You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

Posted on November 23, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Your family is your very best genealogy resource, in many ways.

With the holidays approaching, this is the perfect time to talk to your family about family history. Often, we think about family history in the sense of genealogy, meaning names, birth dates and death dates. But there is more to the story – a lot more. Or maybe better said, there are many stories to flesh out your genealogy.

It’s those stories that you want to hear and the holidays when family is gathered provide perfect opportunities. You just have to get the ball rolling!

I discovered over the years that people react better to questions that are open ended and encourage them, and others in the room, to talk and reminisce.

Questions I asked my mother that produced very interesting answers were questions like:

What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in your lifetime?

For mother, it was electricity in her home. It had never occurred to me that she had lived in a home without electricity before that conversation. The discussion then progressed to things like, “how did you preserve food without electricity,” “how did you have light in the evenings,” and “how did your parents heat the house,” especially since I don’t remember a fireplace in my grandmother’s home. The discussions that followed were very interesting and would never have happened without that single topic-opening question.

For example, I learned that the bedrooms weren’t heated, and the “bathroom” didn’t need to be heated since it was the outhouse. That means bathing was with a cloth out of a wash basin or tub with water heated on the wood stove.

Another question that might produce some wonderful stories is to ask about “once in a lifetime events.”

My mother recalled a family trip to the 1933 World’s Fair in an old Model T Ford to see her grandmother, Nora Kirsch Lore McCormick’s quilt displayed in the Sears Pavilion.

In my case, one of those (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime events forever seared in my memory is the 1965 Palm Sunday Tornado which cut a wide and devastating swath through central Indiana. I didn’t realize what I was seeing, but I saw that tornado move across the southern part of the city where I lived. A tree fell on the house and in an instant my mother grabbed me and we ran for the basement – her half dragging me all the way.

Another time, Mother, my daughter and I were in a van in Illinois one beastly hot June day and after watching a wall cloud overtake us, a tornado picked the van up and moved it some 20-30 feet off the road, sitting it back down right side up, amazingly enough. We were all fine that day, albeit terrified, but others weren’t so lucky.

Another very memorable and somewhat surreal event, as an adult, was unexpectedly seeing the Hale-Bopp Comet from an airplane.

A humorous episode occurred when mother’s uncle died in the middle of a paralyzing blizzard and they put his body in my grandfather’s garage. That was the family joke for years, ribbing my grandfather, but what else were they going to do?

“Remember when” stories like these may never surface if you don’t prompt with questions – and the answers in terms of your family and also in terms of what was happening in society – like radio, TV, electricity and the space race – at that time in history are all part of your family story. Those things would clearly have affected everyone one way or another but the personal stories of how they directly affected people in your family will never emerge unless you ask those leading questions – and record them for posterity.

DNA

Of course, it goes without saying that you might want to take some DNA kits along to family gatherings, just in case. I always have a swab kit in my purse or in the car, or both.

Your family is also your best resource for genetic genealogy as well. Different family members can provide haplogroup information for ancestors whose haplogroups you don’t carry.

Family members often can and will gladly provide this genetic information for the family, but they don’t realize they carry these genealogy gems, gifts directly from the ancestors passed down the direct paternal and direct matrilineal lines. For example, your father and his siblings can provide the mitochondrial haplogroup of your paternal grandmother (red circles on the chart below), something you don’t carry. Of course, the blue squares on the chart below represent the direct patrilineal line for males which is both the path of the Y chromosome and the traditional way surnames are inherited. Your father will carry the family surname and Y DNA, but your mother’s father or brothers will carry the Y of her birth surname. There’s lots to be discovered!

If you’d like to see an example of how to build a DNA pedigree chart, above, by collecting the haplogroup information from all of your ancestral lines, click here.

Let’s face it, both Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups are the only direct line periscope we have back in time more than the few generations provided by autosomal testing. Autosomal DNA is divided in half in each generation, but Y and mitochondrial DNA is not, and is passed intact, except for mutations that might occur, generation to generation – making Y and mtDNA extremely valuable resources to the genealogist.

Haplogroups, discovered through Y and mitochondrial DNA testing, are invaluable historical resources revealing your deep ancestry and not utilized nearly enough. We simply don’t know what we don’t know and testing the right people is the only way to find out.

In terms of autosomal DNA testing, anyone that is a third cousin or closer is used in Family Tree DNA’s phased family matching to indicate which side of your family your matches originate from, as shown by the little blue male, pink female and purple “both” icons shown beside matches, below.

The only way to divide your matches into maternal and paternal sides, without both parents, is by testing other relatives. If you’re lucky enough to have both parents, that’s wonderful, but the only way to divide your parents’ results is by testing other relatives as well.

You can purchase the DNA kits on sale and save them until you need them. You can fill in the name of the tester when you determine who is going to take the test, but be sure to let Family Tree DNA know the correct gender at the time the test is submitted if it is different than the gender indicated when you purchased the kit. The actual swab kit is the same for both genders, but gender verification is part of quality assurance for the various tests. Listing the wrong gender will delay your test results – and no one wants that!

When I find a willing candidate, I have them swab right then and there, on the spot, and I mail the kit back to Family Tree DNA myself. That way, I know the swabbing gets done and the kit doesn’t take up residence in their junk drawer or under the front seat of the car forever! In one case, family members found a used swab kit in the glove box three years later, after the person died – and amazingly – it was still good! However, mailing the kit back yourself avoids these situations.

Enjoy your holidays, take DNA kits along, and ask leading questions. You don’t know what you don’t know and you’ll never find out if you don’t ask those questions and DNA test your relatives.

______________________________________________________________

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

Building Your Personal Mitochondrial Tree

Posted on November 20, 2016 by Roberta Estes

People who test at Family Tree DNA and receive mitochondrial DNA full sequence results often have questions about how they can use their results to further their understanding of their ancestors.

One of the things you can do is to build a mitochondrial DNA haplotree of your own, showing how various people that you match are or are not descended from common ancestors. To do this, you’ll need to contact your matches and share your mutations.

Your results at Family Tree DNA tell you how many mutations you have, shown below, in the genetic distance column. For more information on genetic distance, how it is calculated and what it means, click here.

Your results at MitoSearch, if you upload, or within projects at Family Tree DNA, show you the HVR1+HVR2 region mutations, but the only way to compare the coding region, or full sequence matches is for the people involved to share them directly with each other.

How can mutations help identify your common ancestors with your matches, or if not the ancestor themselves, at least where they were from?

Let’s look at reconstructing a DNA tree based on both your common mutations and mutations you don’t share with your matches.

When building a DNA tree, remember that once a mutation enters the mitochondrial DNA, unless there is a back-mutation, which is exceedingly rare, that mutation will be found in all descendants.

This discussion excludes heteroplasmic mutations, which can be easily identified as any mutation that ends with any letter other than T, A, C or G – for example 16519Y would be heteroplasmic, indicated by the Y. The simple explanation for heteroplamic mutations is that they are a mutation in progress, and therefore relatively recent. They don’t pertain to deeper ancestry, so we are ignoring them for this discussion. Most people don’t have heteroplasmic mutations.

Building Your Tree

Let’s look at an example of how to build a mitochondrial mutation tree.

A common ancestor, at the top of the tree, has 2 mutations that they pass to all of their descendants.

Ancestor B and C have those 2 mutations, so they match ancestor A and each other.

Both ancestor B and C have both developed mutations that don’t match each other. In real life, it would be very rare for mitochondrial DNA to develop mutations in every generation, so just view this as a rather time-compressed example.

In ancestor B’s line, there are two contemporary individuals, D and E, who have all 3 of the mutations that Ancestor B carried.

So, you have a tree that looks like this. You can click to enlarge.

Ancestor C also has two descendants, F and G, who both carry all of Ancestor C’s mutations, plus both F and G each have a mutation that doesn’t match each other.

So, now let’s say Person I comes along as a match. You can tell which line they belong to, and which lines they don’t, by which mutation(s) person I carries, as compared to your tree. For example, if person I carries mutations 1, 2 and 4, then you know that they are a descendant of Ancestor C, not B. If they carry 1, 2, 4 and 5, then they descend from Person G’s line.

I suggest that you work with your full sequence matches to build this type of mitochondrial descendancy tree. You must work with your matches, because you cannot see your matches’ coding region results, not even in projects, so you’ll have to ask each one to share with you. Be prepared, some people won’t answer, but often, based on who the people match that do respond to you, and are willing to share, you can figure out the missing blanks.

For example, Let’s say John matches you with one mutation, and so does Joe, but Joe doesn’t answer your e-mail. However, John wants to work with you and John matches Joe exactly. Now you know which mutation Joe has as well – the same one as John.

You know that each of your full sequence matches is within a maximum of 3 mutations difference from you, because that’s the maximum that Family Tree DNA allows to be considered a match at the full sequence level.

Of course, not all of your matches will have the same 3 mutations, which is why you’ll need to work with them to see how your tree fleshes out. Who knows what surprises you may find.

The first question I ask each of my matches, after explaining what I’m trying to do, is whether they share any of my extra or missing mutations, with the exception of the insertions at 309, 315 or 522 and/or any mutation at 16519. These mutations are extremely common. Sometimes people are more comfortable sharing specific mutations than sending you their results. Other people will be glad to send results. In rare instances, the coding region may hold mutations that have medical significance, which is why Family Tree DNA doesn’t show specific mutations, only whether you match or not.

In the example above, you can see that C16189T is normally present in this mitochondrial sequence, but it missing from this person’s results.

Your mitochondrial tree that you build may well shed light on your common ancestor and based on the location of the oldest ancestor of the person at the top of your tree, may also shed light on the location where your common ancestor may have lived and the migration path she took to where your most distant ancestor in this line was found.

My own mitochondrial DNA tree begins in Scandinavia and only my line winds up in Germany before 1700. Another branch is found in Poland.

Ironically, my exact matches are in Norway (red), not to the line in Poland (orange). The rest of the lines whom I match and that also descend from my Scandinavian ancestor are still found in Scandinavia with one exception found in southern Russia which could be a result of migration to this region from the Germanic region of Europe in the 1700s and 1800s. This tells me that I’m closer, genetically, to the Scandinavian branches than the Polish branch, which is not at all what I would have expected. The Polish branch apparently migrated separately from mine.

My mitochondrial tree also tells me that the common ancestor of all of the matches likely originated in Scandinavia, possibly Norway, also not something I would have expected, given that my most distant ancestor is very clearly German, based on church records.

Give building your mitochondrial tree a try and see what kinds of surprises it may hold! If you haven’t yet tested your full sequence mitochondrial DNA, order that test today. You have ancestors waiting for you!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroup Y

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Pam, a lady with very interesting mitochondrial DNA, recently asked me about mitochondrial haplogroup Y1, and if it had ever been found in the Native American population. The answer, as best I knew, was a resounding “no.”

Pam told me that she had only found about 15 people who were of that haplogroup and most of them are East Asian. Her most distant matrilineal ancestor is from Slovakia as is her full sequence exact match at Family tree DNA. A more distant match’s most distant ancestor was born in Istanbul, but immigrated there from someplace in Europe, possibly the Ukraine or Slovakia. A third match’s immediate family was from the Ukraine near Belarus from the 1880s.

The migration map provided by Family Tree DNA tells us the following about haplogroup Y:

Given that this haplogroup is primarily eastern Asian, Pam wondered if there was any possibility that this was a “sleeper” haplogroup and had been found in the Native American population since the most recent papers had been published.

Good question. Let’s take a look.

The History of Mitochondrial Haplogroup Y

Haplogroup Y evolved from haplogroup N9 that evolved from haplogroup N that evolved from haplogroup L3, which was African.

As a National Geographic Genographic Affiliate Researcher, I decided to take a look at what information the Genographic Project might reveal about mtDNA haplogroup Y. For starters, the Genographic project provides a nice compact tree in their research database.

I created a chart combining the subgroups of haplogroup Y, the age of each group, the standard deviation for each subgroup, the defining mutations as provided by the Genographic project (Phylotree Version 16) and the oldest maternal birth locations for haplogroup Y subgroup participants in the Genographic Project. The age should be read as “most likely 24,576 but the range would be from 17,493-31,659 years ago.” I would simply say that haplogroup Y was born about 25,000 years ago. If you think of a bell shaped curve, 24,576 would be the top of the bell and the tails, which are increasingly less likely would extend 7,083 years in both directions.

Haplogroup	Age per Dr. Doron Behar	Standard Deviation (+-)	RSRS Defining Mutations (Genographic V 16)	Genographic Oldest Maternal Birth Locations	Other
Y	24,576	7,083	G8392A, A10398G!, T14178C, A14693G, T16126C, T16223C, T16231C	China (2)
Y1	14,689	5,264	T146C!, G3834A, (C16266T)	Slovakia, Czech, Poland, China, Korea (2)
Y1a	7,467	5526	A7933G, T16189C!	None
Y1b	9,222	4,967	A10097G, C15460T	None
Y1b1			G15221A	Russia, Korea
Y1b1a			C9278T	none
Y2	7,279	2,894	T482C, G5147A, T6941C, F7859A, A14914G, A15244G, T16311C!	Simonstown, Western Cape, South Africa	“coloured”
Y2a	4,929	2,789	T12161C	Philippines
Y2a1	2.488	2,658	T11299C	Philippines (8), Sumatra Indonesia, Spain, Malaysia, China, Ireland
Y2a1a			C2856T, G13135A	none
Y2b	1,741	3,454	C338T	none

Unfortunately, there is no mitochondrial haplogroup Y project at Family Tree DNA, so I can’t do any comparisons there.

This article at WikiPedia provides a chart of where mtDNA haplogroup Y has been found in academic studies, along with the following verbiage:

Haplogroup Y has been found with high frequency in many indigenous populations who live around the Sea of Okhotsk, including approximately 66% of Nivkhs, approximately 38% of Ulchs, approximately 21% of Negidals, and approximately 20% of Ainus. It is also fairly common among indigenous peoples of the Kamchatka Peninsula (Koryaks, Itelmens) and Maritime Southeast Asia.

The distribution of haplogroup Y in populations of the Malay Archipelago contrasts starkly with the absence or extreme rarity of this haplogroup in populations of continental Southeast Asia in a manner reminiscent of haplogroup E. However, the frequency of haplogroup Y fades more smoothly away from its maximum around the Sea of Okhotsk in Northeast Asia, being found in approximately 2% of Koreans and in South Siberian and Central Asian populations with an average frequency of 1%.

Its subclade Y2 has been observed in 40% (176/440) of a large pool of samples from Nias in western Indonesia, ranging from a low of 25% (3/12) among the Zalukhu subpopulation to a high of 52% (11/21) among the Ho subpopulation.

Summary

Given that the Native people migrated from far eastern Asia, in Siberia, sometime between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago, we can see that Y1a, for example, is too young to be among that group – given that this haplogroup was born in Asia only around 7,500 years ago. However, it could be possible to find Y1 or Y or even a subgroup of Y not found in Asia or Europe in the Americas, but alas, to date, that has not materialized, nor have any pre-contact burials been found in the Americas that include mitochondrial haplogroup Y or of any subgroup.

How did haplogroup Y, an East Asian haplogroup, come to be found in eastern Europe? Probably the same way my Lentz male Y DNA came to be found in Germany, as well as within the Yamnaya ancient remains found north of the Black Sea in Russia from some 3,500 years ago. We can very probably thank the repeated invasions of what is now Europe from what is now Asia for bringing many of the haplogroups found in present day Eastern Europe – including Y1. This map of the Genghis Kahn empire and troop movements in the 1200s might provide clues.

By derivative work: Bkkbrad (talk)Gengis_Khan_empire-fr.svg: historicair 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC) – Gengis_Khan_empire-fr.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4534962

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank:

National Geographic Society Genographic Project and Dr. Miguel Vilar, Science Manager
Pam, for testing and for asking
Family Tree DNA for providing the testing, projects and support that enables us to further both scientific and genealogical research.
Dr. Doron Behar (et al) paper titled “A ‘Copernican’ Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root” and supplemental data.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Stephen Ulrich Sr., (born c1690), The Conewago Settlement and the Border War, 52 Ancestors #136

Posted on October 23, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Unfortunately, we have very few records on Stephen Ulrich Sr., and those we do have often introduce more questions than they provide answers.

The Ulrich, Miller and Stutzman families reach back into Germany together. We first find records for Johann Michael Mueller, Jacob Stutzman and the Ulrich family in Lambsheim, Germany.

If you research these families and this is the first time you’ve heard of Lambsheim, you can thank our trusty retired genealogist who specializes in German records, Tom – he found this treasure trove. This is the first time this information has ever hit the airwaves!

This early drawing of Lambsheim in 1645 is likely what the town looked like when Michael Miller, Jacob Stutzman and Stephen Ulrich lived there. You can see what looks to be the same church tower in the photo below. Also note the watch tower in the city wall. You can see the gate into the city, at left and the fields outside the walls where the farmers would go to work each day. Below, the city today.

By The original uploader was Romantiker at German Wikipedia – Transferred from de.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1955104

In 2002, John and Eleanor Blankenbaker traveled to Lambsheim to visit where their ancestors lived and they have made two photos, below, available for genealogy usage.

Clearly, the tower is the old part of the church.

This photo shows the watch tower which is depicted in the 1645 drawing. The Blankenbakers indicated that the date in the stone wall was from the 1500s. Stephen Ulrich, Jacob Stutzman and Michael Miller would have seen and maybe stood watch in this tower. The town is even older, dating from at least the 1300s when the first reference is found, but the Millers, Stutzmans and Ulrich families came from elsewhere in the early 1720s, roughly 1721. I have to wonder what drew people to this town at that time.

We don’t have proof positive, yet, that this is the same Ulrich family – but it’s very likely, given various pieces of evidence. What evidence, you ask? Let’s take a look.

Associated Families

We find Johann Michael Mueller, called Michael Miller in this document, as he is referenced by his descendants today, in Lambsheim beginning in 1721 and until 1726 where the Lambsheim records indicate that both he and Jacob Stutzman immigrate. In addition, the same records indicate that both a Johannes and Christian Ulrich immigrate on the ship, Adventure, in 1727. Unfortunately, the Family History of Lambsheim is in German, but Tom helped sort through that.

Indeed, on the same ship roster where Johann Michael Miller and Johann Jacob Stutzman are found, we also find Johannes Ulrich and Christopher Ulrich. The ship’s name is Adventure and the list made upon arrival is dated October 2, 1727. These 5 men and their families embarked on a journey that would change their lives forever, as well as all of their descendants.

In Pennsylvania, ship rosters weren’t kept until 1727 when a law went into effect that all Germans, age 16 or over, were required to take an oath of allegiance upon arrival. No oath, and you didn’t get to get off the boat – except to march to the courthouse or the magistrates to take the oath. From volume I of the series, “Pennsylvania German Pioneers” by Strassberger and Hinke:

Lambsheim Records

Once again, my friend, Tom, comes to my rescue, because Heaven knows, I’m way, WAY out of my league here.

In the Lambsheim city history, I found these records, and asked Tom what they meant.

Ulrich Christoph der Alt,oo Agnes NN;beide 2.3.1723‚20.

3.1724;”wei1and Christoph U.des Alten Erben u.

Kdr”:1.Gg.Phil.,oo Marg.(lebt 1725),(1991);2.M.

Marg.oo Deschler (2282);3.Stefan (1995);4.Jo— hannes (1994)‚3o.11.1725.

Ulrich Stefan;20.3.1724‚50.11.1725,(1995).

2388 Ulrich Joh.,oo Susanne NN‚verkaufen Haus,15.2.27.

(1996?) ““ ‘”

2389 Ulrich Joh.‚oo Kath.NN,beide 12.11.172}‚(1997?)‚

This is from page 264, above, and on page 22, we see

Ullrich Johannes, Taglöhner‚ ebenfalls 1727 auf “Adventure” aus— gewandert; Ullrich Christoph, Taglöhner‚ ebenfalls 1727 auf “Adventure”

Tom replies:

Christoph Ulrich, Sr. and Agnes NN of Schriesheim, Heidelberg, Baden are the parents of Johannes and Christoph, Jr. who came to America with Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman. Stephen is their brother.

The records seem to indicate that Stephen became a citizen of Lambsheim in 1721. It also indicates there are documents related to him for the period 1664-1712.

It further indicates that Christoph Ulrich, Sr. died in 1724 and his heirs were Georg Philip married to Margaretha (left in 1725); M. Marg. married to Deschler; Stefan and Johannes. No mention of Christoph Jr.

Also states:

Ulrich Stefan: 20.3.1724; 30.11.1725

Additional information from the “Purchase Protocol of the Municipality of Lambsheim:”

(C 49) for the years 1719-49. Numbers in brackets refer to the Numbers in Part D.

The sale of fields and houses. The purchases had to be done at the town hall. The corresponding data have been collected, respectively.

The above paragraph is translated by Google from German. It is the prefatory material prior to the listing of buying and selling of land in Lambsheim.

It definitely mentions Johannes Ullrich and Christoph Ullrich sailing on the Adventure.

I find nothing definitive about Stephen Ulrich departing unfortunately.

From page 22:

Ullrich, Johannes, daylaborer, likewise 1727 on the ?Adventure? emigrated.
Ullrich, Christoph, daylaborer, likewise 1726 on the ?Adventure) emigrated.

These lists evidently are from documents in the Lambsheim City Hall that concern the buying and selling of land. Emigrants would be usually selling land and disposing of property before emigrating if they had anything to sell.

Your crew is definitely “interesting.”

Tom, you’ve surely got that right!!!

So it looks like Stefan is the son of Christopher who died in 1724 and his wife Agnes. This is a great day!!!

Then Tom started digging a bit deeper and found the following:

According to the Lambsheim yome, noting that the bracketed numbers are reference numbers, not years:

Christoph Ullrich Sr. married Agness NN, children:

Johann (1994)
Stefan (1995)
Christoph (1993)

Christoph (1993), Jr. was married to Anna Margaretha Miller:

Children: Peter born 1720 who was a soldier in 1744
Georg who married in 1751 to Dorothea Haack:

Childre Elis. born 1752
Johann Heinrich 1752
Georg Friedrich 1758

Stefan (1995) married NN in 1716

Johann (1994) the middle one) who became a citizen in 1712, born in Schriesheim, apparently the one who came to America??

Christoph Ullrich who came to America in 1727 is obviously not Christoph Sr. who died in 1724. I would think it not probable that Christoph Jr. (1993) would appear not to be the one who came to American as he has kids who were born in 1720’s and stayed in Lambsheim.

Who were the Ullrichs who came to PA on the Adventure? Pretty complicated at best. Will be hard to determine without some better records. Schriesheim records might shed some light.

Oh NOOOooooo, this might not be our Stephen after all? Why do the records say nothing about Stephen immigrating? Was this information just omitted? And why, oh why, oh why couldn’t they have listed Stephen’s wife’s name??? The lack of a few pen strokes in 1716 means this information is forever lost to us because the church records in Lambsheim don’t exist for this period.

These Lambsheim records are so confusing and frustrating and to some extent, contradict themselves, if not directly, then by virtue of omission. I’m sure, at the time, everyone knew everyone and there was no question about who stayed and left and did what to whom and when. But nearly 300 years later, we don’t have the luxury of personal insight.

But if this isn’t the right family, then who was Christopher Ulrich who immigrated on the adventure with Johannes Ulrich in 1727? Were there three Christophers, one who immigrated in 1726 and another one in 1727 and one who remained in Lambsheim? Clearly the Christopher who immigrated didn’t leave his small children behind, did he???

If this is our Stephen, he must have taken another ship, because he is not listed on the roster of the Adventure in October 1727, nor any other ship that year or in future years. My bet, at this point, is that if this is our Stephen, and I do believe it is, then he left in 1726 with the Christopher who immigrated.

If this is our Stephen, his 1716 marriage is dually frustrating because his wife’s name isn’t mentioned. However, if he immigrated 10 years later, in 1726, with 6 children born before arrival, that means that either they had 6 children in 10 years or this wasn’t his first marriage. Six children in 10 years is one child every 20 months, which is certainly possible. That does assume that all of those children lived, which would be unusual, but again, not impossible.

It’s certainly feasible that if Stephen sold his land in 1724 and 1725, that he immigrated in 1726, before the lists of immigrants were required, or recorded. The fact that he did not take an oath of fidelity might explain why he was naturalized in 1738 and Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman were not. They had taken those oaths in 1727.

Per the records, George Philip Ulrich left two years earlier. I wonder what happened to Georg Philip and his wife, Margaretha.

It is of note that one of the persistent family oral history stories is that Stephen immigrated with (or had, in America) two brothers, one named John and the other name not recalled.

If this is the case, then those two brothers were likely Johannes and either Christopher or Georg Philip.

Given that we do find these families co-located in Germany, and members of all three families sailed on the same ship for the colonies, I’m going to make the leap of faith here that the Ulrich family in Lambsheim is one and the same with the Ulrich family later found in Lancaster, which becomes York, County, Pennsylvania with Jacob Stutzman and Michael Miller.

Just keep in mind that this may not be an accurate leap of faith, but given the evidence, I feel that it is certainly reasonable, at least until those Schreisheim records totally upset my apple cart.

Tom has made inquiry to the City of Lambsheim for additional information, but to date, no reply has been received.

Naturalization

The first glimpse we have of Stephen Ulrich in the colonies is his naturalization in 1738, in Baltimore County, Maryland. Typically, Brethren declined to be naturalized, although several were naturalized in 1767, probably in order to protect their land. This could well tell us that in 1738, Stephen had not yet become Brethren, or he bent the rules because he had never taken the original oath. If he was already Brethren, perhaps he too was attempting to protect land. For whatever reason, thank goodness for this rule bending.

On page 57 of the Council of Maryland, “Commission Book No. 82,” which contains miscellaneous entries from 1733 to 1773, we find an entry that says: “Ulderey, Stephen, Planter of Baltimore county, native of High Germany, naturalized 4 June, 1738; and his children Stephen, George, Daniel, John, Elizabeth and Susanna.” (provided by Dwayne Wrightsman)

If you’re wondering why Stephen would have been naturalized in Maryland and not Pennsylvania, that’s a great question. The area of Pennsylvania where Stephen lived was disputed between Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the residents in 1738 believed they were living in Maryland.

The absolutely wonderful thing about this naturalization document is that it lists his children born in Germany. If the children had not been born in Germany, there would have been no need for them to be naturalized. It’s worth noting that additional children could have been and probably were born after arrival, especially if Stephen was around the age of 20-25 in 1716, as was his bride.

Stephen
George
Daniel
John
Elizabeth
Susanna

Thank goodness for this list!

We don’t know and have never discovered Stephen’s wife’s name, although family trees are full of the first name of Elizabeth and various surnames, one of which is Waggoner. No proof has ever been found of any wife’s name, to the best of my knowledge, although perhaps the Lambsheim or Schriesheim records might give up some gems with further mining.

I suspect that the genesis of the name Elizabeth Waggoner is that the Waggoner family was a neighbor to the Ulrich family both in Lancaster County (1743 land grant on Conewago) and in Frederick County in 1751. However, for Stephen’s wife to be Elizabeth Waggoner, the Waggoner family would have to be found with the Ulrich family in or near Lambsheim, Germany before immigration.

We don’t know when Stephen immigrated, but we know it’s not before 1725 and not after 1738. I would hazard a speculative guess that it was about 1726, because that’s the year that the other Ulrich men who were selling property in Lambsheim began immigrating, along with Michael Miller and Jacob Stutzman. 1726, as opposed to 1727 or after would also explain why Stephen Ulrich’s name is not found on any ship’s passenger list from 1727 forward when oaths of allegiance were required.

The Land at Conewago

We believe Stephen Jr. was born no later than 1720 based on the fact that be obtained land in 1742 in Lancaster County, PA, adjacent land of Stephen Sr.

We know that indeed, Stephen Sr. did own land before 1742, although we don’t have a land grant.

Based on secondary information, Stephen Ulrich Sr. purchased his original tract directly from John Digges, who originally settled “Digges Choice in the Back Woods,” a supposed 10,000 acre parcel near present day Hanover, PA under a Maryland land grant. Today Digges Choice includes all of Penn Township and most of Heidelberg Township in York County, along with part of Conewago, Germany and Union Townships in Adams County. This land was surveyed in 1732 but a patent was not issued until October 11, 1735.

Some of the “squatters” that had originally settled west of the Susquehanna on what were still Indian lands were attracted to Digges Choice. Digges was advertising these lands as early as 1731. The first land record given by Digges was to Adam Forney in October of 1731, but clear title couldn’t have passed at that time, so Digges gave Forney his bond upon which he identifies himself as “of Prince George’s County, Maryland,” clearly indicating that he believed this land to be located in Maryland, not in Pennsylvania. Note that Adam Furney is one of the men naturalized along with Stephen Ulrich in 1738.

The Conewago Settlement, where Stephen Ulrich Sr. lived, was also on Digges’ Choice and is now located in Adams County.

On Feb. 16, 1742, Lancaster County, PA issued warrants 7-U and 8-U for Stephen Ulrick, Junr. to take up lands west of the Susquehanna. He staked out adjoining tracts in what was then a dense wilderness on Little Conewago Creek on land adjoining that of his father according to the warrant descriptions. We know that Stephen lived there as early as 1738 when the family surname is listed retrospectively in 1770 as a founder of Little Conewago Church.

Stephen Ulrich Sr. and Stephen Ulrich Jr. both owned land in or near Digges Choice in York, now Adams County. Hanover was at the center of Digges Choice, which was laid out about 1739.

Stephen Jr.’s warrant tells us where Stephen Sr.’s land is, approximately.

Stephen Ulrich Junior of Lancaster County, 100 acres of land situate on Little Conewago Creek adjoining his father Stephen Ulrich’s land and William Hoolerd? On the west side of Susquehanne River for 15 pounds 10 shillings and yearly quit rent of one half penny sterling for every acre thereof.

Stephen Jr.’s second warrant mentions Little Conewago and Indian Run, locations we can identify today.

I’m unclear about the exact location of Stephen Ulrich Sr.’s land that he purchased from Digges. There is no warrant and no deed, but original records do need to be checked. However, we do have hints from other sources.

In addition to Stephen Jr.’s 1742 warrant, we’re very fortunate to have a 1783 deed that provides us with a little more information about Stephen Sr.’s land.

This 1783 record further clarifies that Stephen Sr. lived on the main road in York County, which would have been present day Hanover Pike.

1783 – Deed – May 17^th – George Adam Stum of Heidelberg Twp, York County yeoman and Mary Apelone his wife for better securing the payment of….sold to Sebastian Opold a 150 ac tract of land in Heidelberg Twp part of larger tract called Diges’ Choice adj the Conestoga Old Road which tract of land John Digges conveyed unto Stephen Ullery and the said Ullery conveyed unto Peter Neffziger….

Land Records of York Co, Pa 1775-1793 by Mary Marshall Brewer, p 70-71

Interestingly enough, there is a 1754 will for one Ulrich Naftsiger in Lancaster County, which surely makes me wonder – although Ulrich seems to be a much more popular first name at that time than as a surname.

Unfortunately, the location of this deed seems to introduce some ambiguity and discrepancy in terms of the location of the land of Stephen Ulrich Sr. The land of Stephen Ulrich Jr. is unquestionably in Conewago Township in what is now Adams County, not Heidelberg in York County. The mention of Heidelberg Township really threw men for a loop for awhile.

However, additional research in “Conewago: A Collection of Catholic Local History,” page 25, states that the area that is now Conewago Township in Adams County was previously Heidelberg Township.

I’m beginning to suspect that Stephen Ulrich Sr. may have owned more land than we know about today. Finding John Digges conveyances might answer a lot of questions.

Locating Stephen’s Land

As luck would have it, the area in York (now Adams) County owned by Stephen Ulrich and his son includes a section of the old road, laid out in 1740 and 1741, that was bypassed by the current Hanover Pike.

On the map above, you can see the short stretch of the old road just below Hanover Shoe Farms. Below, the aerial view satellite view. It just does my heart good to know that I’m looking at Stephen’s land, even if I don’t know the exact location. However, we can get pretty close utilizing several pieces of information.

The arrow above shows where Little Conewago Creek crosses the road. Little Conewago can be followed visually by following the treed area.

Apparently, the bypassing of the old road occurred long ago, because the old road appears to be very narrow, probably one lane or two if moving very slowly.

Today, utilizing Google Maps Street View, we can see the current Hanover Pike at the location where it intersects with Old Hanover Road, now privately owned. Above, the southern end of the old road. It just looks like a driveway today and you’d never know the difference without satellite view.

Below, driving on down Hanover Pike to the northewast, we can see the location of the south branch of Little Conewago Creek. This is the only intersection of Little Conewago Creek and what was then the main, and only, road.

Below, we can see the field beside the creek, at left, between the current road and the remnants of the old road.

You can see the “old road” in the distance if you look closely through the trees.

Unfortunately, Google doesn’t “drive” privately owned roads, so we can’t drive down this one lane old road today, sadly.

Here’s another peek at the old road that Stephen Ulrich lived along and certainly traveled often, from the north end of the Old Hanover Road.

The new road, Hanover Pike, is to the left and you’re looking directly down the old road. Only about half a mile of the old road is preserved today.

Here’s an aerial of just this area. The intersection above is at the top right beside the 194 road marker. There had to be a cemetery and an original homestead. Death was a constant, and both Stephen and his wife likely died while living here. I wonder where the homestead and cemetery were located. Sometimes you can see a very old structure, but that’s not the case here. There has been significant development today, so they could have been obliterated. If the graves were not marked with more than wooden crosses, they could simply have been overtaken by nature after the children moved on to the next frontier. It doesn’t seem that any of Stephen’s children remained in this area, at least none that we know of. There was no one to visit or maintain graves.

I’ll look more closely to see if I can spy anything that could possibly be an old cemetery. Oh look, there’s a quilt shop! Now I HAVE to visit. (Note that you can click to enlarge any of these images.)

The only way this could get better is if I walked into the quilt shop to find a deed from Stephen framed on their wall, and they tell me that the old family cemetery is just out back. I dream about things like this.

Pardon my little fantasy flight of fancy there…back to reality!

John Hale Stutzman, when writing his book, Jacob Stutzman (?-1775), was apparently able to locate the land of Stephen Ulrich, Jr.

On the document below, the outlines of tracts A and B from John Hale Stutzman’s book are based on official survey, patent and deed records. This land was purchased by Jacob Stutzman from Stephen Ulrich Jr., and one of Stephen’s two land warants was described as adjoining his father, Stephen Sr.’s, tract.

Page 6, Jacob Stutzman (?-1775) by John Hale Stutzman, Jr. (JHS)

The Old Monacacy Road is today’s Hanover Pike and was referenced in a later deed as the “Conestoga Old Road.”

Tract C was purchased in 1759 from John Digges by Jacob Stutzman, according to JHS. Jacob also owned tracts A and B which he purchased from Stephen Ulrich (Jr.). This suggests strongly that the boundary of Digges Choice was between tracts A and B which were obtained in Warrants from Pennsylvania and tract C which was obtained by purchase from John Digges. This also suggests that tracts A and B were very likely in the area contested by Digges as lawfully his, which means that life likely became a living hell for Stephen Ulrich because the contested lands were the central flash points in the “Border War.”

Interestingly, based on the map above and the Google map today, it’s possible that Stephen Sr. owned the land roughly bracketed by Schiebert Road today (top left arrow, below), which crosses both old Hanover Road and Hanover Pike, then continues southeast to intersect with Sheppard Road (bottom arrow) which turns north to intersect with Narrow Drive (right arrow). Narrow Drive, just to the right of the intersection where Lovers Drive and Narrow Drive intersect, where the woods is seen on both sides of Narrow Drive (bottom right arrow), is the location indicated by Stephen Ulrich Jr.’s land grant. That area of foliage is Indian Creek and it intersects Little Conewago between Narrow Drive and Sheppard Road. This area between the arrows forms roughly an oval.

This would be a very logical location for Stephen Ulrich Sr.’s land and it meets all of the criteria – adjacent to Stephens Jr.’s, the old road and Little Conewago Creek.

Here’s the exact same image without the foliage so you can see the creek locations. Indian run, owned by Stephen Jr. crosses Narrow Drive and dumps into Little Conewago just below Narrow Drive, at right. At left, we can see where Little Conewago Creek runs between the old Hanover Road and today’s Hanover Pike (194).

Aha – We can’t drive down Sheppard Road, as it’s privately owned too.

Below, we can see Sheppard Road across the field, from Narrow Drive.

The intersection of Lovers Drive, Sheppard Road and Narrow Drive is closed too. It looks like many of the old roads are privately owned now. I bet that field that we’re looking at from this interesection was Stephen’s.

Given that John Digges did not convey land to Stephen Ulrich Jr., the 150 acres described in the 1783 transaction has to be that of Stephen Sr. and is likely his original land. Given that we have the owners name in 1783, it might well be possible to bring this deed to current and locate the land, exactly, today.

I did not find a deed to Peter Neffziger, but I also have not viewed the original deed books for Lancaster County, where this transaction would have taken place before 1749 when York was formed. If the transaction took place in 1749 or later, then it would have been in York County. Variant spellings for both Ulrich and Neffziger also need to be considered and researched.

It is believed that in 1738, during the time Stephen Ulrich lived here, he and his friend Jacob Stutzman organized the Conewago Congregation of the German Baptist in Conewago Twp. near Hanover, Pennsylvania. Notice I didn’t say church, because at that time, Brethren met in their homes and barns and didn’t build church buildings until much later. Even then, many were against building church buildings, fearing it would destroy the camaraderie of staying with other Brethren families who were hosting “church” on Sunday. Eventually, the Black Rock Church of the Brethren was established in 1876, about 10 miles distant from the area near Narrow Drive, shown below.

Given that the Millers, Stutzman’s and Ulrich’s lived near Hanover, they likely had church in their homes in that vicinity.

Michael Miller lived near or at the location of Bair’s Mennonite Church today, shown on the map below, in Heidelberg Township.

Brethren descendant and researcher, Dwayne Wrightsman says:

According to Morgan Edwards, writing in 1770, the Little Conewago congregation of Brethren was started in 1738, by “Eldrick, Dierdorff, Bigler, Gripe, Studsman and others under the leadership of Daniel Leatherman.” It is commonly thought that Eldrick was Ulrich, Gripe was Greib/Cripe, and Studsman was Stutzman. All were Brethren, friends, neighbors, and related by marriage. It is also commonly thought that Eldrick and Ulderey were one and the same.

That “all related by marriage” comment bothers me a bit. I hope he was referring to 1770 and not 1738, because if they were related by marriage in 1738, which means in Germany, we’ll never get this figured out.

We know that Stephen Ulrich Sr. was in Lancaster County, near present day Hanover, before 1742 and that he was naturalized in Baltimore County, Maryland in 1738.

The land where he lived was in a border area claimed by both Pennsylvania and Maryland, and was embroiled in what become known as the Border War until 1767 when the Mason-Dixon line was finalized.

—“Cresapwarmap” by Kmusser – self-made, based primarily on the description at http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS/Repository/1.0/Disseminate/psu.ph/1129771136/body/pdf. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Commons

Stephen Ulrich Sr., was actually probably one of the more fortunate souls, because he purchased at least some land directly from Digges, himself. That land did not seem to be in dispute, other than the fact that Digges sold some 4,000 acres more than he actually owned. The land that Digges sold that he didn’t legally own is he same land that Pennsylvania issued land warrants for. Since the 1783 deed says that Stephen Ulrich purchased the land from Digges, and not that he obtained it by warrant, this suggests that Stephen’s land purchase from Digges was deemed to be legitimate and was not in the contested area. However, his 1743 land warrant and those in 1742 of his son, Stephen Jr. abutted the original Digges Choice grant and were assuredly in the contested area. In fact, the “war” with Digges erupted at their neighbor, Martin Kitzmiller’s home.

Digges attempted to file a modified survey for his Maryland patent, to extend it to the full 10,000 acres, but in the interim, several men, likely including Stephen Ulrich Jr. in 1742, and Stephen Sr. in 1743 had already been granted warrants by Pennsylvania on this same land. Stephen Sr.’s 1743 grant is shown below.

Stephen Ulrich of Lancaster County, 100 acres of land situate on the west side of Susquehanna River adjoining the land of George Wagoner on great Conewago. The closest portion of “Great Conewago,” known simply today as Conewago, was 7 or 8 miles, as the crow flies, north of the land at McSherrytown where Stephen Sr.’s original land abutted that of Stephen Jr. Stephen Sr. likely did not live on this land on Conewago patented in 1743..

On the map above, Stephen Jr. and Sr.’s land was just south of Pennville on 194 (bottom arrow). Conewago Creek, known as “Great Conewago” to differentiate it from Little Conewago, is the blue ribbon at the top of the image, running left to right between 15, 394, 94 south of Hampton and then to East Berlin at 234 (top arrows).

The great irony in this is that mother and I visited the Gettysburg National Battlefield years ago, located just slightly to the west, and while we appreciated the history at the historic site, we had absolutely no idea that we had our own history within ten miles or so. It makes me heartsick to think we were so close, but didn’t know, and now it’s too late to take Mom back again.

One Hot Mess – The Border War

This 1743 patent by Stephen Ulrich does not say “Jr.” so I’m presuming the patent is to Stephen Sr. If so, this land would likely have been in the contested area where Pennsylvania granted land to settlers and Digges thought the land fell within his patent. That may have been solely wishful and opportunistic thinking on Digges part.

Digges subsequently attempted to bully the men who had obtained grants from Pennsylvania into releasing their land in the disputed area to him. When that didn’t work, he tried intimidation and wanted them to repurchase their land, from him. That didn’t work either, and emotions escalated until the situation exploded like a tender box at the neighbor, Martin Kitzmiller’s, mill, shown below. Kitzmiller’s land abutted that of Stephen Ulrich Jr.

According to an 1886 edition of the Gettyburg Compiler, quoted in the book “The Murder of Dudley Digges – 1752,” this mill had the year 1738 inscribed on a log in the gable 14 feet from the ground. So this building is the very structure that Stephen Ulrich saw and assuredly visited, standing inside, probably chatting, in German, of course, with Martin Kitzmiller as his grain was ground. The brick portion of the structure above was added in 1755 and in 1886, the article states that the older folks still remembered a house standing beside the mill. The article further states that the mill was located near the headwaters of Little Conewago, in Conewago Township and was a major hostelry stop on the main road. Locating this land would also give us a boundary on Stephen Ulrich’s land, because Kitzmiller owned the land adjoining Stephen Ulrich Jr.

John Digges’ son, Dudley, was shot and killed at the mill in 1752, and the situation became an untenable tenderbox. Most of the Brethren left at this time or had already fled for Frederick County, Maryland.

This wasn’t the first time that violence had erupted in the area known as Digges Choice, nicknamed Rogue’s Resort, reflecting on the general perception of Digges.

Another rabble-rouser, Thomas Cresap who became somewhat of a spokesman for the German community had killed a man in the 1730s as well, before returning to Frederick County, Maryland, becoming a Brethren and selling land to Michael Miller.

It seems that the group sympathetic to Maryland left for Maryland and the Pennsylvania contingent tried to tough it out in York County. For the Brethren, who wouldn’t take up arms, even to protect themselves and their families, it must have seemed like a good time to consider other options. There wasn’t an option without risk though, so the options boiled down to the one that seemed “less bad” at the moment.

Needless to say, it was one hot mess on the frontier in York County. It was also about this time, or a few years earlier as the situation began to escalate, that many of the Brethren began purchasing land in Frederick County, Maryland, about 50 or 60 miles due west, believing that this land was not involved in the border dispute. They began moving about 1751 and many relocated together. While we know that Stephen Ulrich Jr. moved in 1751, there is nothing to suggest that Stephen Ulrich Sr. did so. He may have passed on by then. It’s hard to believe his sons would leave an elderly parent behind in that volatile and hostile environment.

Stephen’s Death

What we don’t know is when Stephen died. Some descendants report his death in 1749, but there are no sources listed. I found no will or estate in either Lancaster or York County, although I have not looked at the books personally. Indexes are listed online. Unfortunately, unless you can browse the index, it’s hard to find misspelled surnames. If we could find the deeds where Stephen Sr. sold his land, that would be helpful, as it would at least bracket the date of his demise. More effort should be expended in this regard.

If Stephen had 6 children when he immigrated, in roughly 1726/1727, and they were born every two years, and one was an infant, and none died, then Stephen would have married about 1714. Of course, he could have married significantly earlier or the children could have been born closer together, as we already discussed.

If Stephen married in about 1714, he was born no later than 1694, and possibly significantly earlier.

I don’t know if his children would have had to be naturalized under their own names if they were of age or not, or if they could still be covered by their father regardless of age, so long as they immigrated with him when they were children.

If those children were listed in birth order on the naturalization document, Stephen Jr. was born between 1716 and 1720, assuming it was our Stephen Sr. who married in 1716, the younger children would have been born every year and a half to two years, so possibly before 1726 or 1727, or perhaps as late as 1732.

If Stephen Ulrich Sr. was born in 1694, he would have been 49 years old in 1743 when he applied for his land grant in Pennsylvania. If he was born earlier, he would have been older.

Stephen Sr.’s Children

We do know something about some of Stephen Sr.’s children.

Stephen Ulrich Jr. was born about 1720, or possibly somewhat earlier. If the Stephen who married in Lambsheim in 1716 is his father, and assuming our Stephen was the eldest, he was likely born in either 1716 or 1717. Stephen Jr. died about 1785 in Frederick County, Maryland. He married Elizabeth whose surname is unknown, probably around 1742. His children are documented by the sale of his land following his death.
George Ulrich died in Frederick County before August 1753, his estate being administered by Stephen Ulrich and Nicholas Martin who were listed in the court document as “Protestant dissenters.”
Daniel Ulrich moved first to Frederick County, Maryland and then to Bedford County, Pennsylvania, owning the mill at Roaring Springs. This Daniel is often attributed to Stephen Ulrich Jr., but there is no Daniel shown as the heir of Stephen Ulrich Jr. in 1785, nor would one of Stephen Jr.’s children be old enough to have purchased land and built a mill prior to 1775. Therefore, the Daniel in Bedford County must be the son of Stephen Ulrich, Sr., not Jr. This Daniel is also not the Daniel Ulrich who married Susanna Miller, born in 1759, the daughter of Philip Jacob Miller.
John Ulrich lived on his home place in Frederick County and had 300 acres, 4 horses, 8 cows and two negroes (I believe this is from a 1782 or 1788 tax list.). John had started accumulating land years before with 50 acres. In 1802 he bought 2252 acres on the middle branch of Frankstown Creek (Bedford County, PA) about 2 miles west of Hollidaysburg, a town that came into being about 5 years later. He was 82 when he bought this land and he died the next year. Justin Replogle, Ancestors on the Frontier, pages 163-164. If this is accurate, it places John’s birth in 1719. The “negroes” who I presume were slaves surprise me, as the 1782 Brethren annual meeting spoke against slavery, according to Brethren church historian, Reverend Merle Rummel.
Elizabeth Ulrich is probably the Elizabeth to whom Stephen Ulrich and Nicholas Martin deeded land in Frederick County, Maryland in 1766. Elizabeth had apparently married by 1768 when this land was sold by Jacob Snively. The only explanation set forth by researchers for why Stephen Ulrich and Nicholas Martin would have been deeding Elizabeth land is as part of her estate settlement from her father, although that could explain Stephen but not Nicholas unless they were both administrators. If this is the case, Elizabeth was at least age 28 given that she was listed in her father’s naturalization in 1738. She may well have been significantly older. However, this calls the 1749 date for Stephen Ulrich’s death into serious question. If he died in 1749, his estate would have been distributed to his children, at the latest, when they came of age, which for Elizabeth would have been no later than 1759. Furthermore, if this deed was as a part of her father’s estate settlement, why was Elizabeth the only Ulrich to who a transaction was made? Elizabeth has also been rumored to be the wife of Nicholas Martin, but given that we know, from the 1766 deed that she was an Ulrich in 1766 and a Snively in 1768, she clearly was not married to Nicholas Martin at this time.
Susanna Ulrich, about whom nothing more is known. Mary Kay Coker, a descendant of Nicholas Martin reports that his wife was named Susanna. Susanna Martin did not sign the 1766 deeds to Elizabeth Ulrich, but she did sign a 1794 deed with Nicholas. Susanna Ulrich could have been the wife of Nicholas Martin, but there is no proof. Finding any estate or land sale information about Stephen Sr. could go a long way in resolving the identity of his children.

Additional Research

Based on multiple land records, of Stephen Ulrich Jr. and others, it appears that Stephen Ulrich Sr. owned at least two and possibly three parcels of land, as follows:

1743 Pennsylvania land grant on Conewago
Land abutting Stephen Jr.’s 1742 grant
Land purchased from Digges, date unknown, but in 1783 located in Heidelberg Township, York County (now Conewago in Adams County) along the old conestoga road.

Items 2 and 3 could be, and probably were, the same land, given that Stephen’s land is referenced in Stephen Jr.’s grant.

Finding these deed conveyances from Digges to Stephen Ulrich and from Stephen Ulrich to the subsequent owners would be extremely useful. Of course, Brethren often times did not register deeds, but in the case of Digges, these deeds may not exist. Quoting from research about John Digges and Digges Choice, we find:

John Digges…settled on Digges’ Choice with his wife and children. His financial position can be gleaned from surviving information. He was heavily in debt in 1743 to Charles Carroll and Daniel Dulaney of Annapolis, Maryland. Digges was unable legally to deed land to settlers until after repaying these debts. A number of deeds were issued by Charles Carroll in the early 1750s to various settlers of Digges’ Choice. There is never a cost mentioned in these deeds. They appear merely to give clear legal title to the settlers for land for which they had already paid Digges.

These debts may be the reason for a resurvey of Digges’ Choice in 1745. There is evidence that Digges traveled east of the Susquehanna River to recruit settlers for Digges’ Choice, and by the 1740s he may be attracted an appreciable number of them. There was only one problem: many of these settlers were buying patents from the Pennsylvania authorities and settling on the borders of Digges’ Choice, rather than paying Digges for land inside of it. Consequently, by 1743, Digges realized little profit from land sales in Digges’ Choice. This, coupled with the fact that between 1735 and 1743 Digges may have had financial difficulties, might explain the resurvey of 1745.

It should be remembered that the original warrant to Digges was for 10,000 acres, but that the survey in 1735 was returned for only 6,822 acres. In 1743, Digges applied to the Pennsylvania authorities for a resurvey of the full acreage, blaming the error on the surveyor of 1735. Take notice of the year of this request. We know that Digges was in debt by this time. The application was refused. In 1745, he applied for, and obtained, a resurvey for 10,501 acres from the Maryland authorities.

The resurvey was illegal. It was in direct opposition to the terms agreed to in the Royal Order of 21 May 1738, which authorized the survey of the Temporary Line of 1739. That Order guaranteed legal rights to original tracts in Pennsylvania warranted and surveyed by Marylanders, and vice versa. However, it prohibited the owners of these tracts authority over land contiguous to the tracts, and also forbade resurveys of the original tracts. Because of these terms, the resurvey of Digges’ Choice was illegal.

In many instances, individuals tended to settle a tract and set up farming before buying a warrant for the tract. In some cases, a son of the original settler paid for a tract of land a generation after the fact. For settlers inside Digges’ Choice, pinpointing settlement dates can be no more accurate. As mentioned earlier, John Digges was unable to deed land to settlers until after 1750. Because of this unfortunate situation, some of the earliest settlers escape our notice entirely. We can discover cases of settlers moving into the area, settling for several years, and then moving west or south, all without leaving a record in official deeds, warrants or patents.

In the case of Stephen Ulrich, if we could find the land conveyance to Peter Neffziger or from Neffziger to Adam Stum, even that could potentially be helpful.

Additional research into estate records, inventories, administrations, court or any other records that may not be quite as popular as actual will records might yield some clue as to the death of Stephen Ulrich Sr. Even land records, if we could find them, might help narrow those dates.

Access to original records for both Lancaster and York Counties could prove very useful, as could every name indexes. It’s also possible that Baltimore or Prince George’s County, Maryland could hold early records as well, since that’s where Stephen believed that he lived.

I don’t believe every stone has yet been turned. I hope that other researchers, if they have researched these records will step forth so we can eliminate them as possibilities, and that future researchers will finish the due diligence in the early records that Stephen Ulrich Sr. so richly deserves.

I will post updates if they are forthcoming.

DNA?

We certainly could benefit from some types of DNA testing.

If a male Ulrich who descends from any of Stephen Sr.’s sons takes a Y DNA test, we can obtain useful information about our Ulrich ancestors via the Y DNA results. There are several Ulrich males that have tested whose ancestors are from Germany, and it would be very useful to know if we match any of those Ulrich men.

I have a DNA testing scholarship for the first male Ulrich who steps forth who descends from this line.

Unfortunately, the mitochondrial DNA line of Stephen’s wife seems to be dead to us. We know nothing of daughter Susanna. If daughter Elizabeth is the same Elizabeth who married Jacob Snively, there is only one reported child, a son, Jacob – although that doesn’t mean additional children didn’t exist. If Elizabeth was born in 1726, just before leaving Germany, then she would have been 40 years old in 1766 when the land was deeded to her. There are a lot of assumptions here, some of which may be incorrect, because she apparently did have one child, so she may not have been quite 40 when she married.

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited by all children from their mother, but is only passed on by the daughters. Therefore, to obtain Stephen Ulrich’s wife’s mitochondrial DNA, we would need to find someone who descends through her daughters through all females to the current generation. It appears that we have no candidates unless someone discovers what happened to Susanna or that Elizabeth had a previously unknown daughter.

Autosomal DNA, passed to all descendants, but divided in (roughtly) have in each subsequent generation might be interesting if descendants of Stephen Sr. match each other AND don’t also share other lines in common. One of the great challenges of Brethren genealogy and endogamous groups is that these lines are often so intermarried after generations of living together and migrating in communities that the DNA is extremely difficult to sort through and assign to specific ancestors. However, if any of Stephen Sr.’s descendants have taken autosomal DNA tests, please do let me know and let’s see if we share any of his segments.

In Summary

We don’t have Stephen’s signature or even know exactly where his land was located, nor can we visit his grave. Perhaps if we can identify a segment of Stephen’s DNA that would be something very personal of his that still remains, intact and viable more than 300 years after his birth in Germany – in us, his descendants.

It’s amazing to think, in world so large, through an Atlantic crossing so perilous, and amid constant warfare on the frontier for all of Stephen’s adult life – that he survived and gave part of his DNA to me. I am the carrier of the torch, Stephen Ulrich’s torch, through many generations. But it’s only through the comparison of my DNA to other descendants who are also torch carriers and have tested their DNA that we can discover, collaboratively, which pieces of Stephen still exist. Assuredly, something of Stephen remains.

Finding the DNA that exists from Stephen must be a “we” and not a “me” endeavor, bringing the descendants of Stephen together one more time…to find what remains of Stephen today.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Concepts – Why DNA Testing the Oldest Family Members is Critically Important

Posted on October 19, 2016 by Roberta Estes

Recently, someone asked me to explain why testing the older, in fact, the oldest family members is so important. What they really wanted were talking points in order to explain to others, in just a few words, so that they could understand the reasoning without having to understand the details or the science.

Before I address that question, I want to talk briefly about how Y and mitochondrial DNA are different from autosomal DNA, because the answer to the “oldest ancestor” question is a bit different for those two types of tests versus autosomal DNA.

In the article, 4 Kinds of DNA for Genetic Genealogy, I explain the differences between Y and mitochondrial DNA testing, who can take each, and how they differ from autosomal DNA testing.

Y and Mitochondrial DNA

In the graphic below, you can see that the Y chromosome, represented by blue squares, is inherited only by males from direct patrilineal males in the male’s tree – meaning inherited from his father who inherited the Y chromosome from his father who inherited it from his father, on up the tree. Of course, along with the Y chromosome, generally, the males also inherited their surname.

Mitochondrial DNA, depicted as red circles, is inherited by both genders of children, but ONLY the females only pass it on. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from your mother, who inherited it from her mother, who inherited it from her mother, on up the tree in the direct matrilineal path.

Neither Y or mitochondrial DNA is ever mixed with the DNA of the other parent, so it is never “lost” during inheritance. It is inherited completely and intact. This allows us to look back more reliably much further in time and obtain a direct, unobstructed, view of the history of the direct patrilineal or matrilineal line.

Changes between generations are caused by mutations, not by the DNA of the two parents being mixed together and by half being lost during inheritance.

This means that we test the oldest relevant ancestor in that line to be sure we have the “original” DNA and not results that have incurred a mutation, although generally, mutations are relatively easy to deal with for both Y and mitochondrial DNA since the balance of this type of DNA is still ancestral.

Testing the oldest generation is not quite as important in Y and mitochondrial DNA as it is for autosomal DNA, because most, if not all, of the Y and mitochondrial DNA will remain exactly the same between generations. That is assuming, of course, that no unknown adoptions, known as Nonparental Events (NPEs) occurred between generations.

However, autosomal DNA is quite different. When utilizing autosomal DNA, every person inherits only half of their parents’ DNA, so half of their autosomal ancestral history is lost with the half of their parents’ DNA that they don’t inherit. For autosomal DNA, testing the oldest people in the family, and their siblings, is critically important.

Autosomal DNA

In the graphic below, you can see that the Y and mitochondrial DNA, still represented by a small blue chromosome and a red circle, respectively, is inherited from only one line. The son received an entirely intact blue Y chromosome and both the son and daughter receive an entirely intact mitochondrial DNA circle.

Autosomal DNA, on the other hand, represented by the variously colored chromosomes assigned to the 8 great-grandparents on the top row, is inherited by the son and daughter, at the bottom, in an entirely different way. The autosomal chromosomes inherited by the son and daughter have pieces of blue, yellow, green, pink, grey, tan, teal and red mixed in various proportions.

In fact, you can see that in the grandfather’s generation, the paternal grandfather inherited a pink and green chromosome from his mother and a blue and yellow chromosome from his father, not to be confused with the smaller blue Y chromosome which is shown separately. The maternal grandmother inherited a grey and tan chromosome from her father and a teal and red chromosome from her mother, again not to be confused with the red mitochondrial circle.

In the next generation, the father inherited parts of the pink, green, blue and yellow DNA. The mother inherited parts of the grey, tan, teal and red DNA.

The answer to part of the question of why it’s so important to test older generations is answered with this graphic.

The children inherit even smaller portions of their ancestor’s autosomal DNA than their parents inherited. In fact, in every generation, the child inherits half of the DNA of each parent. That means that the other half of the parents’ autosomal DNA is not inherited by the child, so in each generation, you lose half of the autosomal DNA from the previous generation, meaning half of your ancestors’ DNA.

Each child inherits half of their parents’ DNA, but not the same half. So different children from the same parents will carry a different part of their parents’ autosomal DNA, meaning a different part of their ancestors’ DNA.

The best way to understand the actual real-life ramifications of inheriting only half of your parent’s DNA is by way of example.

I have tested at Family Tree DNA and so has my mother. All of my mother’s DNA and matches are directly relevant to my genealogy and ancestry, because I share all of my mother’s ancestors. However, since I only inherited half of her DNA, she will have many matches to cousins that I don’t have, because she carries twice as much of our ancestor’s DNA than I do.

Mother’s Matches	My Matches in Common With Mother	Matches Lost Due to Inheritance
920	371	549

As you can see, I only share 371 of the matches that mother has, which means that I lost 549 matches because I didn’t inherit those segments of ancestral DNA from mother. Therefore, mother matches many people that I don’t.

That’s exactly why it’s so critically important to test the oldest generation.

It’s also important to test siblings. For example, your grandparent’s siblings, your parent’s siblings and your own siblings if your parents aren’t living. These people all share all of your ancestors.

I test my cousin’s siblings as well, if they are willing, because each child inherits a different half of their parent’s DNA, which is your ancestor’s DNA, so they will have matches to different people.

How important is it to test siblings, really?

Let’s take a look at this 4 generation example of matching and see just how many matches we lose in four generations. We begin with my mother’s 920 matches, as shown above, but let’s add two more generations beyond me.

As you can see in the above example, the two grandchildren inherited a different combination of their parent’s DNA, given that Grandchild 1 has 895 matches in common with one of their parents and Grandchild 2 has 1046 matches in common the same parent. Those matches aren’t to entirely the same set of people either – because the two siblings inherited different DNA segments from their parent. The difference in the number of matches and the difference in the people that the siblings match in common with their parent illustrates the difference that inheriting different parental DNA segments makes relative to genealogy and DNA matching.

However, if you look at the matching number in common with their grandparent and great-grandparent, the differences become even greater and the losses between generations become cumulative. Just think how many matches are really lost, given that in our illustration we are only comparing to one of two parents, one of four grandparents and one of 8 great-grandparents.

The really important numbers are the Lost Matches, shown in red. These are the matches that WOULD BE LOST FOREVER IF THE OLDER GENERATION(S) HAD NOT TESTED.

Note that the lost matches are much higher numbers than the matches.

Summary

In summary, here are the talking points about why it’s critically important to test the oldest members of each generation, and every generation between you and them.

Autosomal DNA:

Every person inherits only half of their parents’ DNA, meaning that half of your ancestors’ DNA is lost in each generation – the half you don’t receive.
Siblings each inherit half of their parents’ DNA, but not the same half, so each child has some of their ancestor’s DNA that another child won’t have.
The older generations of direct line relatives and their siblings will match people that you don’t, and their matches are as relevant to your genealogy as your own matches, because you share all of the same ancestors.
Being able to see that you match someone who also matches a known ancestor or cousin shows you immediately which ancestral line the match shares with you.
Your cousins, even though they will have ancestral lines that aren’t yours, still carry parts of your ancestors’ DNA that you don’t, so it’s important to test cousins and their siblings too.

Y and mitochondrial DNA:

Testing older generations allows you to be sure that you’re dealing with DNA results that are closer to, or the same as, your ancestor, without the possibility of mutations introduced in subsequent generations.
In many cases, your cousins, father, grandfather, etc. will carry Y or mitochondrial DNA that you don’t, but that descends directly from one of your ancestors. Your only opportunity to obtain that information is to test lineally appropriate cousins or family members. This is particularly relevant for males such as fathers, grandfathers, paternal aunts and uncles who don’t pass on their mitochondrial DNA.

I wrote about creating your DNA pedigree chart for Y and mitochondrial DNA here.

Be sure to test the oldest generations autosomally, but also remember to review your cousins’ paths of descent from your common ancestors closely to determine if their Y or mitochondrial DNA is relevant to your genealogy! Y, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA are all different parts of unraveling the ancestor puzzle for each of your family lines.

You can order the Y, mitochondrial DNA and Family Finder tests from Family Tree DNA.

Happy ancestor hunting!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

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

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