Another Cousin Connection, and Two Wills

Carson Family Group Sheet (Pt. 5.)

This fifth installment in a series brings the story up to the mid-2003 time frame when I was first corresponding with two other descendants of Charles and Caroline Carson of Mercer County, New Jersey who were also researching the couple.

While I was beginning to flesh out and execute my research plan to determine the date of death of my ancestor, Charles Carson (detailed here), I was also beginning to correspond with a cousin, Jean (Carson) Owens.

As I alluded to in the prior post, we crossed paths initially on GenForum, an early online message board system. Message boards were the next iteration of the ubiquitous printed query sections found in many genealogy society newsletters and in some newspapers with columns dedicated to genealogy. As precursors to modern social media applications, message boards were a popular way to learn of and correspond with other people who shared your interests on any of a variety of topics. GenForum was a genealogy message board where genealogists connected with others researching the same surnames or geographic areas or similar broader topics, such as the Civil War or a particular genealogy software program. As a formerly vendor-neutral site, GenForum was my message board of choice, one that I preferred and continued to use long after Ancestry.com got in on the action and started their own separate system.

And so it was that cousin Jean and I found one another in the fall of 2002, each of us posting about our respective connections to Charles and Caroline Carson of Trenton, New Jersey. The couple lived in the area before and during the American Civil War. Then, Charles Carson disappeared from the family, while Caroline Carson continued to live in the area at least until 1881. I would later discover that Caroline lived in the south Trenton area as a widow for more than fifty years, until her death in 1915, but that is a story for another day.

On the other hand, Jean had compiled information from her own research and correspondence with several others who had shared family bible records, charts and photographs with her over the years. They had reached altogether different conclusions about the family history than I had, believing that our common ancestor was named Charles C. Carson, born September 1824, in either New Jersey or Indiana, died in 1896 in Washington Twp., Mercer Co., New Jersey, was buried in Cedar Hill Cemetery and that he was the son of Eli and Hannah Carson. I did not dispute that a man with this basic information may have existed. I simply did not believe that he was the father of my ancestor, Andrew Carson, b. 11 May 1855 or, by extension, his brother, Jean’s ancestor, Charles Henry Carson, b. 10 Sep 1852.

In those early days, we communicated with one another almost daily via email, sharing the latest tidbit of information that bolstered our respective pet theories about the identity of Charles Carson and his wife Caroline. The more research I did, the more certain I became that records belonging to another man or men named Charles Carson had been incorrectly linked to my Charles, who had likely died 24 May 1863, not as a casualty of the Civil War, but in Trenton, New Jersey following a sawmill accident. Now I just needed to prove my hypothesis.

Probate records survive for this time and place, so I consulted New Jersey Index of Wills, Inventories, Etc. where I found this entry among the Mercer County items:

     Carson, Charles, 1421K.  W. 1863. Inv. 1863.1

Decoding this told me that probate packet no. 1421 for Mercer Co., New Jersey existed as of 1901, and it contained both a will and an inventory from 1863. Bingo. My next task was to learn where the probate packet was in 2003. I did not have to look far for it.

It was late spring of that year when cousin Jean introduced me (via email) to another cousin, Mona Carson, also a descendant of Charles through his son Charles Henry Carson. I learned she already had a copy of the will which she mailed to me. I was on cloud nine, that is, until I actually saw and read it for myself. Confusion set in when I read that this man’s will was dated 28 May 1863. How could that be? My man had died four days earlier, so would not have been alive to have signed a will on that date. And, yet, this was the only probate file in Mercer County for a man named Charles Carson who died in 1863. What were the chances of two men with the same name, dying in the same month in the same county with one of them having a probate file and the other with no apparent surviving probate record? Of course, I knew it was theoretically possible, but what were the odds? There had to be another explanation for the four day discrepancy between the purported death date and the creation of this will.

carson-charles-1863-will-snippet-clerks-copy
A portion of the clerk’s copy of the will of Charles Carson, with the date 28 May 1863 emphasized. The right edge of the image shows this copy came from a book.

Analysis of this record revealed that this was the clerk’s copy of the will. It was not the original. When the will was brought into court to be probated, the clerk recorded what should have been a faithful copy into a register that stayed in the local office. Perhaps that was true here, but the only way to know for sure would be to obtain a copy of the original probate packet. After much discussion with said cousins about the meaning of this find, cousin Mona reached out to the New Jersey State Archives to see it they could locate the original will.

This is where my memory is a bit hazy and my “paper trail” runs out. All my email correspondence from this time is missing to cross-check the exact chain of events. Suffice it to say, cousin Mona was able to get a copy of both the original will and the estate inventory. She sent a photocopy of both items to me and to cousin Jean for our review and input. Although I was uncertain of the exact origin of the photocopies, this certainly looked more like what I expected to see, with what appeared to be original signatures, and even a fragment of blotting paper to cover an ink spill.

photocopy of original 1863 will of charles carsonBottom portion of the second copy of the Charles Carson will showing that it was drawn 23 May 1863, the day before his death. The will was proved 31 Jul 1863.

Clearly, the clerk simply recorded the date the will was written and witnessed incorrectly into his register. In the photocopy of the original shown above, the date reads: The 23d day of May AD 1863 — the day before Charles died. It may seem to be a small point, but the discrepancy had to be resolved if I was to meet professional genealogy standards.2

Now that I had determined that the date the will was drawn and proved aligned with the timeline I had established from other direct and indirect sources, I was able to move forward with a closer reading of the contents of the will.

The will was relatively brief. I imagine they hastily gathered witnesses and quickly had Charles Carson recite his wishes as to his earthly estate, suspecting he might succumb from his grievous injuries at any moment. In his will he made two provisions beyond the usual directive to discharge debts and funeral expenses. They were:

Item 1. “I give bequeath unto my beloved wife Caroline Carson the use of all my household Goods and furniture of every kind and description empowering her to distribute the same or any part thereof to such of my children as she shall Think proper…
Item 2. “I give and bequeath unto my wife Caroline Carson all the ballance of my Estate[.]”3,

Carson appointed his “loving friend” William G. Bergen, Esq. as his executor. John D. Rue, James Carson, and Henry C. Kittinger witnessed the will. It was unclear then, and frankly, is unclear now, whether this witness James Carson was his brother-in-law or possibly even a sibling or half-sibling. More research is needed to establish that connection with any certainty.

These facts can be gleaned from a careful reading of the will:
1.  Charles Carson stated he was a resident of the city of Trenton, New Jersey.
2.  He was a married man with a wife named Caroline Carson.
3.  Since he refers to “children” he clearly had more than one child living at the time, although he failed to give any of their names.
4. He apparently owned no real property, as the term bequeath refers only to personal property.

All facts align with my earlier hypothesis, and there are no discrepancies. Having the will and probate packet allows me to say definitively that my 3rd great-grandfather Charles Carson died after 23 May 1863 (will written) and before 31 Jul 1863 (will proved). However, due to the nature of his death, it was noted in the local newspaper and reportedly occurred 24 May 1863. Thus, online references to this Charles Carson with a death date of 1896 are false and trees with that information should only be used with healthy skepticism.

I wish to thank my cousins Jean and Mona here formally for their friendship, and for continuing to motivate me to solve the mystery surrounding the origins of our mutual ancestors, Charles and Caroline Carson of Trenton, New Jersey. 


1 New Jersey. Department of State. Index of wills, inventories, etc. in the Office of the Secretary of State prior to 1901, vol. 2. (Trenton, 1913), p. 780.
2 For an excellent overview of some of these standards see Judy Kellar Fox, “Ten-Minute Methodology: “Reasonably Exhaustive”—How Do We Know We’re There?,” Board for Certification of Genealogists SpringBoard (http://bcgcertification.org/blog/2015/09/10-minute-methodology-reasonably-exhaustive-how-do-we-know-were-there/) : posted 17 Sep 2015.
3Mercer County, New Jersey, probate file 1421K, Charles Carson; “Wills and Inventories ca. 1670-1900” roll no. 826, New Jersey State Archives, Trenton. A photocopy of the original will was supplied by Mona Carson [ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE], to Dawn Bingaman, Renton, WA, 2003.

Continuing Education: What’s In My Queue?

For anyone on the arc of becoming a professional genealogist, or working to professional standards, continuing education is of vital importance.

APG has a new continuing education requirement for Professional Genealogists as a tenet of its “Code of Ethics and Professional Practices” that reads:

“Engage in sufficient continuing education to maintain competence and comply with applicable requirements”.1

In addition, there are several standards put forth by the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) that address continuing education, in terms of both formal and informal engagement.

No one needs to convince me of the value of continuing education – in fact, I thrive on it. For me, the in-person multi-day genealogy conference or institute experience (or both!) is the highlight of my year. In addition to the learning opportunities, the networking, camaraderie, and research aspects are essential to my development as a professional genealogist.

For the last seven years, I have spent my vacation time from my day job in class, improving my skill set as a genealogist. Friends of mine at work groan – you’re doing what for your vacation? – is a common question. Just wait until they learn my next vacation will be in Pittsburgh. In July, I will attend the Genealogical Research Institute in Pittsburgh, otherwise known as GRIP, for the first time. There were a number of excellent courses to choose from, but it was not really a difficult choice in the end. I settled upon “Gateway to the Garden State: Sources and Strategies for New Jersey Research”. This is the first time I have seen a New Jersey course taught in the institute format, so I was quick to avail myself of the opportunity; I live in the Pacific Northwest, but spend a fair amount of my research time working on my New Jersey ancestors. After July, the next item on my continuing education plan is a return to the Salt Lake Institue of Genealogy (SLIG) in 2018. I have attended SLIG more than any other institute for several reasons: quality of education and speakers, and proximity. Proximity to Seattle, and proximity of the institute to the Family History Library. Yes, there are many FHL records online at FamilySearch, but so much more is available at the library that it makes a trip very worthwhile. The sheer breadth of their collections means you can research in many record types and many geographic locations across the globe from a single location.

Now and then I am able to combine classes with a more traditional type of vacation. In 2015, a friend and I were onboard for the maiden voyage of the FGS Alaskan Cruise with Royal Carribean. We went to genealogy sessions while at sea, and then were tourists in the ports of call at Juneau and Skagway, Alaska and Victoria, British Columbia. We went whale watching, did a brewery tour and tasting, and saw Coast Salish art at a museum, all while sampling the local fare. A genealogy cruise is a more intimate format than a large conference, as tables are set aside to dine with FGS attendees nightly, and there were several social hours for our group. We even had the opportunity to share a table one evening with Elizabeth Shown Mills, whom I was able to ask about where to submit a particular type of article for publication.

When possible, I choose to attend events in those areas where I have research to do, or where I can easily commute to places I need to do research. For example, I attended the 2003 National Genealogical Society (NGS) conference in Pittsburgh, and then spent several days afterwards visiting cemeteries and the library and courthouse in St. Clairsville, Lorain Co., Ohio where family had migrated to in 1803 from Virginia. Five years later, I attended the 2008 NGS Conference in Kansas City, Missouri where I met up with several colleagues from my local genealogy society. I then took some time after the conference to travel to St. Joseph, Missouri and Topeka, Kansas to visit family and ancestral cemeteries. I did research on-site in local libraries and at the Kansas State Historical Society (KSHS). Plus, I was able to get my barbecue fix at Jack Stack in Kansas City with my brother before heading out on my road trip.

The Library of Virginia in downtown Richmond is a huge draw for me as well, so I attended both the 2007 and 2014 NGS Conferences and stayed over both times to do research in the library and archives. Sharing oysters with a like-minded travelling companion at Rappahannock after a full day of research was a highlight which I hope to repeat.

Sometimes I cannot take more vacation time to attend conferences and institutes, plus the budget only goes so far. Fortunately, there are now plenty of online courses to choose from. I am currently enrolled in “Elements of Genealogical Analysis: A Class in Methodology”, a five-week session being taught by the esteemed Robert Charles Anderson of Great Migration fame, through the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS). His approach is a logical one based on what he calls “linkage analysis” and the building of linkage bundles and, ultimately, dossiers from carefully correlated linkage bundles. He uses examples from his book and from various short articles that we read offline to flesh out the methodology.

Earlier this month, NGS held its annual conference in Raleigh, North Carolina. Although I was unable to attend in person, I purchased one of the two live-streamed event packages, each consisting of five presentations. I signed up for the BCG Skillbuilding package taught by five of the top genealogists in the field today. Besides live-streaming of limited sessions, PlaybackNow offers audio recordings of most of the other lectures. These can be purchased as part of a larger package, or individually through the branded PlaybackNGS website. I picked up six individual sessions to add to my library of conference recordings that goes back to the first conference I attended in 1989.


PlaybackNGS website for the 2017 NGS conference in Raleigh, NC

Maintaining a spreadsheet of lectures helps prevent against duplicate purchases. Although not shown above, I cross-reference each entry with the starting page in the syllabus for ease of use.

The best part of the new format is that recorded sessions can be ordered online and are delivered immediately. I can listen to or watch conference sessions from the PlaybackNGS website, or through the PlaybackNow app. The app itself is a free download available in the iTunes or Google app stores – conference sessions are extra. Watching or listening to presentations using the app is simple and the quality is excellent. The conference syllabus is even available with purchase of any recording either through the website or in-app, by clicking PDF near the bottom left corner of the screen.

 
BCG Skillbuilding courses queued up in the PlaybackNow app

The only real task for me now is deciding which session to cue up next. I am delighted that I am again able to listen in the car on my daily commute via bluetooth streaming.

Whether you choose to attend events in person or online, continuing educational opportunities for genealogists at all levels are now readily available for a range of price points. Some are totally free and some can run up to about $125 for a series of webinars and related materials.

What’s in your queue?


Sources:
1 Association of Professional Genealogists, Code of Ethics and Professional Practices     (https://www.apgen.org/ : accessed 28 Mar 2017).

Consent in a Virginia Marriage Bond

Under what circumstances would a woman give consent to her own marriage in Virginia in 1821?

Mozingo-Smith 1821 Virginia Marriage Bond

We are all familiar with the concept of “consent“. The law states who is legally able to give consent in a variety of circumstances, age and mental capacity being two that come to mind. Another party who meets the legal criteria is required to stand in and give consent on behalf of someone who is underage, for example, and legally incapable of giving consent. What one typically finds in marriage records in particular is a parent or guardian giving consent for their underage child or charge to marry. That is not what we have with this 1821 marriage bond from Westmoreland County, Virginia, quoted in its entirety below.1

  “Know all men by these presents that we Newton Mozingo & William Johnson are held and firmly bound unto Thomas M Randolph Govener of Virginia and to his successors in office, in the just sum of $150..~ which payment will truly to be maid, we bind our selves and each of us, our Heirs, Exrs & Admers. Jointly & Severally firmly by these presents Sealed with our seals & dated this 22nd day of August 1821.

The condition of the above obligation is such that whereas a marriage is soon intended to be solemnized between the above bound Newton Mozingo & Elizabeth Smith. Now if there be no legal impediment to the said marriage taking effect then this obligation to be void otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. Witness our hands and seals the day and year written.”

harvey-mozingo-johnson-marks

Here is the part that I find odd. On a separate slip of paper filmed with the original bond is the consent – but not consent given by a parent or guardian. Consent, in this case, was given by the same woman who later was party to the marriage. Why?

elizabeth-smith-marriage-bond-consent-1821The above reads: “this is to testafy that I have give Mr Newton Mersingo leave to get out Lisens to be married to me Elizabeth Smith” 2
x
[her mark]

This consent statement has me puzzled. It is unlike any I have come across in a marriage bond in decades of doing research. I have raised the issue previously among my colleagues without getting a satisfactory answer. I have looked at the law for the time and place, and have found no reference to a woman consenting to her own marriage. Virginia marriage laws at the time dictated that:

» all parties to a marriage be 21 and over
» if either person was under 21, then consent of a parent (typically a father) or guardian was required
» a marriage license could only be procured upon “thrice publication of banns” or posting of a bond in the bride’s county of residence
» servants were unable to marry without consent of masters or owners
» a free person was unable to marry a servant, unless there was a certificate of consent from the master or owner3

While the law does not appear to directly address this situation, what is certain is that this is not an isolated example. I have examined other marriage bonds from the same county in Virginia, and in some cases, they too contain this same type of attestation. Perhaps it is a case of an overly-cautious court official going above and beyond the strictures of the law.

This question of consent is one of the issues I hope to raise in class next week at the 2017 Salt Lake Institute of Genealogy (SLIG). I am excited to have a week-long opportunity to learn from Barbara Vines Little, C.G., the highly regarded Virginia expert who is the coordinator and instructor for Virginia from the Colonial Period to the Civil War.

Sources:
1 Westmoreland County (Virginia). Clerk of the County Court, “Marriage bonds, licenses and ministers’ returns, 1772-1901”, Newton Mozingo-Elizabeth Smith Marriage Bond, no. 21-38 (1821), digital image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89ZG-H3XX?mode=g : accessed 16 Jan 2017), image 411, imaged from FHL microfilm 007,490,279.
2 Westmoreland County (Virginia). Clerk of the County Court, “Marriage bonds, licenses and ministers’ returns, 1772-1901”, Elizabeth Smith consent, no. 21-38a (1821), digital image, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89ZG-H3XX?mode=g : accessed 16 Jan 2017), image 411, imaged from FHL microfilm 007,490,279.
3  William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619, vol. 6 (Richmond: W. W. Gray, Printer, 1819), 81, chap. XXXII, “An act concerning Marriages.” October 1748—22nd George II”; HTML edition, Freddie L. Spradlin, transcriber, “Hening’s Statutes at Large,”  VAGenWeb (http://vagenweb.org/hening/vol06-04.htm#page_81 : accessed 16 Jan 2017).