This is an article
about the problems of doing research, and how sometimes it is necessary to make
a judgment on conflicting information from historical sources. The subject is
the birth date of Thomas Russell, the older brother of CTR, who is pictured with
him in that memorable picture in the Watch Tower but then edited out in the reprint volume.
As to why this matters,
it can help us narrow down when Joseph Lytle Russell and Ann Eliza Birney were
married, since no certificate or register entry has as yet surfaced. We know
that Ann Eliza was still single in March 1849, or at least there is a reference
to a Miss A E Birney in the Pittsburgh Daily Post for Wednesday, April 4, 1849.
Knowing when Thomas was
born, we can make assumptions about when he was conceived, which – assuming he
was conceived within wedlock – would narrow down the date of the marriage quite
specifically.
So when was Thomas
born? We have three conflicting dates, January, March and May in 1850. Let’s
look at the “evidence” for each.
If you examine
information on the Ancestry website, you will find Thomas’ birth date given as
March 1850. But as often happens with such sites, there is no reference given
for the information. Everyone seems to
be copying everyone else on a circular journey with no original source material
provided. I suspect that the March date comes from the 1850 census return for
Pittsburgh. The entry for the Russell family, father, mother and one son, is
reproduced below.
The rules for the 1850
census were that entries should reflect information as it existed on June 1st
that year. So we have Joseph L Russell, aged 32, merchant from Ireland, Ann E
Russell, aged 26, from Ireland, and then T Russell (Thomas) from Pennsylvania, who
might appear on first sight to be 3/12. Reading that as three months old would
have him born around March of that year.
The problem arises with
the crabby handwriting of the era, using scratchy pen and ink. Numerous
enumerators’ hands are found in these census returns, with varying degree of
legibility. So let’s zoom in on that entry for Thomas.
Unless my eyes are
deceiving me, that entry for Thomas is not 3/12 at all, but rather 5/12. There is
no reason why the Russells should give false information, and assuming the
enumerator did not make a mistake, then we now have Thomas’ birth pushed back
to January, or even the very end of December.
But then we have
another source of information, which could be viewed as a potential primary
source that gives us yet another month, this time May 1850. This is the burial
details for the Russell family plot on file at the Allegheny Cemetery.
This has been
reproduced before on this blog in articles about the cemetery and the Russell
interments, but it is shown here again.
You will notice on the
right that it states very clearly that Thomas Russell died on 11 August 1855,
aged 5 years and 3 months – which would give a birth date of May 1850.
The problem is that
this is not actually a primary source at all! The document was put
together to show how many people were buried in this family plot and where the
graves were. This was useful since not all had grave markers and some of those
that existed had been worn by time. The plot was sold for ten graves, but in
the event there were only nine burials.
The plan shows that the
plot was purchased by James Russell, older brother of Joseph Lytle. A little
over a year after James made the purchase, his wife Sarah was buried there, and
James followed not that long after. The record has the burial of Sarah in one
style of handwriting. But then a later hand has added another seven names, not
in order of interment, but rather in order of the rows of graves. This
handwriting includes Joseph Lytle who was buried at the end of 1897. This is
approaching fifty years after Thomas was born. But whoever wrote out these
seven names, omitted Thomas whose grave started the bottom row from the
right. So yet another later hand wrote
in the number 9, but then instead of adding to the existing list, wrote elsewhere
on the document that Thomas died 11 August 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months.
When was this done?
Obviously after 1897. How much longer after 1897? We don’t know, but decades
after Thomas lived and died.
So where did the
information about 5 years and 3 months come from? The writer on this grave plan
copied the information out from somewhere. But why the discrepancy with the
census returns from all those years before? Joseph and Eliza would know when
Thomas was born and how old he was when he died.
I have a theory, and it
goes back to the confusion with the census returns. As the numbers three and
five could look similar on cursory examination, so could a three and an eight
be confused, considering the handwriting of the day and the fact that scratchy entries
made in ink may fade in places over time. On that basis maybe the final hand on
the grave plan document just made a mistake. Maybe Thomas died aged 5 years and
8 months (rather than 3 months). If he did, then he would have been born in
the January, which now would tally perfectly with the 1850 census return.
Of course, I could be
wrong…
4 comments:
This is a very interesting and well-written post, and I really appreciate the inclusion of pictures that illuminates the difficulties in piecing this puzzle together.
So do I. Very diligent research, well done!
says German Girl, curious as always.
very interesting and thanks for the research!
Thank you!
A correspondent, Brian K, has just made a suggestion that could solve the discrepancy. While 5/12 would normally mean "five months" (5 out of 12 months) in census returns, what if this time, the enumerator was writing a date? Using the American way of dating (month first and day second, unlike the UK way of day first and month second, which is why I would not have spotted it) the figure 5/12 could be May 12. If that were the case then there is no mystery about the burial register, and also the marriage of Joseph and Ann could have been a little later in 1849. I may put a coda into the actual article at some time.
Post a Comment