Research – Page 24 – A Pennsylvania Dutch Genealogy

Surname Saturday: Henry Huber Family

Kris Hocker on 1 Jan 2011

There were two Henry Hubers living near Pequea and Beaver Creeks in the Martic/Conestoga/Strasburg/Lampeter township area in the mid-to-late 1700s.¹ This post is about the family of the Henry Huber who married Catharine Good, daughter of Jacob Good.

Huber/Hoover/Hoober land patents

Jacob Good patented 106 acres on a branch of Beaver Creek in Martic Township (now Providence), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in the right of Michael Shank on 12 Apr 1740. (see B3 on map)² He warranted another tract of 75 acres, also on Beaver Creek, on 24 Jan 1733.³ He did not comply with the conditions of the warrant and 68 acres were warranted to Henry Hoober on 14 Apr 1740. (see B4 on map)⁴ Both of these tracts are shown as being patented on 15 Apr 1740 to Henry Hoober on the Providence Township Warrantee Map.

Jacob Good wrote his last will & testament on 12 Sep 1739; it was proved 22 Jan 1741. In it he mentions his wife Barbara, brothers Peter and John, sisters Feronica Nisley, Margaret Metz, Ann Strum, and son-in-law Henry Hoover.⁵

Henry Hoover also patented a tract of 171 acres in Martic Township (now Providence) on 13 Nov 1744. (see B5 on map)⁶

Assuming he was at least 21 years of age in 1740 when he patented land, Henry was born ca 1719, quite likely before. He married Catharine Good sometime before her father wrote his will in 1739, possibly before 1736. He may be the “loving friend…Henry Huber” named in the 1757 last will & testament of Henry Huber, who owned the adjoining property. (see B1 and B2 on map)⁷ He was also likely the “loving friend Henry Hoover” appointed by neighbor Johan Jacob Hoover as an executor of his will along with Jacob’s sons John and Martin. (see A1, A2, A3 on map)⁸

Henry and Catharine (Good) Hoover had at least 3 children:

Jacob Huber, born bef. 1736 and died bet. 13 Mar and 9 Jun 1788, Martic Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.⁹,¹⁰,¹¹ Jacob married Barbara (___) before 1764. His will names his six children, as follows:
1. Henry Huber, born ca 1764, possibly the Henry Huber who married Anna Margaretta Boyer, daughter of Henry & Elizabeth (___) Boyer.
2. Jacob Huber Jr., born ca 1766¹²
3. Barbara Huber, born ca 1768¹³
4. Christian Huber, born ca 1771-1774¹⁴
5. John Huber, born ca 1771-1774¹⁵
6. Martin Huber, born ca 1774 (aged 16 by 25 Aug 1790)¹⁶
John Huber, born bef. 1746 and died bet. 19 Apr 1794 and 21 Apr 1810, Martic Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania ¹⁷ John married Mary (___) before 1770.
1. John Huber Jr.¹⁸
2. Mary Huber, born bef. 1786, married Peter Huber, son of John and Barbara (___) Huber, grandson of Jacob and Barbara (___) Huber of Martic Township.¹⁹, ²⁰
3. Barbara Huber, born ca 1770-1780 and died bef. 16 Jun 1841, never married²¹, ²²
4. Christina Huber, born ca 1770-1780, never married²³, ²⁴
5. Esther Huber, born bef 1802 and died 15 Mar 1832, never married²⁵, ²⁶
6. Abraham Huber, married Mary (___)²⁷
7. Ann Huber, died before 1 Jan 1828, never married²⁸
8. Susanna Huber, born ca 1790-1794, never married²⁹, ³⁰
9. Elizabeth Huber, born ca 1790-1794, married Henry Krieg sometime bet. 1825 and 3 Mar 1834³¹, ³², ³³
Daughter Huber (possibly Barbara), married Jacob Huber.³⁴ This Jacob may be Jacob Huber Jr., son of Johan Jacob and Anna (___) Huber, grandson of Hans Huber of Earl Township. Johan Jacob and Henry Hoover were neighbors and, presumably, friends.

Connection or Coincidence?

Kris Hocker on 28 Dec 2010

In genealogical research we are told to “research the relatives, neighbors, and associates” of our family member in order to learn more about them and hopefully take our family line back another generation. Richard Hayden wrote an excellent article that used relationships to establish a connection between his ancestor Casper Hoover (bef. 1755—1824) and Michael Hoover (?—1789), Casper’s father.¹ Since German immigrants often moved and settled in groups, researching neighbors and associates—those people named as sponsors, witnesses, etc.—makes good sense. However, when are recurring surnames or individuals a connection and when are they merely a coincidence?

For instance, Michael Hoover purchased 75 acres of land from the “Third Resurvey of Sarah’s Delight” in Frederick County, Maryland from Christopher Shockey on 21 Oct 1769.² Andrew Huber, John Huber and Henry Huber—presumably those Hoovers who moved to Fayette County, Pennsylvania—were named as witnesses to Valentine Shockey’s last will & testament, dated 8 Jun 1773.³ Additionally, Christopher Shockey sold 183 acres of “Third Resurvey of Sarah’s Delight” to Johannes Hoover, possibly the son of Ulrich Huber of Conestoga County, Pennsylvania, on 31 May 1773.⁴ All of these men lived or had lived in the area between Leitersburg and Ringgold in what is now Washington County, Maryland near the Pennsylvania border.

On 7 May 1776 Jacob Hoover, son of Michael Hoover, and Jacob Harbaugh, both farmers of Frederick County, Maryland, took out a mortgage together for 200 acres of the “Third Resurvey of Sarah’s Delight” which they purchased from Valentine Shockey, son of Christopher Shockey.⁵ On 28 Nov 1778, Jacob Hoover, now of Bedford County, Pennsylvania, assigned his share of the property to Jacob Harbaugh.⁶ Jacob Harbaugh’s daughter Susanna married a John Jacob Hoover, born 1762 in Conococheague, Frederick County, Maryland, on 20 Jan 1787 at the Graceham Moravian Church.⁷ Andrew Huber’s daughter Maria Catharina married John Harbaugh, son of George Harbaugh (a brother of Jacob Harbaugh) also at the Moravian Church at Graceham.⁸

So, do these constitute connections or coincidences? To date no relationship has been determined between the Hoovers—except as noted. The men lived in the same general area and some of them at least may have been Mennonites. They were all German immigrants or German-speaking, 1st generation Americans. Therefore, it’s not surprising that they would have dealings with some of the same people.

But is it enough to suggest a deeper relationship? Probably not. But it’s interesting enough to suggest further research is necessary. Who knows what I might find.

What do you think? When does coincidence move into the realm of connection? Have you seen this in your own research? If so, what conclusions did you come to?

Tracing the Children of Jacob Hoover

Kris Hocker on 27 Dec 2010

Jacob² Hoover (Andrew¹) and his wife Anna Maria (___) both died in German Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. Jacob died sometime between 13 Aug 1798 when he sold 126 acres of land to John Lance and 8 Sep 1800 when his will was proved—most likely in late August or early September 1800. ¹^, ² His will named his wife as his executor and the following beneficiaries: wife, Mary, sons and daughters, George Hoover, Elizabeth Simes [Shinn], Cathrine Shoemaker, Margaret Smith, Mary Choffin [Chafin], Magdalina Shoemaker, Rosanna Hoover, Barbra Bakert [Bacus], Rachail Hoover, Jemimah Hoover, Hanna Hoover. The witnesses were Abraham Stuart, James Wilson and Michael Cox.

Anna Maria (___) Hoover died sometime between 2 Dec 1808 and 20 Dec 1808. She named George and Joseph Hoover as her executors. Her beneficiaries were: son George, Jacob Hoover son of George; daughters: Hannah Hoover, Rachel Gray, Elizabeth Shines [Shinn], Catherine Shoemaker, Madelina Shoemaker, Margaret Smith, Mary Chafin, Barbary Barcus [Bacus], Rozannah Hoover, Jemima Bowman; granddaughter Milly Shines [Shinn], Elizabeth daughter of Hannah Hoover.³ The witnesses were George Vance and Samuel Gordon.

Based on these documents, Jacob and Anna Maria (___) Hoover had children:

Catharine³ Hoover married John Schumacher/Shoemaker.
George Hoover married Elizabeth Garrison.
Mary Magdalina Hoover married Johann Adam Schumacher/Shoemaker.
Elizabeth Hoover married George Shinn, perhaps the brother of Nicholas Shinn who owned property adjacent to her father’s.⁴
Margaret Hoover married Unknown Smith, likely Godfrey Smith of Redstone, Pennsylvania.
Mary Hoover married Unknown Chafin.
Rosanna Hoover
Barbara Hoover married Peter Baccus.
Hannah Hoover, baptized on 11 Sep 1783 at Jacob’s Lutheran and Reformed Church in German Township, married circa 1800 Joseph Hoover, perhaps the son of one of her uncles, John or Andrew Hoover Jr.⁵
Rachel Hoover married James Gray.
Jemima Hoover married Unknown Bowman.

So, what happened to these children?

Catharine (Hoover) Shoemaker

John Shoemaker is found in German Township, Fayette County in the 1790 U.S. Census.⁶ The household had 1 male (>16), 4 males (<16), and 1 female. John Shoemaker is also found in the township in 1800: 1 male (45+), 2 males (16-25), 2 males (10-15), 1 female (26-44), and 1 female (10-15).⁷ By 1810, John Shoemaker and family had moved to Breckinridge County, Kentucky.⁸

George Hoover

George Hoover is found in German Township, Fayette County in the 1790 U.S. Census.⁹ The household had 1 male (>16), 1 male (<16), and 1 female. He is no longer listed there in 1800. However, he is listed in tax lists for Ohio County by 10 Sep 1800.¹⁰ In 1810, George Hoover is found in Ohio Township, Ohio County, Kentucky.¹¹ The family had in the household: 1 male (45+), 2 males (16-25), 1 male (10-15), 2 males (<10), 1 female (26-44), 2 females (10-15), and 2 females (<10).

Mary Magdalina (Hoover) Shoemaker

Adam Shoemaker is found in the 1810 U.S. census for Ohio Township, Ohio County, Kentucky. ¹² The household contained 1 male (45+) and one female (45+).

Elizabeth (Hoover) Shinn

George Shinn and family are found in the 1800 U.S. census for Whiteley Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania. ¹³ The household included: 1 male (45+), 1 male (10-15), 1 female (16-25), 1 female (10-15). In 1810, the family was enumerated in Wayne Township, Greene County, Pennsylvania.¹⁴ In the household were 2 males (45+), 1 male (16-25), and 1 female (10-15). Elizabeth died prior to 6 Jan 1817, and may have likely died prior to the 1810 census enumeration.¹⁵

Margaret (Hoover) Smith

Godfrey Smith is found in German Township, Fayette County in the 1790 U.S. Census.¹⁶ The household had 1 male (>16), 1 male (<16), and 2 females. Godfrey’s daughter Emily “Milly” married Jacob Bacus, son of Peter Bacus, on 27 Jan 1816 in Scioto County, Ohio.¹⁷ By 1819, Godfrey was living in Greenup County, Kentucky.¹⁸ They are found in this county in the 1820 U.S. census enumeration.¹⁹ The household included: 1 male (45+), 1 male (16-26), 1 male (16-18), 1 male (10-16), 1 female (45+), 1 female (16-26), 1 female (10-16), 1 female (<10). The family is still in Greenup County in 1830.²⁰

Barbara (Hoover) Baccus

Peter Bacus and family were in Green Township, Scioto County, Ohio by 1820 and may have been there even earlier.²¹ The family included: 1 male (45+), 1 male (16-26), 3 males (<10), 1 female (45+), and 2 females (10-16). The family is still there in 1830: 1 male (60-70), 1 male (15-20), 2 males (10-15), 1 female (60-70), and 1 female (20-30).²²

Hannah (Hoover) Hoover

Joseph Hoover is found in German Township, Fayette County in the 1800 U.S. census.²³ The household consisted of 1 male (16-25) and 1 female (16-25). The family is also there in 1810.²⁴ The household consisted of: 1 male (26-44), 1 male (10-15), 1 male (<5), 1 female (16-25), 1 female (10-15), and 1 female (<5). Joseph Hoover is listed in township tax records from 1800 through 1816 when he and wife Hannah sold the 75 acres they inherited from Mary Hoover to Hugh Gilmore.²⁵

Rachel (Hoover) Gray

In 1808, James Gray was living in German Township, Fayette County, Pennsylvania on a portion of the Hoover’s property. Mary Hoover gave this part of the property to her daughter Rachel in her will.²⁶ I did not find James Gray in the Fayette County census records. However, there is a James Gray living adjacent Godfrey and Jacob Smith in Greenup County, Kentucky in 1820.²⁷ The household includes: 1 male (26-45), 1 male (16-26), 4 males (<10), 1 female (45+), 1 female (16-26), and 2 females (<10). This could be the James and Rachel (Hoover) Gray family.

I have no information on Mary (Hoover) Chaffin, Rosanna Hoover, or Jemima (Hoover) Bowman. Do you have any information on any of these families you’d like to share? If so, please let a comment or drop me a line.

Christian Hoover of Hempfield Township

Kris Hocker on 24 Dec 2010

Researching an individual is particularly difficult when they have a common name. It is even more difficult if there is more than one person of the same name in the same general location at apparently the same time. Such is the case with Christian Hoover of Hempfield Township, Lancaster County.

#6 Christian Hoover tract

Land documents show three warrants for tracts in Hempfield Township granted to “Christian Hoober,” all dated in 1743 or 1744.¹ Two of the warrants were patented to Christian Hoober and the third was patented to Martin Hoover. An additional, adjacent tract in Warwick Township, warranted to “Christian Hooper,” was patented to Christian Hoober on 12 Dec 1747.²^,³

Tract #1

The first tract was in the north eastern corner of present day East Hempfield (see #6 on map at right). It was warranted to Christian Hoober on 10 Jan 1744/5 and patented to him on 12 Dec 1747 (Patent Book A-13:328). The adjacent tract was the Warwick Township tract patented to Christian Hoober on 12 Dec 1747.⁴ These tracts belonged to the same man.

On 16 May 1767 Christian Hoover and wife Margareth sold 2 tracts of land to Jacob Oberholtzer—one of 57.5 acres and the other of 121 acres. Tract 6 on the warrantee township map was 57 acres.⁵ So, he sold this parcel and part of the tract in Warwick Township that he patented in 1747 that was warranted “Christian Hooper.”

Christian Hoover tract

Tract #2

The second tract was located to the south and west and apparently sat in both the present East and West Hempfield townships (see map left). This tract was warranted to Christian Hoober on 8 Jun 1743 and patented to him on 16 Jun 1743 (Patent Book A-11:145). It was surveyed on 12 Mar 1735/6.⁶ This tract later belonged to Christian’s son John Huber Esq.

On 14 Dec 1758, the heirs of Christian Hoover, late of Hempfield Township—namely Martin Hoover and Catharine his wife, Jacob Hoover and Ann his wife, Henry Funk and Elizabeth (Hoover) his wife—sold to John Hoover, another son of Christian Hoover, 224 acres in Hempfield Township (see map #2).⁷ On 1 Sep 1764, Christian Hoffman and Barbara (Hoover) his wife sold their share of Christian Hoover’s property to Barbara’s brother John.⁸ And finally on 10 Jun 1769, John Bausler and Anna (Hoover) his wife sold their interest in the property to John Hoover.⁹ Two additional sons of Christian Hoover were mentioned in the deeds—Michael and Christian Jr. They apparently “died in their Minority unmarried without issue.” ¹⁰

#41 Christian Hoober tract

Tract #3

The third tract is located in the present day West Hempfield Township. It was warranted to Christian Hoober on 15 Aug 1744 and patented to Martin Hoover on 12 Apr 1750 (Patent Book A-15:337). It was surveyed 12 Apr 1737.¹¹ Martin Hoover was Christian’s eldest son.

The West Hempfield tract that was patented to Martin Hoover was given to his sons Joseph and Isaac Hoover in his 1788 last will & testament.¹²

Conclusions

Based on the land warrant, patent and deed records, it is apparent that there were two different men named Christian Hoover in Hempfield Township. The first died sometime prior to 27 Nov 1757.¹³ The second Christian Hoover was alive at least as late as 1771 when he sold land he purchased in Lancaster Borough to Rupertus Hartaffel.¹⁴

Christian Hoover (died bef. 1757) had a son named Christian, but since he died prior to 1758, the second Christian Hoover can not be the son of the first. The first Christian was located in Hempfield Township prior to 1735/6 when tract #2 was surveyed. The second Christian was in Hempfield Township before 21 Feb 1746/7 when the first tract was surveyed.¹⁵

Lost in Transcription

Kris Hocker on 18 Oct 2010

Abstracts are an invaluable source of information for genealogical research. They allow you to compile more information in less time across multiple family lines. But if they include—at best—ambiguously worded or—at worst—incorrect information, they can also cause confusion. Don’t stop at the abstract. If you find a useful reference in an abstract, always get the original document, too!

A case in point: I’ve been working on the Hoovers of the Conestoga/Martic Township area. I’ve also been compiling information on other families they interacted/intermarried with in the neighborhood. A series of deeds in the Lancaster County Deed Book B abstracted in Lancaster County Pennsylvania Land Records 1729-1750 and Land Warrants 1710-1742 provide information on the children of Peter and Margaret Good of Martic Township.

An abstract of a deed between the heirs of Peter Good and Christian Shank includes the following:

“Margaret Good widow of Peter Good of Lancaster Co., yeoman dec’d, Jacob Good eldest son of dec’d, John Good another son of dec’d, Michael Prennaman and Anna his wife daughter of dec’d, John Shaffer and Margaret his wife and daughter of dec’d, Elizabeth Good and Mary Good daughters of dec’d’s younger son Peter, to Christian Shank who intermarried with Barbara daughter of dec’d…”¹ [Emphasis mine]

From this abstract it would be logical to conclude that Elizabeth and Mary were granddaughters of Peter & Margaret Good, and daughters of their youngest son Peter. My reading of the deed itself, reveals something different:

“This Indenture made the thirtieth day of December in the year of our Lord 1748 Between Margaret Good widow and relict of Peter Good late of the county of Lancaster in the Province of Pennsylvania yeoman Dec’d Jacob Good eldest Son of the said Dec’d John Good another Son of the said Dec’d Michael Prennaman and Anna his wife John Stovar and Margaret his wife another of the Daughters of the said Dec’d Elizabeth Good and Mary Good two more of the said Dec’d Daughters and Peter Good youngest son of the s^d Dec’d of the one part and Christian Shank who intermarried with Barbara one of the Daughters of the said Dec’d of the other part…”² [Emphasis mine]

The deed itself is much clearer about who was Elizabeth and Mary’s father—Peter Good (Sr.). Take a look yourself and see if you agree:

Good & others to Christian Shank (1748) (Click to enlarge)

The abstracts for the deed recorded prior to this one—Good & others to Good [Deed Book B:579]—and the one after this one—also Good & others to Good [Deed Book B:581]—use the same wording, implying that Elizabeth and Mary were daughters of Peter’s son Peter. The deeds themselves refer to Elizabeth and Mary as “two more of the said Decedants Daughters.”³,⁴

Peter Good Heirs Signatures

Furthermore, while both Elizabeth and Mary signed the deeds, Peter Good did not. This, I believe, is because he was underage in 1748, being only about 13 years of age—making it nearly impossible that Elizabeth and Mary were his daughters.⁵

So, while abstracts can—and should—play a valuable part in your family research. It’s always a good idea to get the original document if it’s available. You never know what might have been lost or changed in the transcription.

Adding Sources in Reunion

Kris Hocker on 20 Sep 2010

Adding source information in Reunion for Mac is a straightforward process. Adding source information efficiently can be a little more tricky. This post shows how I’ve approached the problem.

There are two methods to input source data in Reunion.

Source Fields

When you want to add a source, you can select a source from the “Add Sources” menu on the person or source window. Selecting a source type will open a window with a selection of predetermined fields to fill out.

Adding a book as a source in Reunion

You can fill in your source information using these fields, or change the fields by either adding or deleting fields. You can also change the source type from this window. If you enter your information this way, your source will look something like this:

27. Ashby, Bernice M., Shenandoah County, Virginia Marriage Bonds, 1772-1850, Virginia Book Company, Berryville, VA, 1967, 170.

Free-Form Text

Alternatively, you can choose to enter your source information as “free-form” text. This is the solution I’ve chosen, primarily because I want my source citations to conform to accepted standards. Using this method, the same source (as above) would look like:

Adding a free-form text source in Reunion

27. Ashby, Bernice M., Shenandoah County, Virginia Marriage Bonds, 1772-1850 (Virginia Book Company, Berryville, VA, 1967), page 170.

In both of these examples, I’ve included the page number as part of the post. That’s fine if you only need to reference one page in this book. But what if you want to cite multiple pages for for different people or events? Using this method, you’ll wind up adding this book to your source list multiple times. Not very efficient.

Detail Field

Using the Source Citation Detail field

A good way around this is to make use of the “Detail” field associated with each source citation. In this case, I did not add the page number to the source, but instead added it to the source citation detail field as shown.

When you create a report and include sources, the source will be listed as in the free-form text example, including the page number. But you’ll be able to reuse source #27 for multiple citations with differing page numbers. This will save you time and effort in entering source data.

Much more efficient.

If you need more information on how to use the source citation detail field to capture information, please take a look at the Recording Source Detail in Reunion for Mac video on GenealogyTools.com. While we differ in our use of “Source Fields” vs. “Free-Form Text” and in the data we capture in the “Source Citation Detail” field, this video will give you a step-by-step tutorial on how to use the application.

For a great book on citations and analysis for family genealogists, please see Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian.

Friday Finds: Help Using Reunion for Mac

Kris Hocker on 17 Sep 2010

If you use Reunion for Mac as your genealogy software program, then you should know about a couple of sites that provide very useful instructional videos: MacGenealogist.com and now GenealogyTools.com.

I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about computers and computer software, and I’ve never had any problems using the software, but I’ve picked up a couple of tips about using the software more efficiently.

Here are a couple of articles/videos I found useful:

How to Quickly Enter Children
Entering Census Events or How to Copy Events…
Checking Date Feasibility
Recording Source Details – How to create fewer source records, but still record all the necessary details for each event citing the source

Should You Judge Research by Its Source List?

Kris Hocker on 17 Sep 2010

I’m a firm believer in always providing source evidence for conclusions in your research. If I come across research that either doesn’t provide sources or lists someone else’s GEDCOM or FTM (Family Treemaker) files as a primary—or only—source, I’m likely to skip it altogether.

But can you judge a piece of research simply by looking at the source list? Is a long list of sources a guarantee of the quality of the research? Ben Sayers of Genealogy Tools.com makes a good argument in his article “The Dangers of Judging Reliability by Source Presence” that the answer is no. He argues that:

“Relying on sources as a soundness indicator in genealogy is like trying to understand a court case, but only having the witness list and the verdict. Sure you’ll know the outcome and you’ll know who was called to testify, but you won’t be able to understand why the decision was made. You won’t know what was asked nor what answers were given by whom. You won’t have a sense of the veracity of the testimony. And you won’t be able to get your own sense of whether the right decision was made. It’s the same thing with genealogy.”

A very good point.

I agree with his argument completely. I believe it’s important for every genealogist to actually do the research—postulate a theory, search for clues, locate the evidence, gather the records, evaluate and analyze the documentation, and draw your own conclusions. That last part is very important. I’ve been down too many wrong research roads because I made a half-hearted attempt at the evaluation and analysis and accepted someone else’s conclusions while ignoring conflicts with other information. Bad researcher!

This is the reason I try to provide as much evidence as possible for the conclusions I draw in my family research. It’s also the reason I’m considering posting those documents online and linking to them from the footnotes. I want share my research so that other genealogists are able to follow my research, review the evidence, and evaluate my conclusions for themselves. Who knows maybe that researcher will have different evidence that contradicts my conclusion and helps to break through a brickwall. And isn’t that what we’re all hoping for?

Proving Your Ancestry

Kris Hocker on 9 Sep 2010

Rootsweb Review had an excellent article yesterday by Mary Harrell-Sesniak entitled “Have You Really Proved Your Ancestry.” The article starts out:

“Researchers often feel they’ve proved ancestry because they located family in one or more online trees.

But tying into a database doesn’t suffice as proof. For that, you need to verify an author’s sources and references – whether they are from original or derivative documents – and whether they can be treated as primary or secondary sources.”

One of the reasons I started posting my research online was because when I searched for information online all too often the data I found only referenced someone else’s family file as a source. And that’s if there were sources at all. Unless there are sources—and I mean documentation like birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, estate files, wills, deeds, obituaries, etc.—how can you know if the information you find online has any substance?

It’s certainly easy enough to find someone with the right name in the right area, decide they’re related and add them to your file. But have you really proven anything? No. Unless you have sources that you can verify—and no, finding it in a book isn’t a verification—and analyze yourself you can’t know if what that other researcher found is true.

I found this last part out myself the hard way. I had reviewed another researcher’s work, gathered the documentation and verified that yes, indeed, they said what was claimed. So, the information was good, right? Hmm. Not so fast. I was ignoring the problems I kept seeing with the timelines regarding births of children and grandchildren (the parents were just TOO young), because all the data seemed to fit. Once I actually did the analysis, I found that several key documents that I already had—although very difficult to read—actually disproved the connection that the other researcher and I were trying to make.

So, yes, you need to find and verify sources. Do they exist? Do they say what the other researcher claimed? You also need to perform your own analysis of the source. Is it an original document or a derivative? It’s best to get as close to the original document as possible. Is the information in the document primary information—created at the time by someone with firsthand knowledge of the event—or secondary information—created after the fact? The closer to the original event the document was created, the more reliable the information is deemed.

Don’t Stop at the Abstract

Kris Hocker on 1 Sep 2010

Here’s my bit of wisdom for a Wednesday: don’t stop your research at the abstract. Find the full document. Why, you ask, when the abstracter extracted all the genealogical information from the document? Ah! But what if they didn’t?

According to Abstracts of York County Wills from 1749 to 1820, Christian Hoover of Heidelberg Township, York County, Pennsylvania wrote his will 10 Feb 1771 and it was proven 21 Mar 1771. His wife Mary was his executor. The abstract lists no one else.

However, if you read the will, Christian stipulates that after Mary’s death there are to be 3 yearly payments of £100 pounds to be paid by her heirs or assigns “into the Hands of Johannes Hoover and Johannes Line in trust for the use of the Surviving Children of my three Brothers namely Jacob Hoover Ulrich Hoover and Henry Hoover…and whereas Johannes Keny son of my sister Ann…unto his brother Henry Keny…”¹ That’s some important family information missing from the abstract.

I’ve seen this will referenced as evidence that Christian Hoover, son of Gregor Jonas and Anna Maria (Kreutzer) Hoover, died childless and left his estate to his brother Johannes Hoover of Manheim Township, Lancaster County and his children. From the will we can determine that Christian probably died childless—he doesn’t name or make any reference to having any—and he does leave his estate to his nieces and nephews. However, he lists his brothers as Jacob, Ulrich and Henry, and a sister Ann and her sons Johannes and Henry Keny [Kuny], making no reference to a brother named John. The money from his estate is left in the hands of a John Hoover, but he is not named as being a brother.

Category: Research