A New Can of Worms

-

Wikimedia Commons

[Valorie]

Sometimes finding just one new fact, or one new resource, turns into an overwhelming flood of information. This blog is in response to a phone call from MaryLynn, who said, "I blame it all on Alexis!" Alexis recently offered lookups in a book she discovered on her book shelf, in response to MaryLynn's blog about surveying our shelves to see what treasures we already have!


[MaryLynn] 

For more than twenty years I have been content to accept that my 2 great grandfather John Gamble was born about 1798 in South Carolina, information from the 1850 census for Huntington County, Indiana.  Occasionally I would have a mild curiosity about further information but I am not so foolhardy that I would search the 1800 census for a 2 year old boy.

So, when Alexis mentioned that she had a book that listed petitions for land from the South Carolina Council, I asked her to look for the Gamble surname, figuring she would either find none or so many that I would never be able to narrow it down. There were three Gamble petitions in 1767, a very reasonable amount to be researched. In the spirit of collaboration, Alexis further shared that the South Carolina Online Archives Home | SC Department of Archives and History were a good resource.  Since I have never done any research in South Carolina and know very little about the history of the colony, I am open to any hints I may get.

How difficult and time consuming can it be to look for three names--Samuel, John and James Gamble?  Looking for the names was easy; sorting what I found is proving to be much more challenging.  

I found a will for Samuel with wife Margaret and sons named Samuel, James and Hugh.  The will was proven in Fairfield County, 1792. Then I found a will for Samuel with wife Jane and sons John, Robert and Samuel.  This will was proven in Abbeville, June 1804.  The 1767 Samuel was actually one of four in existence at about that time.

I thought I would follow the son Hugh into the 1800s to see what I could find. I haven't gotten there yet because I am embroiled with a Hugh Gamble born about 1710 in Ireland who came to the colonies in 1761. I have found at least seven parcels of land in Craven County acquired by Hugh from 1765 to 1775.  In his will from July 1798 he left his estate to his wife Agnes and his underage daughter Nancy. If Nancy were to die before her maturity, her share was to be divided equally among his five sisters in Ireland. Great information! But no sons and no 1798 birth of John Gamble.  Also, there is terminology in the will for which I'll have to get Alexis' help.

I haven't even started on John or James in 1700s South Carolina but from that 1850 Indiana census, 1798 John Gamble had sons named--James, John and Samuel!  My great grandfather was Samuel and his son, my grandfather, was Samuel Edward Gammel and my father was John. My branch of the tree changed the spelling and lost the "b", but the 1850-1880 Huntington County, Indiana censuses prove their relationship to each other.  I just have to figure out which of those wiggling South Carolina worms to follow.

I started this by blaming Alexis; hopefully you readers are aware of my sense of humor. I am most grateful for the information from Alexis and anyone else who might have some suggestions. This is all part of the collaboration from which we all benefit.


[Valorie] 

I have found a similar can of worms, in "New Relatives" in 23andMe. 


Evidently all the Christmas present DNA kits have been processed, and the results are now on the website. Because I plan a big McBee DNA project in the future, I want to write to all of my matches and get a dialog started. The best time to do that is when people are still interested in their new kit results, so I like to respond to those emails by logging into the site, sorting by newest, and then writing notes to those who match my known McBee matches. Along the way, I try to remember to leave a note of the possible connection, even to those who I'm not writing to. It's one of those projects that you can do while watching the evening news. 

But wow, I've gotten overwhelming response this year! First, to *all* the new matches, I click "Connect" then scroll to the bottom of that screen where the button "Find Relatives in Common" button is. Usually I can tell from the names how we might be connected, but if not, I click the top match there and do the same thing. About half the time they are Baysingers! 

Both "Find Relatives in Common" and Notes at the bottom of the page

In general I'm not sending notes to the Baysinger matches since I'm not actively researching them now. Also at the bottom is the Notes space - writing even a single surname will save you time as you gather more information about your matches. All the scrolling up and down and waiting for the site to load does take time, which is why I like doing it while taking in the news of the day, or re-watching Finding Your Roots or something. 😀 The notes I send are short; something like:

Hi Match Name, our shared matches make me think we could link via the Booth or Robertson family, or those associated with them. I can invite you to my Ancestry tree if you are interested.
All the best,
Valorie Zimmerman
valorie.zimmerman@gmail.com

It's short enough that I can just copy/paste it in, fix the name of the match and the possible links, and click send. I do basically the same on ancestry, although the filtering for DNA matches there is a bit more sophisticated. That's good, because there are twice the number of new matches. It also helps to have used the dot system for awhile, because "Matches in Common" become more and more useful. 

This week it seems like the responses are like the worms in the can - they are escaping! I recently found myself working to add one more person to a tree (for a DNA match) that sprawled from the Washington Territory (Pioneer Pursuit submission!) to Siskiyou County, California, the same county where my second great-grandfather William McBee was last seen in the 1860 Census - and looking up at the clock to see that it was past 2am! No wonder the bags under my eyes were carrying so much weight. Unfortunate that there are only 24 hours in each day.

I think I might wait to check my new MyHeritage matches!



Valorie Zimmerman




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Looking for a Needle in a Haystack? GAME CHANGER at FamilySearch

-
Image
Generated with Bing ImageCreator (AI), March 13, 2024 Where is YOUR Needle, Your Missing Record? Genealogical Proof Standard When we use the GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard) as our guide, we all know that "exhaustive research" can be both tedious and exhausting. Is life long enough to search page by page through all the counties where all the members of a family might have lived, paid taxes, bought, leased or sold property, made a will or died intestate? It is possible that the new Full Text Search at FamilySearch will  eventually  allow us to do just that. It has been estimated that 75% or more of the records at FamilySearch were browsable but not searchable; the only indexes those found in the records themselves. Those records are certainly attainable by using those indexes and browsing to the record of interest, but the process is tedious, often frustrating, and slow. And once found, the record must be read and transcribed to be useful. This new Full Text Search tackles a...
Read more

What's the Question?

-
Image
We genealogists are often told by experienced researchers how important it is to begin with a research question. I resisted doing this for a long time, but now that I use a series of questions to guide my research, the search is more focused and actually finds more of the history of the family I'm investigating. I use a Google Doc as the  research proceeds, where I keep the question(s), the plan, timelines, checklist of resources to search, etc. all in one place. I've seen others use spreadsheets in the same way, perhaps splitting up things in tabs (Excel or Google Sheets). I prefer a document because I add source citations as I find them and I can begin writing up the case right there in the doc as the hypotheses are proven. Specific Questions in Previous Successes As beginners we often have no clue how much and what details we already know about a person, event or relationship, so it's hard to specify what we want to know. But when looking back at successful research, it ...
Read more

Help Save This Abused and Neglected Cemetery

-
Image
Screen capture from Google Maps History In an exchange of emails this past week in both the main SKCGS group, and in the Washington-State-Genealogy group, many facts were revealed about the history of the I.O.O.F. Comet Lodge Cemetery, also known as the Old Burying Ground, the Georgetown Cemetery, the Graham Street Burying Ground and maybe more.  FindAGrave sums it up this way: "Since it was established in 1881, the Comet Lodge cemetery site has been whittled away to less than half its original 5 acres. Records are sketchy but it's safe to say that some 500 pioneers were buried here, atop unknown numbers of native Duwamish people. New burials ended in the 1930s. Since then, homes and streets were built on top of many of the plots as the neighborhood around the cemetery grew.  "Upkeep and ownership of the cemetery bounced between the city, civic groups, relatives of Comet Lodge residents, and nearby neighbors. For years, much of the property was allowed to deteriorate int...
Read more