephart, as shown on the map above.

The Gebhart Church and cemetery is located East of Miamisburg, about 4 miles, and across the Miami River, from where Catharina and David lived.

There are marked burials here as early as 1833, and likely burials long before that.

It’s possible that Peter Gephart may have been the first burial at the Gephart Church in 1804.

Interestingly enough, according to the History of the City of Dayton and Montgomery County, Ohio, Vol 1, the two churches shared a minister from 1808 until 1813. Lutherans living in Miamisburg declined to join either church, saying that the distance to Gephart Church was too great and the roads too bad, and that they were too poor to be ferried across the Miami River to the west side to attend the Stettler Church.

Catharina’s children with Peter Gephart:

Elizabeth Gebhart/Gephart was born November 2, 1799 in Berk’s County and died on August 29, 1884 in Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio. Elizabeth married William Hipple on April 7, 1820 in Montgomery County, Ohio. She is buried in the Hill Grove Cemetery in Miamisburg, just a couple miles from where she grew up in Miami Township.

Elizabeth Gephart and William Hipple had the following children:

Catharine Hipple (1821-1887) married Frederick Kolling (Colling) in 1842 and had 4 sons and one daughter, Mary Kolling/Colling.
John William Hipple born October 5, 1822 and died November 20, 1893. He married Elizabeth Sherrits and they had 9 children.
Sarah (Salone) Hipple (1824-1916) married John Tobias in 1846 and John Coleman in 1856. She had 2 sons and 3 daughters, Clara Elizabeth, Mary Hannah and Hallie Sue Coleman.
Caroline Hipple (1828-1865) married Isaac Weidner and had 2 sons and daughter Amelia Aurora Weidner.
Clinton Hipple (1830-1910) married Magdalena Tobias in 1849, Eliza Jane Stettler in 1852 and Catharine Stettler Shade in 1874. He had 14 children between all three wives.
Jeremiah Hipple born in June 1834, married Matilda Tobias in 1849 and had 7 children.
Rebecca Hipple (1826-1914) married William Roark and had 3 boys and two girls, Laura Jane and Ellen Roark. Rebecca later married Leonard John Dangler.
Elizabeth Hipple was born in January 1839, married John Beck and had no children.

John Gebhart/Gephart was born on February 26, 1801 and died on January 19, 1887 in Miami Township, Montgomery County, Ohio. He is reportedly buried in the Stettler Cemetery, according to the family, although he doesn’t seem to have a marker. There are many unmarked graves.

John Gephart married Julia Ann Brosius in 1819. They had at least three children and probably more. This line is not well researched.

Jacob Gebhart (1820-1902) married Sidney Ann Medlar and had 2 children.
Peter P. Gebhart (1821-1856) married Sarah Shupert and had 5 children
Magdalena Gephart (1823-1889) married George Schmidt Gebhart and had 17 children
William Gebhart (1825-1891) married Mary Ann Bebhart and had 8 children.
Margaret Gephart born in 1827 married Isaac Loy and died Nov. 23, 1900, age 73 years 6 months 17 days in Greenfield, Hancock County, Indiana. Margaret and Isaac had 9 children.
Philip Gebhart (1829-1920)
John Gebhart (1832-1904) married Elizabeth Kauffman and had 3 children
Sarah Gephart born December 20, 1836 married Jacob Loy, died on June 1, 1913 in Pendleton, Indiana and had 7 children.
Henry Gebhart (1837-1907)
George B. Gebhart (1839-1907) married Nancy Cramer and had 5 children.
Susan Catherine Gebhart (1843-1913) married George Washington Burnett and had 5 children

Indeterminate Children

David Miller had two daughters whose mother is unidentified. We do have an avenue to determine whether their mother was Catharina Schaeffer or a previous, albeit unknown, wife. If a descendant of Esther or Susan Miller through all females from Esther/Susan to the tester, took a mitochondrial DNA test, we could compare it against a mitochondrial DNA test of a descendant of Catherina through all females descended from known daughters. If their mitochondrial DNA matches, they share the same direct maternal ancestor. If not, they don’t. Easy as pie. In the current generation, the tester can be a male but he must descend through all females.

Women contribute their mitochondrial DNA to all of their children, but only the females pass it on. So everyone in the world carries their mother’s mitochondrial DNA that is passed to them directly from the matrilineal line, unmixed with any DNA from the father’s side.

I have a testing scholarship for anyone who descends from Catherina’s known daughters through all females to the current generation. I have bolded the candidate lineages for testing, above and below, through Catherina’s daughters.

The two indeterminate daughters are:

Esther Miller Lear/Leer was deceased at the time that her father David Miller’s estate was distributed in Elkhart County, Indiana beginning in 1853.

If Esther is Catharina’s daughter, she was likely named for Catharine’s sister, Esther Schaeffer. Esther is also a Biblical name.

We don’t know Esther’s birthdate, but one researcher shows her marriage to Abraham Lear (also spelled Leer) on December 30, 1824 and names their source as a DAR record.

We do know that Esther was married before 1827 based on her children’s ages. Unfortunately, these dates do little to narrow the range of her birth from “before 1806” to “after 1806” which is the dividing line in the sand that makes a difference in terms of the identity of her mother.

Esther Miller and Abraham Lear/Leer had the following children:

Elizabeth Lear was born December of 1827 and died in August 16, 1913 in Holmesville, Gage Co., Nebraska. Her descendants show her birth date as December 5, 1825. She married Samuel Irvin in Elkhart County on May 11, 1845 and had 8 children including daughters Hilinda and Hettie Irvin.
Susan Lear was born April 12, 1832 in Elkhart County, Indiana and died on June 5, 1907 in North Liberty, St. Joseph County, Indiana. She married Israel Irvin on April 23, 1852 in Elkhart County and had 7 children including daughters Mary Catherine, Matilda Jane and Dora Irvin.
John W. Lear born in 1838. He married Samantha E. Shafer on September 18, 1872 in Elkhart County, Indiana. They had two children.
Sarah Lear born in October 1840 (census indicated both 1840 and 1843 at different times) and died after 1910 in Marion County, Kansas. She married Israel Eliphet B. Riggle on October 2, 1862 in Elkhart County. They had 3 children including daughter Arvilla A. Riggle.
Mary Lear was born probably about 1827 and died about 1850. She married John Liveringhouse on November 7, 1847 and had two children, William and Eliza Liveringhouse.
Catherine Lear married Isaac Shively on December 26, 1852 in Elkhart County and died in 1886 in Allen County, Kansas. She had 8 childreni ncluding 2 daughters, Mary Alice and Sarah Shively.
Hetty Lear married Henry Stutsman on April 30, 1857. They moved to Douglas County, Kansas and had 6 children, including 2 daughter, Mary and Martha Stutzman.

Susan Miller was born June 5, 1802 and married Adam Whitehead on February 17,1825 in Montgomery County, Ohio. She died on July 17, 1876 and is buried in the Whitehead Cemetery in Elkhart County, Indiana. Her birth is calculated from her age on the tombstone. If Susan is Catharina’s daughter, she would have been named for Catharina’s mother and sister, Susanna DeTurk and Susanna Schaeffer.

Susan Miller and Adam Whitehead had the following children:

Mary Ann Whitehead (1828-1916) married Samuel R. Miller in 1847 and had 7 children including four daughters, Susan, Eva, Mary Jane and Sarah A. Miller.
Elizabeth Whitehead (1829-1853) married Jacob Riggles and apparently had no children that survived.
Esther Whitehead (1831-1910) married Daniel Shively in 1852 and had 3 children including 1 daughter, Susan Shively who lived to adulthood.
John M. Whitehead (1833-1912) married Sarah Smith and had 6 children.
Susana Whitehead (1836-1916) married Jacob B. Riggle and had 8 children, including 3 daughters, Catherine, Mary V. and Etta Riggle.
Catherine Whitehead (1838-1919) married John Riggle in 1855 and had 3 children, including Lillian J. and Luna May Riggle.
Margaret Whitehead (1841-1851)

Catharina’s Children with David Miller

David B. Miller was born June 3, 1806 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died on September 26, 1881 in Elkhart County, Indiana and is buried in the Baintertown Cemetery that is located on his father, David Miller’s, land. David B. Miller’s stone is 4 sided, with wife Christina buried on one side.

Two of their children are memorialized on one side. The third side is David and the fourth side is an inscription.

David B. Miller would have been named for his father. No one seems to have any record of what the middle B. stands for.

David B. Miller married Christina Brumbaugh before coming to Elkhart County and had 11 children.

Catherine Miller who died before 1893
William Miller born November 2, 1831, died November 4, 1831, buried in the Baintertown Cemetery.
Jacob Miller (1832-1902) married Catherine Whitehead in 1855 and had 4 children, then married Catherine Harshman in 1871 and had 3 more children.
Mary Miller (1835-1893) married Joseph B. Peffley in 1853. She died in 1893 in Manuel, Brazoria, Texas and had 9 children.
Eve Miller born July 1836, died April 2, 1838, buried in the Baintertown Cemetery.
John B. Miller (1839-1897), buried at Baintertown and was living with his parents in 1880 and was a physician.
Michael M. Miller born December 1842 in Elkhart County, died Sept 5, 1854 and is buried in Baintertown.
Elizabeth “Betsy” Miller (1844-1925) married Samuel Pagen/Pagin, a physician, in 1899, had no children according to the 1900 census and is buried in Baintertown.
Daniel C. Miller (1847-1931) married Mary ? in 1885 and had no children according to the 1900 census. He then married Mary Kintigh in 1913 as a widower and is buried in Baintertown.
Susannah Miller (1849-1948) married Josiah Rohrer in 1870 and had 4 children.

Elizabeth Miller was born on April 6, 1808 in Montgomery County, Ohio, died on January 16, 1891 in Elkhart County, Indiana and is buried at Baintertown. She would have been named for Catharina’s sister, Elizabeth Schaeffer.

Elizabeth married Michael Haney in 1827 in Montgomery County, Ohio. They patented land very near David Miller in Elkhart County and had 5 children.

Matilda Haney (1834-1934) married John W. Baker in 1853. It appears that she died in Washington State. Children are unknown.
Elizabeth R. Haney (1836-1900) married George Washington Alford and had 9 children including daughters, Eva, Jeanetta and Idealla Alford.
Joseph Beane Haney (1838-1920) married Lucinda Whitehead and had 5 children.
Mary “Molly” J. Haney (1844-1922) married Allen D. Gilkinson. Children are unknown.
John Michael Haney (1847-1849)

Mary Miller was born in 1809 in Montgomery County, Ohio and married Jeremiah Bright on January 31, 1828 in Montgomery County, Ohio. Mary would have been named for Catharina’s sister, Mary Schaeffer.

According to the Elkhart County Pictorial and Biographical Memoirs, Mary and Jeremiah had five children, but I found evidence of 7 including two children who died young:

David Miller Bright (1829-1905) married Elizabeth Rinehart, died in Leelenau County, Michigan and had 9 children.
George W. Bright (1830-1852)
John Bright (1831-1928), died in Fairfield, Ohio.
Mary Bright (1833-1911) married John Garner Hall in and had one daughter, Sarah Jane Hall. Mary then married Jacob Alva Aurand and had 7 children including Mary Ellen Aurand.
William Bright (1835-1917) married Catherine Wagner and had 5 children.
Susannah Bright (1837-1838)
Daniel Bright (1838-1840)

Mary then married Christian Stouder on September 11, 1842 in Elkhart County and had four more children:

Lydia Stouder (1843-1893) married Samuel Neff in 1883 and had 6 children including Mary Alice, Anne and Desaline Neff.
Christian Stouder (1845-1927) married Elizabeth Hohbein and her sister, Catherine Hohbein and had 6 children between the two wives.
Samuel H. Stouder (1850-1891) married Margaret Rummell and had 5 children.
Unknown 4^th child

Mary died on October 22, 1863 and is buried at Union Center Cemetery, although her birth and death information was apparently never inscribed on her stone.

John David Miller was born April 6, 1812 in Montgomery County, Ohio and married Mary Baker there on January 24, 1832. They came to Elkhart County with or near the same time as David Miller. Perhaps John David is named for both Catharina’s father, Johann Nicholas Schaeffer and David Miller, his father.

Mary Baker and John David Miller had 10 children:

John Miller – died as a child
Catherine Miller – died as a child
Samuel Miller – died as a child
Unknown child
Hester Ann Miller (1833-1917 married Jonas Shively and had 8 children.
David B. Miller (1838-1922) married Susan Smith and had 9 children.
Mary Ann Miller (1841-1915) married Michael Treesh and had 7 children.
Aaron B. Miller (1843-1923) married Sarah Myers and had 5 children.
Matilda A. Miller (1844-1935) married John Dubbs and had 6 children.
Martha Jane Miller (1847-1935) married David Blough and had 7 children.
George Washington Miller (1851-1917) married Lydia Miller and had 6 children.

John David Miller married second to Margaret Elizabeth Lentz, widow of Valentine Whitehead. They had four children:

Evaline Louise Miller (1857-1939) married Hiram Ferverda and had 11 children.
Ira J. Miller (1859-1948) married Rebecca Rodibaugh and had 2 children.
Perry Miller (1862-1906) married Mary Jane Lauer and had 4 children.

Photo of John David Miller with Margaret and 5 of his children.

Catherine Miller was born March 17, 1813 and died September 24, 1876 and is buried at Baintertown. She was named for her mother.

Catherine married Conrad Brumbaugh in 1833 in Elkhart County and they had five children.

John W. Brumbaugh (1835-1910) married Sarah Peffley and had 9 children. He then married Mary Kintigh and had 2 additional children.
Lydia Brumbaugh (1838-1856)
Eve Brumbaugh (1840-1891) married Daniel Riggle in 1857 and had 12 children, including daughters Laura Ann, Anna J., Sarah Lilie, Jennie and Kittie Riggle.
Sarah A. Brumbaugh born about 1846, died after 1860.
Joseph Brumbaugh (1856-1921) married Ellen Martha Hissong in 1889 and had two children who both died young.

Samuel B. Miller was born in 1816 and married Rose Ann Bowser. He died March 1, 1877 and is buried at Baintertown. They had seven children:

Emanuel Miller (1838-1921) married Nancy Maurer and had 8 children.
Mary J. Miller born (1840-1920) married James Alford in1857 and had 3 children.
William H. Miller (1841-1915) married Delilah J. Alford in 1868 and had 5 children. He then married and Matilda J. Wahmeyer in 1898.
Desaline Miller born (1845-1904) married Gustavoius Alonzo Latta in 1870, died of strangulation according to her death certificate, no children reported in the 1900 census.
Albert J. Miller born (1846-1924) married Elizabeth Ulery and had 2 children.
Charles C. Miller born (1847-1910) married Sarah and had two children.
Cephus Miller born 1850, died after 1860.

Lydia Miller was born about 1818 in Montgomery County, Ohio and married John (Jonathan) Collier, also spelled Colyar, on September 18, 1834 in Elkhart County. She died about 1876. They had seven children:

David Colyar born in 1837, died in 1916 in Kapowsin, Pierce County, Washington married Susanna and had 2 children
Elizabeth Colyar (1838-1920), married Jesse Whitman and had one child, a son. She died in Lone Star, Douglas County, Kansas.
Susan Louise Colyar (1839-1917) married George Jacob Hardtarfer and had 9 children including Lydia, Mary Louise, Minnie Bell and Ida Lenora Hardtarfer. Susan died in Douglas County, Kansas.
Mary Colyar born in 1842.
John Colyar (1845-1932) married Sarah Josephine Belden and had two children
Catherine Colyar born in 1848.
Louisa Emaline Adaline Colyar born in 1855.

Catherina Schaeffer’s Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA can provide us with an additional chapter in the life of Catherina Schaeffer Gephart Miller and her ancestors, taking us further back in time. Because mitochondrial DNA does not recombine with the father’s DNA, it’s passed intact from mother to child, but only female children pass it on. On the pedigree chart below, you can see that the red circles are the path the mitochondrial DNA is passed down to a brother and sister, both of whom will carry the matrilineal line’s mitochondrial DNA, but only the sister will pass it on. The brother’s children will carry their mother’s mitochondrial DNA.

In order to view Catherina’s mitochondrial DNA, we have to find someone descended from Catherina through all females to the current generation. In the current generation, the tester can be male, so long as he descends through all females from Catherina.

I have bolded female candidates in her list of children and grandchildren.

I have a DNA testing scholarship for someone who descends from Catherina Schaeffer through all females to the current generation.

Summary

I’m sure that Catharina didn’t mean to live such an adventurous live. Her life probably didn’t start out that way either. From the time she was born in Berks County, Pennsylvania, until she left in 1804 on the wagon train, there’s a good possibility she was never more than a few miles away from home – maybe never even in another county.

That all changed in the spring of 1804 when she set forth on the adventure of a lifetime. By the end of 1804, Catharina’s life had changed entirely – and not in a good way.

The trip to Ohio must have been exhausting, and perhaps exhilarating too. I can’t imagine being on a flatboat with two young children. I would be constantly terrified that one of them would escape from my clutches and perish in a watery grave. Flatboats didn’t have guardrails. The only protection you had in that day and age was common sense and a dose of good luck thrown into the mix.

In general, the group knew where they were going, but not specifically. They knew they were going to Cincinnati, but beyond that, they were waiting on Divine Guidance to give them a sign. Flying by the seat of your pants, or in this case, riding in a wagon directed by the invisible hand of Providence must have been a bit disconcerting for Catharina. Maybe she just didn’t think of the danger. Maybe she didn’t understand the scope of the danger. Maybe she just gritted her teeth and clenched her jaw…and prayed for deliverance.

Regardless, not long after Catharina thought she can literally come through the Valley of the Shadow of Death unscathed and was finally safe, the danger became intensely real when Peter died before year end, leaving her on the frontier to fend for herself. I surely have to wonder how he died. He was a young man. Maybe he stood in the wrong place felling trees, or maybe there was some other type of accident.

A year later, in December 1805, Catharina was remarried and pregnant with her third child. On the frontier, an expeditious marriage was best for everyone. Being single meant survival was in jeopardy. Being a single mother was even worse. The answer was to join forces with another through the bonds of matrimony – and the sooner the better. Catharina did what she needed to do.

Catharina must have been somewhat of a renegade woman to be appointed as the executor of the estate of Valentine Gephart in 1811. The court obviously thought her capable, even though it was a very unusual move.

Catharina had small children in her life, sometimes several, from a few months after her original marriage in 1799 until her death in 1826. Her youngest child then was about 8 years old, but about the time that her own children were no longer toddlers, Catharina’s oldest children began blessing her with grandchildren. This could well have been the highlight of her life. Her golden years, so to speak, but they didn’t last long and there weren’t entirely golden either.

The blank spaces in-between known children’s birth years testifies to the 4 grandchildren Catharina likely buried. Two of those grandchildren were also probably born in 1826, which makes me wonder if there was some type of illness within the community that may have claimed Catharine’s life as well as two or more of her grandchildren.

It also appears that Esther Miller who married Abraham Lear and Susan Miller who married Adam Whitehead also lost children in or about 1826 as well. Esther may have lost two children. It wouldn’t have mattered if Esther and Susan were Catharina’s children or step-children, she raised them from the time they were toddlers one way or the other, and their children were assuredly her grandchildren as well.

If 1804 was tragic, 1826 was a grief filled year for the Miller and Gephart families as well, losing Catharine and four or five grandchildren in that timeframe in addition.

At the time of Catharina’s death she had 4 living grandchildren, three from daughter Elizabeth and one from son John. Additionally, it appears that Esther and Susan would have had three between them in the same time period, if they didn’t pass away at or immediately after birth. Catharina’s grandchildren fit right in at the end of her own stair-stepped children. There were always babies in her household, I’m sure. Laughing, giggling, lifting the spirits of the adults. There is nothing so infectious as a baby’s laughter.

Although Catharina didn’t know them, eventually she would have at least 78 grandchildren and 14 step-grandchildren through Susan and Esther, if they weren’t her biological grandchildren.

Get ready for a shocker here, because Catharina had more than 300 great-grandchildren and another 63 either step-great-grandchildren or bio ones, if Susan and Esther were her daughters. Wouldn’t Catharina, who only knew 4 of her grandchildren, briefly, be surprised. It’s sad that her grandchildren never knew her with her undauntable pioneer spirit.

As I reflect on Catharina’s life, I’m struck by both the tragedy and the tenacity that tragedy must have built in the young Pennsylvania Dutch wife in a foreign wilderness who didn’t even speak English. Whatever she had to do, she did it. Adversity separates those who would fail from those who would succeed, but success doesn’t mitigate either sorrow or fear, both of which had to be present on the Ohio frontier on a daily basis as she looked at her two children and wondered what would happen to them.

I’m sure Catharina wondered if she had made the wrong decision leaving Pennsylvania, whether they had let their heads full of dreams of the land tempt them into harm’s way, and whether she should go back to Pennsylvania and return home to her mother. Going back wasn’t nearly as easy as traveling westward, because there was no river to float down – the entire trip was by wagon. Men who went back typically just rode a horse, which was far faster but not an option for a woman with two children. For whatever the circumstances the future would bring, Catherina was firmly planted on the land above the bluffs near the Miami River here she would create a new life on the frontier, with a new husband, and build a family that would lay the foundation for the future of hundreds of her descendants.

Perhaps Catharina coped with tragedy by letting that “Invisible Hand of Providence” guide and comfort her not just during the trip to Montgomery County, but throughout her life and ultimately, through the experience of death.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Family Tree DNA Partners with Geni.com

Posted on July 1, 2016 by Roberta Estes

132

I received the following press release earlier today from Family Tree DNA.

Family Tree DNA is pleased to announce a partnership with Geni, a division of MyHeritage and home of the collaborative World Family Tree. This optional new feature offers seamless integration of both platforms, greatly enhancing the accuracy of Geni’s World Family Tree and providing new insights for millions of users interested in discovering more about their family histories.

Family Tree DNA has the world’s most comprehensive DNA testing and databases. Along with the company’s advanced suite of DNA tests, the new integration with Geni provides users of both platforms the ability to help confirm genetic relationships and discover previously unknown relatives. The integration of data is authenticated and secure, allowing simple transfer of DNA results from Family Tree DNA to Geni, should users opt to do so.

This added cross-functional feature is available to users who have tested their DNA with Family Tree DNA and have a profile with Geni, but can also be utilized by anyone who registers with both platforms. To that end, the optional and error-free integration of DNA conveniently validates connections and relationships within one’s family tree. Marker data of Y-DNA and mtDNA tests is transferred—there is no manual entry of DNA information, thereby preventing human error.

Geni and its team of curators have merged publicly available Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA data into the World Family Tree, making it the most DNA-rich collaborative family tree to date. Access to all DNA features on Geni is free and user privacy is strictly maintained. No DNA raw data or marker information is displayed, and additional settings allow users to control all aspects of the way their DNA information is handled.

Users interested in DNA testing—or those who prefer more comprehensive tests— can purchase DNA tests on Geni’s DNA Testing page powered by Family Tree DNA. For users with DNA results from previous testing, Family Tree DNA’s one-click process makes it fast and easy to transfer DNA results into their Geni profile. With the integration of both platforms, Geni’s World Family Tree enables users to establish and visualize a more precise family tree along with new connections and DNA matches.

“This partnership and integration greatly increases the value of DNA for genealogy,” said Family Tree DNA founder and CEO, Bennett Greenspan. “It’s great to work with Geni and its parent company MyHeritage. DNA and family trees complement each other and come together perfectly on the World Family Tree.”

Mike Stangel, General Manager of Geni, said: “Adding DNA to the World Family Tree increases its accuracy and strengthens its position as the de facto resource that shows how everyone is related to everyone else. We are very happy to take our partnership with Family Tree DNA to the next level.”

Information on linking Geni accounts to Family Tree DNA and uploading DNA results to Geni is available here: http://www.geni.com/dna-tests/faq.

Taking a look at the Geni FAQ page, we find the following information:

What are the new DNA Integration features (released July 2016)?

We’re excited to announce that you can now import your DNA test results from Family Tree DNA to Geni, as well as upload your raw autosomal data for further processing. Geni will use your Y-DNA, Mitochondrial DNA and Autosomal DNA test results to confirm existing relationships in your family tree as well as discover new relatives. Specifically, Geni will:

Propagate Y-DNA results along the paternal lines to infer which other relatives should have matching DNA. If matching DNA is found, the line between the test-takers can be considered confirmed.
Propagate Mitochondrial DNA results along the maternal lines to infer which other relatives should have matching DNA. If matching DNA is found, the line between the test-takers can be considered confirmed.
Use Autosomal DNA matching to confirm close relationships
Guide you on what DNA tests to take to confirm relationships in your family tree
Show DNA conflicts that indicate where the tree may have mistakes, and provide guidance on other living people who can be tested to resolve the conflict
List other Geni users whose DNA matches your own, which enables you to compare trees to determine how you are related
Organize profiles into haplogroup projects

These features sound wonderful, especially relative to finding candidates for Y and mtDNA testing, but there is one piece of missing information in the FAQ.

Does Geni Sell Our DNA?

While Geni states that they don’t display your DNA results, only “matches and haplogroups,” and that your DNA information is private and secure, what they don’t say is if they will be selling or sharing your autosomal DNA results to third parties.

For additional questions, you’re directed from their FAQ page to their help page, but to submit a request form from the help page, one must login to Geni. Geni might want to rethink this policy, especially relative to DNA. Furthermore, the link at the bottom of the DNA Tests page does the same thing.

You can’t examine the fine print if you can’t find the fine print.

I do have a Geni account, so I signed on to view the DNA Terms of Service.

Here’s a quote from part of the Terms of Service document.

By submitting DNA Results to the Website, you grant Geni a royalty-free, world-wide license to use your DNA Results, and any DNA Results you submit for any person from whom you obtained legal authorization as described in this Agreement, and to use, host, sublicense and distribute the resulting analysis to the extent and in the form or context we deem appropriate on or through any media or medium and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed or discovered. You hereby release the Company from any and all claims, liens, demands, actions or suits in connection with the DNA Results, including, without limitation, errors, omissions, claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, right of publicity, emotional distress or economic loss. This Agreement continues even if you stop using the Website or DNA Services.

And this:

By transferring any DNA Results to the Website, you hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Geni the right to receive, use, modify, publicly display, reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works of such DNA Results solely on and through the DNA Services for commercial and non-commercial purposes and the Company’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the DNA Services (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

I was concerned about the above verbiage, but then, by clicking on the Privacy Policy link on the DNA Terms of Use page, we find the following:

This very specifically says they will NOT share our DNA without informed consent and not without an opt-in. Let’s see what opt-in means at Geni.

Opt-In

For me, the answer to whether I will participate, or not, is in large part based on whether or not my DNA will be sold or “shared” with third parties without my specific permission. I have several Y and mtDNA lines that I need to find test candidates for, or even better yet, would like to know if that line has already tested. This feature isn’t offered by any other vendor today, and might be very, very beneficial if enough people participate! So, much like Pavlov’s dogs, I’m salivating.

It appears, based on Geni’s Privacy Policy, that Geni will not share our information with third parties if we don’t specifically authorize that sharing when we upload our results. That’s good news and exactly what I wanted to hear. But what does that really mean?

Other vendors depend on less than straightforward authorizations and click-throughs that say you’ve read and understand a policy and in that document are buried statements that your anonymized DNA will be shared and there is nothing you can do about it.

The Geni blog provides a lot more information about how the new interface will work, including an interesting projects feature.

Furthermore, based on this screen shot from their blog, it appears that indeed, their research opt-in truly is an opt-in and unless you do opt-in, you’re opted out.

As far as I’m concerned, this is exactly how opting in should work. Hurray for Geni!!!

At this point, I don’t see any reason to NOT participate – and the lure of finding individuals that have already Y and mtDNA tested on a specific line is very exciting.

I hear it now, brick walls are gonna fall!!!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Concepts – Genetic Distance

Posted on June 29, 2016 by Roberta Estes

At Family Tree DNA, your Y DNA and full sequence mitochondrial matches display a column titled Genetic Distance. One of the most common questions I receive is how to interpret genetic distance.

Many people mistakenly assume that genetic distance is the number of generations to a common ancestor, but that is NOT AT ALL what genetic distance means.

Genetic distance is how many mutations difference the participant (you) has with that particular match. In other words, how many mismatches in your DNA compared with that person’s DNA.

White the concept is the same, Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA Genetic Distance function a little differently, so let’s look at them separately.

Y DNA Genetic Distance

I wrote about genetic distance as part of a larger article titled “Concepts – Y DNA Matching and Connecting with your Paternal Ancestor,” but I’m going to excerpt the genetic distance portion of that article here.

You’ll notice on the Y DNA matches page that the first column says “Genetic Distance.”

Looking at the example above, if this is your personal page, then you mismatch with Howard once, and Sam twice, etc.

Counting Genetic Distance

Genetic distance for Y DNA can be counted in different ways, and Family Tree DNA utilizes a combination of two scientific methods to provide the most accurate results. Let’s look at an example.

In the methodology known as the Step-Wise Mutation Model, each difference is counted as 1 step, because the mutation that caused the difference happened in one mutation event.

So, if marker 393 has mutated from 12 to 13, the difference is 1, so there is one difference and if that is the only mutation between these two men, the total genetic distance would be 1.

However, if marker 390 mutated from 24 to 26, the difference is 2, because those mutations most likely occurred in two different steps – in other words marker 390 had a mutation two different times, perhaps once in each man’s line. Therefore, the total genetic distance for these two men, combining both markers and with all of their other markers matching, would be 3.

Easy – right? You know this is too easy!

Some markers don’t play nice and tend to mutate more than one step at a time, sometimes creating additional marker locations as well. They’re kind of like a copy machine on steroids. These are known as multi-copy (or palindromic) markers and have more than one value listed for each marker. In fact, marker 464 typically has 4 different values shown, but can have several more.

The multiple mutations shown for those types of multi-copy markers tend to occur in one step, so they are counted as one event for that marker as a whole, no matter how much math difference is found between the values. This calculation method is called the Infinite Alleles Mutation Model.

Because marker 464 is calculated using the infinite alleles model, even though there are two differences, the calculation only notes that there IS a difference, and counts that difference as having occurred in one step, counting only as 1 in genetic distance.

However, if one man also has one or more extra copies of the marker, shown below as 464e and 464f, that is counted as one additional genetic distance step, regardless of the number of additional copies of the marker, and regardless of the values of those copies.

With markers 464e and 464f, which person 2 carries and person 1 does not, the difference is 17 and the generational difference is 1, for each marker, but since the copy event likely happened at one time, it’s considered a mutational difference or genetic distance of only 1, not 34 or 2. Therefore, in our example, the total genetic distance for these men is now 5, not 8 or 38.

In our last example, a deletion has occurred, which sometimes happens at marker location 425. When a deletion occurs, all of the DNA at that location is permanently deleted, or omitted, between father and son, and the value is 0. Once gone, that DNA has no avenue to ever return, so forever more, the descendants of that man show a value of zero at marker 425.

In this deletion example, even though the mathematical difference is 12, the event happened at once, so the genetic distance for a deletion is counted as 1. The total genetic distance for these two men now is 6.

In essence, the Total Genetic Distance is a mathematical calculation of how many times mutations happened between the lines of these two men since their common ancestor, whether that common ancestor is known or not.

Family Tree DNA provides a the TIP calculator which helps estimate the time to a common ancestor using a proprietary algorithm that includes individuals marker mutation rates. You can read more about this in the Y DNA Concepts article or in the TIP article.

Please note that on July 26, 2016 Family Tree DNA introduced changes in how the genetic distance is calculated for some markers to be less restrictive. You can read about the changes here.

Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA Genetic Distance is a bit different. In order to be shown as a match, you must be an exact match in the HVR1 and HVR2 regions, so there is no genetic distance shown, because there are no mutations allowed.

At the full sequence level, you are allowed 4 or fewer mismatches to be considered a match.

Genetic distance means how many mismatches you have to another person when comparing your 16,569 mitochondrial locations to theirs. The full sequence test tests all of those locations.

Of course, in general, fewer mismatches mean you are more closely related than to someone with more mismatches. I said generally, because I have seen a situation where a mutation occurred between mother and child, meaning that individual had a genetic distance of 1 when compared to their mother, along with anyone who matched their mother exactly. Clearly, they are far more closely related to their mother than to their mother’s matches.

One of the most common questions I receive about genetic distance is how to convert genetic distance to time – meaning how long ago am I related to someone who has a genetic distance of 1 or 2, for example.

The answer is that it depends and it varies widely, very widely. I know, I hate the “it depends” answer too.

Turning to the Family Tree DNA Learning Center, we find the following information:

- Matching on HVR1 means that you have a 50% chance of sharing a common maternal ancestor within the last fifty-two generations. That is about 1,300 years.
- Matching on HVR1 and HVR2 means that you have a 50% chance of sharing a common maternal ancestor within the last twenty-eight generations. That is about 700 years.
- Matching exactly on the Mitochondrial DNA Full Sequence test brings your matches into more recent times. It means that you have a 50% chance of sharing a common maternal ancestor within the last 5 generations. That is about 125 years.

I think the full sequence estimate is overly generous. I seldom find identifiable matches, and I do have my genealogy back more than 5 generations on my mitochondrial line and so do many of my clients.

My 4 times great-grandmother, or 6 generations distant from me (counting my mother as generation 1), Elisabetha Mehlheimer, was found living in Goppmansbuhl, Germany when she gave birth to her daughter in 1823. This puts Elisabetha’s birth around 1800, or possibly earlier, very probably in the same village in Germany. German church records compulsively identify people who aren’t residents, and even residents who originally came from another location.

Part of my mitochondrial full sequence matches are shown below.

Looking at my 13 exact matches, it becomes obvious very quickly that my matches aren’t from Germany, they are primarily from Scandinavia. Not at all what I expected. I created this chart to view the match locations. I have omitted anyone who did not provide either location or oldest ancestor information. Fortunately, Scandinavians are very good about participating fully in DNA testing and by and large, they want to get the most out of their results. The way to do that, of course is to include as much information as possible so that we can all benefit by sharing and collaboration.

Match	Genetic Distance	Location	Birth Year of Most Distant Ancestor
TS	0	Norway	1758
Svein	0	Norway	1725
Bo-Lennart	0	Norway	1725
Per	0	Norway	1718
Hakan	0	Sweden	1716
Ragnhild	0	Sweden	1857
Constance	0	Russia
Teresa	0	Poland	1750
Valerie	0	Norway	1763
Vladimir	0	Russia
Rose	0	Sweden	1845
IRL	0	Norway	1702
Lynn	0	Norway	1696
Anastasia	1	Russia above Georgia	1923
AJ	1	Sweden	1771
Marianne	1	Sweden	1661
Inga	1	Sweden	1691
Inger	1	Sweden
Marianne	1	Sweden	1661
Maria	1	Poland	C 1880
Marie M.	1	Bavaria, Germany	1836
Tomas	2	Probably Czech Republic	1880
DL	2	Sweden	1827

A quick look at my matches map shows the distribution of my matches more visually, although not everyone includes their matrilineal ancestor’s geographic information, so they don’t have pins on the map. In my case, I’m lucky because several people have included geographical information which makes the maps very useful. The white pin is where Elisabetha Mehlheimer lived. Red pins are exact matches, orange are one mutation difference and yellow are two.

I am very clearly not related to these individuals within 6 generations, and probably not for several more generations back in time. The one match from Germany is one mutation different, which certainly could mean that we share a common ancestor and her line had a mutation while mine line didn’t. Wurttemburg and Bavaria do share borders and are neighboring districts in southern Germany as illustrated by this 1855 map of Bavaria and Wurtemberg.

Unfortunately, there is no “rule of thumb” for mitochondrial DNA genetic distance relative to years and generations distant. In other words, there is no TIP calculator for mtDNA. I did some research some years ago attempting to quantify MRCA (most recent common ancestor) time and answer this very question, but the only research papers I was able to find referred to studies on penguins.

How Far is Far?

In some cases, I know that a common ancestor actually reached back hundreds to thousands of years. Of course, relationships in female lines are more difficult to “see” since the surname changes with every generation, historically. In Y DNA, you can look at the surname of the participant and determine immediately if there is a likelihood that you share a common paternal ancestor if the surname matches. Let’s look at some mitochondrial examples.

I recently had a client that matched her haplogroup assignment exactly, with no additional unusual mutations found as compared to the expected mitochondrial mutation profile. She had several exact matches. Her haplogroup? H7a2, which was formed about 2500 years ago, with a standard deviation of 2609, according to the supplemental date from the paper, “A “Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root” by Doron Behar, et al, published in The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 90, April 6, 2012. This means that H7a2 could have been formed anytime from recently to about 5000 years ago, with 2500 being the most likely and best fit.

Standard deviation, in this case, means the dates could be off that much in either direction, but the further from 2500, the less likely it is to be accurate.

Conversely, another recent client was haplogroup U2b formed roughly 30,000 years ago, with a standard deviation of 5,800 years. The client had 16 differences, which averages to about one mutation every 2,000 years. Is that what actually happened or did those mutations happen in fits and starts? We don’t know.

A last example is my own DNA with two relevant differences from my haplogroup profile, J1c2f, which was formed about 2,000 years ago with a standard deviation of 3,100 years. Technically, this means my haplogroup might not be formed yet (joke) since 2,000 years ago minus 3,100 years hasn’t happened yet. While that obviously can’t be true, the standard deviation is relevant in the other direction. In essence, what this says is that my haplogroup could be fairly young, probably is about 2000 years old, and could be as old as 5,100 years. Given the clustering, it’s likely that J1c2f was formed in Scandinavia and a few descendants, at some time, migrated into continental Europe and Russia.

By the way, the 315 “extra mutations” insertions are too unstable to be considered relevant. They are not included in the genetic distance count in your results.

At the other end of the spectrum, I know of one person who has a mutation between themselves and an aunt and a different mutation when compared with a sister. Furthermore, those mutations occurred in the HVR1 and HVR2 regions, meaning that these women don’t show as matches to each other until you get to the coding region where the full range of full sequence matches are shown and 4 mutations are allowed. This caused a bit of panic initially, but was perfectly legitimate and understandable once the actual results were compared. Is this rare? Absolutely. Is it possible? Absolutely.

As you can see, there just isn’t any good measure for mitochondrial DNA mutation timing. Mutations don’t happen on any time schedule, unfortunately.

I use genetic distance as a gauge for relative relatedness, no pun intended, and I keep in mind that I might actually be more closely related to someone with a slightly further genetic distance than an exact match.

While you can’t compare your actual results to matches online, you can contact your matches to compare actual results. In my case, I developed a branching tree mutation chart that showed that a group of the people in Sweden with one mutation difference actually all shared an additional mutation that I, and my exact matches, don’t have. In other words, this Swedish group forms a new branch of the tree and will likely, someday, be a new subhaplogroup of J1c2f.

Sometimes digging a little deeper reveals fascinating patterns that aren’t initially evident.

Summary

When working with genetic distance, look for patterns, not only in terms of geography, but in terms of matching mutations and grouping of individuals. Sometimes the combination of mutation patterns and geography can reveal information that could not be obtained any other way – and may lead you to your common ancestor, with or without a name.

For example, I know that my common ancestor with these people probably lived someplace in Scandinavia about 2000 years ago, based upon both the clustering and the branching. How my ancestor got to Germany is still a mystery, but one that might potentially be solved by looking at the history of the region where my known ancestor is found in 1800.

Happy hunting!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Margaret Lentz (1822-1903), The Seasons and the Sundays, 52 Ancestors #124

Posted on June 27, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Margaret Elizabeth Lentz was born on December 31, 1822, New Year’s Eve, in Pennsylvania, probably in Cumberland County near Shippensburg, to Jacob Lentz and Johanna Fridrica Ruhle or Reuhle. Her mother went by the name Fredericka for her entire lifetime, with the exception of the 1850 census where she was listed as Hannah. Using the middle name is the normal German naming pattern.

Margaret Elizabeth, however, was different, parting for some reason with German naming tradition, she was always called by her first name, Margaret.

Margaret was the 7^th of 10 children born to her parents, although two of her siblings had died before she was born. Her brother Johannes died as a small child in Germany in 1814, just two and a half years old. In 1813, Fredericka had a daughter, Elizabeth Katharina who would die on the ship coming to America at age 4 or 5. It appears that Margaret Elisabeth was named, in part, for her deceased sister.

Jacob and Fredericka had immigrated from Germany, beginning in the spring of 1817 and finally arriving in January 1819 after being shipwrecked in Norway and surviving two perilous voyages. Their trials and tribulations arriving in America are documented in Fredericka’s article. In 1822 when Fredericka had Margaret, the couple would have completed their indenture to pay for their passage and would likely have been farming on their own, although we don’t find them in either the 1820 nor the 1830 census in either Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Pennsylvania to Ohio

Jacob and Fredericka and their entire family moved from Shippensburg to Montgomery County in about 1829 or 1830.

Fredericka would have been about 7 or 8 years old and probably found riding in a wagon to a new home in a new location quite the adventure. Perhaps she laid in the back on her tummy, kicking her bare feet in the air and watched the scenery disappear. Or perhaps she rode on the seat with the driver, probably her father or oldest brother, and watched the new landscape appear in the distance. Maybe she cradled a doll on her lap, or maybe a younger sibling.

At about 10 miles a day, the trip would have taken about 40 days. They may have made better time, or worse, depending on the weather.

Margaret’s mother may have been pregnant for her last sibling, Mary. For all we know, Mary may have been delivered in that wagon. I shudder to think.

We find Margaret’s parents on tax records beginning in the mid-1830s in Madison Township in Montgomery County, Ohio where they would purchase land from their son, Jacob F. Lentz in 1841.

Cousin Keith Lentz provided the 1851 tract map above with an arrow pointing to Jacob Lentz’s land, with his name misspelled, but located in the correct location on Section 3, according to deeds.

Brethren

We don’t have much direct information about Margaret during this time, other than we know the family was Brethren. Jacob and Fredericka had been Lutheran when they left Germany, according to church records, but sometime after that and before their deaths, they converted to the Brethren religion.

Their two oldest children were not Brethren, but the rest of their children were practicing Brethren for the duration of their lifetimes, except for the youngest, Mary, who died a Baptist in Oklahoma – although she assuredly was raised Brethren if her older siblings were.

Jacob and Fredericka’s eldest children, Jacob L. and daughter Fredericka, were born in 1806 and 1809, respectively. Son Jacob remained Lutheran for his lifetime, from the age of 17, according to his obituary. This suggests that perhaps his parents converted when Jacob F. was a teenager, so maybe in the early/mid 1820s. If that is the case, Margaret would have been raised from childhood in the Brethren Church, so she likely never knew anything different.

The Brethren, as a general rule, avoided records like the plague, including church records and what we know today as civil records. They didn’t like to file deeds, wills and especially did not like to obtain marriage licenses. However, because Jacob and Fredericka did not begin life as Brethren and the German Lutherans recorded everything, perhaps they were more tolerant of those “necessary evils.” At least some of their children did obtain marriage licenses and deeds were registered, albeit a decade later, although Jacob had no will.

The Happy Corners Brethren Church was located about two miles from where Margaret lived with her family, at the intersection of current Shiloh Springs and Olive Road on the western edge of Dayton. At that time, Happy Corners was known as the Lower Stillwater congregation, named for nearby Stillwater River.

The current church was built in 1870. At the time Margaret attended, the church was a log cabin and Margaret had moved to Indiana decades before the new church was built.

Marriage

Margaret is recorded in the 1840 census with her family, or at least there is a female recorded in an “age appropriate” location for Margaret. On the last day of 1840, her 18^th birthday, she married Valentine Whitehead III, the son of another Brethren family.

I can’t help but wonder if there is some significance to the fact that she married ON her 18^th birthday. Was her family for some reason opposed to the union and this was the first day she could marry without her father’s signature? Did he refuse to sign on “Brethren” principles or for some other, unknown, reason?

Was this birthday marriage a celebration or a not-so-covert act of rebellion?

Valentine Whitehead was born on February 1, 1821, so he was about 23 months older than Margaret.

The Whitehead land can be seen on the 1851 plat map about a mile and a half distant from Jacob’s land, in section 12, to the east. The families would have been near-neighbors and given that there was only one Brethren Church in the vicinity, they assuredly attended the same church. Margaret and Valentine had probably known each other since they were children.

Elkhart County, Indiana

The newly married couple wasted little time leaving Ohio and settling in Elkhart County, Indiana. That trip took between a week and two weeks by wagon according to other settlers who undertook that same journey. They were among the pioneers in Elkhart County, but they weren’t the first who had arrived nearly a dozen years earlier and spent their first winter in lean-tos before they could build rudimentary cabins. Many of the earliest families were Brethren too, so by the time Margaret and Valentine arrived, a community had been established for a decade, was welcoming and thirsty for news and letters from “back home.”

An excerpt from the book, “The Story of a Family, Argus and Myrtle Whitehead” by William Eberly and Eloise Whitehead Eberly published in 1986 reads:

Adam Whitehead (Margaret’s brother-in-law) Whitehead…decided to leave Montgomery County and go west. he came to northern Indiana to seek land for himself and others in his family and purchased about 2000 aces west and soth of New Paris, in Elkhart County. Between 1832 and 1836, nine of he Whitehead brothers and sisters and their families moved to the New Parish area. The migration included Adam, John, Esther W. and Jacob Stutsman, Samuel, Peter, Lewis, Valentine III (Margaret’s husband), Mary W and Solomon Conrad nd Margaret W. and Adam Lentz.

Most (if not all) of thes families were members of he German Baptist Brethren church, now known as the Church of the Brethren. A churchhouse was uilt in 1854 n this Whitehead community which was known for a long time as the “Whitehead Church.” Peter gave half of hte land for the church building (the east side) while Lewis gave the west. John gave land on the north of the road for the cemetery. Jacob Miller, the son-in-law of Lewis Whitehead was he head carpenter. The church and cemetery are located about the middle of the second mile wes of State Road 15 and County Road 46, southwest of New Paris. At first it ws one of the meeting houses of he Turkey Creek congregation, but in 1906 it becaem a separate congregation, taking the name of Maple Grove.

The original Whitehead churchbuilding was abut 36 by 44 feet, with no basement. The church was built with two doors on the north end of he building, one on each side of the center, oen for men and one for women. The men sat on the left side of he meetign house after coming in the door on the left. The women sat on the right. There were exceptions, however. At funerals the family could sit togethre and when young men brought their girlfriends, they could sit goether on the women’s side. Sometime later the two doors were boarded up and a large double door was put in the center of the churchbuilding. Still, for a long time, the men still sat on one side and the women on the other. A small kitchen was added on the south end of the building in which the communion beef was cooked and to store the communion utensils.

JDM whitehead church

The church, her husband and her children defined Margaret’s first several years in Indiana.

Early Life in Indiana

The 1850 census suggests that Margaret and Valentine can both read and write. The final column showing to the right of the form designates ” persons over 20 years of age who cannot read and write.” That column is not checked. What we don’t know is whether than means English or German, or both. We also don’t know how well they might have understood the census taker if the census taker didn’t speak German.

The 1850 census confirms that Margaret’s first child, Lucinda, was born on December 13, 1842 in Ohio, but her second child, Samuel, was born a year later in Indiana, as were the rest of their children. From this, we know that sometime between December 1842 and June 1844, at the ripe old age of 21 or 22, Margaret, Valentine and their baby made their way to the frontier grasslands of Elkhart County. She too may have been pregnant on that wagon ride.

I have to wonder if Margaret ever saw her parents again. It’s very unlikely even though they only lived what is today about a 4 hour drive. There were men who made the trip back and forth a couple of times on horseback, bringing news and shepherding more settlers, but women were tied at home with children and tending livestock.

Margaret’s parents didn’t pass away for another 20+ years, 1863 for Fredericka and 1870 for Jacob, so Margaret would have spent a lot of years of missing them, or perhaps sending letters back and forth. Receiving a letter telling you about the death of your parents would be a devastating letter to receive. I can only imagine the excitement of receiving a letter combined with the dread of the news it might hold. Talk about mixed emotions. Did her hands shake as she opened letters as her parents aged? Was she able to read the letters herself, or did she have to have someone read them to her?

When I was a young mother, I was constantly asking my mother something…for family recipes, advice about how to deal with childhood illness or tantrums of a 2 year old, exasperating husbands, and more. I talked to Mother by phone or in person at least once a day. While I was all too happy to leave home as a teen, I grew up quickly and can’t imagine leaving my mother at that age, knowing I would never see or speak with her again. I left the area where my parents lived in my mid-20s, and it nearly killed me, even with telephones and returning to visit every couple of weeks, for decades. There is nothing like the security of knowing Mom lives nearby.

I don’t know if Margaret was brave or foolhearty. Regardless, she would have formed other bonds with older women with advice to offer within the church in Elkhart County. Furthermore, nearly all of the Whitehead family settled in Elkhart County, including Valentine’s parents and most of his siblings, one of whom was also married to Margaret’s brother, Adam. Adam Lentz married Margaret Whitehead who then became Margaret Lentz, which caused a great deal of confusion between Margaret Lentz Whitehead and Margaret Whitehead Lentz.

Adam’s wife, Margaret Whitehead Lentz, died in Elkhart County on July 17, 1844 and is buried in the Whitehead Cemetery under the name of Margaret Lentz and was mistaken for our Margaret Lentz Whitehead for many years.

We know that our Margaret spoke German, possibly exclusively, as she lived in a German farming community. The Brethren Church in Elkhart County was still holding German language services into the 1900s and the Brethren families still spoke German, although by then, they spoke English too. My mother remembered her grandmother, Margaret’s daughter Evaline, speaking German, but her primary language by that time, in the 1920s and 1930s, was English.

The first Brethren church services in Elkhart County were held in private homes and barns, so it’s entirely possible that Margaret took her turn and had “church” at her house, with the entire neighborhood attending and then having a good old-fashioned German “pot-luck” afterwards.

The Whitehead School was established in 1836.

From the book “Elkhart County One Room Schools, The 3 Rs” by Dean Garber, I found the following:

Whitehead School, district #6, began on he west side of present day CR 19 north of CR 48 in Sect 17. Samuel Whitehead 1811-1874 settled in what became known as the Whitehead settlement, southwest of New Paris, Indiana. About 1836 a round log cabin with a clapboard roof was built on his property. This first schoolhouse was about 12X16 in size and was replaced by a wood frame building and was in use until the 1880s when it was replaced by a brick school building. For some reason this school is not shown on any of the county maps before 1874. But it has been found that David B. Miller born in 1838 did attend this school in 1854. This school closed in 1913 because of the consolidation of the township schools.

In the 1850s, Valentine Whitehead taught at this school.

This 1874 plat map of Jackson Township in Elkhart County, below, shows a school on the D. Whitehead property on the northeast corner of Section 8, and the “D. Ch” across from a cemetery on the border between sections 8 and 17. “D Ch” means Dunker Church and the cemetery across from the church is the Whitehead Cemetery.

The Whitehead descendants erected a marker in the cemetery in 1939 commemorating the early Whitehead settlers.

The verbiage on the commemoration stone says that 9 of Valentine Whitehead’s children settled in Elkhart County with him, including Valentine Jr. and his wife, Margaret Lentz. Three of Valentine Sr.’s children remained in Ohio. According to Whitehead genealogists, the Whitehead family began purchasing land in Elkhart County the 1830s and moved from Ohio in the early 1840s. It’s likely that they formed the “Whitehead Wagon Train” and all relocated together to the prairie frontier so that they could mutually assist each other with clearing land, building homes and establishing farms. Land was plentiful in northern Indiana, but was all taken in Montgomery County, Ohio.

Cousin Keith Lentz visited Elkhart County in 2015 and located the land owned by Valentine Whitehead and Margaret Lentz Whitehead near the intersection of County Roads 50 and 21. Margaret’s brother, Adam Lentz who married Margaret Whitehead, owned land just a couple miles up the road.

Thanks to Keith for providing this map.

Valentine Dies

The first decade of Margaret’s married life blessed her with 4 children and a migration to the Indiana frontier. Valentine and Margaret became established in their new community and like all farm families, lived by the routine of the seasons and the Sundays. Sunday was church and sometimes a bit of leisure or rest. Baths in washtubs were taken on Saturday night, hair was washed, and on Sunday morning, women wore their best dresses and prayer bonnets and rode in the wagon to church, after feeding the livestock of course. Little changed in the next hundred years, except you rode to church in a car or buggy.

The rest of the week was work from sunup to sundown, and sometimes longer by candlelight.

However, life was not to remain rosey for Margaret.

Margaret, the bride at 18 was a widow at 29 with 4 children and one on the way. Margaret was 2 months pregnant for Mary when Valentine died. Mary was born in February 1852 after Valentine’s death on July 24, 1851.

Margaret buried Valentine in the Whitehead Cemetery, just down the road from where they lived and across the road from the church she attended every Sunday. I wonder if she sat in church and stared out at the cemetery, where he lay. Did she wander over to visit his grave every Sunday after the church was built in 1854?

I surely wonder what took Valentine at age 30 in the middle of summer. I wonder about things like appendicitis, farm accidents, falling from a horse or perhaps something like typhoid. The only clue we have is that Valentine did write a will on June 3rd, 1851, recorded in Will Book 1, page 59 and 60 wherein he does not name his wife but does name children Lucinda, Jacob, Samuel and Emanual. This executor was Adam Lantz (Lentz) and Samuel Whitehead and Robert Fenton were the witnesses. If Valentine was ill, then he was ill from June 3rd until August 10th when he died.

In the book, “The Midwest Pioneer, His Ills, Cures and Doctors” by Madge Pickard and R. Carlyle Buley published in 1946, we discover that Elkhart County was plagued by “bilious disorders” and typhoid.

For fifty years after their first settlement the river towns along the Ohio and the Wabash suffered from malarial diseases.

In the middle 1830’s the people of Elkhart County had an epidemic of typhoid and pneumonia and in 1838 almost half the population was affected with bilious disorders. The wave of erysipelas which enveloped the whole Northwest in the early 1840’s struck Indiana with unusual severity. Dysentery, scarlatina, phthisis (consumption), pneumonia, bronchitis, occasionally yellow and spotted fevers, whooping cough, and diphtheria appeared in many parts of the state. The summer of 1838 was a bad one, and “the afflicting dispensations of Providence” laid many low along the Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois and lakes Michigan and Erie.

The Milwaukee Sentinel of October 9, 1838, boasted that, notwithstanding the fact that the season had been bad in most sections, Wisconsin had no prevailing diseases. The Sentinel and the Green Bay Wisconsin Democrat reported that canal work had been suspended in Illinois and Indiana, that the people were much too sick to harvest crops, and that there was nothing that looked like life, even in the populous towns. The Daily Chicago American, May 2, 1839, declared that “the whole West was unusually sickly” the preceding fall, that Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana suffered most, but that Illinois was affected only among the Irish laborers along the canal lines.

There were those who felt that the habits of the settlers were as much to blame for prevailing illness as the environment. James Hall of Vandalia, in years to come to be the West’s most famous historian and advocate, took this view. In his address at the first meeting of the Illinois Antiquarian and Historical Society in 1827 he stated that the pioneer’s exposure to the weather, his food — too much meat and not enough fresh vegetables, excessive use of ardent spirits, and lack of attention to simple diseases, were more responsible than the climate.

Again in 1845 came a “disastrous and melancholy sickly season” in the West; the South Bend St. Joseph Valley Register noted that it was the seventh year from the last bad outbreak, as if that explained it.

Granted, this doesn’t say anything about 1851, but it is suggestive of a recurring health issue in this area – and the family did live along Turkey Creek which fed the Elkhart River, emptying in a swampy area a few miles distant.

Margaret’s children with Valentine were:

Lucinda born Dec. 13, 1842
Samuel born January 7, 1844
Jacob Franklin born October 10, 1846
Emmanuel born January 15, 1849
Mary J. born February 11, 1852

The book Pictorial and Biographical Memoirs of Elkhart and St. Joseph Counties of Indiana published by Goodspeed in 1893 says:

Valentine Whitehead removed to Indiana at an early day, having married Margaret Lentz in Ohio and settled on a woodland farm of 160 acres in Jackson Twp., Elkhart Co, which he did much to improve prior to his death which occurred July 24, 1851. He was a member of the German Baptist church, a democrat in early life and afterward became a Republican in political principles, although he but seldom exercised the privilege of suffrage. Five children were the result of this union, Lucinda wife of Joseph B. Haney was born Dec 13, 1842, Samuel, a carpenter of Goshen was born in 1845, Jacob is a farmer of Bates Co, Missouri, Emanuel of Kosciusko Co., Indiana is married to Elizabeth Ulery by whom he has 4 children, Argus, Jesse, Clayton and Calvin. Mary J., born February 11 1852, is the wife of John D. Ulery. After the death of her husband, Mrs. Whitehead married John D. Miller of New Paris who was born near Dayton Ohio in 1812, a son of David Miller. To her union with Mr. Miller 3 children were born, Evaline, Ira and Perry. Mr. and Mrs. Miller are residents of Jackson Twp., Elkhart Co.

We don’t know how Margaret survived after Valentine’s death. Her children were too young to help on the farm, at least not significantly, the oldest being 9.

However, Margaret’s father-in-law and eight of Valentine’s siblings lived in close proximity, as did some of Margaret’s siblings.

Adam Lentz and his wife, Margaret Whitehead were in Elkhart County by 1844 when Margaret Whitehead Lentz died. Adam remarried to Elizabeth Neff in 1845 and remained in Elkhart County until sometime between 1867 and 1870 when he moved on to Macoupin County, Illinois.
Benjamin Lentz moved to Elkhart County between 1854 and 1859 and remained until his death in 1903.
Margaret’s sister Mary who was married to Henry Overlease (Overleese) moved to Elkhart County between 1852 and 1854. She and Henry moved on to Illinois between 1866 and 1870.
If Louis or Lewis Lentz was Margaret’s brother, he was living a couple counties away, in Peru in Miami County – too far away to help Margaret. He moved from Ohio between 1857 and 1859.

Marriage to John David Miller

Five years later, on March 30, 1856, Margaret Lentz Whitehead married the Brethren widower, John David Miller. His wife had died a year earlier, in March of 1855, leaving him with 7 children, ages 4 to 22.

The Lentz and Miller families were both from Montgomery County before arriving in Elkhart County, so not only did they know each other, their families knew each other the generation before as well. Margaret and John David probably knew each other as children and attended the same church, although he was a decade older than Margaret.

At the time of their marriage, their living children were stairstepped.

Hester Miller had already married, but the rest of the children were at home when Margaret married John David Miller. They had 11 children living with them between the ages of 4 and 18.

The 1860 census in Elkhart County shows the two families merged. This census indicates that John David Miller can read and write, but Margaret cannot.

It’s no wonder census documents confuse genealogists. This was a blended family and although Margaret’s children from her first marriage are listed last, they are not listed with their Whitehead surname.

Three of Margaret’s children are listed, but two are missing. Jacob Whitehead was born in 1846, so would certainly still be living at home in 1860 as would Samuel who was born in 1844. Where are these children? They aren’t found living with relatives or elsewhere in the county either, and we know they survived to adulthood.

Furthermore, John D. Miller’s age looks for all the world to be 21, but he was 47. Maybe they wrote the 4 and forgot the 7. Lastly, some of the children’s ages are illegible as well, and Martha Miller, who would have been age 13, is missing entirely and we know she lived to marry and have children.

Margaret Lentz and John David Miller have had two children of their own by 1860, Louisa Evaline born March 29, 1857, my mother’s grandmother, and Ira, born July 26, 1859.

In the 1870 census, the last child born to Margaret and John David Miller, Perry, is also shown. I wonder where they came up with that name? It’s certainly not a family name. Perhaps Brethren naming traditions were changing a bit.

According to Rex Miller, Ira Miller’s grandson, Perry Miller born in 1862 died at the age of 18 from appendicitis, so about 1880.

The 1870 census does not show that Margaret is unable to read and write.

The 1880 census shows Margaret and John Miller with their three youngest children and a Whitehead grandson.

The 1880 census indicates that Margaret cannot read and write.

The 1900 census is our last census glimpse of the family before John and Margaret’s deaths. By now, both John and Margaret are elderly, with no children or grandchildren living with them. At their age, I don’t know if that is a blessing or a curse.

The 1900 census may hold the key to why 2 of the past 4 census schedules said Margaret could read AND write and 2 said she could not. In 1900, the categories of read and write are separated and the census says Margaret can read but cannot write, and that she can speak English. It also tells us that they have been married for 45 years, and that Margaret has had 9 children, with 8 living.

This also gives Margaret’s birth year and month as December 1821 which is a little perplexing because her death certificate gives her year of birth as 1822.

Interestingly enough, they had a boarder who was a medicine peddler. You know there’s a story there!

When Margaret married John David Miller, she moved to his farm. I don’t know what happened to the Valentine Miller land, but it stands to reason that his children would have inherited that land (or the proceeds therefrom) as soon as they were of age.

It’s not like Margaret had far to move.

On the 1874 plat map below, you can see the J. Miller (John David) property abutting the D.B. Miller property, in green. D. B. Miller is John David’s brother, David, based on the 1860 and 1870 census.

You can see on the plat map above that John David Miller’s land was about a mile from the school and a little more than a mile from the church. A section of land is one mile square. The land owned by Margaret and Valentine was about another mile and a half or so further south, not shown on this part of the map.

The Whitehead School was located on the western edge of section 5 and 8. Both the Whitehead and Miller children would have attended this school as it was the only school in the area. We know from the census that the children attended school.

The Brethren Church on the Whitehead land was the first Brethren Church, other than meeting within members’ homes, in Elkhart County. Margaret Lentz Whitehead and John David Miller would have known each other for decades, and been well acquainted since moving to Elkhart County. John David, I’m sure, was at Valentine Whitehead’s funeral, and Margaret would have attended Mary Miller’s.

I wonder if Margaret and John David’s marriage was one of love or convenience, or maybe a bit of both. It surely stands to reason that with a combined family when they married of 12 children, many of them small, they both needed a spouse badly in a culture and economy where couples shared work and responsibilities. Farming was almost impossible without a helpmate. Someone had to work the land and do the chores, daily, and someone had to cook and clean and watch the children. One person couldn’t do both.

To help put things in perspective, I’ve created the map below which shows the approximate locations of important landmarks.

The top arrow is the Baintertown Cemetery, also known as the Rodibaugh Cemetery where most of the early Millers are buried including John David Miller, Margaret Lentz Whitehead Miller and John David’s first wife, Mary Baker. It stands to reason that the child born to Margaret and John David Miller that died is buried here as well, although the grave is not marked.

The bottom arrow is the land where Valentine Miller lived with Margaret Lentz Miller.

The arrow above that is the Whitehead Cemetery, also known as Maple Grove along with Maple Grove Church of the Brethren. The arrow directly above that at the intersection of 142 and 21 is the location of John David Miller’s land where Margaret Lentz Whitehead Miller lived for more than half of her life.

The house built by John David Miller which incorporates the cabin first built when he first arrived in the 1830s still stands today. This is where Margaret Miller would live for almost half a century, the most stable period of her life, although it got quite “exciting” towards the end.

This property today is located at 67520 County Road 21, New Paris, Indiana. It sits sideways because the road has been substantially changed since the house was built.

This is the only semi-decent picture we have of either Margaret or John David.

The above people are John David Miller and Margaret Lentz Whitehead Miller seated in the front row. Rear, left to right, Matilda Miller Dubbs, David Miller, Eva Miller Ferverda, Washington Miller and Sarah Jane Miller Blough. Matilda and Washington are children from John David’s first marriage and the other three are Margaret’s children with John David.

Margaret raised the Miller children and was their step-mother for substantially longer than their own mother, Mary Baker, was able to remain on this earth. I think after that long, and after raising step-children as your own, you tend to forget that they are step-children aren’t yours biologically – that is – until something brings it to light…which would happen soon for Margaret.

These are two traditionally garbed Brethen elders, noting her full length skirt, apron and prayer bonnet and his beard, hat and dark clothing.

Rex Miller allowed me to scan this photo of John David Miller and Margaret by their home. The woman looks to be the same person as above and the part of the house looks to be the center section today, which Rex indicated was the log cabin portion.

Margaret was destined to outlive yet another husband.

John David Miller died on Feb. 10, 1902 of senile gangrene. He wrote his will in 1897, but in 1901, before his death, his son David B. Miller filed an injunction in court asking for a guardian to be provided for his father who, in his words, “had a substantial estate and could no longer manage his affairs.” I can only imagine what a ruckus this must have caused within the family. One knows that there had to be some event or situation arise to cause this level of concern. However, before the case was heard, John David died.

John David had a very controversial will that left everything to Margaret until her death, and then one third of John’s estate was to be divided between Margaret’s nephew and Margaret and John David’s three children, with the balance of two thirds of his estate to be divided among his children by his first wife.

Things don’t always work out as intended. By law, Margaret had the right to one third of his estate as her dower, in fee simple, meaning in full ownership. She elected to take her one third as indicated by the following widow’s election. The balance of John’s estate would them be divided according to the will.

Widow’s election recorded on page 111.

The undersigned widow of John D. Miller decd late of Elkhart County Indiana who died testate and whose last will and testament has been duly admitted to probate and record in the Elkhart Circuit Court hereby make election as such widow to hold and retain her right of dower in the personal estate of said decedent and to hold and retain her right to one third of the lands of which her husband died testate notwithstanding the terms of the said will, and she refuses to accept any devise or provision whatever made by said will in her favor, for, or in lieu of her said statutory right as widow in and to the personal property and real estate of said decedent.

Margaret (x her mark) E. Miller

Margaret was no push-over.

Recorded in Deed Book 108-422, Margaret then sells her dower to Eva Ferverdy, Ira and Miley Miller, Perry A. Miller and Edward E. Whitehead for $2241.66 which is 1/3^rd of W ½ of NW ¼ and the N ½ of SE ¼ Section 5 Twp 35 Range 6e on Sept. 25, 1902. She probably desperately needed that money to live, in the days before social security and retirement benefits of any type.

Later, recorded in book 112-440, the same group who bought the land above sells the land to George and Alice G. Method for $5000.

Margaret died on July 4^th, 1903, just 17 months after John David. I’m sure the stress level on the poor woman with the infighting between her children and his children must have been nearly intolerable. Several of the children lived within the community and it’s not like Margaret could ever get away from the situation. It would have followed her to church, which was likely the only place she ever went. I’m sure it was the talk of the community, and it didn’t end until after her death.

Cousin Rex indicated that Perry died at age 18, but he was still alive when his parents died. In fact, Perry died at age 44 on December 22, 1906 in Goshen.

John David’s estate was controversial, to say the least, and eventually the bank became the estate’s administrator. One of the children, Perry, and Margaret’s nephew, Edward Whitehead, had done a great deal in the years before John’s death to help the elderly couple and had never been reimbursed for their efforts or expenses. They submitted receipts to the estate and those charges were disputed by the older set of children by Mary Baker. There was obviously a great deal of resentment between the two sets of children. Finally, in the end, Washington Miller refused to contribute $10 of his portion of the estate (near $1000 in the settlement) for his father’s tombstone. Edward Whitehead, the nephew, paid Washington Miller’s share. That is surely the last, final insult one could inflict on a parent. Edward Whitehead obviously cared a great deal for his uncle by marriage, John David Miller.

The inventory for John David’s estate is as follows, and the widow took everything except the wheat, rye and corn against her 1/3 dower. Otherwise, she would have been left with, literally, an empty house to live in until she died. At that time, all of the estate was considered to be the property of the man, so the contents of their entire house were listed and valued.

Number	Items	Appraised Value
1	Jewell oak heating stove	4.00
1	Eight day clock	.25
1	Sewing machine	.05
4	Rocking chairs	1.50
1	Bedstead and spring	1.25
1	Old rag carpet 25 yards	.50
1	Bureau	1.00
1	Stand	.10
1	Bedstead	.05
1	Bedspring and bedding	2.00
1	Rag carpet 15 yards	.50
1	Ingrain carpet 15 yards	.50
12	Winsor chairs	1.50
1	Dining table	.25
1	Cupboard	.50
1	Dough tray	.25
1	Kitchen sinc	.10
1	Hanging lamp	.25
1	Pantry safe	.50
1	Churn	.05
1	Milch trough	1.25
15	Milch crocks	.45
1	Lounge	.05
1	110 lb lard	11.00
1	Cooking stove and furniture	.50
1	Cross cut saw and brush cythe	.05
1	Bucksaw	.10
1	Log chain	.05
1	Horse	3.00
1	Cow	30.00
1	Ladder and maul	1.25
1	Wheelbarrow and ax	.75
1	Spring seat	.25
30	Chickens	7.50
30	Acres growing wheat land lord ½	150.00
32	Acres rye landlords 2/5	40.00
66	Bushels corn	38.34
1	Small looking glass	.05
A few	Old dishes, spoons, knives and forks	1.00
20	Bushels corn in crib	9.00
	Total	309.69

This is as close as we’ll ever get to a peek into Margaret’s house. We know from this inventory that she sewed, on a machine, which was valued at 5 cents, the same as a bedstead and half of a kitchen sink. It was worth one fifth of a chicken which was worth a quarter.

Rag carpets were homemade. My mother still made them throughout her lifetime. Ingrain carpets, on the other hand, were commercially made, causing me to wonder about that in a Brethren household too.

By Birmingham Museums Trust – Birmingham Museums Trust, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39737099

I learned to sew on an old treadle sewing machine exactly like the one above, which was likely identical to Margaret’s machine. Electricity wasn’t available in farm country in the early 1900s, so a treadle machine which replaced hand sewing was a true luxury. I wonder how well this “convenience” was tolerated by the conservative Brethren who were very resistant to change.

Margaret Lentz Whitehead Miller died on July 4, 1903 and is buried beside John David Miller in Baintertown Cemetery. It’s sad that her last year and several months were spent tied up in a family conflict that I’m sure mentally consumed her waking hours. She made several trips to the courthouse in that time period and she clearly took care of her three Miller children’s interests relative to their father’s estate.

On one document located in John David’s estate packet, we find the signatures of Margaret plus her three Miller children. Margaret could not write, so she made her mark, a rather unsteady X.

Perry, Ira and Evaline bought their mother’s dower share of the estate and subsequently sold the land. Margaret did not have a will or an estate, so we don’t know what happened to that money, but I’m suspecting that she distributed it among her children before her death. Her children from her first marriage had already shared in their father’s estate and were already well established.

As it turns out, John David’s tombstone was Margaret’s as well, with a small marker on either side for each of his wives.

It has always been stated that Margaret’s middle name was Elizabeth, but given that her daughter’s name was Evaline, now I’m wondering…

Margaret’s Children

Recently, Indiana death certificates have become available through Ancestry. Previously, obtaining a death certificate for someone involved begging, then submitting 2 forms of ID, explaining why you wanted the death certificate, signing a form, swearing you were a direct descendant of that person, and more begging, waiting, and about $30 or so – with nu guarantee of results. Oh and all while patting the top of your head and rubbing your belly while standing on your head…in a corner…taking a selfie.

Now all you have to do is sign on and search, although the indexing leaves much to be desired. Death certificates provide us with a unique view of Margaret’s children, at least those who had the good judgement to die in Indiana. Death certificates begin about 1899 and detecting trends might alert us to a health condition that could be hereditary. Additionally, most death certificates provide a burial location.

1. Lucinda A. Whitehead, Margaret’s oldest daughter, was born on December 13, 1842 in Montgomery County, Ohio. She died on January 30, 1935 in Milford, Kosciusko County, Indiana, just over the border from Elkhart County at the age of 92 of a cerebral hemorrhage. She married Joseph B. Haney on October 7, 1860 in Elkhart County at the age of 17. He died in 1920.

According to her death certificate, she was buried in the Baintertown Cemetery, also known as the Rodibaugh Cemetery, where Margaret is buried as well.

Lucinda had 4 known children:

Emma Rose Haney born in 1861.
Allen Ottis Haney born Sept. 24, 1862 in Milford, Kosciusko County, Indiana and died May 8, 1953 in Florida.
Harry Haney born in 1864.
Cecil Marie Haney born Sept. 4, 1884 in VanBuren, Kosciusko County, Indiana, died February 9, 1977 in Rochester, Fulton County, Indiana and is buried in the Baintertown Cemetery. Cecil married Bert Eugene Dausman and had daughters:

Dorothy Loretta Dausman (1902-1987) who married Edward Poppenger or Pippinger and had one daughter

Helen Nadine Dausman (1905-1994) who married Joseph Osborn Perkins and had one daughter

Trella B. Dausman (1909-1983) who married Laddie Straka

2. Samuel Whitehead, Margaret’s oldest son, was born June 7, 1844 in Elkhart County, Indiana and died on April 26, 1923 in Goshen, Elkhart County of chronic bronchitis.

Sam was a carriagemaker with a shop in New Paris, Indiana. Eventually, he took a partner and operated under the name of Whitehead and Landgraver. He also owned a sawmill on the south end of New Paris.

Samuel is buried in the Baintertown Cemetery. He married Henrietta Dietz on November 18, 1865 in Elkhart, Indiana.

Samuel and Henrietta had:

Lizzie Whitehead (1867-1937)
Charlie Whitehead (1869-1939)

Samuel later remarried to Martha J. Vail on March 26, 1874 and they had the following children:

Earl R. Whitehead (1875-1945)
Mabel J. Whitehead (1883-1953)
Ina Whitehead (1886-1971)
Hazel Whitehead (1888-1958)
Ross Whitehead (1889-1958)
Boyd A. Whitehead (1894-1968)
Carlisle Whitehead (1897-1967)

3. Jacob Franklin Whitehead, Margaret’s second son, was born October 10, 1846 in Elkhart County and died on April 1, 1932, in Adrian, Bates County, Missouri where his uncle, Adam Lentz had settled. He is buried in the Crescent Hill, Cemetery He married Eva Bowser (1847-1933) on May 21, 1865 in Elkhart County.

They had:

John Bertus Whitehead (1879-1961)
Charles Whitehead born 1872
Maggie Whitehead born 1875
Claudie Whitehead born 1883

4. Emmanual Whitehead, Margaret’s third son, was born January 15, 1849 in Elkhart County, died on April 10, 1924 in Kosciusko County, Indiana and is buried in the Salem Cemetery.

Emmanuel married Elizabeth Ullery, a school teacher on November 26, 1871 in Elkhart County, Indiana, and according to the Whitehead book:

Elizabeth’s brother, Levi, recorded in his diary, “Lizzie Ulery’ wedding day. She was married to Emanuel Whiehead by John H. Miller at 2 p.m., and a large crowd attended the wedding.

Of course, Margaret would have been at that wedding. It might even have been held at her house.

Emanuel worked for his brother, Sam, in the sawmill, couldn’t read or write, but could do mathematical calculations in his head. It was reported that he could look at a tree and calculate the number of board feet of lumber that could be cut from the trunk.

When not working or farming, he loved to fish as did many of his Ulery kinsmen.

They had two baby daughters that dies shortly after birth, and then:

Argus Burtis Whitehead (1875-1962)
Jessie Whitehead born (1877-1947)
Clayton S. Whitehead born (1879-1949)
Calvin E. Whitehead (1881-1971)

Emmanual Whitehead remarried on February 9, 1900 to Sarah Foster (1856-1940).

5. Mary Jane Whitehead, Margaret’s second daughter and last child by Valentine Whitehead, was born February 11, 1852. She died on Sept. 30, 1930 in Nappanee, Elkhart County, Indiana of angina pectoritis and was buried at the Union Center Brethren Church cemetery.

Mary Jane married John D. Ullery (1846-1928) on March 10, 1872 in Elkhart, Indiana.

They had:

Edward W. Ulery (1872-1942)
Margaret Elizabeth Ulery (1874-1959) and married Albert Mutschler on June 10, 1897 in Elkhart County, Indiana. They had one daughter:

Mary L. born July 1898

David Leatherman, an adopted son, who died in 1903

It’s somehow ironic that my line of the family never heard the “shipwreck story” of Jacob and Fredericka Lentz, but buried in the John Ulery biography we find that same story, handed down for posterity – but somehow never making it to the current generation.

From the book, Pictorial and Biographical Memoirs of Elkhart and St. Joseph Counties, Indiana; Chicago, Goodspeed Brothers; 1893:

JOHN D. ULERY. During the forty-six years that have passed over the head of the gentleman whose name stands at the head of this sketch, he has witnessed a wonderful transformation in Elkhart county, and during all these years he has been an active observer of the trend of events. He has not been merely a “looker on in Venice,” but a citizen who has, through his enterprise, his integrity and his public ¬spirit, contributed his full share to the magnificent development of the section in which he resides. He comes of an honored ancestry, for the well-known old pioneer, Daniel Ulery, was his father, from whom he inherited many of his most worthy characteristics. He was the third of his children and first saw the light of day on the old home farm in Union township, February 3, 1846, and like the majority of farmer’s boys of that region, obtained his initiatory education in what was known far and near as the Ulery School. This he alternated with tilling the soil until he had almost attained man’s estate, when he quit school to devote his attention to agricultural pursuits, which calling occupied his time and attention until he was about twenty-seven years of age. He then, on March 10, 1872, united his fortunes with those of Mary J. Whitehead, who was the youngest child born to Valentine and Margaret (Lentz) Whitehead; the former was a son of Valentine and Elizabeth (Rodebaugh) Whitehead, who were of German descent and were early pioneers of Pennsylvania and Ohio. Valentine lost his wife, Elizabeth, in Ohio, after which he removed to the Hoosier State and died in Elkhart county in 1867, at which time he was a retired farmer and nearly ninety years of age. He was the father of eleven children, all of whom are dead, with the exception of three: Louis, Peter and David. Valentine, one of the children of the above mentioned family, was the father of Mrs. John Ulery. He removed to Indiana at an early day, having mar¬ried Margaret Lentz, in Ohio, and settled on a woodland farm of 160 acres in Jackson township, Elkhart county, which he did much to improve prior to his death, which occurred on July 24, 1851. He was a member of the German Baptist Church, a Democrat in early life and afterward became a Republican in political principle, although he but seldom exercised the privilege of suffrage. Five children were the result of his union: Lucinda, wife of Joseph B. Haney, was born December 13, 1842; Samuel, a carpenter of Goshen, was born in 1845; Jacob is a farmer of Bates county, Mo.; Emanuel, of Kosciusko county, Ind., is married to Elizabeth Ulery, by whom he has four children–Argus, Jesse, Clayton and Calvin; Mary J. is the wife of John D. Ulery. After the death of her husband, Mrs. Whitehead married John D. Miller, of New Paris, who was born near Dayton, Ohio, in 1812, a son of David Miller (a more complete sketch of this gentleman is found in the sketch of David B. Miller). He has resided for years in the vicinity of New Paris, where he is highly honored and esteemed. Mrs. Miller is now seventy-one years of age, but is still healthy and active. To her union with Mr. Miller three children were given: Evaline, Ira and Perry. Mr, and Mrs. Miller are residents of Jackson township, Elkhart county. Mrs. John D. Ulery was born in this county, February 11, 1852, and has presented her husband with two children : Edward W., born December 13, 1872, who has the principal charge of the home farm and is a steady, kindly and intelligent young man, and Lizzie, who was born November 28, 1874, and is an accomplished young lady. Mr. Ulery is classed among the foremost citizens of Union township, and is at the head of his business, owing to the energy and en¬terprise he has displayed. He owns an exceptionally fertile farm of 135 acres, on which are probably the best buildings of any farm in the township. He is a man of wealth and owns an interest in the Nappanee Furniture Company, as well as in other paying interests. He has followed in his father’s footsteps in regard to meeting with accidents, as well as in other respects, for on July 4, 1881, he was badly injured by a reaping machine and for about a year thereafter was an invalid. He is deservedly classed among the public-spirited and intelligent men of the county and is warm personal friends can be numbered by the score. Mrs. Ulery is a member of the German Baptist Church. Her maternal grandfather came to this country at an early day, having started from his native land a rich man. The voyage by water occupied nine months, and upon landing he found himself without means, owing to the tyranny and dishonesty of the captain of the vessel. On this voyage some three hundred souls died. Mr. and Mrs. Ulery took to rear as their own child, David A. Leatherman, who, at that time was six years of age, and the orphan son of John and Elizabeth Leatherman, gave him every advantage and provided means for him to graduate from the University at Valparaiso, Ind. He is a young man of much promise and at the present time is a traveling man. He remained with his foster parents until he was twenty years old and still holds them in grateful and honored remembrance, for they proved to him a friend in his need and were always as kind and thoughtful of his wants as though he were one of their own family. This is but one instance of the many kind and disinterested actions done by Mr. Ulery in his walk through life, and clearly indicated the true character of the man.

Margaret Lentz had 4 children with John David Miller, three of whom lived. We don’t know the name of the 4^th child or when they were born, although I suspect 1861. John David’s obituary says that 4 children were born to Margaret and John David, 3 of whom survive, which is also confirmed by the 1900 census.

6. Evaline Louis Miller, Margaret’s first child with John David Miller was born March 29, 1857 in Elkhart County, Indiana and died on December 20, 1939 in Leesburg, Kosciusko County, Indiana of an inflammation of the heart (acute myocarditis) following a 3 month kidney infection (nephritis).

She is buried in the Salem Brethren Church cemetery.

Evaline married to Hiram B. Ferverda on March 10, 1876 in Goshen, Indiana.

The photo above is Eva Miller Ferverda with her husband Hiram and their entire family, including my grandfather John Ferverda, 2^nd from right in the rear. Hiram died in 1925, and their youngest child was born in 1902, so I’d estimate that this photo was taken close to 1920, or perhaps slightly earlier, based on the WWI stars in the window and a son in uniform.

Evaline Louise Miller Ferverda had 11 children:

Ira Otta Ferverda (1877-1950) who married Ada Pearl Frederickson.
Edith Estella Ferverda (1879-1955) who married Tom Dye. They had the following daughter:

Ruth Dye

Irvin Guy Ferverda (1881-1933) who married Jessie Hartman.
John Whitney Ferverda (1882-1962) who married Edith Barbara Lore.
Elizabeth Gertrude Ferverda (1884-1966) who married Louis Hartman and had the following daughters.

Louisa Hartman married Ora Tenney

Helen Tenney married Norman Nine

Lisa Nine

Roberta Hartman married Rulo Frush

Carol Frush married William Slaymaker

Nadine Slaymaker

Nancy Slaymaker

Chloe Evaline Ferverda (1886-1984) and married Rolland Robinson and had one daughter:

Charlotte Robinson married Bruce Howard

Susan Howard married Richard Higg

Mary Carol Howard married David Bryan

Kerrie Bryan

Julie Bryan

Sally Howard

Ray Edward Ferverda (1891-1975) who married Grace Driver.
Roscoe H. Ferverda (1893-1978) who married Effie Ringo and Ruby Mae Teeter.
George Miller Ferverda (1885-1970) who married Lois Glant.
Donald D. Ferverda (1899-1937) who married Agnes Ruple.
Margaret Ferverda (1902-1984) who married Chester Glant and had the following daughters:

Mary Glant married Varrill Wigner.

Kari Anne Wigner

Joyce Ann Glant married Delferd Zimmerman

Nancy Zimmerman

Beth Zimmerman

7. Ira J. Miller, Margaret’s 2nd child with John David Miller was born July 26, 1859 in Elkhart County and died on December 17, 1948 in Elkhart County of coronary breast disease.

Ira is buried in the Baintertown Cemetery.

Ira married Rebecca Rodibaugh on November 23, 1882 in Elkhart and they had the following child:

Everett Miller born 1897

The above photo is Ira J. Miller with his wife, Rebecca. The photo below includes Ira Miller and his sister, Evaline Louise Miller Ferverda.

Last row, rear left to right, Rebecca Rodibaugh Miller, Ira Miller, one of Eva Miller Ferverda’s children,

Middle row, Eva Miller’s child, Eva Miller Ferverda

Front row, Mame Smoker Miller and Everett Miller (son of Ira.)

8. Perry Miller, Margaret’s final surviving child was born on June 25, 1862 in Elkhart County and died on December 22, 1906 in Goshen, Indiana of a bowel obstruction.

Perry buried in the Violett Cemetery in Goshen.

Perry married Mary Jane Lauer on October 2, 1881 in Elkhart, Indiana and they had the following children:

Maud Miller born 1882-1902, buried with her parents
Purl Miller born 1885-1960, a painter, buried in the Violett Cemetery
Otto M. (Ottie) Miller born 1889-1976, a railroad engineer

DNA – Mitochondrial and Autosomal

You’d think with all of the people who descend from Margaret, someone who descends through all females would have taken a mitochondrial DNA test, but apparently not. If anyone has, please let me know.

If you haven’t and you descend from Margaret through all females to the current generation, where males can test too, I have a DNA testing scholarship for you!

The individuals bolded in the section above descend through Margaret Lentz Whitehead Miller through all females. These individuals or their descendants through all females from Margaret carry Margaret’s mitochondrial DNA and are eligible to test.

Testing for Margaret’s mitochondrial DNA will tell us about her deep ancestry and help us learn the path our ancestors took to and through Europe.

Margaret still has more secrets to reveal about herself.

Identifying Lentz DNA vs Miller DNA

One of the challenges we have in genetic genealogy is that when we autosomally test descendants of couples, like Margaret Lentz and John David Miller, we can’t tell which DNA comes from which parent.

However, because Margaret had children with a different husband, Valentine Whitehead, if some of the descendants of Margaret’s children with Valentine were to take an autosomal DNA test and they match the DNA of the descendants of Margaret through John David Miller – then we’ll know that the matching DNA comes from the Margaret’s Lentz line and not the Miller line.

Anyone descended from Jacob Lentz and Fredericka Reuhle Lentz through children other than Margaret who have DNA tested and match the descendants of Margaret and John David Miller – that DNA is also Lentz DNA as distinguished from Miller DNA.

Let’s do a little experiment to see if we can isolate snippets of Margaret Lentz’s DNA.

I have 4 people who have tested that are descendants of Margaret Lentz Miller, all through her children with John David Miller. I have two Lentz males who have tested that descend from different sons of Jacob Lentz and Fredericka Reuhle. People in the bottom row are all testers.

Benjamin, Margaret and George Lentz are siblings. The relationship of the people in the pink box to the descendants of Benjamin and George in the next generation are 1^st cousins. Within the pink box, the relationship is different. Evaline and Ira are siblings, but Evaline and Ira are 1^st cousins to both Whitney and Ira (son of George) as are Ira (son of George) and Whitney to each other.

Let’s see if any of the two Lentz males match the DNA of the 4 descendants of Margaret Lentz Miller. If so, those matching segments would have been inherited from Margaret Lentz by her children.

In order to do this easily, we’re going to run the chromosome browser at Family Tree DNA for each of the Lentz men, William and C., individually, against all 4 of the people who descend from Margaret Lentz.

Ironically, the two Lentz males, William and C. Lentz, don’t match each other above the vendor’s testing threshold, but do match each of the other 4 individuals.

William and C. Lentz do, however, match each other on 3 segments above 6cM at GedMatch where you can adjust the matching thresholds.

After selecting the four pink descendants of Margaret and comparing on the chromosome browser to each of the Lentz men, we’re going to download their matching segments to each of the Lentz men and drop those results into a common spreadsheet.

In this example, I’m using William Lentz as the background person we’re comparing against, and the 4 pink testers who descend from Margaret Lentz Miller are the 4 people being compared to William. On William’s chromosome displayed below:

Rex=orange
Barbara=blue
Cheryl=green
Don=bright pink

At the top of the chromosome browser you’ll see a selection on the left side next to the Chromosome Browser Tutorial that says “download to Excel (CSV format).” That selection will only download matching segments of the people you’re comparing, so I made that selection.

I repeated the process for C. Lentz as compared to these same 4 pink people, and combined the results into one spreadsheet where I color coded the results of the two Lentz men differently and deleted the segments below 3cM. C. Lentz is blue and William Lentz is apricot.

This chart took my breath away. We are literally looking at segments of Margaret Lentz’s DNA inherited by her descendants (assuming there no other family connection between these individuals.)

Let’s sort this in segment and chromosome order and see what we come up with.

Each of these rows is able to “stand alone” since we already know how these individuals are related. They are closely related, 3rd cousins, and we’re trying to see which of their DNA is from a common source – meaning the Lentz DNA from Jacob Lentz and Fredericka Reuhl.

However, even though these individual matches work, due to the close known relationships, triangulation groups are always preferable. But first, let’s look at matching groups.

In the chart above, I colored the 5 columns beginning with chromosome green when there is more than one match that includes any part of the same segment. Remember, we can’t see triangulation on this spreadsheet, because we only looking at matches to William and C. Lentz individually. These are just match groups at this point.

I added the column “Match Set” so that you can easily see the different matching groups. Because the green color used to indicate matching groups butts up against neighboring groups, it’s difficult to tell where one group ends and the next begins, so I’ve indicated that in the “Match Set” column by labeling each matching set of DNA.

The yellow match sets aren’t to siblings and may well triangulate. The match sets colored green in the Match Set column are to both Don and Cheryl, who are siblings, and you can’t count matches to siblings in triangulation groups.

A match is when any two people match – like Barbara and William Lentz.
A match set is when any two pairs match on the same segment.
Triangulation occurs when any three people match on any portion of the same segment of DNA AND share a known common ancestor. Without the known ancestor or ancestral line, it’s just a match set.

Match set 1 doesn’t count as triangulation because William matches Don and Cheryl both who are siblings. Triangulation needs to occur between more distant matches.

Match set 2, which is yellow, could triangulate. To verify triangulation, we need to verify that Barbara matches Don on this part of the same segment.

I went back to Barbara’s chromosome browser and indeed, she does match Don on part of this same segment. This segment does triangulate, as shown below – because all three people match each other on a portion of this same segment.

The actual overlapping segment between all three individuals is from 121,679, 417 through 128,527,507 for probably about 6cM.

Of course, now if I could just find a Lenz descendant from upstream of Jacob, or a Reuhl upstream of Fredericka that matches some of these folks, I could determine if Margaret’s DNA is Lenz (Lentz) or Reuhl.

If you’re thinking this could go on forever, you’re right – except that the further out in time, the less likely to find a match, let alone on a common segment. It’s a genetic genealogical end of line instead of a more traditional one. What a fun challenge though. And hey, there’s always hope that someone from Germany or another line that immigrated will test and match. That’s the beauty of DNA. You can learn from autosomal matches, Y DNA matches and mitochondrial as well, so you have three genetic educational opportunities for each ancestor.

Summary

Margaret’s early life is shrouded in a bit of mystery, other than we know she was born in Pennsylvania and was raised Brethren. Her first entrance on her own is when she married on her 18^th birthday. Celebration or rebellion, or both? We’ll never know, but marrying ON her 18th birthday does cause the question to be asked.

Margaret’s life seemed to be typical in every way, which for women of that timeframe means we find them in census records and not much else. However, that would change in July of 1851 when her husband, Valentine Whitehead, suddenly died.

Margaret was just two months pregnant at that time with her 5^th child, a daughter that would never meet her father. Margaret probably farmed for the next 5 years as best she could, in addition to being a mother to her children. Yes, she had the resources of the Brethren community, but the fact that she did not hurriedly remarry suggests she might have been far more independent that most women of her time. She also didn’t sell out and go back home, to Ohio, to her parents. That must have been a temptation for a young widow under 30 with 5 children. Was she simply that iron-willed, resilient and determined?

Five years later, Margaret remarried to John David Miller. They combined their 12 children into a blended family and added 3 more of their own, for a total of 15 altogether. If the photo of John David and Margaret indeed is in front of the cabin portion of their home, they did not add on during their lifetime and lived in just the cabin portion – a small house for such a large family.

John David’s obituary tells us that Margaret had 4 children after their marriage, but only 3 survived. There was a span of 3 years between Ira and Perry, so the child who died was likely born in 1861. There are no candidate children buried either at Baintertown or in the Whitehead Cemetery, but many graves don’t have markers. It appears that Mary Baker Miller didn’t have a marker until John David Miller died, more than 50 years later.

However, looking at the births of Margaret’s children, she may have had one more. Her first child wasn’t born for 2 years after she was married – something almost unheard of at that time. She could well have had a first child that died and Lucinda, born two weeks shy of Margaret’s 20^th birthday could have been her second child. The 1900 census doesn’t reflect that in the number of birthed vs living children, but the census has been known to be incorrect.

Margaret may have buried her first child in the Happy Corners cemetery where her parents would later rest. If so, that grave too is unmarked.

Margaret bore her last child when she was just 6 months shy of her 40^th birthday.

By the sunset years of Margaret’s life, her 8 children who survived childhood gave her 38 known grandchildren, at least one and likely seven whose funerals she attended. Multiple grandchildren are noted once in the census, and then no more. There were likely additional grandchildren born who didn’t live long enough for a census to be taken. Unfortunately, losing multiple children was a way of life and expected before the era of modern medicine, in particular, antibiotics.

Margaret and John David Miller both lived to be quite elderly. He apparently became senile before he died, just shy of his 90^th birthday and Margaret died not long afterwards of progressive heart disease.

Unfortunately, the blended family that seemed to work so well, from outward appearances anyway, came unraveled before John’s death. His children from his first marriage petitioned the court for guardianship, which appears to have driven a significant wedge between the two sets of children. That rift never healed, and in fact, became worse after John David’s death, pushing Margaret to the point where she withdrew her dower rights from John’s estate, deeding that third to her Miller children. John’s children from his first marriage would have been far better to let the will stand uncontested, but they didn’t.

It’s through this contested will that we discover that while Margaret’s children can read and write, she cannot – or at least she can’t at 80 years of age. We don’t know if she could have signed her name when she was younger.

Margaret was no pushover – and if those 7 Miller children thought they could push their elderly step-mother around, they were wrong. I bet both John David’s and Margaret’s funerals were “interesting,” to say the least, given the division within the family. John David’s funeral was at the house, not the church, so I’d wager that Margaret’s funeral took place at home too. I have to wonder what she might have thought, watching from above. Was she chuckling to herself, or was she angry?

Even at her advanced age and in ill health, it appears that Margaret was still something of a spit-fire. She didn’t let her Brethren religion keep her from going to the courthouse and taking care of business several times in her last year.

Margaret died of hydro pericardium, an accumulation of fluid in the membrane that surrounds the heart. She also had mitral incompetency which means the mitral valve of the heart does not close properly, eventually causing congestive heart failure.

This ailment would not have manifested itself suddenly. It’s likely that as she cared for her aging husband, she was short of breath herself. As the stressful situation following his death unfolded, her health was worsening as well.

Margaret passed away on the 4^th of July. Independence Day indeed! Margaret’s death leaves me wondering once again if this was her way of making a triumphant exit statement, much as her marriage on her 18th birthday was her grand entrance.

I suspect that Margaret was part rebel, in spite of her Brethren upbringing. In any case, she appeared to be a lot more independent than was acceptable for Brethren girls or women – and it showed from time to time!

Perhaps I came by that trait honestly and it’s carried from generation to generation in some of those DNA segments!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers