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?