What Growing up on the Farm Taught Me about Genealogy

I grew up on an Iowa farm. We had a small dairy herd, which required a lot of attention. And we grew corn and soybeans. Preparing the fields for those crops provided a lesson that I remember at times most wouldn't think were relevant at all - probably several lessons. But one in particular applies to general life and specifically to genealogy.

Lesson - When you are tilling the field, and the field is getting muddier, don't skip ahead.

I learned this when I was discing a low field in the spring. I'd pull the disc back and forth across the field, each round a bit closer to the drainage ditch. The ground was very level and didn't have any obvious low spots, although one could reasonably guess that the field would be lower and wetter when approaching the ditch. But it wasn't obvious to me as a 15-year-old kid. When the tires of the tractor started to slip and spin and ball up with mud in the increasingly wetter peat ground, I thought that it would be nice to get a little farther before sunset. It was actually a fun challenge, trying to get that discing done in those conditions. But I knew that I was lucky to have completed the last round without getting stuck. I convinced myself, though, that this was just a single, low, wet spot, that I could skip over. So I took a guess as to where the field would be drier, and started down the middle of  the untilled part of the field. I figured that if I got in trouble I'd just raise the disc and head home. But what I hadn't counted on was how fast I would get in trouble. The front wheels started to sink and ball up with mud, the back wheels started to slip and spin and dig deep as the tractor struggled to pull the heavy disc through the wet soil. Before I could stop the spinning and raise the disc out of the ground, I was stuck.

Getting stuck wasn't unusual. Getting stuck in the middle of a wet field was. Here was the tractor, sunk in mud, with no dry soil around. We brought the other tractor out to the field to pull out the stuck one, but without a known dry spot to work from, we ran the risk of two tractors stuck in the middle of a wet field. I hadn't thought of that.

The moral of this story is: Work from the known to the unknown. Start with what you know and stay close to it or else you could end up in deep. In genealogical terms, the dry ground is what you know, what is proven. Skipping the proof on a few generations, or ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary, so that you can claim to be a descendant of the Mayflower, is like tilling the wet ground. There might be some good genealogy there, but it isn't necessarily yours.

Sometimes genealogists get stuck. Sometimes they have to venture out into the unknown. This is a good thing if it is in an effort to uncover new information to extend their tree. Always try to tie back to the known. Understand the evidence and how good it links new information back to the known.

Another application to genealogy is in understanding ancestor migrations. Our ancestors really didn't venture into the middle of the unknown very often. Sure, there were a few people who were adventurers, explorers, hunters, trappers, traders, etc., but most of our ancestors weren't that adventurous. They probably had families to keep safe, and weren't about to move to some unknown parts without support of an extended family. Moving to unsettled territory was like discing the middle of a wet field. You could get into trouble without any available relief. So when tracing an ancestor, assume that he/she had relatives or friends with them. Finding them will give you more clues as to the origin of your ancestor. And if you don't find those relatives, then you've learned that your ancestor was quite the adventurer.

And back to the original lesson in the wet field... fortunately we got the tractor unstuck without too much trouble. Sometimes, it isn't as much being adventurous as it is not considering the consequences.

1860 Census Taker's Mistake Hides Robert F. and Salucia Squibb

We want to believe what we read, but we have to be careful, especially in genealogy. In the case of census records, we take some things with a grain of salt. Sometimes the family member answering the questions didn't really know the ages and birthplaces. Sometimes they lied.  No big deal, we accept that. And census takers were human, of course, and they made mistakes. Sometimes their mistakes could essentially hide a family. This could lead to false assumptions that the family lived elsewhere at the time, a couple perhaps wasn't married yet, or maybe they were just missed and there is no information to be found for that particular time. So something like a last name, that we would usually accept as being misspelled at worst, may be totally wrong, and lead a genealogist in the wrong direction.

A family missing from a census where they are expected to be found deserves a closer look. The following example is a case of of a young family in early Iowa. Robert F. Squibb and his wife Salucia are found in Clinton county in 1870, with a young family, including a ten year old daughter (Martha) Jane, next door to his parents, William and Jane Squibb. One would expect to find this couple in the 1860 census, possibly with a new baby Martha Jane. But a quick search of the census index reveals nothing. Robert and Salucia just don't seem to be there.

Robert is listed in the 1856 Clinton county Iowa census with his parents and siblings. He married in Clinton county Iowa in 1857. Only his parents and siblings are in Clinton county Iowa in the 1860 census. But he is listed next to his parents in the 1870 census of Clinton county Iowa. One could reasonably expect to find him in the 1860 census as well. Its worth a closer look, at relatives there, at the township and the entire county if need be. Fortunately, in this case, we don't have to look far.

The 1860 census has entries for Caleb and Adam Squibb in Clinton Township, and their father, William Squibb in Center Township. William, himself, is hard to find, because Squibb is spelled Squbb. That changes the soundex number and the indexing. But he's there.

Look at the family next door, just below William, Jane, Margaret and Sarah. It's the Symbly family, with Robert F., Solicium, and Martha J. The similarity of first names with Robert F., Salucia, and Martha Jane Squibb is quite a coincidence. But Symbly isn't close to Squibb, especially when the census taker came so close with William Squbb above.

Then there are blank lines after Martha J., which normally suggests the census taker finished a township. But turn the page...

The township enumeration continues. It's a whole new set of kids, listed from oldest to youngest - Mary, Margaret, Gustina, and Caroline. No parents, no place of birth, just name, age, and gender. And preceded by two blank lines on the previous page, and Robert F., Solicium, and Martha J. Symbly (a baby). And to top it off, its different handwriting - a different census taker. Compare the Ms of Martha J. and Mary.

Its hard to speculate as to what the census takers did. I think the second one found just the four Symbly (Sibley?) girls home, left space for the parents, took down what he could, and made a note to revisit the Symblys, But then later, with a quick change, the first made Robert F. and Salucia their parents, combining two families, and saving another trip out to the Symblys.

There are several strange things about this record:

• This census taker listed a baby, Martha J, ahead of older children, which wasn't normally done.
• He left blank lines between members of a family, which wasn't normally done.
• A different census taker finished recording the family.
• Robert's family lived next door to William in 1870, so it wouldn't be unusual for them to have lived next door in 1860 as well. But to find a different family with similar first names is very coincidental.
• And, we would expect to find Robert's family somewhere, but we don't.

Individually, these oddities don't mean much. Together they indicate a problem with the record and I am confident that the family next door to William Squibb is in fact, Robert F., Salucia and Martha Jane Squibb, and that the actual Symbly parents went unrecorded.