Brenner Genealogy

Part of this month’s assignment for the US-REC study group is to analyze the pedigree of a person or couple for whom I have a research question.  The model for our analysis is Val Greenwood’s “T” chart (The Researcher’s Guide to American Genealogy).  I have chosen my 2g-grandfather, John A. Smith.  I have 5 Census records (1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900) and a death certificate.  His death date and place are established; birth is fairly certain, but not proved; birth place is only known as Pennsylvania; marriage date and place are unknown. My goal is to complete proof of birth / marriage / death dates and places.  I am also interested in learning more about his movement from carpenter to journeyman carpenter to building mover.

At the end of this week, I am traveling to Cincinnati, Ohio, to visit a friend while my wife is on her annual Sister’s trip.  Since I will be only about 40 miles from downtown Dayton, I will spend one day doing research in Dayton.  I will be putting together a research plan, hopefully prior to leaving home.  I will spend time at the main branch of the Dayton Metro Library and Woodland Cemetery.  I will also find 1004 South Broadway.

This is my response to The Ancestors’ Geneameme developed by Geniaus. 

Things I would like to do or find: italicize (colour optional)

 Can name my 16 great-great-grandparents (15 of the 16… the given name of the 16th is Jane)

 Have photographs or portraits of my 8 great-grandparents (5 of 8…)

 Have an ancestor from Africa   n

 Have published a family history online or in print (Details please)

 Have a pre-19th century family bible 

 The Ancestry Insider has posted a series of rating scales to help assess one’s “genealogical maturity” based upon his earlier description of “Genealogical Maturity Model Definitions.”  At about the same time, Michael John Neill’s tip of the day is “Becoming a better genealogist is a daily process of growth.”  In March 2010 I used Ancestry Insider’s scale to rate myself.  Now, as part of the October assignment for our US-REC study group, I get to rate myself once again using those same scales.   I have added a new column (2011) to the tables I reported in 2010.  (A lower case “x” indicates that I am working on this area.)

I am rather comfortable with a wide variety of online sources — FamilySearch and Ancestry.com are my first go-to sources.  Over the past year and a half, I have been digitizing and integrating original records, documents, and pictures held by relatives (and new cousins found via internet searches).  I have been revising my primary database so that it reflects the sources used to extract information.  My next steps are to 1) visit the Midwest Genealogical Center to become acquainted with their resources, 2) a research trip to Youngstown, Ohio, and 3) I am registered for RootsTech 2012 and will spend three extra days in Salt Lake City at the Family History Library.

This has been my major effort for the past year and a half.  I have developed in my Research Wiki my own citation templates, mostly based on ESM’s Evidence Explained.  All information entered into my Research Wiki contains complete source citations.  When I enter data into my RootsMagic 4 database, I use RM4′s templates to write source citations.  When templates are not available, I use the free form template to enter citations as present in my Research Wiki.  My short-coming in this area is that I have only periodically used RM4′s capacity to rate the quality of the source / information / evidence.  It will be necessary for me to review my citations in order to complete the task of quality assessment.

I finally understand the distinctions between original and derivative sources; primary and secondary information; and direct, indirect, and negative evidence.  I need to expand my exploration of relevant history so as to help understand better the context of my ancestor’s lives and to evaluate the information about them.

Most of my work with conflicting information has been the result of others with names the same as those of my ancestors.  I have also dealt with conflicting information about birth dates, death dates, etc.  I haven’t become proficient in this area, but am moving in that direction.

I took a major step n this area a couple of months ago after an online feeding frenzy around data for my great-grandfather Aaron B. Knepper.  I developed a post  that sorted through the data using the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS).  While I was dealing with information that was generally in agreement, the use of the GPS helped me develop “soundly reasoned” conclusions which were “coherently documented.”  As I said in a subsequent post, “ Having a copy of Mark Tucker’s visualization of the process involved in the Genealogical Proof Standard on my computer table, helped keep me on focus.  It was a reminder that Having the data was not enough.”

I have recorded a lot of information from compiled genealogies.  I am currently revising my primary database to provide more soundly reasoned data with conclusive documentation.  This is a work in progress.

I suspect that my final score — toward the upper end of the “Proficient” range is slightly over-rated.  I do know that I have made a lot of improvements in my research techniques and my ability to process the information I find.  When I did the assessment in March 2010, I concluded with the following paragraph (which is still valid):

I’m not sure how many times I have looked at the 1910 Census record for my 2g-grandfather’s family (John Brenner).  Today I saw something I had missed every other time.  At the top of the page, there is was — “Enumerator:  John Brenner.”

Before I could jump to a quick conclusion, however, I had to sort this one through a bit more.  You see, there are three John Brenners in Youngstown, Ohio, in 1880.  I can eliminate one of the John Brenners (the youngest son of my 2g-grandfather was named John; he was 1 year old). Our John Brenner, born in Baden, was 44 years old at the time of the 1880 census. At the time of the census, he and his wife are listed with 12 children.  The other John Brenner, also born in Baden, 26 years old, was listed with his wife and a 6 month old child.  Both John Brenners were living in the same enumeration district (#112) — the other John on page 444A; my John, 444C.

I am well aware that my 2g-grandfather periodically held other jobs in addition to the three different primary positions he held during his working life — cemetery superintendent, marble salesman, and bookkeeper / office manager.  It would make sense to assume that he was the census enumerator.  Of course, to make that assumption and enter it into my records would be to commit genealogical heresy.  It could lead to my records (and, perhaps, even me) being “folded, mutilated, stapled, and spindled.”

As I looked at the listing of my 2g-grandfather, I realized that I had seen “John Brenner” written in a very similar hand.  I had previously extracted his signature from a letter he wrote and attached it to his picture (see above). All I had to do was compare that with the listing of John Brenner in the Census record (see below).

Comparison:  The “B” is formed in the same manner – the rounded loops seem the same.  Both “J”s have the same long descending loop and the ascending loop on the “h”s appears to be the same.  I am not a handwriting expert, but the two examples of “John Brenner” seem to have been written by the same person.

My conclusion:  my 2g-grandfather was a census enumerator for 1880.  He not only enumerated his own household, but also that of the other John Brenner.  I am delighted to claim him as a census enumerator because the records he wrote are clear and easy to read.  Way to go, “Uropa!”  I have silently cursed (both as researcher and indexer) those enumerators and record keepers whose writing is almost impossible to decipher.  Thankfully, my 2g-grandfather is only going to get accolades from me.