Genealogy and Family History
Our pages of family history are organized in the context of each of our eight great-grandparents. Click on a surname to view contents of that surname plus allied surnames.
Andy's surnames
| Peplow | Vaughn | DeVault | Roehnelt | Robinson | Keethes | Spears | Lord |
| Hamlow | Martin | Goben | Wedrich | Poe | Lower | Short | Leach |
| Knuth | Herbstreit | Parish | Carstens | Baker | Dilts | Strole | Wood |
| Frick | Johnson | Hellmers | George | Matthews | Sasseen | Brewer |
Amber's surnames
| Burkett | Huntington | Fitzgerald | Robinson | Morgan | Stanford | Simmons | McCullough |
| Bean | Nelson | Folsom | Jordan | White | |||
| Spain | Wiswell | Boyd | McCracken | Hedgpeth | Cox | Harrolson | Vick |
| Baker | Roberson | Birtrong | Luna | Emmett |
|
Ancestry of Andy's.......... |
paternal grandfather Herman Peplow |
Frank Peplow (pdf) (October 21, 2007) |
| Minnie Vaughn (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | ||
|
paternal grandmother Mary Ellen DeVault |
Sherman DeVault (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | |
| Dora Roehnelt (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | ||
|
maternal grandfather Omar Robinson |
Omer Robinson (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | |
| Georgiann Keethes (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | ||
|
maternal grandmother Frances Spears |
Locke Spears (pdf) (October 21, 2007) | |
| Minnie Lord (pdf) (October 21, 2007) |
|
Ancestry of Amber's.......... |
paternal grandfather Charles Burkett |
Charles Burkett |
| Elberta Huntington | ||
|
paternal grandmother Susie Mae Fitzgerald |
Ambrose Fitzgerald | |
| Altha Robinson | ||
|
maternal grandfather Bradford Morgan |
Robert Morgan | |
| Sudie Stanford | ||
|
maternal grandmother Gracie Simmons |
Lloyd Simmons | |
| Kate McCullough |
To maintain a certain level of privacy, we will not explicitly post vital statistics of anyone in a generation more recent than that of our great-grandparents. This includes documents that have some restriction on availability, including birth certificates, marriage certificates, or death certificates. We will, however, post census information, which is a matter of public record and can be obtained by anyone. We may post obituaries of people in our grandparents' generation, but only if they passed away at an early age. Offline, we may share such documentation with others, but only if they share ancestry with us or have a bona fide interest in the study of that particular family. When we share data with collaborating researchers, we ask them to respect this same degree of privacy.
Genealogical Research in the Internet Era
No one would argue the notion that the internet has had enormous beneficial impact on genealogy and family history research. However, the concept is not without fault.
The amount of blindly copied and/or unsubstantiated genealogy floating around the internet today is astounding. Much of this can be attributed to a handy computer file format called GEDCOM (Genealogical Data Communication). GEDCOM files allow fast and simple sharing of genealogy data across a multitude of software applications and operating system platforms. For example, researchers can exchange genealogical data simply by incorporating a GEDCOM file as an email attachment. Alternatively, there are several web sites that allow public posting, searching and sharing of data stored in this format. These files are both a blessing and a curse. They are invaluable for sharing information and locating close, distant or lost relatives. But the GEDCOM file format allows indiscriminate copying and reposting of data by multiple researchers investigating the same family. Two or more files may be identical or have only subtle differences. The disadvantage is that if data are updated or changed in one file, the "copies" don't get adjusted as well. Another pitfall: If there are discrepancies regarding when individual X lived and died, the version that appears more often is not necessarily the correct one. It just means it was copied more.
Unfortunately, GEDCOMs with good or bad data are copied ad infinitum, and often by users that have only a fleeting interest in the family. Such researchers are accused of being name collectors or living according to a philosophy of something like "he who dies with the biggest GEDCOM wins."
We are not opposed to sharing data, but for the time being, we will not post GEDCOM files here. If we download or receive GEDCOMs from others, we always keep them separate from our own files. Of course, we recommend the same action to those who receive files from us.
Another source of "bad" genealogy is historical narrative that is copied and pasted from one web site to another using no proper quotation, referencing or listing of sources. One of our goals for this site as we develop it is careful documentation of sources, online or offline. When another web site has more to offer or can better explain information about our ancestry, we will simply provide a link to that site.
There is nothing particularly significant about knowing the precise dates of our ancestors' vital statistics or the exact spellings of their names. However, they become useful if we want to trace our ancestors, especially if we are distinguishing family members with the same first name or if the surname is especially common in the area and time we are researching.
It is becoming more and more clear that some (if not most) of our ancestors had little regard for knowing exactly how old they were, how their names were spelled or where they or there parents were born. Such facts probably did not become important until the 20th century (e.g., Social Security). Depending on the surname, spellings could be quite fluid among various records. In fact, multiple spellings of a name could appear within the same document.
The United States census is notorious for revealing such inconsistencies. Names are butchered all the time. Sometimes people may appear to age only 7 years between 10 years of census returns. In other cases, from census to census people may report different places of birth not only for their parents but also themselves.
We must use any facts obtained from federal census records (and from most other records, for that matter) with caution. These records are riddled with errors of several types and for various reasons. Errors include but are not limited to misspellings, transposition of letters or numbers, wrong names or dates, or enumerating males as females or vice versa. These errors could have been caused by the transcriptionist, miscommunication with the family during the interview, or poor recollection or misrepresentation of facts by family members. An example of the latter case might be a woman who claims herself to be a widow rather than admit she is divorced.
We must also be careful not to make assumptions about family relationships. Relationships to the head of household were not reported until the 1880 census returns. Prior to that, there really is no way to know if children are in fact the biological offspring of a given household head. They could be adopted children, nephews or nieces, or other relatives. Even in the returns since 1880, just because a child is listed as the son or daughter of the household head does not mean that the wife of the head is the mother of that child. The wife could be a stepmother. Generally speaking, though, it is a safe assumption that children listed are in fact the offspring of an apparent husband and wife, and we will make that assumption unless or until we know otherwise.
Despite these limitations, census records are crucial to our research because they allow us to ask important questions and they provide intelligent avenues for finding their answers. The names and ages we report on our pages are copied exactly as they are given from the original transcription even if we know them to be incorrect. Where the writing is difficult or impossible to read, we use question marks (?). We will gladly email you the digitized image of the census return so you can make your own interpretation.
Why are there no listings of 1890 census records on our genealogy pages?
Over 99% of the 1890 federal census returns were destroyed by a fire in the Commerce Department building in Washington, D.C., in 1921. Congress had not mandated that any copies of the 1890 records be made. The lack of these records creates a 20-year gap (rather than the usual 10-year gap) in tracking our ancestors using the federal census.
Web Site Hosted by Effective Results