The beauty of a wide readership of a blog is that sometimes someone can come up with a suggestion that may solve a mystery. This post (and the one that follows it) postulates a mystery and attempts to solve it. A new, and in hindsight, very obvious potential solution has been suggested. So please look at the end of the second article for this suggestion.
These two articles are about the problems of doing research, and how sometimes it is necessary to make a judgment on conflicting information from historical sources. The subject is the birth date of Thomas Russell, the older brother of CTR, who is pictured with him in that memorable picture in the original issue of the January 1, 1912 Watch Tower.
The picture dates from 1855 and shows Thomas (aged
about 5) on the left and Charles Taze (aged about 3) on the right. This was
published during CTR’s lifetime. When the magazine was reprinted after CTR had
died, the picture was cropped and only Charles was shown.
As to why this matters, it can help us narrow down
when Joseph Lytle Russell and Ann Eliza Birney were married. Marriage licences
were not required by law in Pennsylvania until 1885, so it is unlikely that any
documentation will ever surface now, assuming it ever existed. We know that Ann
Eliza was still single in March 1849, or at least there is a reference to a
Miss A E Birney in the Pittsburgh Daily Post for Wednesday, April 4, 1849. So,
to be pedantic, someone thought she was still single in March 1849.
Knowing when Thomas was born, we can make
assumptions about when he was conceived, which would narrow down the date of
the marriage.
So when was Thomas born? We have three conflicting
dates, January, March and May in 1850. Let’s look at the “evidence” for each.
If you examine information on the Ancestry website,
you will find Thomas’ birth date given as March 1850. But as often happens with
such sites, there is no reference given for the
information. Everyone seems to be copying everyone else on a
circular journey with no original source material provided. I suspect that the
March date comes from the 1850 census return for Pittsburgh. The entry for the
Russell family, father, mother and one son, is reproduced below.
The rules for the 1850 census were that entries
should reflect information as it existed on June 1st that year.
So we have Joseph L Russell, aged 32, merchant from Ireland, Ann E Russell,
aged 26, from Ireland, and then T Russell (Thomas) from Pennsylvania, who might
appear on first sight to be 3/12. Reading that as three months old would have
him born around March of that year.
The problem arises with the crabby handwriting of
the era, using scratchy pen and ink. Numerous enumerators’ hands are found in
these census returns, with varying degree of legibility. So let’s zoom in on
that entry for Thomas.
Unless my eyes are deceiving me, that entry for Thomas is not 3/12 at all, but rather 5/12. There is no reason why the Russells should give false information, and assuming the enumerator did not make a mistake, then we now have Thomas’ birth pushed back to January, or even the very end of December.
But then we have another source of information,
which could be viewed as a potential primary source that gives us yet another
month, this time May 1850. This is the burial details for the Russell family
plot on file at the Allegheny Cemetery.
This has been reproduced before on this blog in
articles about the cemetery and the Russell interments, but it is shown here
again.
You will notice on the right that it states very
clearly that Thomas Russell died on 11 August 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months –
which would give a birth date of May 1850.
The problem is that this is not actually a primary
source at all! The document was put together to show how many people were
buried in this family plot and where the graves were. This was useful since not
all had grave markers and some of those that existed had been worn by time. The
plot was sold for ten graves, but in the event there were only nine burials.
The plan shows that the plot was purchased by James
Russell, older brother of Joseph Lytle. A little over a year after James made
the purchase, his wife Sarah was buried there, and James followed not that long
after. The record has the burial of Sarah in one style of handwriting. But then
a later hand has added another seven names, not in order of interment, but
rather in order of the rows of graves. This handwriting includes Joseph Lytle
who was buried at the end of 1897. This is approaching fifty years after Thomas
was born. But whoever wrote out these seven names, omitted Thomas whose grave
started the bottom row from the right. So yet another later hand wrote in
the number 9, but then instead of adding to the existing list, wrote elsewhere
on the document that Thomas died 11 August 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months.
When was this done? Obviously it was after 1897.
How much longer after 1897? We don’t know, but decades after Thomas lived and
died.
So where did the information about 5 years and 3
months come from? The writer on this grave plan copied the information out from
somewhere. But why the discrepancy with the census returns from all those years
before? Joseph and Eliza would know when Thomas was born and how old he was
when he died.
I have a theory, and it goes back to the confusion
with the census returns. As the numbers three and five could look similar on
cursory examination, so could a three and an eight be confused, considering the
handwriting of the day and the fact that scratchy entries made in ink may fade
in places over time. On that basis maybe the final hand on the grave plan
document just made a mistake. Maybe Thomas died aged 5 years and 8 months
(rather than 3 months). If he did, then he would have been born in the
January, which now would tally perfectly with the 1850 census return.
There is more on this in the following article.
No comments:
Post a Comment