Showing posts with label Freedmen's Bureau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedmen's Bureau. Show all posts

Sunday, March 1, 2020

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun (on Sunday!): RootsTech!!

Here I thought Randy Seaver wasn't going to have a Saturday Night Genealogy Fun during RootsTech, but what does he do?  He makes RootsTech the theme!  But I had no chance to answer the questions yesterday, so I'm playing catch-up today.

Your mission, should you decide to accept it (cue the Mission:  Impossible! music here), is:

(1) Have you gone to Rootstech?  If so, which years?  

(2) Describe your experience.

(3) Who was your favorite speaker?  

(4) Did you talk with any genealogy "rock stars?"

(5) What was something you learned that you use over and over?

(6) Describe something you enjoyed in the vendor area.

(7) Do you watch the streamed classes live? 

(8) Did you visit the Family History Library?  Describe your experience.

(9) What was your favorite Salt Lake City experience not genealogically related (a restaurant, a landmark, etc.)?

(10) What was a pleasant surprise about your visit that you did not expect?

My thanks to reader Jacquie Schattner for creating this list of questions!!

Okay, here are my answers.

1.  Yes.  I went for the first time in 2015, because I won a contest through Randy's blog, and I have been to the last four, 2017–2020.

2.  I try to attend as many sessions as possible, because I want to get the most out of this kind of educational opportunity.  I usually make a pass through the exhibitor hall once or twice.

3.  My favorite speaker from all the RootsTechs I have attended is probably Myko Clelland of FindMyPast.  I have attended several of his sessions over the years.  I really enjoy his presentation style.

4.  I have spoken with Blaine Bettinger, Thomas MacEntee, and Judy Russell.

5. I learned invaluable information about FamilySearch's Freedmen's Bureau online records collection in 2017 when I attended Ken Nelson's talk about how the collection was assessed, digitized, and indexed.  Because I teach about the Freedmen's Bureau records myself, learning this background information helped me understand the collection better and therefore teach about it better.

6.  My all-time favorite vendor experience at RootsTech was in 2015, when E-Z Photo allowed attendees to scan as many photos as they wanted on very cool Kodak scanners (which then became available in many Family History Centers).  I was able to scan about 350 photos in half an hour, two sided, at high resolution, and 500 total before the end of the conference.

7.  Nope.

8.  I didn't visit the Family History Library this year, but I have during my previous RootsTech trips.  I always found something related to my research.

9.  My favorite Salt Lake City experience not related to genealogy was when I was able to attend concerts by the Utah Symphony, which I did twice.

10.  I had a very pleasant surprise this year, when by pure chance I met someone who is helping coordinate a genealogy society for research in India and the Indian diaspora.  I am still working on trying to find more information about my stepsons' grandfather's family (he was from Punjab).  The group had a meeting on Saturday evening this year, which I was able to attend.  I'm optimistic that this will help a lot of people learn more about their families.

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

RootsTech 2019: I'm Back

The announcement recently went out that registration for RootsTech 2019 is now open, and I have my own RootsTech announcement to make.  I am proud to say that for the third year in a row I will be at RootsTech to give a presentation on black genealogy (so my reviews from this year must have been good).  Next year I will be talking about records of the Freedmen's Bureau and their importance in breaking through the 1865 research barrier, to find information about family members who were enslaved.  This was a subject I spoke on in 2017, but it's an important one, particularly to the LDS church, which coordinated the digitization and indexing of the records.  I'm looking forward to another great learning experience and the opportunity to spread the word about using Freedmen's Bureau records!

RootsTech 2019 will take place from February 27 through March 2 at the famous Salt Palace in Salt Lake City, Utah.  There's an early bird registration price for the conference, but you'll need to register before October 12 to take advantage of it!

So far my talk is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on the last day of the conference, but speakers have been warned that the program is still preliminary.  I'll need to keep an eye on it to see if my time changes, as last year I wasn't notified at all what time my talk was set for.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Not Everyone Watched the Super Bowl on Sunday

Some of us were focused on genealogy!  In fact, I was at the Sacramento Public Library talking about using Freedmen's Bureau records, specifically focusing on the recently digitized and indexed version available on FamilySearch.org and searchable through DiscoverFreedmen.org.  And we actually had about 40 people show up!

Now remember, these records are extremely important for black family history research because they are the contemporary primary source that indicates the last owner of a formerly enslaved individual.  In many of the records created by the Freedmen's Bureau, one of the questions asked was "What was the name of your last owner?"  That owner's name is critical to finding more information about the individual prior to Emancipation.
 
One big topic I covered was the limitations of the new searchable index.  First of all, notwithstanding all of the publicity, not all of the Freedmen's Bureau records were transcribed.  Most of the field office records still have no index.  So of the 30 Bureau databases on FamilySearch.org, only half have an index.  (One small sliver of hope:  FamilySearch is still considering whether to have the field office records indexed. I really hope they do it.)

Another problem is that the National Archives microfilms of the Bureau records had the records sorted by state.  Now all the labor contracts are in one “United States” database, and the same for school records, hospital records, etc.  So if the state that the freedman was living in didn’t actually appear on the record but another state did (and yes, some of the records are like that, like a contract where the person hiring is in a different state), that record will only appear under the second state, not the one that the person was living in.  Most of the time a researcher isn’t going to check a record that lists the wrong state, so that’s a bunch of people who are now harder to track down.

There are also problems where the location listed on the index is not that on the record.  So someone might be in Plaquemine Parish, Louisiana, for example, but the index says New Orleans.  This is another situation where a researcher probably wouldn't look at that record.

Something else that hasn’t been publicized well is how the search works now for the records.  If you go directly to FamilySearch.org, as I did at first, you will need to search through each database individually.  If you go to DiscoverFreedmen.org, the very, very basic search on that page — which allows you to input only first and last names, so it looks next to useless — actually searches all 15 indexed databases at once, which is a good thing.  But don’t pay attention to the short list of 20 results you’ll see on the DiscoverFreedmen page.  Click the link that says it will show you all the results.   That will take you to FamilySearch.org, and along with the option to see more than 20 results at a time, you’ll get to see which databases the results came from.  You can delete databases if you don’t think the locations will be relevant, but considering the whole location problem discussed above, do so with caution.

And yet another problem with the index:   From the beginning, the instructions given to volunteers were not to transcribe every name on a record.  Yes, someone decided that Bureau employees weren’t worthy of being recorded, and some other people’s names also were not included in the index.  So the index is not really an every-name index for these records.

The good news is that even a flawed index is better than no index, and the Freedmen’s Bureau records are far more accessible than they used to be.  But the flaws need to be understood so that researchers will know when not to put all their faith in that index.

For some additional pointed commentary on the new search, see this post on Nicka Smith's blog.

Friday, January 13, 2017

I Will Be Presenting at RootsTech!

I received a phone call late Thursday afternoon.  Due to another speaker having to cancel at the last moment, I was asked if I could step in and give two presentations.  I'm sad that my opportunity came became someone else wasn't able to go after all, but I'm happy to report we were able to work everything out.  I will be presenting at RootsTech this year (my first time as a speaker there).  The two sessions will be on Freedmen's Bureau records and Freedman's Bank records.

You know, it's amazing what you can accomplish in a short period of time when you need to.  We were trying to get everything done in time to get my session information into the printed program, and I think we made it.  I wrote and rewrote my session descriptions (including the Twitter versions), updated and uploaded my handouts, and completed all the other tasks on the speaker list.  Plus I booked my airline ticket, found a hotel that still had rooms available (!), and made boarding reservations for my birds.

And since I'll be in Salt Lake City, I'll have to find some time to go to the Family History Library for research.  I just have to narrow down what to work on, since I'll only be in town for a few days.

Genealogy happy dance all around the house . . . .

Thursday, March 31, 2016

A Push to the Finish for the Freedmen's Bureau

Last year I wrote about the Freedmen's Bureau transcription project, the effort coordinated by FamilySearch to create an (almost) every-name index to all the surviving records created by the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands.  FamilySearch had already digitized the records and placed them online.  What was needed next was to create the index.

Unfortunately, the genealogical community has not jumped onto this project with the same enthusiasm it had for the 1940 census.  I don't remember how long that took, but I think it was something like four or five months?  We're nine months into the Freedmen's Bureau project now, and it's only about 64% complete.

The project was started last year on Juneteenth.  FamilySearch is hoping that enough volunteers can be energized to finish the transcription in time for this year's Juneteenth celebrations.

Remember, these records are so important in black family history research because they are one of the most easily accessible primary sources that can indicate the last owner of a formerly enslaved individual.  Many of the records created by the Freedmen's Bureau directly asked for the name of the last slave owner.  That owner's name is critical to finding more information about the individual prior to Emancipation.

And these records are helpful even if your ancestors were not Freedmen!  Judy Russell, the Legal Genealogist, posted about how the records are useful to anyone doing Southern research.

New "indexing parties" are being organized to help get us to the finish line.  At the Oakland FamilySearch Library, we have three scheduled for April:
Thursday, April 14,  3:00-9:00 p.m.
Thursday, April 21,  3:00-9:00 p.m.
Monday, April 25, 3:00-9:00 p.m.

If you haven't used the FamilySearch indexing software yet, we'll have volunteers on hand who will be happy to teach you.  We'll also have people there who have worked on these records already, who can give advice on working with them.

If you think working with a group on this sounds good, come over and join in!  The library is at 4766 Lincoln Avenue in Oakland, California.

If it's difficult for you to get to the library, you're not in our area, or you just would prefer to work on your computer, we've got you covered:  You can help from the comfort of your own home!  Go to http://www.discoverfreedmen.org/, where you'll find the information you need to transcribe at home, maybe while wearing bunny slippers.

C'mon, guys, we can do it!

Sunday, September 6, 2015

"Who Do You Think You Are?" - Alfre Woodard

I'm still trying to catch up on commentary for this season of Who Do You Think You Are?  The third episode this season (the second new one) was the first one TLC has aired with a celebrity with non-European ancestry (about time!).

The teaser for this episode told us that Alfre Woodard would trace the lost path of her father's family and discover an ancestor born in chains.  She would follow his courageous footsteps to freedom and beyond.

Alfre Woodard is an accomplished actress with a 35-year career.  She has won four Emmys and one Golden Globe and has been nominated once for an Oscar.  Some of her best known work is HBO's Mandela, Spike Lee's film Crooklyn, and the recent movie 12 Years a Slave.  She is a philanthropist and an activist, working for positive social change through the arts in the United States and globally. Woodard lives in Santa Monica with her two children, Mavis and Duncan, and her husband, writer/producer Roderick Spencer.

Woodard starts out very existential.  To her, family is life and the way we learn to be in the world, and we are the manifestations of our fathers' and mothers' dreams.  Her mother was Constance Elizabeth Roberson.  Constance's mother was Big Momma Ada, who had seventeen siblings, and her mother's father had twenty siblings.  When they held family reunions they couldn't invite everyone, because there wasn't enough room.

Woodard's father was Marion Hugh Woodard, who was born in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.  His parents were Minnie Minerva, from Tennessee, and Alexander Woodard, from Texas.  Her grandfather died when her father was only 3, so she doesn't know about anything earlier than that.  She's taking this genealogical journey for her father, a self-made entrepreneur and a family man.  She believes she got her daring from her father.  She has no expectations of what she is going to learn and says, "Surprise me!"

Woodard begins her journey in her own home.  She says she has asked genealogist Joseph Shumway (AG; we've seen him on five episodes previously) to help her.  She tells him that her roots are wide but not deep and that she wants to learn about her father's family history.  She knows that her grandfather was Alex and that her father was born June 3, 1920 in Lincoln County, Oklahoma.

Shumway tells her they should start with the U.S. census so they can identify her father's parents.  Her has her go to Ancestry.com (of course) and click on the U.S. census collection link, then look for Alexander Woodard (with exact spelling) from the main census search page.  The top two hits, for 1920 and 1930, seem to be for the right family.  Shumway directs her to look at the 1920 census.  When she brings up the image, she finds the head of household was her grandfather, Alex A. Woodard, and his wife was Minnie H.  (Alexander was one of the children).  She recognizes the names of an aunts and an uncle, but her father isn't there.  The official enumeration date for the 1920 census was January 1, and her father wasn't born until June, so he missed being counted (which is why I would have started with the 1930 census, to try to find the family with her father there, and that way I would know it was the right family).  Shumway states that January 1 tells us the date the family was visited, which is incorrect; per the information on the census page, they were actually visited on January 16.


Alex Woodard was listed as 40 years old and born in Louisiana, Woodard's first surprise, as she thought he was born in Texas. Now Shumway tells Woodard to do something no one should ever do:  go straight from 1920 to the 1880 census to find Alex with his parents.  Under normal circumstances, jumping 40 years at once is a great way to make a mistake and follow the wrong person, who superficially seems to be the relative you're looking for.  By going from one census to the next chronologically, you minimize the chances of picking up the trail of the wrong guy.  So they should have looked at 1910 and 1900 before 1880.  But, of course, they've done all the research ahead of time, so Shumway already knows what they're going to find.

This time Shumway has Woodard search for Alex Woodard born in 1880, and what do you know, there he is.  Woodard's grandfather Alex was 5 months old, born in December 1879, and living with his parents, Alex and Lizzie Woodard, in Jackson Parish, Louisiana.  Alex the father was 39 years old, a farmer, and born in Georgia.  After a few seconds, the meaning of this registers with Woodard, and she looks shocked.  If Alex Sr. was born about 1841 in Georgia, "Mother of God, he was enslaved!"  So when she said, "Surprise me!", she wasn't kidding, even though it shouldn't have come as a surprise that her family had roots in slavery if they were from the South.


The program cuts to a commercial break here, and when it returns, the narrator tells us that Woodard is at her home in Los Angeles.  In the introduction, however, we were told that Woodard lives in Santa Monica.  Sorry, Mr. Narrator, Santa Monica is NOT Los Angeles.

Returning to the revelation that her great-grandfather was born in Georgia, Woodard asks if it's possible to find out where in Georgia he was from.  Shumway says he can do some "extra digging" to "try to narrow down" a more specific place (I despise this pretense that the information hasn't already been found) and that he will get back to her.

In an interlude apparently meant to suggest that Woodard is waiting to learn what Shumway might find out with his "extra digging", she talks about how her people, and all enslaved people, came out of slavery with nothing.  She wants to trace how her family got out, if the footprints are still there.

Shumway reappears with his "new" additional information about where Alex was likely from.  He suggests that Woodard meet with a historian in Houston County, Georgia.

And off to Houston County she goes, to Perry specifically, which is the county seat.  At the courthouse she finds Dr. Daina Ramey Berry, a historian of American slavery.  Berry starts off by telling Woodard, "You know that he would be listed under a white Woodard family," and "Enslaved people often kept the surnames of their owners."  I'm getting really tired of this trope.  Modern scholarship has shown that the majority of former slaves did not take the names of their former owners.  The two most common surnames after Emancipation were Washington (for George Washington) and Freeman (which should be self-explanatory).  Tony Burroughs, probably the preeminent black researcher in this country, has stated that in his many, many years of research, he has found only about 15% of former slaves that took prior owners' names.  It's convenient for WDYTYA to trot it out because it's a lot easier to explain, and it's nice that it's worked for them in the limited amount of research on black celebrities they've done, but from everything I have learned, it just isn't accurate.

Ok, off the soapbox.  After saying this, Berry says they should be able to find some information in white slaveholder records, particularly the annual returns.  Those are for the taxes that were collected on property, including slaves.  As slaves were not taxed by name until they turned about 5, and Alex was born about 1841, Berry suggests Woodard look for a book in the late 1840's.  She chooses 1849, which seems to be the only book in that section that has a big white label on the spine (coincidence?).  (Why not 1846 or 1847, which would have been right about the time Alex would have been listed by name?  Or did they look at those years, and they didn't make it to the final program because there was nothing exciting?)

Woodard searches the index of W names and finds John Woodard, who "could be" Alex's owner.  She goes to page 42, which isn't an annual return after all, but an estate appraisal taken after John Woodard died.  It is titled "Appraisement of the Estate of John Woodward Deceased", which throws Woodard off because of the different spelling of the name.  Berry explains that spelling could change depending on who was writing (which is at least accurate, if not a complete explanation).  Woodard reads the beginning of the inventory, which starts with the names of slaves and their values.  She soon comes to Alec, valued at $400, which Berry tells her is her great-grandfather.  And starting at this point, she calls him Alec instead of Alex.

Woodard asks, "Who is his mom?", to which Berry replies, "We don't know."  The reason she gives for this is that slaves didn't have birth certificates.  Well, that isn't a complete answer either, because in Georgia in the 1840's, I don't think anyone had birth certificates.  And many slave owners actually did keep track of when their slaves were born (such as with Lionel Richie's ancestor), but that information was in their personal papers, which aren't always available.  Again, WDYTYA goes for the quick, oversimplified answer, rather than accuracy and educating viewers.  Yes, I know the program is entertainment, not educational, but it's still annoying.

Ok, back off the soapbox.  Berry explains that the mother role in Alex's life would have been filled by "fictive kin", the family that slaves created for themselves.

We hear from the narrator at this point, who explains that beginning in the early 1600's, 10 million Africans were forced into slavery in North and South America and in the Caribbean.  About 400,000 of them were brought to North America.  As property, they had no legal rights and were often separated from their actual famly members.  To preserve their humanity, they created their own families and kinship networks, which provided support.

Woodard goes back to reading from the estate appraisal and finds that after the slaves the livestock were listed, which justifiably offends her.  She comments that Mr. Woodard didn't seem to own many slaves, and Berry classifies him as a typical small slaveholder.  But now that their owner had died, the slaves would have been waiting to find out what would happen to them and where they would go.  Berry says that they lived in fear of separation.  To learn what did happen, Woodard next goes to page 426 (even though pages 341, 342, and 397 appeared in the index also).  There she finds "Distributing of the Estate of John Woodard Decd" and says, "This shit [which was bleeped out] is making me anxious!"


The narrator tells us, "Alec faced being separated from the other slaves he had grown up with when his owner, John Woodard, died."  We don't actually know that Alex grew up with any of the other slaves listed in the inventory, at least not from what was shown on the program.  We know only that they were all owned by John Woodard when he died, and we don't even know when that was, although this page says it was 1846.  We are given no information about how long any of them have been there or been together.  Now, if John Woodward did die in 1846, it is possible that the slaves listed in the inventory had stayed together in the five years between his death and the appraisal.

Returning to Woodard, she reads that Martha Blount, formerly Woodard, was to receive the Negro Milly, valued at $1,000, and that Laura Woodard was to receive Harriett, valued at $500.  Then she reads that William Woodard would receive one Negro boy, Elic, valued at $700.  This, we are told, is Alec/Alex.  Woodard suddenly remembers that some of her older aunts and uncles referred to their father as Elic; the younger ones had called him Alec.  (This was actually a great example of how hearing something can trigger a memory.)

The distribution of the estate was signed off on September 14, 1856, at which time Alec would have been about 15 years old.  Woodard comments that he would have been entering the period of his prime value as a slave, and Berry says the $700 is comparable to the cost of a car today.  They also talk about how Alec would most likely have been separated from his fictive kin at this point.  (But the complete distribution shows that, in addition to Alec, five more of John Woodard's slaves went to William, who inherited more than half of his father's slaves.  So most of these fictive kin actually seem to have stayed together, at least for a time.)

Woodard asks whether Alec stayed in Georgia.  Berry says, "I'm going to do some digging" (just like Shumway, right?) to try to find more information.  She'll look for records closer to the Civil War.  Before she leaves, Woodard gives Berry a big hug and tells her they're kin now.

Woodard feels she is on the cusp of something, like waiting for the arrival of a child.  She's chasing a spirit and wants to learn who Alec is, and she hopes Alec will speak to them.

We next see Woodard driving along a country road in Houston County.  She tells us that "last night" Berry looked at records for John Woodard (sure she did!) and found a deed for his land when he owned Alec.  Berry told her she should go look, and now she's following that lead to track Alec.  The GPS in the car (which I noticed had the brand name and license plate blurred out; I don't know if they've done this on previous episodes) says, "Turn right onto Woodard Road," which brings a happy little scream from Woodard.  At the intersection of Moody and Woodard roads she turns left and finds a big stand of trees.  She gets out of the car, takes off her shoes, and pours a libation of water to her ancestors, saying that it is a way of connecting with Alec on the ground he worked and sweated into.  The ceremony is an acknowledgment that you didn't invent yourself and a way of humbling yourself to your ancestors.  Before she leaves, she picks up several pine cones and takes them with her.

William Woodard's slaves listed in
the 1860 census slave schedule
Woodard returns to see Berry and proudly shows her some of the pine cones from Woodard Road, then asks what happened to Alec after he went to William Woodard.  Berry looked for William in censuses and found him in Jackson Parish, Louisiana.  He had migrated west, probably because of the availability of land.  Berry does not show him and his family, however, but has the 1860 census slave schedule, dated December 13.  The slave schedules listed slave owners by name but enumerated slaves only by age, sex, and color.  William had three slaves, a 32-year-old female, a 16-year-old male, and an 8-year-old male.  Berry talks only about the 16-year-old, whom she says was likely Woodard's great-grandfather.  He should be about 19, but Berry says that any time a slave was listed with an age it could vary, because they didn't have birth certificates.  (What she doesn't say is that was also the case with people who were not enslaved.  Very few people in the 19th century in the U.S. had birth certificates, and most had no need to know how old they were, so many people's ages varied from census to census.)  They talk about how Alec has been separated from his family (but the woman and the boy are likely two of the slaves from John Woodard's estate, so they would have been part of that family).  Often one can turn to annual tax lists to learn the names of slaves in a household, but perhaps they were not available for this time and location, or the producers wanted to emphasize Alec's isolation rather than the complete story.

Berry now says that Woodard should go to Louisiana to continue her research, at the Louisiana State Archives.  It is difficult to trace blacks due to fires and burnt records (which affect everyone's research, not just that of blacks; just ask anyone researching ancestors from the South), but maybe she will be able to pick up Alec's trail after the Civil War.  (Translation:  We will be picking up Alec's trail after the Civil War.)

Woodard adapts a quote from one of Maya Angelou's poems, "Still I Rise":
     I come, bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
     I am the dream and the hope of the slave.

She then says that Alec has gone from being an ancestor to a relative, which is a wonderful way of personalizing the research process.  And off she heads to Louisiana.

In Baton Rouge Woodard goes to the Louisiana State Archives.  As she walks in the building, she talks about how it is June 19, or Juneteenth (did the producers actually plan that?), the day that slaves "in the Southwest" learned that they had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation.  (Well, close:  It's the day that slaves in Texas learned they were free.  It is celebrated in many Southern states, however.)  Inside she meets Dr. Mark Schultz and promptly points out to him that it's Juneteenth.  The two of them seem to have a natural chemistry as they work together, which was really fun to watch.

They begin by talking about Alec's move from Georgia to Louisiana, and Schultz says that probably the "most horrific experience" a slave could have was to have your family torn apart (though I tend to believe that being a slave in and of itself would be the most horrific experience).  That said, he tells Woodard that for research during Reconstruction the best source for information is the Freedmen's Bureau records (I'm so glad they discussed these extremely important records!).  He says that they are held at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. (but doesn't mention that they are also available at all regional branches of the National Archives, and online on several sites, including Ancestry).  Woodard knows that the bureau was when the federal government assisted former slaves, and Schultz points out that it also settled issues between former slaves and their former owners.  (It did a lot more than that, but that's apparently what's going to be relevant here.)

Schultz says that he did a "digital search" (but doesn't say where, which suggests it was not on Ancestry) and found a record relating to Alec.  The record is from Verna(?), Louisiana and is dated January 18, 1868.  B. D. Blount, who we are given to assume was Martha (Woodard) Blount's husband, said he was willing to give up the three children claimed by "Elic" if they were willing to leave.  Woodard immediately asks if the children were Alec's, but the record doesn't state whose children they were.  Then she wants to know why Alec even had to ask, because B. D. shouldn't have had any claim on the children, and Schultz says that the children might not have been "free" yet, which leads to a discussion of how people might not be free if they hadn't heard the news yet.  (They did not bring up the fact that the children might have been legally bound to Blount by a contract, a matter that the Freedmen's Bureau also supervised, which would have given him a claim.)  Unfortunately, the children's names were not mentioned, and they don't know if Alec got the children (i.e., they couldn't find any further records).  Not all records of the Freedmen's Bureau have survived.

Next Schultz says they should look at tax rolls, and they move to a microfilm reader.  They start off in 1867 in Jackson Parish.  Alec (this time as Allen, but we have to hope they know it's the right person) paid $1.00 as a poll tax, which was to register to vote.  Schultz explains that this is the period of the largest wave of black voters in American history.  The narrator steps in say that after the Civil War and the abolishment of slavery, resistance to emancipation continued in the South.  Laws were created that blocked blacks from being elected to office, owning land, and working in certain jobs.  Poll taxes were deliberately expensive to try to prevent the impoverished former slaves from being able to pay.  Even when they did pay, they faced intimidation and violence if they tried to exercise their right to vote.

Schultz says that Alec would have given up a day's wages to pay that poll tax.  The expense notwithstanding, 90% of black men registered to vote in Louisiana.  Beyond the problem of paying the money, it was dangerous to do so, because this was when the KKK was first organized, and they practiced political terrorism.  Families who challenged white supremacy were prepared to die when they did so.  Woodard is inspired to sing part of "Lift Every Voice and Sing" (lucky Dr. Schultz!):
     Facing the rising sun of our new day begun,
     Let us march on till victory is won.

Schultz asks whether Alec had a family.  Woodard remembers the 1880 census she looked at with Shumway and tells Schultz about Alec's wife, Lizzie, and the nine children, including that the youngest was her own grandfather.  Schultz suggests they skip to the year after the census to search for Alec again.  This is again bad practice, skipping years, so the only logical reason is because they already know something "interesting" shows up that year, and indeed, in 1881 the tax list shows that "Alex" is taxed on 80 acres of land.  He owns land!  He is a farmer, which we saw in the 1880 census, but now we know it's his own property.  (In theory, he could have owned land earlier than this, but since they didn't show us those tax lists, my guess is probably not.)  Woodard comments that he had plenty of kids to help him, and Schultz points out that a single man couldn't afford to be a landowner on his own at this time; it took a family effort.

As a landowner, Alex has moved up to a higher class.  At Schultz's suggestion, they now jump a decade ahead to 1891, and we discover that Alex "Woodward" has 240 acres.  Woodard is very excited and says that her grandfather would have been 9 years old, the "same age where we met Elic!"  (Except that we know from the 1880 census that her grandfather was born about December 1879, which means in 1891 he would have been 11.  I know, I am such a party pooper.)

Moving ahead one more year, in 1892 Alex is back down to 80 acres, valued at $106.  Unfortunately for Alex, he bought additional land right before the agricultural depression of the 1890's (hindsight is great, isn't it?).  This depression hit the entire country and affected many other people.  Woodard wants to find out where the land went; Schultz tells her they don't have any records of Alex after 1892 but doesn't say why (possibilities:  he didn't pay the property taxes after 1892; he wasn't in Jackson Parish anymore; he left the state; the records no longer exist).  He says, "Fortunately, this isn't the last hole to dig in" (what a great expression!) and that Woodard should go to Jackson Parish, where deed records might have more information for her.  Before Woodard leaves, she tells Schultz that he is now officially her "brother from another mother" and gives him a sincere hug.

Outside, Woodard talks about her great-grandfather's ingenuity (huh?), persistence, and work ethic, and how freedom is the ability to go as far as you can go.  After the Emancipation Proclamation, Alex made a substantial life for himself.  He passed on the knowledge of how to build a life as a gift to his descendants.

In Jackson Parish, Woodard goes to the courthouse in Jonesboro, the parish seat.  Historian Dr. Beverly Bond is there to greet her.  She has found a record from 1896 pertaining to Alex.  J. G. Barbee and J. C. Gifford of Wharton County, Texas made a loan to Alex, $1,375 to be repaid in one to five years at 10% interest.  Woodard comments that it was a "big deal to be able to get a loan, even now."  Alex was buying 95 acres in Wharton County.  Woodard is happy he finally made it to Texas (though we don't actually know that he was in Texas, only that he bought land in Texas).  Bond tells Woodard that Wharton County is in southeast Texas, an area of good farmland.  She adds that after the Civil War many former slaves established Wharton (which is inaccurate, because the county existed in the United States at least as early as 1850, as it was enumerated in the census that year).

Bond asks Woodard, "Can I show you another record?" (I keep waiting for someone to say no) and pulls out a conveyance record (deed) from 1898.  At this point Alex was about 57 years old and had been in Texas for (presumably) two years.  The deed shows that Alex and his wife sold 80 acres in Jackson Parish for $35 to Aaron J. Stell, also of Jackson Parish.  It takes a few seconds, but then Woodard realizes how little Alex was selling the land for, and she gets very indignant.  She apologizes to Bond but admits she's outraged at the small amount.  Bond explains that land was going up and down in value and then adds that Aaron Stell was Lizzie's brother.  Though Bond seems to be emphasizing the relationship more than the name, Woodard latches onto the name, because now she has a last name for Lizzie (which would seem to be a big deal, considering that the floating family tree shown at the beginning of the episode did not show last names for either her mother or her grandmother).  Alex might have been able to get more money, but this way he kept the land in the family.


Alex and Lizzie both "made their marks" (they were illiterate) at the bottom of the deed.  Woodard is struck at how Lizzie has now become a full human being to her, because she was legally recognized in the document as Alex's partner.  (I'm sorry that her appearance in the census wasn't sufficient.)

Bond has one more item for Woodard:  a map showing the 240 acres that Alex had owned.  It lies off of R. F. Stell Road (but no comment is made about that also being the last name of Aaron and Lizzie).  I wanted to know which were the 80 acres he originally had and then sold to Aaron Stell.

As she drives to Alex's former property, Woodard says she is happy that he kept the land in the family.  Alex had the wherewithal and wits to be a businessman in a system where he was on the buttom rung.  Woodard considers Lizzie to have been his equal.

As Woodard turns onto the property, a clearly visible sign says "Posted No Trespassing Keep Out", but she figures that technically she isn't trespassing because she is the great-great-granddaughter of Elizabeth Stell.  (Besides, the camera crew is with her, so I figure they must have gotten permission from someone to be there.)  This land is grown over, and it's obvious that no one has farmed it in a long time.  She pours a libation here also but does not remove her shoes, which kind of surprised me.

Woodard closes by talking about how her roots are still wide but they've taken hold.  Alex and Lizzie kept on living, doing, and working, with an eye on the horizon and thinking ahead to the next step.  Alex is now a fleshed-out character, and she's proud of his business dealings.  She plans to tell her family the story and to keep on telling it, to make sure it isn't forgotten (hooray!).

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Freedmen's Bureau Records Events at Oakland FamilySearch Library

On June 19, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Juneteenth (when the Emancipation Proclamation was finally enforced in Texas), a major media event took place in Los Angeles to announce that all records of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (commonly called the Freedmen's Bureau) have been digitized and placed online at FamilySearch.org.  The event also was used as a platform to encourage participation in FamilySearch's indexing (transcription) of the records to create a searchable database, which will make the records far more accessible than they have been in the past.  The digitization project was a joint effort of FamilySearch, the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Afro-American Historical & Genealogical Society, and the California African American Museum.

The records are extremely important in black family history research because they are the contemporary primary source that indicates the last slave owner of a formerly enslaved individual.  In many of the records created by the Freedmen's Bureau, one of the questions asked was "What was the name of your last owner?"  That owner's name is critical to finding more information about the individual prior to Emancipation.

The difficulties with using the Freedmen's Bureau records to date have been numerous.  Very, very few of the records had indices.  Though the complete collection is available on microfilm at every branch of the National Archives, the quality of many of the records was poor when they were microfilmed, and searching on microfilm was tedious and headache-inducing.  And that was after you figured out in which part of the collection you should start your search, an adventure in and of itself.  Some of the records had been digitized previously — some were on Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.org, and the Internet Archive — but no one site had all of them, and not all of them were searchable.

I'm on staff at the Oakland FamilySearch Library.  The people putting together the June 19 event actually wanted our library to be part of that event, but our director thought we needed a little more lead time to make sure we would be prepared.  Well, we've gotten organized, and now we're going to have a media event.

On Thursday, July 16, 10:00 a.m.–12:00 noon, the Oakland FamilySearch Library, 4766 Lincoln Avenue, Oakland, California, will host the Northern California event to celebrate the completion of the digitization of the Freedmen's Bureau records on FamilySearch.org.  All members of the genealogical community are welcome to attend the event.

In addition to the celebration event, the Oakland FamilySearch Library (OFSL) has scheduled five sessions to explain how to transcribe the digitized records to create searchable databases and to sign up volunteers to help with the transcription project.  This is the same class being offered five times; you only need to attend one.  Genealogists in particular are being encouraged to join in transcribing the records, though everyone can help.  You will have choices about the records you work on, and maybe you will discover your own ancestors in the process!  You will also be helping make it easier for other researchers to find their lost family members.

The scheduled sessions are:
Thursday, July 16, 11:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. (same day as the celebration event)
Friday, July 17, 2:30–3:30 p.m.
Saturday, July 18, 10:00–11:00 a.m.
Wednesday, July 22, 7:00–8:00 p.m.
Tuesday, July 28, 7:00–8:00 p.m.

All sessions will be taught by Kim Miller, OFSL staff member.

Please help make these records searchable for everyone.  I cannot overstate the importance of the records for helping identify enslaved ancestors' former owners, a key piece of information needed to be able to trace those ancestors prior to Emancipation.  Tony Burroughs, the well known black genealogist and author of Black Roots, mentioned in a recent keynote presentation that in all the research he has done, only about 15% of emancipated slaves took their former owners' last names.  That means that 85% of us need the information that can be found in Freedmen's Bureau records.

You don't have to wait for the library event to help; you can actually start transcribing records today if you want to.  Information about the indexing project and how to contribute is available at

http://www.discoverfreedmen.org/

The purpose of the July 16 event is to help publicize the importance of the records and the effort to transcribe the records and create the index.  The transcription work itself is an ongoing effort.

If you want to watch a recording of the June 19 event, it is available on the Freedmen's Bureau Project Web site.

In addition to all the regular media coverage of the digitization and transcription projects, Judy Russell, the Legal Genealogist, explained how the records are important to everyone doing Southern research, not just those with formerly enslaved ancestors.  And Danica Southwick wrote a great article about the project for the Jackson Sun prior to the media launch.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

"Finding Your Roots" - Derek Jeter, Billie Jean King, and Rebecca Lobo

I recently had some relatively minor surgery on my left wrist.  You'd think being off work would give me lots of time to catch up on blog posts, wouldn't you?  It is amazing how much energy even a small surgery can drain from you.  I'm recovering just fine, but suddenly I'll be totally wiped out and need to take a nap.  And the fact that the surgery was on my wrist means that typing for long periods is totally out.  But I'm still working on catching up on my backlog of Finding Your Roots episodes that I haven't posted about.

"Born Champions" opened by posing the perennial question of where superstar athletes get their incredible talents:  Are they inborn, or do they come from hard work?  The question was not actually resolved during the episode or even really addressed again, reminding me of poorly constructed high-school reports.  As it turned out, all three guests — Derek Jeter, Billie Jean King, and Rebecca Lobo — had ancestors who were athletically inclined, even if not to the level of our celebrities.  But all three celebrities also worked very hard to attain the success they did.  So the question remained unanswered.

As for the research, well, it had its ups and downs, as usual.  One of the more annoying moments was when our host, Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was discussing Derek Jeter's ancestry.  Jeter is biracial; his father is black, and his mother is white.  Gates described how the researchers searched for whites with the name Jeter in the area where Jeter's family had lived to try to determine the former slaveholder.  It's frustrating enough that hobby genealogists use that deprecated method, but Gates must know about Freedmen's Bureau records, which are a much better way to do slave research.  He is supposed to be a highly regarded professional.  And he also talked about how many slaves took their former owners' names.  You'd think he would also mention how current, modern research has shown that the majority of former slaves did not do so, so it is not necessarily the best approach to assume they did.  Well, I would mention it.

In talking with Billie Jean King about the 19th-century adoption of her grandmother, Gates declared that "adoptions aren't part of the public record."  They certainly were part of the public record prior to the early to mid-20th century.  They were usually indexed with the probate cases in civil court records.  To the best of my knowledge, very few states retroactively closed early adoption records when they began to seal adoption records in the 20th century.  I have not only found adoptions listed in the probate index, I have gotten the records.

And now to pick on the ever-popular autosomal DNA results (cocktail-party conversation, remember?).  Gates told Rebecca Lobo that we "all inherit 12.5% of our DNA from each of our great-grandparents."  Well, not exactly.  While it's pretty safe to say that we each inherit 50% of our DNA from each of our parents, the random mixing that happens with each generation means that the percentages beyond that can vary, and after a few generations you might lose all DNA from one of your lines.  (I know that Judy Russell, the Legal Genealogist, wrote about this in one of her posts, but I can't find the specific one.)  So depending on exactly how far back Rebecca's hypothetical Jewish ancestor would be, she might no longer have any of that person's DNA.

We know that the celebrities don't do the research on this program, any more than they do on Who Do You Think You Are?  One of the differences between Finding Your Roots and Who Do You Think You Are?, however, is that in the latter, the celebrities actually visit several of the locations associated with the histories of their families.  On Finding Your Roots, Dr. Gates is the only person we see visiting those locations, such as in this episode when he is filmed at Ellis Island.  Sometimes I wonder if that makes the celebrities on WDYTYA feel more connected to the information they're learning about their relatives.