Tracing Inconsistencies – the George Hall Russell Story

In an earlier posting about my great-grandfather, Louis Russell, I mentioned his siblings. Referring to his younger brother, George Hall Russell, I said, “Note that his wife was only 14 and she is still at home with her parents – this is too complicated to get into here, perhaps another story some other time.” I’d like to finish that story here with the focus on some inconsistencies in the census records that I’d like to investigate.

The Story from George’s Perspective

George was the fifth of six children of my great-great-grandparents and was 7 years younger than my great-grandfather, Louis. From that younger perspective the disruptions in the family would have had a different kind of impact.

When George’s mother, Lois, passed away in early 1883, George would have not yet reached his fifth birthday. But with his grandparents, Walter and Hester, living with them, they would have been primarily responsible for raising George. Then three years later, when George was eight, his grandfather also passed away, leaving Hester to care for him. Finally, the following year, George’s father remarried and George now had to adapt to a step-mother. In addition to helping to care for her step-children, Cornelia birthed four children of her own with George’s father in the coming seven years.

Meanwhile, George’s full-siblings were getting married and moving out of the house. Louis married in 1892, Martha in 1892, and Charlotte in 1893. Then in 1895, George’s father, Walter, also passed away. George was only 17 at the time, but with no strong ties to his step-mother, he left home and moved in with his older sister, Charlotte, and her husband. His younger sister, Gertrude, being only 15, remained for a few years.

Finally, in 1897, George’s step-mother also passed away. Gertrude likely remained with her grandmother, then when Hester passed away the following year in 1898, Gertrude also married. George’s younger step-siblings were sent to an orphanage.

Thus, when we look into the 1900 census to get a snapshot of the family situation, it’s obvious that George is the “odd man out”. His full siblings are all married and raising children. His half-siblings are elsewhere in the county at an orphanage. But George is age 22, unmarried, living with his sister and family, and working as a “day laborer”. George evidently decided that he needed to finish growing up and having his own family. And so, that’s what he did.

On January 27, 1901 – a Sunday afternoon – George got married. But his new wife, Florence [Nearing] was only 14! And, possibly so she could lie about her age, instead of getting married in New Milford where they both lived, they were married across the border in South Dover, NY. Finally, George was a “big boy” too.

Over the coming decade, George and Florence had four children – Andrew Lewis in 1902, Evelyn in 1903, George Theodore in 1905, and Alice Aminta in 1910 (she lived just 3 months). In the 1910 census we find the family temporarily dislocated. George and his oldest son, Andrew (age 8), are boarding in one house while Florence and the two younger children, Evelyn (age 6) and George T (age 5), are in another house. But Florence in quite far along in her pregnancy, so perhaps she is elsewhere in order to have help with the imminent birth of Alice.

Finally, in the 1920 census, we see George and Florence living together with their children Evelyn and George T. Andrew is old enough to be on his own and is living in Washington, DC, as a chauffer for a family (the family of his eventual in-laws as a few years later he marries one of the daughters in the family)!

Then in 1923, George died at the age of only 44, His daughter, Evelyn is married by then, and his youngest son, George T, is nearly 18, and marries a few years later. George’s wife, Florence, remarried in 1929, but then died herself in 1931, also at the age of 44.

A long list of early deaths in George’s life, but the years that they had were full ones.

 

Inconsistency #1 – the 1900 Census

In the 1900 census, George is living with his sister, Charlotte, his brother-in-law, Denison Hoyt, and their two young children. But George’s marital status shows that he is married and has been for 5 years. What is going on here?

[1900 Census]

I believe that the individual in the family who gave information to the census taker was Denison. I make this conclusion because the recorded birth places of both Charlotte and George’s parents was given as “Connecticut” when, in fact, they had been born in New York. But something that Denison said to the census taker caused him to record George’s marital status incorrectly as well. We can see from the 1910 census that George got the correct information to the census taker – that he had only been married once and that was for 9 years (recall from above that he married in January 1901), and that his parents were both born in New York.

[1910 Census]

So, what might Denison have said to the census taker that caused this incorrect information to be recorded? It may have included that George had been living with them for 5 years (consistent with George having moved from his parent’s home in 1895 when his father passed away). And, while it’s interesting to speculate what Denison actually said to the census taker, getting it recorded as George being married for 5 years is obviously a mistake. To verify, I went through the census records for the entire county, to see if I could find a female, living without a husband, who had also given being married for 5 years. There was only one, and after a detailed examination of her family connections, it was quite obvious that she was not married to George.

So, an interesting inconsistency, but in the end just getting incorrect information recorded by the census taker based on his mis-hearing what was being told to him.

 

Inconsistency #2 – the 1920 Census

As note above, in 1920 George and Florence are living together with their children Evelyn and George. But there is another person in the house – a 13-month-old child by the name of Harriett Lane. Who is she?

[1920 census]

Uncovering the story of Harriett Lane was a bit more complicated that I initially expected, but in the end, it was a fairly simple answer. All the information I had about her showed that she lived her entire life in western CT (Danbury/New Milford/Washington). She was born there, married there in 1943, and died there in 1999. But at no time did she live with anyone else with the name Lane. I finally found the key in her Social Security records. It was there that Harriett herself had given her parents the name of Merritt Lane and Myrtle M Kinney. So, with those names and an approximate date of birth for them around 1895 (making them in their mid-20s when Harriett was born in January 1919, I began looking further.

I found Myrtle in the 1920 census in New Milford (ok, that’s consistent), but as a single lady of 21 living with her parents. Then I found Merritt over the border in eastern NY – but as a married man with three young children! Oops!

So, it looks like there was an illicit affair and Myrtle found herself pregnant as a result. Abortion was not an option in those days, so the more common practice was to “send the pregnant lady away” from when she began “showing”, then give the baby up and return home. Washington, CT (where George and Florence were living) is about 7-8 miles from downtown New Milford (where Myrtle was living) – just about the right distance of separation.

Since George and Florence had a couple of children of their own, all in their teens by 1919, taking in a baby and helping to raise her would be an easy thing to do. Of course, when George passed away in 1923, Florence would have had to pass along Harriett to another family, but they at least would have given her a good start in life. I wonder if Harriett ever visited her foster siblings in her later years?

 

 

 

 

Where Did History Go?

I recently read an article online with the title “Schools Using Fake 'History' to Kill America”. The opening paragraph of the article says, “Americans educated by government today are, for the most part, hopelessly ignorant of their own nation’s history – and that’s no accident. They’re beyond ignorant when it comes to civics, too. On the history of the rest of the world … Americans are generally clueless as well.”

The article goes into a fair amount of depth about how we got this way and how many are now peddling such things as the “1619 Project” as a replacement for the traditional narrative. I heartily recommend the article.

But even in parts of the country where these new concepts have not yet been introduced, we are just as vulnerable to their impact – and that’s the area I’d like to explore in a little more detail.

 

Where we were

When I was in elementary school, learning history was a key part of the curriculum. The first extended writing assignment I can remember was about the history of our hometown (Wolcott, CT). We had to write a series of papers about several aspects of that history, including Early Settlers (John Alcox), Famous People (Seth Thomas, Amos Bronson Alcott), Native Americans (they were still called Indians back then), Places in town (the story behind Potuccos Ring Road), etc. These stories were written on wide-lined paper so it was probably in 3^rd grade. (I still have them in my box of “things to keep” from my childhood.) Later we studied the history of the US, then in high school there was a second round that went into more detail as well as specific courses in Civics, etc.

 

Standardized Testing

One of the more significant items that led to the setting aside of teaching history (and all the other related “social studies” subjects such as government, etc.) was the increased emphasis on standardized testing. This can be illustrated in a summary of the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation of 2001. A few quotes:

“[S]tates are required to test students in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. All students are expected to meet or exceed state standards in reading and math by 2014”

“NCLB requires each state to establish state academic standards and a state testing system that meet federal requirements.”

Whether or not you agree with the goals of NCLB, it’s important to notice what’s MISSING. With federal monies now tied to the teaching of reading and math, even if you as a teacher want to give a well-rounded education, your focus is going to be primarily on those two subjects. Your evaluation as a teacher is dependent on it, the administration is going to be measured on it! So, what is going to be set aside – among other things, HISTORY!

One of the other things missing from the original NCLB legislation was coverage of science. This was later added when the emphasis on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) was recognized as important. The ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) which replaced the NCLB now includes requirement for standardized testing in science as well.

As one source put it:

“States must test students in reading and math once a year in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in high school. They must also test kids in science once in grade school, middle school and high school.”

“ESSA encourages states and districts to get rid of unnecessary testing.”

This last quote is especially discouraging. Essentially, the federal government, with the weight of financial incentives as the carrot on the stick, is requiring schools to eliminate history and any testing related to it as “unnecessary” and to focus on only on the teaching/testing of reading/math/science!

More recently, some have begun the replacement of STEM with STEAM and adding an emphasis on Art to the other areas. But in all this, we continue to leave out History!

 

Pennsylvania – an example of the above

The standardized testing in PA is necessarily aligned with the above federal standards in order to receive federal funding. Testing in PA is called the PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment). As one of the websites of the PA Dept of Education notes, the PSSA

“includes assessments in English Language Arts and Mathematics which are taken by students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Students in grades 4 and 8 are administered the Science PSSA. The English Language Arts and Mathematics PSSAs include items that are consistent with the Assessment Anchors/Eligible Content aligned to the Pennsylvania Core Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics. The Science PSSA includes items that are aligned to the Assessment Anchors/Eligible Content aligned to the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Science, Technology, Environment and Ecology.”

Similarly, the assessment page of the Department of Education (located here) says,

“The annual Pennsylvania System [of] School Assessment is a standards-based, criterion-referenced assessment which provides students, parents, educators and citizens with an understanding of student and school performance related to the attainment of proficiency of the academic standards. These standards in English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Technology identify what a student should know and be able to do at varying grade levels.”

Until a year ago, our grandchildren here in PA were attending Seven Generations Charter School in Emmaus. As their mission statement notes, they are “an academically rich educational community creating generations of stewards who embrace our world and each other.” Further, it states that they are “committed to a public education alternative that promotes sustainability and citizenship with an interdisciplinary, individualized, project-based curriculum.”

To be honest, they do an excellent job of living up to that mission statement. But now look at the curriculum behind that mission. Their core curriculum talks about their English Language Arts program and their Mathematics program. As an environmentally-focused school, they have separate webpages for each grade on that subject. For example, the fourth grade page says they “study the relationship between a community’s resources and its impacts on the waste stream, types of energy and alternative energy source, and pest management practices.”

Again, they are very good at what they do and very mission-focused. But the curriculum is deficient in the same way as all other PA public schools – there is NO HISTORY!

 

What We Did

Our daughter was increasingly noticing that the attitudes/language that our grandsons were bringing home from school was not always appropriate. And with the oldest one approaching middle school, we knew that it was going to be getting worse as he interacted with the other public-school students. So, this past fall we pulled all of them out of SGCS. They are now being home schooled, but under the auspices of Liberty University Online Academy (LUOA). LUOA has five subjects in all the elementary/middle school grades – Bible, Literacy/Language Arts (English), Mathematics, Science, and History. The first of these will help address the attitudinal problems we were experiencing, and the last will address the deficiency being discussed in this blog.

I had been doing some supplementing in the history area before this. I have a passion for the intersection of genealogy, geography, and history and have written a number of “genealogy stories” in my blog. When I go to visit our grandchildren in Florida, one of the things that I get asked at least daily is “tell us a Grampa story!” This is always met with enthusiasm by me and is a chance for them to get a history/geography education. And I sometimes do it as well with our grandchildren here in PA.

But with the change to this new curriculum, our grandsons here are getting a much broader exposure to history than I could provide on my own. And by “history” I include the subject areas of civics/geography/culture that make up what I used to know as “social studies” when I was growing up. One of the major end-of-year projects for our 5^th grader this year was an extensive PowerPoint presentation on the State (Commonwealth) of Pennsylvania – with slides coving history, government, geography, culture (PA Deutsch), and food. And our 3^rd graders are now thoroughly versed in the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) and its application in federal, state/commonwealth and local governments. They have also looked at Chinese history.

 

Conclusion

The article referenced at the beginning of this blog is about the teaching of what the author refers to as “fake history.” It concludes with the following paragraph:

“Whether the rot and corruption that has taken over the teaching of history and civics in America’s government schools can be reversed remains to be seen. But diagnosing an illness is the first step to treating and curing it.”

I agree with that statement. But it is also helpful to understand why we had an environment into which this “rot and corruption” could take hold. While we can all point fingers at the current liberal left (mostly Democrats) for the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory, we need to realize that the NCLB “passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2001 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush” (see article in EdWeek). The US Government probably had the best of intentions when Congress passed this legislation. But by focusing solely on Reading and Mathematics (and later Science), one of the unintended consequences was to eliminate any emphasis on other subjects (like History). That void was created 20 years ago and it was into this void that the current “fake history” has now come.

George Santayana is credited with saying (in 1905), “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This has been transformed by many into “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Regardless of which wording you choose to use; this quotation has a lot of merit to it.

So, amid the current anger about those who are introducing this “fake history” into our schools, let’s not forget that part of the solution must be to reinstate the historical narrative that we pulled out 20 years ago. To quote an idiom attributed to Aristotle, “nature abhors a vacuum.” If we continue to leave the prior historical narrative out, then there will be some other form of “fake history” that we will have to deal with in the future!

Genealogy Story – Hattie Giles

 

Recently, I was contacted via my membership in ancestry.com by a lady who had found a photography from 1880 in the $2 bin of an antique store near where she lived. As the photo had a person’s name and date on the back, she was looking for a relative who might like to have it and had found this person in my extended family tree. I was not immediately familiar with the name Hattie Giles, so had to look her up in my tree (which has over 15,000 individuals in it). This is the story of Hattie Giles.

Harriet (Hattie) Giles was born on 22 Jan 1868 in the small town of Montague City, Franklin County, MA. Her parents were Frederick Asa Giles (age 33) and Julia Maria Wright (age 29). Frederick had been born in New York and Julia in Massachusetts (although there was some inconsistency in the places of birth in various documents over the years).

The 1870’s were somewhat tumultuous in the family. In 1874, Frederick and Julia welcomed another daughter, Grace, into the family, but she died just a year later in 1875. Then in 1879, at the age of just 44, Frederick also passed away.

[Hattie Giles]

 

No longer having a father (and source of income) in the family, Julia and Harriet moved in with Julia’s older brother, Charles, and his family who were also living in Montague. In the 1880 census we find in the household, Charles, his wife Martha, their three children (George-17, William-15, Julia-6), Charles’ and Julia’s mother (also named Julia), the widow Julia, and Hattie, then age 12. It was about this time that the above picture of Hattie was taken.

But this arrangement was only temporary. In 1882, Julia remarried, to Joseph Hubbard Root who also lived in Montague City. He was also widowed, his wife having passed away in 1878, and he was 15 years older than Julia. Joseph was now the third father figure in young Hattie’s life, but he, being older, passed away in 1894.

In 1897, at the age of 29, Hattie married for the first time to Gilbert Wilson Richardson. They remained in Montague City and it was there in 1902 that they had a daughter, Christabel. However, the marriage of Hattie and Gilbert did not last and they divorced sometime that decade.

In 1908, Hattie’s mother Julia died at the age of 70. In 1909, Hattie remarried to a Robert Hamilton, he also being divorced from his first wife. Robert adopted Christabel, who was only 8 years old, and changed her last name to Hamilton.

In 1929, Christabel married George Chester Burns. George’s mother and father were already deceased, having died at the ages of 35 and 53 respectively. Being older, they immediately began their efforts to have a family. Their son, George Robert Burns (who went by his middle name Robert to distinguish him from his father), was born 9.5 months later on December 1^st.

Hattie died in 1938 at the age of 70 (just like her mother). Then, in just a short span of time, all the men in Christabel’s life passed away. Christabel’s step-father, Robert passed away in 1944, her biological father, Gilbert, passed away in 1945, and her husband, George, passed away in 1947 at the age of 48. Still a teenager, Robert now had no living grandparents or father and was the only one left in his mother’s life. It’s no wonder that he remained close to her until her eventual passing in 1970.

In 1963, when he was 33, Robert married Carolyn Hill, my first cousin, who was 20 at the time. Being older, it was not a surprise when Robert passed away in 1999 at age 69 (continuing the pattern begun with Hattie’s mother Julia who passed away at 70, then Hattie at 70, and Christabel at 68) as well as the Burns men (who passed away at ages 65, 53, and 48 in the prior three generations).

As a side note, through Hattie’s Wright ancestors, Robert is my wife’s 9^th cousin, once removed. And through the Richardson line he is my 9^th cousin, twice removed. It’s a small world!