I recently produced an article which attempted to
unravel the three possible dates for the birth of CTR’s older brother, Thomas.
One date was provided by the Allegheny burial site map, which had an entry to
the effect that Thomas died on August 12, 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months. However,
this entry on the document dates from decades after the event, and was
therefore suspect.
I am extremely grateful to J who has gone back to
Allegheny cemetery and photographed the complete burial record for Thomas from
1855. So now we have a contemporary document to consider, although it doesn’t
solve the discrepancy at all.
So let’s have a look at the original entry from
1855.
Going in close for the entry for Thomas we read that
he died of whooping cough, aged 5 years and 3 months, and was buried on August
17, 1855.
This means that whoever compiled the plan of the
graves in the Russell plot copied out the entry accurately when they added
Thomas’ details.
So where does this leave us?
First, we must remember that none of the information
actually comes in Joseph or Ann’s handwriting. It is at least second hand –
they provided information for others, and it is others who have recorded it.
We can certain do away with the incorrect March 1850
birth that turns up in various places. This is simply a misreading of the family’s
1850 census return which may look like 3/12 but turns out to be 5/12 when
magnified.
So let us for the sake of argument assume that the
burial register is correct. Thomas died in the middle of August aged 5 years
and 3 months. On that basis he was born in the middle of May. But if that were
true, we have a census enumerator recording events as they were on June 1,
1850, who describes a two week old baby as a child of five months.
If a mistake is going to be made somewhere – as is
obviously the case from the discrepancy – I personally would expect it to be
made at the other end of young Thomas’ life, at the time he died. In the
register page reproduced above, the same hand made all the entries – names,
where from, cause of death and age at death. So the appointed scribe received
the information from elsewhere, either verbally or more likely written down and
passed on. Would Joseph and Ann provide incorrect information? Here my theory in
the original article about the numbers 3 and 8 being misread could still hold
true – pushing Thomas’ age back to the January, which would tally with the 1850
census return.
Does it matter? Well, I concede there are far more
important things to consider. But the date of Thomas’ birth will provide the
approximate date of his conception, which will help us in establishing when
Joseph Lytle Russell and Ann Eliza Birney were married. We know Ann Eliza was
sent a letter under her maiden name in March 1849 – however you analyse or
theorise, the marriage would seem to have taken place in the earlier part of
1849.
Maybe one day extra documents will come to light.
One thing is clear, Joseph and Ann didn’t arrive from Ireland to America as a
married couple in 1845 as suggested in the commentary of a history video.
Joseph arrived before that, if his statement about five years’ residency in his
naturalization declaration in 1848 is truthful, and Ann Eliza was single at
that time. They both came from Ireland but they met and married in America,
probably through their association in Pittsburgh Presbyterian Churches.
In the meantime, if any reader can propose a better
explanation, then please do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment