Brenner Genealogy

This week I added two apps to my Samsung Chromebook — significantly increasing its genealogical functionality.  As you probably know, the Chromebook is an Internet portal, not what we traditionally think of as a fully functional laptop computer.  It is browser dependent — that is, it runs the Chrome browser and its apps are extensions that run in the Chrome browser.  It works as well as my desktop, laptop, and tablets for running online searches. I can easily access FamilySearch, Ancestry.com, GMail, Google+, Evernote, Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, SpringPad, Kindle, etc.  But, because you cannot install traditional programs (such as RootsMagic, Legacy, The MasterGenealogist, etc.), it has somewhat limited functionality for the on-the-road genealogist. At least that is what I thought before last weekend.  Two basic things were missing for me: 1) the ability to run RootsMagic (and Evidentia, GenDetective, Behold, etc.) and 2) a good office suite (LibreOffice is my preferred).  The addition of two apps has changed all that. My Chromebook is no longer just a way to do Internet searches; it is now a fully functional genealogy ‘road warrior.’

1) Running RootsMagic (or any other Windows genealogy program)

The sceenshot shows RootsMagic on my Chromebook. The app responsible is Chrome Remote Desktop which links my Chromebook to my desktop. I have used Splashtop (and other remote desktops) on tablets, but none have functioned as seamlessly as the Chrome Remote Desktop. My desktop has dual screens and runs 4 virtual desktops (giving me a total of 8 screens to play with). That functionality is nice when working on my desktop computer. It does seem, however, to create some havoc in other remote desktops I have used. Once connected to my desktop via the Chrome Remote Desktop app, I can easily access all four virtual desktops and either screen.

Once connected to my desktop, I was able to open RootsMagic, go to the file of Aaron B. Knepper (my 2g-grandfather), and view/edit the file (screenshot following). I was not able to tell that I was on a remote desktop. (I am sure that when I am away from home and on a slower internet connection, the speed will be somewhat diminished.)

I have run Windows applications on a Linux operating system both via Virtualbox and Crossover. Those have been satisfactory, but do not compare to running the same Windows applications via Chrome Remote Desktop. Chrome Remote Desktop runs in the Chrome browser in Windows (Vista, 7, 8), Mac (10.6 and above), and Linux. At the present, it does not run on Android devices, IPad, or IPhone.

2) Running LibreOffice (OpenOffice) and other open source programs

I have been using open source office suites exclusively for about 10 years – first OpenOffice; now LibreOffice. With my Chromebook I was limited to Google Docs or Zoho Docs for word processing or developing a speadsheet. (I have chosen not to use Office 365, wishing to avoid Microsoft Office – just a personal preference.) All that changed when I discovered the “rollApp” for Chrome browser. The rollApp website describes, as follows: “rollApp is an online application virtualization platform… [where] anyone can access rollApp server using regular web-browser and launch the converted applications inside a browser.  When executed via a browser, rollApp applications behave the same way as locally installed ones.”

Both LibreOffice and OpenOffice suites (Writer, Calc, Draw, Impress) are available, along with other open source applications. The only difference I could see between the two Writer applications was that LibreOffice allowed files to be saved in .docx format, OpenOffice did not. (I am increasingly using the .docx format – smaller size files, compatible across applications.) While rollApp does not have its own cloud storage system, it is fully integrated with both Dropbox and Box. Since I have accounts with both Box and Dropbox, I can easily open and save documents in either place. As I continue to do more and more of my genealogical research using word processor documents and spreadsheets, the Chromebook (along with my Razr HD adroid phone) is becoming my “go to” device for work away from home.

This coming week I head to Salt Lake City for three full days in the Family History Library researching German Church Records.  My Chromebook genealogy road warrior will be with me!

Yesterday was an added fun day. The previous evening my neighbor asked: “Can your genealogical software trace my family back to Germany?” I had to explain that I didn’t have any magical software that could do that, but I did have some awareness of how to use the internet to find more information about family connections. Unfortunately, in order to trace the family back to Germany I would need to know the town of origin. I did a brief interview with my neighbor to discover what he might remember about his family. He did have a sheet that listed the descendants of his father, William Henry Kropp (3 children, 6 grandchildren, 11 great-grandchildren. It had full names, birth dates, and (where applicable) death dates. (It did not include locations or the names of spouses – except for William Henry Kropp’s wife Kate.) William Henry was born 27 October 1897.

My neighbor indicated the places that the family had lived (all in the metro New York City area). He also knew the names of his father’s brother and sisters. He indicated that his father had relatives in Allentown, Pennsylvania; he remembered a family reunion in Allentown. When pressed, he thought he was in 8^th grade at the time. And that was it… that was all that my neighbor could recall about his family lineage, except that it went back to Germany. I agreed to do some internet searches and see what I could discover.

My first step was to survey the Kropp surname. I discovered that Kropp had a lot of variant spellings – initial “k” or “c;” the middle vowel could be “o” or “a” or “u;” ending with “pp” or “o;” and other variants as well. It had German, Dutch, and French lines.

Next, I did a Google search for: Kropp ~genealogy. There were a few interesting sites, but nothing that seem to offer any promise. So, now for the real research. I turned to FamilySearch to see if there had been any work on William Henry Kropp. There was a single entry for him in Family Tree. His birth was listed as 20 October 1897 in Manhattan, New York. No spouse was listed. Parents were George W. Kropp and Louise Hoorman Kropp. George was born in Pennsylvania; Louise, Germany. This was a probable match: William’s birth date was off by a week; his birth place was correct. This gave me potential names for William’s parents. George was born in Pennsylvania (perhaps in the Allentown area?). Nothing conclusive at this point, but some good clues for further research.

Searches in Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.com for William Henry Kropp and George W. Kropp brought the following results:

1. 1940 US Census record for the William & Kate Kropp family. William is a public school custodian. They live on Van Siclen Ave. in Brooklyn. (I did a Google maps search for the address and found a “street view.”)
2. 1930 US Census record for the William & Kate Kropp family. William is a superintendant for an apartment building on E. 37^th Street, Brooklyn. (Another “street view.”)
3. 1920 US Census record for the George W. and Louise S. Kropp family. Son William (age 23, an electrician at the Brooklyn Navy Yard) is listed along with a brother and two sisters (names match those given by my neighbor). George W. (age 52, a policeman) was born in Pennsylvania (as was his mother); his father was born in Germany. Louise S. was was born in Germany (as were both her parents). Louise had borne 5 children, 4 of who were still alive.
4. 1918 WWI Draft Registration Card for William Henry Kropp, listing George W. Kropp as nearest relative. Address given for both is the same as the address for the Kropp family in the 1920 US Census. William is medium height and build, with brown eyes and light hair.
5. 1915 New York State Census for George W. and Louise S. Kropp. The four children (including William, an apprentice electrician) are listed. There are also three borders.
6. 1910 US Census record for the George W. and Louise S. Kropp family. The four Kropp children are all listed with middle initials. One child, Edith E., is apparently the same as Edna in the later census enumerations. Her full name must have been “Edith Edna.”
7. 1905 New York State Census record for the Geo W. and Louisa S. Kropp family. Note that George’s wife is “Louisa,” not “Louise” as in later documents. Also, in addition to the 4 children, Augusta Kropp, an 18 year old sister of George is listed.
8. 1870 US Census record for the Wm and Maria Krop family, living in Packer Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania. (Parker Township is about 40 miles from Allentown.) William Krop is age 37 and was born in Germany. Maria is 24 and was born in Pennsylvania. Son George Krop is 2 years old and was born in Pennsylvania. They are living in a hotel.

I was fairly confident that documents 1-7 related to William Henry Kropp’s family. Document 8 seemed to be a possibility, but I could not be sure. So, I gathered up my data and presented it to my neighbor. As I tracked through them one-by-one, from the latest back to the earliest, my neighbor began to recall more information that confirmed my searches. He also learned some new information about his family:

• He did not know that his father had worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, but know that he had been an electrician. In fact, the picture of the Flatland Avenue side of 1930 apartment building elicited a memory of his father’s opening a small store to repair electrical appliances.
• When I showed my neighbor the picture of the entrance to the E. 37^th Street apartment where his father was the superintendant, he pointed to the location of his family’s apartment, “This is where I lived.”
• When I wondered whether George W. Kropp’s middle name might have been “William” and mused that my neighbor might have been named after him, my neighbor confirmed that observation.
• My neighbor (and his wife) remembered Aunt Edna (but did not know that she was also an Edith). [One other possibility is that the census enumerator may have made a mistake in listing her name.]
• When I indicated that I was not sure about the 1870 census, my neighbor said “William was a blacksmith and Maria (pronounced Ma-RYE-ah, not Ma-REE-ah) was my grandmother.” He then went on to tell me that he had lived with his grandparents for a while.
• The date for William Henry Kropp’s birth (as recorded on his WWI Draft Registration Card) differed from that which was on the information sheet about the “Descendants of William Henry Kropp.” My neighbor indicated that the sheet was put together from memory (mostly by his sister), so the October 20^th date from the WWI card was most likely the correct date.

My neighbor was going to share this information with his brother and sister. Perhaps that will elicit more memories and more clues about family origins in Germany. His brother’s grand-daughter (a Niederhausen) had visited the Niederhausen locale in Germany a few years back. My neighbor will check to see whether there was any attempt to visit the Kropp locale.

I told my neighbor that the easy work had been done – internet searches. The hard work come in looking for birth and death records in county court houses and newspapers, etc. While there is more that I can do (e.g., search for census and other records for great-grandfather William Krop), we would need to learn of his town of origin in Germany before we could do any tracing back in Germany. If we were to find that information, I would be glad to order microfilms from the Family History Library and do some further research for him.

I suggested that he talk with his brother and sister – he is 88 and they are 83 (twins). They could be a blessing to the next couple of generations if they were to write down their recollection so that they would not be lost. I also suggested that the “Descendants of William Henry Kropp” sheet could be expanded to include spouses; as well as correcting the birth date for William Henry Kropp.”

When we were done, my neighbor’s wife began to tell me about her family lines (Todt and Rochewski). I now have another assignment!

Map 1

Most of my German Brenner ancestors come from a small area surrounding the current city of Eppingen in Baden-Württemberg. (see Map 1)   Baden came into existence in the 12th Century and existed in a variety of forms until it was merged with Württemberg in 1948 (see Wikipedia).

2g-grandfather, Johannes (John) Brenner (who emigrated to United Stated in 1854) was born in the town of Adelshofen, Baden, in 1836.  His father, Georg Friderich Brenner, was listed as a citizen (Bürger) of Adelshofen at the time of his marriage (in Adelshofen) to Johanna Catarina Venninger (1822).  I have not been able to verify his birth place, but I believe it not to be Adelshofen.

Johanna Venninger’s father was born in Sulzfeld, Baden. He married Johanna’ mother (Elizabetha Fleck) in Adelshofen in 1789.  Johanna’s Grandfather Fleck was born in Ittlingen, Baden, but married three different Adelshofen women (1843, 1762, 1768).

Map 2

In addition to Sulzfeld and Ittlingen, other Brenner ancestors and collaterals came from Stettin, Kuernbach, and Neipperg.  Map 2 indicates the relationship of all these towns to one another.  (For the sake of this exercise, distances are measured on a straight line between the various communities and do not reflect the actual travel distance by roads)

As I review the information in my RootsMagic database, I find that I have 112 events (births, baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and deaths) listed in Adelshofen.  These are events in the lives of Flecks, Venningers, and Brenners.  They are dated from 1716 to 1873.

Sulzfeld was the location for 53 such events; all for Venningers from 1729 to 1834.

Kuernbach was the location for 34 events (from 1550 to 1752).  Families involved were Nasts, Samstags, Trauttlinns, Jaiches, and Ludwigs.

Neipperg was the location for 29 ancestral events (from 1664-1770) involving the Fabers and the Uhls.

Ittlingen was the location for 26 ancestral events (from 1665-1795) involving the Flecks and the Conrads.

Stettin was the loction for 16 ancestral events (from 1667-1689) involving the Stolzenhabers

My database for Baden residents  includes 49 Venningers, 29 Nasts, 23 Flecks, 13 Uhls, 10 Brenners, 9 Conrads, 6 Fabers, 6 Stolzenhabers, 3 Samstags, 3 Ludwigs, 2 Trauttlinns, and 1 Jaich.

Interestingly enough, even though Eppingen was the central city in the area (a population of about 2750 in 1825) there is no indication that any of my ancestors came from Eppingen.  I have wondered whether some regional events, shopping, other commerce or trade brought people of the region to Eppingen, giving rise to the possibility of some connections being made between families from the surrounding communities.

Fortunately, church records from the Evangelische Kirchen of the area are available on microfilm (Family History Library and Family History Centers) for our perusal.  Those records are extremely helpful even though they require some practice at reading the old German handwriting.

In previous posts, I analyzed evidence regarding my 2g-grandfather’s Civil War service to determine whether he served in the 11^th Ohio Volunteer Militia (as indicated by a certificate received from the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General by my 1^st cousin once removed). The first post evaluated the evidence without reference to the standard genealogical classification of sources (original / derivative), information (primary / secondary), and evidence (direct / indirect / negative); the second post was devoted to utilizing those classification categories. My more informal process of evaluation (the first post) arrived at the same conclusion as the more formal process (the second post). As I assess my learnings from these two posts, I shall attempt to a) identify my own personal process for evaluating evidence and b) identify what I learned after using the standard genealogical classification standards.

for Evaluating Genealogical Evidence:

Because I am a hobby genealogist / family historian, I have developed my own processes. I have strive to inform those processes with the best practices of the broader genealogical community. As a teen, I helped my uncle re-shingle the roof of our house. As he would lay the first shingle in a row – over-lapping the edge by 1/3 or 2/3 of the shingle – I would ask “Why?” His answer was always “It’s SOP (standard operating procedure).” To which I would always come back with “Why is it SOP?” Standards are important, but they need to be understood. I need to know why a particular standard has been developed before I am willing to make it a regular part of my repertoire. As a result, I tend to develop my own processes and practices, informed by the standards, rather than slavishly following someone else’s formula, even though it has the stamp of being SOP.

This exercise, in two modes, has helped my clarify my own process for examining and evaluating genealogical evidence. That process is:

• See the Big Picture (individuals and events don’t happen in isolation)

I had clear evidence suggesting that my 2g-grandfather did served in the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI (and no evidence suggesting that he did not). When I looked closely at the 1950 certificate about John Brenner’s service in the 11^th OVM, I began to have questions because it didn’t seem to fit the big picture.

• Remember my Goal (in a more formal process: the “research question”)

I was interested in confirming my 2g-grandfather’s Civil War service, with special interest in assessing whether he served in the 11^th OVM.

• Assess what fits into the Big Picture and Explain what doesn’t fit (painting with a broad-stroke brush)

All the information / evidence regarding the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI fits the big picture; the information / evidence regarding the 11^th OVM did not fit (especially the indication of John Brenner’s birth date as 15 April 1843). The issue here is consistency – Does the evidence paint a consistent picture throughout my research? Inconsistencies need to be explained.

• Assess the Connections between the pieces and Explain the Disconnects (painting with a detail brush)

There was an evidence trail that connected my 2g-grandfather to the 19^th OVI, the 44^th ONG, and the 155^th OVI, but not to the 11^th OVM. The only evidence connecting him to the 11^th OVM was the 1950 certificate from the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General. Clearly the Office of the OAG had mixed together information regarding two different men named John Brenner (both living adjacent counties in Ohio). The issue here is corroboration – Do the individual pieces of evidence corroborate one another or not? If not, then this needs to be further analyzed and explained.

• Come to a Conclusion (well reasoned, supported by the evidence at hand; in a more formal process: “proof”)

While I do not know how the Office of the Ohio Adjutant General received information about the removal of my 2g-grandfather’s grave from Oak Hill Cemetery to Belmont Park Cemetery, it is reasonable to conclude that the receipt of this information was the occasion for said information to be mis-filed with the wrong John Brenner. It finally comes down to “What do I believe about the evidence?” I may be wrong, but I must be clear about my conclusions. Others may disagree. The discovery of new evidence may prove me wrong. But my conclusion, for now, is where I stand.

• Be Open to New Evidence (and perhaps a new conclusion)

It is conceivable that the information regarding the 1843 birth of the John Brenner from Columbiana County could have been the information that was mis-filed (rather than the information regarding my 2g-grandfather’s burial). Were that to be the case, then I would have to re-assess whether or not my 2g-grandfather had served in the 11^th OVM. Conclusions can change – by the introduction of new evidence or by the re-evaluation of existing evidence. Conclusions are not meant to be “eternal truths.”

regarding Standard Genealogical Classification of Sources, Information, and Evidence:

1. Classification of Sources, Information, Evidence does NOT Replace Analysis and Evaluation

Designating sources as original / derivative, information as primary / secondary, evidence as direct / indirect / negative is a task in classification that sets the stage for analysis and evaluation; it is not evaluation itself. Direct evidence gleaned from primary information found in original sources may still be incorrect. As James Tanner (“Primary and Secondary Sources — Genealogy and Hearsay”) suggests “A priori designations may fatally prejudice consideration of valuable clues leading to an accurate picture of an ancestor.” Classification doesn’t replace analyzing and evaluating. At it’s best, it only lays a clear foundation from which to proceed.

2. Methodological Tools, not Guarantees of Certainty

Classifying sources and information / evidence does not guarantee a result. The classification categories are simply tools to aid in the reflective processes by which we come to reasonable conclusions (“proofs”). It is not always clear, for example, whether a source is a primary or secondary source or whether the absence of information is negative evidence. Michael Hait (in a comment on his blog post, “Reconciling conflicting information–a case study”) writes “So whether it is primary or secondary is actually a less important consideration than that it is likely the highest-quality and most reliable piece of information that we have….” Inability to distinguish the proper classification does not necessarily impede good evaluation. Good tools help, but are no substitute for good analysis and evaluation. Another observation from James Tanner (“Primary and Secondary Sources — Categorizing Evidence”): “The evidence is what it is. Whether you believe it or not is really the question. … But whether or not a particular piece of evidence is reliable or unreliable has nothing to do with assigning it to an artificial category.”

3. Evidence-based or Conclusion-based?

Earlier this year Randy Seaver summed up an interesting conversation about two different approaches to genealogy (“More on Conclusion-Based and Evidence-Based Genealogy“). I followed that conversation with interest, trying to assess my own practice. The current exercise of classifying sources, information, and evidence brought me back to that conversation. As a puzzle solver, I like to start in the middle and work my way out… I don’t think that necessarily fits either category. It probably means that I am some kind of an amalgam, a blend of both approaches. I suspect that it ultimately doesn’t matter which approach one takes, as long as one researches carefully, cites regularly, reasons well, and shares judiciously. Each of us must determine which approaches will aid us in doing our best work in genealogy / family history.

In Summary: When a genealogist / family historian evaluates evidence gathered during research in order to arrive at assertions that bear a higher degree of confidence, the standards defined by the broader genealogical community (e.g., the BCG Genealogical Standards Manual or E. S. Mills’ Evidence and Evidence Explained) are helpful tools, not to be ignored; but, in the final analysis, good judgment and sound reasoning are the most important tools.

Thanks to Jill Morelli (Genealogy Certification: My Personal Journey) for raising the question about using a Kanban to assist genealogcial research.

A Kanban is “A visual process management system that tells what to produce, when to produce it, and how much to produce.” (see Wikipedia)

the condept was developed by Toyota.   The Wikipedia article lists six core principles identified by David Anderson. The first three seem relevant to a genealogy process tracker (research log) – “Visualize” (make the workflow visible – e.g., a Kanban board); “Limit Work-in-Progress” (do not exceed available capacity); “Manage Flow” (monitor, measure, report).

This seems inherently obvious BUT, for one who likes to chase rabbit trail after rabbit trail while doing genealogical research, the core principle of limiting work-in-progress is the very thing that seems most difficult for me to do. After reading briefly about Kanban development I realize that part one of the reasons that I follow rabbit trails is that I have not conceptually visualized my research process. Will a Kanban approach help? I don’t know, but I am willing to try.

Interestingly, while I had never heard of Kanban boards, I found that my son and I had used the concept as we were setting up our website. In our research wiki (a private MediaWiki installed on our website) we had a “Development ToDo List.” It contained three sections:

• “To Do” (a fluid listing / tracking of tasks to be accomplished);
• “For Consideration” (a list of items / issues to be considered before listing as ToDos or dropping);
• “Explore!” (a list of web sites to be explored as possibly containing information / procedures / ideas that may, at some later time, be added as ToDos).

Each section was populated with an expandable list of tasks. The ‘description’ area for each task was also a place to append notes. Each task was assigned to either my son or me. The ‘status’ area for each task listed:

• “Pend(ing)” = not yet begun;
• “InPr(ocess)” – begun, not completed;
• “Done” = task completed.

It’s nice to know that we were using a ‘tried and true’ process that had a name of its own! I guess we were using a 3^rd generation Kanban process (Gen1 = cards; Gen2 = a wall board with ‘sticky’ notes; Gen3 = digital, Wiki). I haven’t done anything with the Gen3 Kanban since we got through the initial process of setting up our website. Jill Morelli’s question (“Can I use a Kanban effectively to improve my genealogical research? ”) has now become my question.

I considered setting up a Kanban log in my Research Wiki but quickly realized that multiple column charts are not easy in MediaWiki markup language. I’ve done it before, but would have to re-learn the task. Not impossible, not even overly difficult, but not necessary when I can set up the exact some process in a spreadsheet. So, I opened LibreOffice and got to work.

 ToDo List:

I created the beginnings of a ToDo List that incorporates the process I am currently pursuing to “tidy” up my RootsMagic 5 data base before I import it into our TNG website.

 For Consideration List:

Last February I visited the Family History Library in Salt Lake City and began my work on German church records for the Baden communities of Adelshofen, Kuernbach, Ittlingen, Sulzfeld, Waiblingen and the Wuerttemberg community of Leonbrun. Now I will have to order copies of microfilms to be delivered to the Lindemann branch of the St. Charles County Public Library for further work. I have listed all these microfilms in the list of items to be considered.

Explore! List:

This evening I visited the Ohio Genealogical Society website and looked at the list of member databases that can be searched online. While I could have put these items in the Consideration List, I have chosen to put them here, as a beginning,

It should be noted that these lists are all fluid. They are to grow as new possibilities arise. Items will be moved up from the “Explore!” and “Consideration” lists as my research takes me in the indicated directions.

This is a trial balloon on my part. Is it enough to keep me from pursuing research “rabbit trails?” Probably not! In fact, I find a lot of pleasure in the serendipity of rabbit trail “finds.” Hopefully, following this Kanban tracking process will help provide a crisper focus for my research. We’ll see. I’ll report on my successes, shortcomings, failures, and learnings in later posts.