Lift Up Your Hearts!

I read it in the Orlando Sentinel, on page 10 of the front section of today's paper, part of an article entitled, "Will census show Latino boom?"

And people wonder why I don't trust the mainstream media. Part of me still retains a small hope that professional news organizations—like our local newspaper—have more of a chance of getting the news right than the average Internet source, but they keep taxing my credulity. Here's the latest.

[E]xperts say the typical hurdles for an accurate census have been aggravated by a controversial question proposed by the Trump administration—"Is this person a citizen of the United States?"—that some fear will dissuade non-citizens from participating.

"The biggest barrier is one that the Trump administration has created," [attorney Tom] Wolf said. "This would mark the first time in American history that the census would try to ascertain the citizenship status of the entire country."

The emphasis is mine. Tom Wolf is "an attorney who specializes in the census and redistricting at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York." Specializes in the census? I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps he was wildly misquoted—but I'm skeptical.

From my genealogical work, I knew he was wrong: citizenship questions had been asked before. What I didn't know until I looked it up again was just how wrong he was. Check out the following census years:

1870

• Is the person a male citizen of the United States of 21 years or upwards?

 1890

• Is the person naturalized?
• Has the person taken naturalization papers out?

 1900

• What year did the person immigrate to the United States?
• How many years has the person been in the United States?
• Is the person naturalized?

1910

• Year of immigration to the United States
• Is the person naturalized or an alien?

1920

• Year of immigration to the United States
• Is the person naturalized or alien?
• If naturalized, what was the year of naturalization?

1930

• Year of immigration into the United States
• Is the person naturalized or an alien?

1940

• If foreign born, is the person a citizen?

1950

• If foreign born, is the person naturalized?

1970

From 1970 on, the census stopped asking all the questions of everyone—only a small percentage of households received the long form with the interesting questions. Speaking as a genealogist, that was a very big mistake.

• For persons born in a foreign country—Is the person naturalized?
• When did the person come to the United States to stay?

1980

• Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States?
• When did this person come the United States to stay?

1990

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?
• If this person was not born in the United States, when did this person come to the United States to stay?

2000

• Is this person a citizen of the United States?

2010

In 2010 the short census form had a mere 10 questions, and the long form was replaced by the annual American Community Survey. The ACS asked questions about citizenship.

So, Mr. Wolf is correct if he only considers the censuses taken from 1960 onward. But he ignores eight censuses in which the country did, indeed, "try to ascertain the citizenship status of the entire country." The proposed question is hardly something new.

The U. S. Federal Census has often asked nosy and sometimes peculiar questions, such as

• Is the person deaf and dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic?
• Can the person read?
• Was, on the day of the enumerator's visit, the person sick or disabled so as to be unable to attend to ordinary business or duties? If so, what was the sickness or disability?
• For mothers, how many children has the person had? and How many of those children are living?
• Is the person's home owned or rented? If it is owned, is the person's home owned free or mortgaged?
• Is the person a survivor of the Union or Confederate Army or Navy?
• Person's father's mother tongue
• Is the person an employer, a salary or wage worker, or working on his own account?
• Does the household own a radio?
• Number of weeks worked in the year
• What is the highest grade this person has attended in school?
• How did this person get to work last week?

There was a time in my life when I was disgusted with the census for asking such personal questions. But now I see them as an invaluable glimpse into the world of my ancestors—and our country's history. I grieve that the names of all household members don't show up until 1850, and that most of the country has been excluded from the interesting questions since 1970.

I don't see how the Sentinel has a leg to stand on with its statement that the census has never before asked the citizenship of all the country's inhabitants. Why I continue to believe so much of what I read boggles my mind.  Maybe for the same reason I agree to all those End User License Agreements.

It took a long time for me to dip my toes into the DNA testing waters, being both an avid genealogist and a very private person. But just as giving birth changed my relationship to modesty, starting a blog changed my relationship to privacy. I'm still both modest and private, but not in the same way. The biggest obstacle to DNA testing was knowing I was dragging my family along. As recent events have shown, criminal behavior (and other indiscretions) can be found out by DNA through relatives' information available on genealogy websites.

But I discovered long ago that privacy as we knew it is dead. I remember working with a family researcher who was writing a book on one side of our family. At one time, I would have refused to contribute any information, but had since been helped so much in my research by a book on the Wightman Family that I wanted to help others the same way. The Wightman book, incidentally, has information on me and our family that was contributed without my knowledge or consent. At the time I was not happy, but I got over that and now appreciate it. Except for where the data is wrong....

The point, however, is that while such direct contributions help researchers, they're not all that necessary. When one of my family members declined to contribute his family's information to the project I was helping with, the researcher understood his reluctance—but he added, "Let me show you the information I've already obtained from public sources." He already had just about everything he could use. As Illya Kuryakin Dr. Mallard said on NCIS last night, The Internet will be the death of us. Or at least of privacy.

In light of all this, Porter and I each decided to submit a sample to AncestryDNA.com, and eagerly awaited the results. Later we uploaded the DNA data to MyHeritage.com, and eventually gave another sample to 23andMe.com—the latter for both the ancestry and the health screening.

This post is not for a detailed analysis of the results, but an overall impression of the value of the DNA testing. First, from the point of view of genealogy.

For us, the Ancestry.com screening was the most useful. This is for two reasons.

• They have the largest database from which to work, and that is what makes the testing useful—comparing your DNA to that of other populations. For this reason it is also most useful for those of European background, because of the large numbers of that population who have participated. The testing services are working to improve the experience for under-represented populations, but for now the data is not so robust.
• I have uploaded our family tree, with its nearly 15,000 individuals, to Ancestry.com, and that's largely what makes their DNA service helpful for genealogy. This gives context to our DNA matches, and I've already confirmed known relatives while learning of several more. My tree is at the moment private on Ancestry, which means people have to ask me about the information, which is a good way to get to meet them. Someday I will make it, or at least a version of it, public, but the tree itself isn't ready for that exposure yet.

No doubt MyHeritage would be more useful if I put a tree up there as well, but that's on the "Someday/Maybe" list. I only uploaded our data because at the time they gave free access to their resources if you did. So far they've only found us "third-to-fifth cousins"—tons of them—which is not of much use without trees to compare, and most people seem to have no trees or very small ones. Third cousins share a great-great-grandfather, so it requires a significant amount of family history knowledge to make the connection.

23andMe is in the same situation as far as genealogy goes. So far nothing found even as close as second cousin (sharing a great-grandfather).

How has this helped my genealogy research? Well, through Ancestry.com I've connected with a few previously unknown cousins, a couple close enough to be useful in sharing information. Even the ones that are more distant have been useful in providing some confirmation of my research. Overall I'm glad I took the plunge, if only for this reason. It also has a lot of potential for more and better information as time goes on. One important caveat: There is a lot of error in online family trees. Even with DNA support, this information is best taken as inspiration for further research, and for mutual sharing of data sources.

Now for what most people want out of DNA testing: heritage and ethnicity information. This is an estimate only, and each company has its own data and algorithm for making its "best guess." Sometime after we had our samples analyzed, Ancestry.com upgraded their system and re-analyzed our data. The results were not terribly much different from the first attempt, though probably more accurate.

The analysis from MyHeritage was closer to Ancestry's original analysis. That from 23andMe was different from any of the others, though quite similar overall.

My impression? The DNA analysis is very good as an overall picture, not so good on the details. For example, Porter's great-grandparents came to the United States from Sweden, and it is well known where they lived before emigrating. In fact, when his dad visited Sweden, he was told he looks just like people who live in that area. Thus when his father's AncestryDNA analysis came back showing his largest ethnicity to be Norwegian, we were taken aback. However, the area he's from may be called Sweden, but it's right on the border with Norway. One can definitely say from his DNA that he is of Scandinavian origin, but that he is specifically Swedish comes from genealogy. One must also remember that the smaller percentages are suspect: of the three analyses, 23andMe was the only one that gave me "broadly East Asian and Native American" ancestry, and that was at just 0.1%, so highly doubtful.

Finally, there's the analysis of genetic health data. This comes primarily from 23andMe, though we also paid an extra $10 post facto for Ancestry's "Traits" screening. I've written about the latter experience before. 23andMe analyzes many more traits than Ancestry's small sample, from "Leigh Syndrome, French Canadian Type" carrier status, to estimated risk for late-onset Alzheimer's Disease, to Lactose Intolerance, to Asparagus Odor Detection.

My thoughts? Interesting, but not quite ready for prime time. Where I have independent data it sometimes confirms, sometimes contradicts the DNA reports. Ancestry says I likely have a "unibrow" but 23andMe says the opposite. Both of them say I probably hate cilantro, and I love it. And so on. So I'm taking the rest of what they say with a few grains of salt. I'm sure there's something to it, and that the data will get better with time, but for now it is more entertainment than useful information. Actually, I take that back: Just as DNA ancestry data is useful as a starting point for further research, the discovery of certain traits might be useful for suggesting further, medical, genetic testing.

There's a lot more to DNA analysis for the serious genealogy researcher to investigate, such as sites that will take your data and give you tools to learn much more about which particular genes you and a DNA match share. I'm not there yet; I have too much to do with my regular research to explore that path further. But it, and my data, are there when I'm ready.

Am I glad I decided to "spit in the tube"? Absolutely; I'd do it again and may later go further with it. I'm very grateful to family members who have taken the plunge as well, because that provides a look at the puzzle from more angles. But it's always important not to expect too much. It's never as simple as trading your kilt for lederhosen, as the Ancestry.com ad blithely shows. Plus there's a risk of finding out things you don't want to know—about family or about health. It's a very personal decision and I understand those who are reluctant to take the risk.

Not long ago, Ancestry.com added a new feature to their DNA services, where for an additional $10 they will analyze your existing DNA sample for certain genetic traits. It's not nearly as extensive as that offered by 23andMe, but for $10 I thought it worth checking out.

The verdict? Interesting, of questionable use, somewhat confusing, and mildly amusing. I'm posting our results for the few family members who might be interested, and for anyone else who wonders what the $10 will get you.

Bear in mind that having the gene for a trait does not mean that you actually have that trait, since genetics is complicated! Many different genes may influence the trait, and environment is often a factor as well. As I understand it, current DNA tests can give you a good general picture, but not the whole story. As the site says,

Sometimes your trait doesn't match what your genes say—that's totally normal. Genes don't always tell the whole story.

What the Ancestry.com Traits testing told me I can often confirm—but not always. They hedge their conclusions with "probably" in most cases. I've listed what Ancestry says, followed by my commentary. In some cases this may be more information than you want to know; you have been warned.

• Cleft Chin Yes. I see no evidence thereof. Maybe too small to notice.
• Finger Length Index finger longer than ring finger. Maybe. It's hard to measure, and harder still when fingers are affected by arthritis.
• Earlobe Type Attached. I can confirm that.
• Earwax Type Wet. This one is more complicated than they make out, I'm certain. The two types are "Wet and sticky, yellowish to brown in color)" and "Dry and flaky (gray to tan in color)." Ancestry says, "Dry earwax is common in Asian and Native American populations. Just about everybody else has the wet variety. But in practice, I—with no measurable Asian or Native American ancestry—have primarily what they describe as "dry." But not exclusively: occasionally it's more like the wet, though not sticky, and nothing like that of others I know whose earwax is clearly of the wet-and-sticky variety. So there's a lot more going on here than a single genetic marker.
• Eye Color Light eyes. No surprise there—blue.
• Freckles No freckles. They got this right, too.
• Hair Color Lighter hair. Yep. Not now, but I was blonde as kid. My optometrist confirmed that: I have a blonde fundus. Even Miss Clairol can't fool an eye doctor.
• Hair Type Naturally wavy hair. Where did that come from? My hair is straight as can be. I remember my sister having somewhat wavy hair until her first haircut, so maybe I did then, too. But after that the only waves in my hair came from the painful overnight application of curlers—until my mother gave up on making me into someone who thought it reasonable to endure pain just to conform to society's standards of beauty. :)
• Hair Strand Thickness Average. I suppose so. Never thought about this one much. The gene variant for "thick hair" is "almost nonexistent in people of African and European descent," so when the hairdressers tell me (as they frequently do), "You sure have thick hair!" they must be talking about something else.
• Iris Patterns I should have furrows, crypts, and rings in my irises.  I'll take their word for it; I find it hard to tell, though my irises are certainly more complex than I thought.
• Male Hair Loss Low chance of hair loss. Too bad we didn't have sons; I hope our daughters inherited the gene (which their father has, too) and passed it on to their sons.
• Skin Pigmentation Light to medium skin tone. No surprise here.
• Unibrow Yes. Oops, they got that one wrong.
• Asparagus Metabolite Detection No. Well, half right As with the Earwax Type, it's more complicated than it seems. What they say, exactly, is this: your DNA suggests you might not notice a distinctive smell when you pee after eating asparagus. This is correct; I do not. However, they also say the following:

When your body digests asparagus, it produces a chemical called asparagusic acid, which breaks down into compounds that contain sulfur, which is notoriously stinky (think rotten eggs). Some people can smell this in their urine after eating asparagus; others can’t.

Scientists used to think that asparagus caused some people to produce bad-smelling urine, but it turns out that it’s probably not the stench but the ability to smell it that varies. The inability to smell is called “asparagus anosmia.”

I'm inclined to think that the new theory is wrong, since I cannot smell the distinctive odor in my own urine after eating asparagus, and neither can Porter. You might think that the quantities of asparagus eaten make a difference, but even when I eat a lot, we don't notice the smell, and when Porter eats the tiniest amount of asparagus, we both know it! So we can both smell it, but as far as we can tell, only he produces detectable "asparagus pee."

• Bitter Sensitivity No. This is a test for the ability to taste the bitterness in glucosinolates, which are common in vegetables like brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and kale. This may explain why I don't understand people who have an averson to kale....
• Cilantro Aversion Yes. Boy did they get this one wrong. I love, love, love cilantro! But my grandson may have received this gene, since he says cilantro tastes like stinkbugs. (Don't ask me how he knows the taste of stinkbugs.)
• Sweet Sensitivity More sensitive to sweets. If this is true, I taste sweet flavors more intensely than people without this variant. Maybe. I do find that baked goods like cakes and cookies can do with a lot less sugar than the recipe calls for. But that doesn't change the fact that I love sweetness!
• Savory (Umami) Sensitivity Less sensitive to umami, or savory flavors. Maybe this is why I never get "Chinese restaurant syndrome." I love the "umami" flavor in foods, but am not noticeably sensitive to monosodium glutamate (MSG).

I'll give an abbreviated version of Porter's results. For some reason, he has one more trait (Birth Weight), added recently, which I don't see in my results yet.

• Birth Weight average-sized newborn. His birth certificate doesn't have birth weight information, so we'll probably never know.
• Cleft Chin Yes. Wrong—as far as we can tell.
• Finger Length Index finger longer than ring finger. As far as he can tell, they are the same length.
• Earlobe Type Unattached. Wrong—Attached.
• Earwax Type Wet. Right.
• Eye Color Light eyes. Right—hazel.
• Freckles No freckles. Right.
• Hair Color Darker hair. Right.
• Hair Type Naturally wavy hair. Wrong.
• Hair Strand Thickness Average. Probably right.
• Iris Patterns He should have furrows and rings in his irises.  Who knows?
• Male Hair Loss Low chance of hair loss. Looks right so far. :)
• Skin Pigmentation Light to medium skin tone. Right.
• Unibrow No. Right.
• Asparagus Metabolite Detection Yes. Right.
• Bitter Sensitivity No. Probably right.
• Cilantro Aversion No.
• Sweet Sensitivity More sensitive to sweets.
• Savory (Umami) Sensitivity Less sensitive to umami, or savory flavors.

Verdict? I don't see any use for it, but it was a fair $10 (each) worth of entertainment, to have done once. Coming up? We grabbed a set of 23andMe tests on a Black Friday special, and finally sent them in recently. We'll see if they're any more enlightening.

For the past several months we have been posting, day by day, Porter's transcription of the World War I diary kept by Hezekiah Scovil Porter of the United States Army's 101st Machine Gun Battalion, chronicling his days from October 9, 1917 until his death at Chateau Thierry on July 22, 1918. In this post I've collected the entire diary transcription in order, with page numbers and occasional explanatory comments. You can see images of the pages themselves here: Hezekiah Scovil Porter's WWI Diary.

Introduction

Hezekiah Scovil Porter was the youngest of Wallace and Florence Gesner (Wells) Porter's seven children, born into the tiny town of Higganum, Connecticut on June 4, 1896. He attended The Choate School in Wallingford, Connecticut. Choate is now known as the school that "has educated generations of the upper-class New England establishment and the American political elite," but at the time it was only as old as Hezekiah himself. Twenty years later, John F. Kennedy would graduate from Choate, having been chosen by his class as the person "most likely to succeed." About Hezekiah, the Headmaster wrote:

Hezzie was always a man of deeds rather than of words. And his influence either on the field, or in the classroom, or about School in general, was of the kind that very definitely made us a better School for his being part of it. In his Sixth Form year Hezzie was President of his class, and in the vote which was taken toward the close of the year, he was almost unanimously chosen as the member of his Form who had "done most for Choate." He was also voted—and there were no near competitors— the "most popular," as well as the man in his class "most to be admired."

But Hez never had his chance to become President. As with many of his generation, his service ended on the battlefields of France. After graduating from Choate, Hezekiah attended Yale University. But he left during the fall of his sophomore year to join the Army. After four months he was at the front, and five months later he was killed in action near Chatêau-Thierry.

The following quote, and the one above, are taken from Yale in the World War, by George Henry Nettleton (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1925). You can read a somewhat fuzzy but still legible copy of the article on Hezekiah Scovil Porter by clicking on the images in the middle of my Memorial Day, 2009 post.

On the morning of July 22, 1918, in the course of an American attack on Epieds, north of Château-Thierry, Hezekiah Scovil Porter, Private in the 101st Machine Gun Battalion, was killed in action. His diary closes abruptly with an entry recorded the night before while his company was awaiting the dawn which was to bring the expected advance. Next morning in the midst of the attack he met instant death in the open field as he was hurrying forward with ammunition for a machine gun.

Hezekiah Scovil Porter is my husband's granduncle. That diary the article mentions? Porter has it. He labored much to photograph and transcribe the pages of the diary, in honor of the 100th anniversary this year of Hez's death. The images can be viewed here; the transcription follows. (The original is in black; annotations are in red.)

Family note: In the pages below, you will see references to mail Hez received from family members. Conspicuously absent are communications from his father, mother, and one of his brothers, who had all predeceased him: his mother in 1910, his father in 1912, and his oldest brother, Ralph Wallace Porter, in 1915.

And that is the end. There is no more to Hezekiah Scovil Porter's diary, save some brief notes on where he served, in someone else's handwriting.

On Monday, July 22, 1918, his unit went into battle, and Hez was killed.

From Yale in the World War (George Henry Nettleton, Yale University Press, 1925; pages 324-325), quoting a letter written shortly afterwards by a "Yale classmate and comrade-in-arms," comes this description of his death:

Two guns had been placed in a wood, and ammunition was needed. "Hez" was one of the detail to take it up. They had to cross a wheat field, and a splinter [shrapnel] caught him square in the chest.

History of the 101st Machine Gun Battalion has a longer description of the action from the "War Diary of a Machine Gunner," compiled from the field diaries of several of the soldiers by the Rev. Charles E. Hesselgrave, a Congregational minister serving overseas with the YMCA.

JULY 22. At daybreak both companies were sent out into some woods overlooking Trugny to assist the attack of Major Rau's battalion against the town. We could not locate any enemy to fire at, and the best we could do was to wait to protect Rau's left against possible counter-attack. We were shelled and M. G. bullets flew pretty thick. Bristol of C Co. was wounded. After a while the attack crumbled in spite of Rau's gallant efforts against impossible odds, and the troops were withdrawn to the old positions. A little later C Co. was sent over to the right to join Rau. There they found him with only a few of his men left. The guns were set up on the edge of the wood in a defensive position. B Co. got orders to support an attack of the 102d Inf. on the town of Epieds over on the left flank. The company formed a fourth wave behind the infantry, and spread out into a long skirmish line. The advance started over the open wheat field at a slow walk, with frequent halts during which each man flattened out so tliat no moving thing was visible in the field. M. G. bullets began to kick up little puffs of dust all around us, and the enemy artillery barrage came down fiercely just ahead. We knew we would have to go through this, and every nerve was tense. We soon found ourselves in the midst of it—direct fire at that, mostly from one pounders, and 105's and Austrian 88's which come with the shriek of a thousand devils. The fumes choked us and the concussions half stunned us. It was here that Hez Porter, following his platoon leader, was instantly killed. Corcoran, Dick and Wendt were wounded. An infantry captain just ahead called frantically to us to put an enemy M. G. out of business. He pointed out a pile of barrels where the gun was supposed to be hidden, and two guns of Lt. Sandberg's platoon, Sgt. Hart's section, went into action in the edge of some woods and peppered the spot for some time. It was here that the whole attack was checked, and we got word from the infantry that it was pulling back and that we should do the same on our own hook. The company was drawn to the left into cover of woods, reformed, and sent back, skirting around a rise for concealment. We assembled in a patch of wood a little way back and waited for possible counter-attack and to cover the withdrawal of the doughboys if necessary. They came filtering back, bringing their wounded with them, and soon we were also returned to our old place where the guns were set up to repel any attack that might come from the left. Dr. Hesselgrave appeared with cigarettes and chocolate which was indeed welcome, as we had nothing to eat. This was not a healthy place for the Doctor to be in, but we knew he would come to us when we needed him most. There was a dressing-station near us, and it was awful to see the wounded and shell-shocked fellows brought in. About 6 p. m. the Boche put down a fearful artillery barrage close in front of us, and we were pulled back a hundred yards to escape the effects of this fire. A detail had been digging a grave for Porter, but were unable to finish. A bit later, orders came from Division that we would go back into reserve for a time. We thought our troubles were about over for that day, but were mistaken. Down on the road near Champluisant Farm, just east of Sacerie, our machines were lined up, waiting to take us out, and as we were loading up there came the familiar shriek and two shell burst in the field close by. A moment later there came a deafening blast—all was confusion. Two more shell had exploded together right among our cars. Two of them were overturned. We got the wounded into cars as quickly as possible but, to make matters worse, a mule-cart had become wedged in the road ahead and blocked all traffic, so we could not move out. Finally the way was cleared and the cars with the wounded made for the first-aid station at Sacerie Farm. Harold Smith and Ralph Henry of B Co. died. Brackett, Weld, Olschefskie, Hampson, Haskins, Barber, Maun, Rogers, Burden, Fothergill, Mercer, Burnham, Sancyzk of B Co. and Fabryk of C Co. wounded. Robinson and Gunning of B Co. shell-shocked. Our cars had been doing fine service most all day in taking out wounded. Two of C Co's cars were hit and one wrecked. At last we found ourselves in bivouac in the woods.

JULY 25. ... A detail went back and buried Porter.

More details about his burial are from the Geni genealogical website entry for Hezekiah Scovil Porter, compiled, I believe, by Charles E. Rounds, Jr., grandson of Hezekiah's brother, Philip Wells Porter.

A photograph of the temporary gravesite is in the possession of Charles E. Rounds, Jr., 107 Mt. Vernon St., Boston, MA 02108 (2013). In the photograph are two of his comrades who had survived the battle. One is from Wethersfield, Connecticut (State Street) and one is from Waterbury, Vermont. The Vermonter is Wagoner Arthur A Barlow, a farmer, who was born Aug. 10, 1895. The Connecticut man is Sergeant Everett H. Hart, born July 10, 1894, who in civilian life had been a "member" of the Chas. C. Hart Seed Co. Bordering the field, just beyond the grave-site, is a thick forest of mostly birch saplings. The underbrush is heavy.

In a letter. dated July 27, 1918, more details of the initial "make-shift" interment of the remains of Hezekiah Scovil Porter are communicated in a letter from his commanding officer (Philip S. Wainwright) to Whitney Scovil Porter (one of Hezekiah's brothers): "...The grave is marked near the head by a cross-shaped blaze on a tree with "Hezekiah S. Porter--101st. M.G.B. U.S.A.--July 22d, 1918" carved into the wood. His helmet is also placed at the head on a bayonet with his name scratched on it. I removed his wallet which contained a small sum of French money and his diamond ring, which was all the personal property we could find." [The referenced wallet, which is bloodstained, is in the possession of William Porter Wightman, grandson of the said Whitney Scovil Porter (2017)].

Hez's remains were later retrieved and given a permanent resting place in the Oise-Aisne American Cemetery, Fere-en-Tardenois (Aisne), France: Plot A, Row 4, Grave 18.

Requiescat in pace, Hezekiah Scovil Porter.

As part of my research into some of the Davises in our family tree (related to David Wood, about whom I wrote before), I've been reading about early New Jersey churches. That line was primarily Baptist, and settled there to escape persecution.

Morgan Edwards' work, Materials Toward a History of the Baptists, provided amusement along with information. For example, these paragraphs about the Cohansey Baptist Church [Vol. 1, p. 89]:

In 1710 ... Rev. Timothy Brooks and his company united with this church: they had emigrated hither from Swanzey [Swansea] in Plymouth (now Massachusetts) government, about the year 1687; and had kept a separate society, for 23 years, on account of differences in opinion relative to predestination; singing psalms; laying on of hands, etc.: the uniter was Rev. Valentine Wightman, of Groton in Connecticut: the terms of union were, bearance and forbearance.

In 1714, eight Presbyterians joined this church: the occasion was a[s] follows: Mr. Wightman was invited to preach at Fairfield; but forgetting his situation, he talked away as if he had been in a baptist pulpit.

Clearly the name struck a bell, and indeed, that's our Valentine Wightman: Porter's 6th great-grandfather through his father's side; my 7th great-grandfather through my father's grandfather Willis Johnson Langdon, whose ancestors married into the Wightman line. Willis' wife, my great-grandmother, was Mary Lucy (Nellie) Wood. The Woods and the Davises of my family during that era were Baptists and Seventh-Day Baptists in that area of New Jersey, and it's likely that Mary Lucy Wood's ancestors heard Valentine Wightman preach on one of his visits. One hundred and thirty-four years after Valentine's death in 1747, their lines met when Willis and Nellie married. Ninety-four years after that, they met again when Porter and I were wed.

It's no secret that my husband and I bit the bullet and jumped into the genetic DNA testing arena, having finally decided that the information benefits outweighed privacy concerns. But of course, when we sumitted our samples, we were "speaking" not only for ourselves but for our blood relatives everywhere, since we share DNA, albeit in varying amounts.

So, family, this is your fair warning to keep your lives clean and stay on the right side of the law. As you can see from this New York Times article (or just Google for it if you can't get in to the NYT), police in California have apprehended a man who they believe is a notorious serial killer/rapist/burglar who commited his crimes in the 1970's and 80's. They cracked the case by matchng a sample from one of the crimes to DNA some of his ftamily members had submitted to a genealogical database.

Sure, it tweaks my privacy-concern buttons a bit, and even more so my Big-Brother-is-watching-you fears, but I sure am glad the guy was finally caught. But this is what concerns me most of all:

Mr. DeAngelo will not be charged for a series of rapes authorities believe he committed in the Sacramento area in the late 1970s because the statute of limitations has expired.

There's a statute of limitations for rape? How can that possibly be?

William W. Tedrow is not one of my direct ancestors, but my great-great-granduncle: my father's mother's father's mother's oldest brother. I wouldn't normally spend too much time on him, but I noticed that the death date I had for him had no associated source. I'm in the process of cleaning up my family tree, and unsourced facts—whether accidental or put in deliberately as part of ongoing research—must go. Generally, I'll spend a little time trying to find a source for the fact—more if the person is in my direct line, less if not—then either add the source or delete the fact.

Frankly, my gut reaction was to delete William W. Tedrow's death date and move on. Up until recently I was eager to learn as much as possible about anyone and everyone connected with my family—and even non-relatives if the puzzle was interesting enough. But I have just shy of 15,000 people in my database, and am no longer under the illusion that I can learn everything I want to about all of them.

Be that as it may, there was something about William's supposed death date that intrigued me.

I knew that he had served in the Union army, as a musician, from August 1861 until he was discharged in February 1863. Discharged alive and well, apparently. But the (unsourced) information I had was that he had died in 1863. He had survived his Civil War service but died soon thereafter? This warranted at least a quick look.

That's when it became interesting.

William W. Tedrow was born in Illinois, about 1840, the firstborn child of Asa W. and Sarah Elizabeth (Davis) Tedrow—my great-great-great-grandparents. I had already found his Civil War record, or so I thought. He had joined the Union army on August 1, 1861, served as a musician—an official rank between private and corporal in the Civil War army—in Company I, 33rd Illinois Infantry, with distinction, and was discharged February 7, 1863. But it turns out that a lot more data has become available online since I discovered that back in 2004. Here's the next thing I found:

The name's right; the age is right; the birthplace is right. But now he's in Company B, 5th Regiment, U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, which he joined as a 1st Sergeant on October 6, 1863, in Vicksburg, Mississippi. I've found no hint in census or other records that the family is of mixed race. I know that units of black soldiers were commanded by white officers, but as you can see from this list of officers of the 9th Louisiana Infantry, African Descent (the original name of this unit), Tedrow is not among them.  He was not a commissioned officer. According to the article, the enlisted men were black, and the rank of sergeant is an enlisted rank.

But there is no doubt that this is my great-great-granduncle.

There he is, as described in this record from the Illinois State Archives; his description is exactly the same as in the previous image, except that his complexion is listed as "dark" instead of as "fair." And down at the bottom is the notation, "Discharged Feb 7, 1863 at St. Louis MO enlisted in Miss[issippi] Marine Brigade." That is the key.

Here's what the website for the current 33rd Illinois Volunteer Regiment Band has to say about its history:

Mustered at State Normal University August 15, 1861 Charles E. Hovey, President of State Normal University, became the first Colonel of the 33rd Illinois Volunteers when the unit was organized in McLean County, Illinois. The regiment at once became known as the "Normal" or Teachers' Regiment and attracted both teachers and students to its ranks. Because it was stated that the regiment would not obey orders unless they were absolutely correct in syntax and orthography, the regiment was at times called the "Brain Regiment." The 33rd fought throughout the Mississippi Valley and distinguished themselves at Vicksburg, having lost 11 of 32 men, all the rest wounded save one.

The Regimental Band, led by Augustus Woodward of Lexington, Illinois and C.S. Elder also of Lexington, Illinois was made up of 17 bandsmen. The band was mustered on August 15, 1861 and mustered out on August 16, 1862 "... by order as to musicians." Due to financial issues within the military, bandsmen were a financial liability and the government could no longer afford the higher wage paid to the musician. The band provided enjoyment to the regiment and many bands continued service without authorization and the officers and men of the unit paid the added expense.

The Regimental Band was a major part of the soldier's life while fighting against many odds. The band played music that reminded them of home, kept their spirits high, and added to their emotional well-being. The Regimental Band led soldiers into battle and to their death as well.

No doubt William Tedrow was one of those musicians who stayed on, since he was not officially mustered out of the unit till half a year after the band was mustered out. But there he was, having distinguished himself at Vicksburg, Mississippi, with the Army not wanting to pay musicians. So he joined the Mississippi Marine Brigade. According to Wikipedia,

The Mississippi Marine Brigade was a Union Army unit raised during the American Civil War as part of the United States Ram Fleet. These soldiers acted as marines aboard United States Army rams patrolling the Mississippi River. The unit was ... organized as part of the Regular Army instead of a State unit. [It] was an army command operating under the direction of the U.S. Navy consisting of artillery, cavalry and infantry and a fleet of boats for transportation and was commanded by Brig. Gen. Alfred W. Ellett. ... The unit was organized in early 1863 and consisted of about 350 officers and men, including boat crews which used nine small light-armored boats fitted as rams.

The Siege of Vicksburg ended in July 1863. What was next for William W. Tedrow? Clearly, his assignment on October 6, 1863 to Company B of the 5th U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, as shown above. That he truly served in all these units is shown by the pension application below.

Was my great-great-granduncle white, black, or in between? Given the rest of my family history, as well as my DNA results, I'd have to say he was white, although I don't actually know his ancestors on either his mother's or his father's side, so it's still an open question. But perhaps looking "fair" among black troops and "dark" among white troops was an asset for a young (23 years old) teacher-cum-army sergeant in the Civil War. Sadly, William W. Tedrow did not survive to leave a record of how he managed in his new role: He died on December 31, 1863, "by accidental shooting."

We interrupt the flow of diary entries to present this video about the Haddam Veteran's Museum, which we're told has quite a bit about Hezekiah.

Can you say homeschool field trip?

AncestryDNA is currently offering its testing kits for $59, a great price. If you think that's still too much, you might win one for free if I want your data badly enough.  :)

Of course, I know that for many people the cost barrier is not money, but privacy issues, so I would never pressure anyone into DNA testing. It took me a LONG time to get to the point of being willing.

But if you're interested, now's a good time.

(I'm putting this here because Ancestry does not make it easy to leave a note for those who view my profile there.)

My areas of interest and research include, but are not limited to, surnames Langdon, Wightman, Smith, Porter, Bradbury, Barbe, Faulk, Davis, Wood, Tinker, Cunningham, Kemp, Bristol, Reuterberg, Wells, Chamberlain, Daley, Hofferbert, Landeen, Stücklin, and Westfall.

My tree is private, but will show up in Ancestry searches, including AncestryDNA. If there's something that interests you, please contact me. I'm happy to share ideas and sources with those who ask. The tree itself is a work in progress. It is as accurate and as well documented as I have been able to make it thus far, but that doesn't make it right. Again, please contact me for sources and draw your own conclusions.

I have sources for just about every person and fact in my tree. My work is done primarily in RootsMagic, which I sync as well as I can with my Ancestry tree. Unfortunately, Ancestry makes a mess of the sources, so I don't upload them, if I can avoid it (I can't always). Ancestry also hides the general notes I have for people in my RootsMagic tree, and that's where I put a lot of information—another reason to contact me about specific people.

As a genealogist, I love old family photos.  But old family photos without any identification are a tragedy, and that describes a terribly high percentage of our pictures.  Here's one, for example, that's actually in better shape than most, in that I know three of the people for certain, and have some good guesses as to most of the others.  But I'm posting it here in the hope that there are others of our scattered family, perhaps direct descendants of some of these people, who will give greater clarity.  (Click on the photo to enlarge.)

Here's the identification I've come up with:

Back row: Francis Orson Davenny, Erna (Bradbury) Langdon, Mary Jane Langdon

Front row: William Davenny, Richard Davenny, Nina (Bradbury) Davenny, and an unknown woman, possibly Frances (Langdon) Hill.

Based on my best guess as to the ages of the boys, I think the photo was taken around 1945, probably in Spokane, Washington.

What do you say, Internet? Is there someone out there searching on these names who will recognize any of these folks?

Fear not, Faithful Readers, I don't expect more than one or two of you to read all the way through this 6000+ word post. Even the genealogists in the group will skip the details of the Sources and Data sections. But they're there, not only for my own present thinking and future reference, but also for the curious Internet searcher who might find something helpful.

If you read through the beginning, just after the chart you will find a link that will take you directly to the more generally interesting Questions and Conclusions section. A brief summary of the specific genealogical conclusions is at the very end.

The Problem of Jonathan and Elnathan Davis

The Puzzle

The wife of David Wood, Jr.—whose father I wrote about in The Problem of David Wood—was Mercia (or Mercy) Davis. One of the genealogists at the New England Historic Genealogical Society looked at my list of surnames and sighed, “I would rather have Smiths in my line than Davises.” I have both Smiths and Davises; while Smiths aren’t easy, I quite understand his point.

As an example, and to introduce this problem, consider the following excerpt of a brief church history given in the Register of Cohansey Seventh Day Baptist Church, Shiloh, New Jersey, 1737-1830 by Ernest K. Bee, Jr.

The family of the Davises settled higher up near Trenton who came thither directly from Long Island, but originally from Swanzey [Swansea, Massachusetts] and (no doubt) were some of the Company that came over in (1662) with the Rev Miles from J—tone in Glamorganshire [Wales] … the persons that ministered among them at first were Rev. Messieurs Jonathan Davis and Samuel Bowen…. This Jonathan Davis was born May 15^th 1675 (his wifes name Elisabeth born May 1^st 1675). Came in company with another brother or two from Long Island … and settled near Trenton abt. the year 1695 and preached their to his death which hapned abt. the year 1750, his brothers son with his family had been moved down to Cohansey abt the year 1732 and soon after 3 more brothers followed where they have multiplied. …

[The Cohansey church was formed in 1737.] Rev. Jonathan Davis, he was nephew to the forementioned Jonathan Davis of Trenton and took the care of the Church at their incorporation in 1737 and continued in the care thereof to his death in Feb. 2, 1769. … His wife was Esther Ayars, by whom he had children Jerman, Jonathan, Elnathan, Isaac, Edeth, Elijah & Naomi…. Mr. Davis died in the 60^th year of his age, his successor was Rev. Jonathan Davis.

He was not of the Same family with his predecsor, but son of the Rev. David Davis that lives at Newark in Delware State where he was born July 7^th, 1734: he was … ordained in the Church Nov. 13, 1768…. He marryed Margret Bond of Nottingham by whom he had Children Ann, Samuel, David, Ammi, Sarah, Richard and John….

Are you keeping track? That’s three men named Rev. Jonathan Davis who led this small church. The first (Jonathan Davis A) is credited with being the founder (and visiting preacher), the second (Jonathan Davis B)—his nephew—was the first “settled pastor,” and the third (Jonathan Davis C)—completely unrelated—the latter’s successor. Oh, and the last Rev. Jonathan Davis isn’t actually completely unrelated, if you look forward instead of back: I’m related to both of them. The chart below show five generations of the ancestors of my great-great—grandfather, R. J. Wood. Jonathan Davis B is in purple and Jonathan Davis C in green. Jonathan Davis A is not shown, but is the brother of Elnathan Davis, in red (twice, because he shows up in two separate lines). (Click image to enlarge.)

The problems begin with Elnathan.

(If you want to skip the Sources and the Data sections and go right to the Questions and Conclusions, click here.)

The Sources

• Brig. Gen. William Church Davis, The Ancestry and Posterity of Joseph Davis (1773-1865) of Norway, NY, and His Wife, Elizabeth Hallock Davis (1784-1851) (Walton, NY: Press of the Reporter Co., 1927), pp. 9-20. Available online at Ancestry.com and HathiTrust.org, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005730242.
• Ancestry.com. The Church Records of the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2004.
• Frederick Lewis Weis, The Colonial Clergy of the Middle Colonies: New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, 1628-1776 from the American Antiquarian Society website, http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539283.pdf.
• George Rogers Howell, The Early History of Southampton, L. I., New York, with Genealogies, second edition, revised, corrected, and enlarged. (Albany, New York: Weed, Parsons and Company, 1887).
• Jeannette Edwards Rattray, East Hampton History: Including Genealogies of Early Families (East Hampton, N.Y, 1953), pp. 262-263.
• O. E. Monnette, First Settlers of ye Plantations of Piscataway and Woodbridge: olde East New Jersey, 1664-1714, a period of fifty years (Los Angeles: The Leroy Carman Press, 1930).
• “The Founders of Hartford,” from the Society of the Descendants of the Founders of Hartford website, copied 18 March 2018, http://foundersofhartford.org/founders/davy_fulke.htm.
• Linda Moffatt, compiler, “Fulke Davis of East Hampton and Jamaica, Long Island,” from Papers by Warren Skidmore on descendants of Reginald de Scudamore, eldest son of Ralph the Domesday tenant. Source: http://www.skidmorefamilyhistory.com/Reginald%20papers%20compilation.pdf, pp 84-85. Original source: East Hampton (Long Island) Town Records, Book A, pages 74-6.
• “Fulke (Ffulke, Foulk) Davis” at Long Island Surnames website, https://longislandsurnames.com/getperson.php?personID=I2520&tree=Mather.
• Francis Bazley Lee, Genealogical and Personal Memorial of Mercer County, New Jersey (New York & Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Compnay, 1907). Available online at Google Books, https://books.google.com/books/about/Genealogical_and_Personal_Memorial_of_Me.html?id=6tcMAAAAYAAJ.
• Gilbert Cope, Genealogy of the Sharpless Family Descended from John and Jane Sharples, Settlers Near Chester, Pennsylvania, 1682: Together with some account of The English Ancestry of the Family, including the results of researches by Henry Fishwick, F.H.S., and the late Joseph Lemuel Chester, LL.D.; and a full report of the bi-centennial reunion of 1882 (Philadelphia: For the family, under the auspices of the Bicentennial committee, 1887). Available online at Ancestry.com and the Internet Archive, https://archive.org/stream/genealogyofsharp00cope/genealogyofsharp00cope_djvu.txt.
• Ancestry.com. History and genealogy of Fenwick's Colony [database on-line]. Provo, UT: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005. Original data: Shourds, Thomas.. History and genealogy of Fenwick's Colony. Bridgeton, N.J.: George F. Nixon, 1876.
• T. H. Breen, Imagining the Past: East Hampton Histories (University of Georgia Press, 1996), pp. 121-137. Available online at Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=2oyC98E09lMC.
• Helen A. Titus, Maidenhead: the Early Days. (Trenton, New Jersey: Lawrenceville Tercentenary Committee, 1964). Available online courtesy the Lawrence Historical Society, at http://www.thelhs.org/newsletters/maidenhead.pdf.
• Morgan Edwards, Eve B. Weeks, and Mary B. Warren, Materials Towards a History of the Baptists (Danielsville, Georgia: Heritage Papers, 1984).
• Ancestry.com. New Jersey, Abstract of Wills, 1670-1817 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011. (Original data: New Jersey State Archives. New Jersey, Published Archives Series, First Series. Trenton, New Jersey: John L Murphy Publishing Company).
• Ethel Stroupe, “Origins of the Jersey Settlement of Rowan County, North Carolina: First Families of Jersey Settlement,” from Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas website, http://www.sonsofdewittcolony.org/mckstmerjersey. Downloaded 18 Mar 2018.
• Josephine C. Frost, editor, Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island, New York, 1656-1751. (Brooklyn, New York: Long Island Historical Society, 1914). (Available online at HathiTrust, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002006199039;view=1up;seq=7).
• Ernest K. Bee Jr., Register of Cohansey Seventh Day Baptist Church, Shiloh, New Jersey 1737-1830 (Plainfield, New Jersey: Seventh-Day Baptist Publishing House, 1976).
• Various Internet sites of more or less credibility, rife with speculation, but useful for indicating directions of research.
• Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia: “Lawrenceville, New Jersey,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrenceville,_New_Jersey.
• Stuart Hotchkiss, “Witches of Long Island,” from Brooklyn Genealogy Information Page website, created in 1997 by Nancy E. Lutz, hosted by Steve Morse, http://bklyn-genealogy-info.stevemorse.org/LI/WitchesofLongIsland.html.

The Data, Part 1—from the New Jersey Side

From Genealogy of the Sharpless Family

About the year 1662, three brothers, John, Jonathan and William Davis, came to New England in the company of Welsh Baptists under the leadership of the Rev. John Miles. They named the place of their settlement Swansea from that of their home in Wales. About the year 1687 a number of families ... removed to South Jersey, and settled at Bowentown, Barretts Run and Shiloh. Some of the Davis family removed to Long Island, whence Jonathan and EInathan Davis, supposed to be sons of one of the above three brothers, came to Trenton, and EInathan became the Surveyor General of New Jersey. …

Jonathan Davis of Long Island, born May 15, 1675, married a Bowen of the Rev. John Miles' company, and about the year 1700 settled at Trenton with his brother EInathan Davis, the Surveyor General. He frequently visited his wife's relatives at Bowentown, and being a Seventh-day Baptist gained numerous converts in that vicinity. ... At length, on the 27th of March, 1737, the Seventh-day Baptist Church of Shiloh was organized.... To Jonathan Davis, senior, is ascribed the honor of being the founder of the church. He died in 1750, leaving no children. [pp. 207-208]

From Materials Towards a History of the Baptists

The first minister of the Sabbatarian order, who preached in this neighbourhood and in that of Trentown, was Rev. Jonathan Davis, uncle to the Jonathan Davis who was the first minister for the church of Shiloh, and the 120 families which belong to it, may consider him as their founder and father. He died at Trentown about the year 1750, in the 75^th year of his age.

His wife was Elizabeth Bowen; but no issue. He was very tall and fat, which made his familiars banter him under the name of the ”great high priest.”

He, and his brother Elnathan Davis, are said to have settles at Trentown near the beginning of this century; and to have emigrated thither directly from Long-island, but originally from Wales: if so, he might be the son of one of the three Davises who came to Swanzey in 1662, and who emigrated thither from Glamorganshire, in the company of Rev. John Miles: he could not be one of the emigrants; for he was born May 15, 1675.

When he embraced the sentiments of the Sabbatarians; and when and where he was ordained, are matters I could not learn either from the family or from records…. [p. 137]

From Origins of the Jersey Settlement of Rowan County, North Carolina

In 1697 Thomas Revell sold 1,050 acres (in the center of the township) to Johannes Opdyke, a Penny Town (Pennington) area soon settled by inter-related Presbyterian families from Newton (Elmhurst), Queens, Long Island. In January 1675/7 the will of Ralph Hunt, Sr. was proved at Newton. In 1698 his sons, Ralph, Jr., Samuel, daughter Ann and husband Theophilus Phillips, and daughter-in-law Johanna (widow of John Hunt) had deeds in Maidenhead (Lawrence), N.J., where they joined the Presbyterian Church….

That same year, Jonathan, Samuel and Elnathan Davis were members of Burlington's Presbyterian Church. [On January 21, 1698/9, a deed from Jonathan Davis "husband man" was transferred to his brother Samuel Davis "weave', both of Maidenhead, 20 acres at the head of his preceding 100 acres north of town, adj. on the west by Elnathan Davis. New Jersey Records, Liber B, H:656]….

Hannah Davis (b. c1715) who named a son Eldad in 1738, was probably daughter of Eldad Davis. These Davis - Reeds were Baptists and perhaps related to the Jonathan Davis who in 1708 came to Burlington's Court seeking to be qualified as a Baptist preacher according to the Act of Toleration, asking permission to preach in a house, which was how the Hopewell Baptists met at this time.

From The Colonial Clergy of the Middle Colonies

JONATHAN DAVIS, b. Swansea, Mass., 15 May 1675; preached at Trenton, N.J., 1737-1750; Bapt.; d. Trenton, N.J., 1750, a. 75, s.p.

JONATHAN DAVIS, b. 1710, son of Elnathan Davis; sett. Cohansey (Cumb.) N.J., Chh. at Shiloh, 27 Mar. 1737-1769; 7th Day Bapt.; d. Shiloh, Cohansey, N.J., 2 Feb. 1769, a. 59.

JONATHAN DAVIS, b. Newark, Del., 7 July 1734, son of Rev. David and Rachel (Thomas) Davis; Ord. Cohansey, N.J., Chh. at Shiloh (Cumb.) N.J., 12 Nov. 1768-1785; 7th Day Bapt.; d. Shiloh, N.J., 23 July 1785 [p. 205]

From Register of Cohansey Seventh Day Baptist Church

The family of the Davises settled higher up near Trenton who came thither directly from Long Island, but originally from Swanzey [Swansea, Massachusetts] and (no doubt) were some of the Company that came over in (1662) with the Rev Miles from J—tone in Glamorganshire [Wales] … the persons that ministered among them at first were Rev. Messieurs Jonathan Davis and Samuel Bowen…. This Jonathan Davis was born May 15^th 1675 (his wifes name Elisabeth born May 1^st 1675). Came in company with another brother or two from Long Island … and settled near Trenton abt. the year 1695 …. [p. 63]

Side note: Part of the above quotation, from “This Jonathan Davis…” to the end, was added, in pencil, to the original manuscript. The editor of this source says the penciled annotations are the work of an unnamed later researcher. Based on extreme similarities between some of these notes and the words of Materials Towards a History of the Baptists, I propose that this unknown researcher was none other than Morgan Edwards himself.

From History of the Counties of Gloucester, Salem, and Cumberland, New Jersey

Elnathan Davis was born at Shiloh in the year 1785, and was the son of Rev. Jonathan Davis, one of the original constituents and first pastor of the Seventh-Day Baptist Church at that place, and was a grandson of Elnathan Davis, who settled at Trenton about the close of the seventeenth century. The family came from Wales to Massachusetts in 1662, in company with Bowen, Bacon, Barratt, and others, some of whose descendants settled in this county.

From New Jersey Abstract of Wills

The will of Jonathan Davis “of Trenton, Hunterdon Co, yeoman” [i.e. farmer], made March 20, 1745 and proved April 17, 1746, names, “Wife Elizabeth. Five sons of brother, Elnathan Davis, viz: Elnathan, Jonathan, Nathan, Samuel and John.” [v30 p135]

From History and Genealogy of Fenwick's Colony

[Elnathan Davis, the great surveyor of West Jersey] was the grandson of Jonathan, the eminent divine, who was born on Long Island, whose father, together with two or three other brothers, had emigrated from Wales and settled in the New England States as early as 1664. However, some of them soon afterward located on Long Island, whence Jonathan and his brother Elnathan Davis came to New Jersey in 1700, and settled at Trenton. Elnathan’s occupation was that of a land surveyor. He was soon appointed surveyor-general of the State of New Jersey. Jonathan Davis, his brother, was a conspicuous Seventh-Day Baptist minister. His wife was Elizabeth Bowen. Her relatives residing in Cohansey precinct, he made frequent visits in that section of country. It has been stated he preached occasionally in the Cohansey Church, sometimes among the Seventh-Day Baptists that lived near the Cohansey Corners, in one of their private houses. Soon after the Church at Shiloh was organized, Jonathan Davis, Jr., was chosen their first pastor, and Elnathan Davis, the eminent surveyor of the lower counties of West Jersey, was the son of Jonathan Davis, 2d, the first pastor of Shiloh Church. … His [Elnathan’s] physical strength and great endurance excelled most men, with his great mathematical genius, which he inherited from his ancestors. He in early life was noted … as being the most competent and accurate land surveyor at that period of time. … Most of his sons were also practical surveyors. [pp. 528-529]

The Data, Part 2—from the Long Island Side

From The Founders of Hartford

Fulke Davy sold his house and lot to Nathaniel Ward before Jan., 1639-40, and probably removed from Hartford; he witnessed a grant from Jas. Fasaett to Lion Gardner, of Isle of Wight March 10, 1639-40; signed the petition from Jamaica, Middleborough, and Hempated, L. I., to be taken under Conn. government.

From The Ancestry and Posterity of Joseph Davis

Davis is a Welsh name, but before the 1600’s had been distributed throughout the British Isles; without further evidence, we can’t be certain whether someone of that name came from Wales or some other part of that land.

Foulk Davis was the founder of the Long Island Davis family.

Lion Gardiner, from the Saybrook settlement in Connecticut, colonized Gardiner’s Island (now in New York) and later founded East Hampton, Long Island.

Foulk Davis originally settled in Southampton, then moved to East Hampton, and later to Brookhaven and then Jamaica, where he died. (That’s Jamaica on Long Island, not the one in the Caribbean.)

Foulk Davis was born in Wales or England, probably about 1615, and died in Jamaica, Long Island, N.Y., about 1687. He married, 1^st (name unknown), probably about 1639, and 2^nd, Mary Dayton, a widow, about 1660. His known children, all by his first marriage, were Benjamin, Joseph, Samuel, Jonathan, Sarah, and John.

Foulk’s son Samuel was born, probably after 1642, at Southampton, and died 1692 at Jamaica. He married Mary (surname unknown), who survived him.

From The Early History of Southampton 

The next colony was one that founded and settled the sister town of East Hampton in 1859. … Of the [list of residents of East Hampton] the following were known to have been previously residents of Southampton: John Hand, Thomas Tamage, …. Fulke Davis, Nathaniel Bishop …and Jeremiah Meacham. … Considerable numbers also removed from time to time to New Jersey…. [p. 79]

Davis, Fulk, has a grant of land Oct. 9, 1642. In 1655 he was a resident of East Hampton and in 1660 of Jamaica. He m. in E. H. (2d w. prob.) Mary, who m. 1, James Haines, 2d, Ralph Dayton, and 3d, Fulk Davis, and had ch. John, Samuel of North Sea, 1657, of Jamaica, 1660, and Benjamin, and perhaps others. [p. 424]

From First Settlers of ye Plantations of Piscataway…

Fulke Davis and Samuel Davis are listed as freeholders in the town of Jamaica, Long Island, in 1660. [p. 108]

From Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island

The Data, Part 3—the Connection

From the Genealogical and Personal Memorial of Mercer County, New Jersey

The summer of 1690 may be fixed as the time when the first settlement of Maidenhead occurred. … The permanent settler was the third of those whose surveys were dated August 20, 1690. This was Mary Davis, accompanied by her three sons —Jonathan, Elnathan and Samuel. [pp. 70-71]

From Maidenhead: the Early Days

Mary Davis also bought 300 acres here about 1690. These lands lay east of what later became the village of Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville)….

From Wikipedia

Maidenhead was originally part of Burlington County, then Hunterdon County, finally Mercer County. It is near Trenton.

From The Church Records of the Presbyterian Church of Lawrenceville

The earliest evidence that there were Christian people in Maidenhead uniting together for the maintenance of religious worship is found in the record of a deed dated March 18, 1698-9: By this deed, “the West Jersey Society by their agents … convey to Ralph Hunt, Jn^o Bainbridge … Jonathan Davis … Samuel Davis, Elnathan Davis, Enoch Andris … and Edward Hunt, all of Maidenhead, Burlington Co. for one hundred acres there, of the Society’s 15,000 acre tract above the Falls of Delaware, to be used for a meeting house, burying ground, and schoolhouse.”

From Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island

The Questions and Conclusions

It is established that Jonathan and Elnathan Davis came to the Trenton, New Jersey area from Long Island around the very end of the 17^th century. Jonathan is fairly well documented, thanks to his renown as a preacher. Elnathan is more of a mystery, however, as are the origins of both brothers.

Who was Elnathan Davis? When was he born, when did he die, who was his wife? Who—besides my sixth great grandfathers Jonathan and Samuel—were his children? We have the names of at least five of his sons, thanks to the fact that his brother Jonathan died childless, and left his estate to his nephews. But for Elnathan himself I have found no will, no information on his birth or death, nothing about whether or not he stayed in the Trenton area or moved elsewhere. According to History and genealogy of Fenwick's Colony, he was the “Surveyor General of New Jersey”—just what that meant in those early days, I don’t know, but that he was a respected surveyor I find believable, as he passed his surveying skills on to at least one grandchild and several great-grandchildren.

The suggestion is widespread that the name of Elnathan’s wife was Hannah Housely, but of proof, or even a credible source, I’ve seen nothing. Perhaps a visit to the New Jersey archives will reveal something, or eventually something more definitive will become available in a library or online. But for now, his wife—and any other children besides the five sons named in his brother’s will—remain a mystery, as will the circumstances of his birth and death.

I’ve had more success with discovering the previous history of Jonathan and Elnathan Davis.

An early resident of Long Island, by the improbable name of Fulke Davis (or Foulk, Ffulke, Fulk, Ffulk, and other variant spellings), has been suggested as the ancestor of Jonathan and Elnathan. The name is Welsh, but Davises were spread throughout the British Isles by that time, so it can’t be ruled out that he or his ancestors were actually from England. 

If the name is odd, apparently his character was worse, judging from the stories about him that can be found online. Most modern commentary seems to treat his sins lightly, but reading transcriptions of the original court records for the small Long Island settlements where he resided indicates that Fulke Davis was, shall we say, the James Levine of his day, but without the great music. I’ve posted the sources, but not excerpts, to avoid giving this post an X rating.

Wading through those court records was difficult, and not solely because of the old language and casual attitude toward spelling. I couldn’t read much without wanting to take a long shower.

These were Puritan settlements, trying to be a just and moral society:

In civil affairs the colonists governed themselves by virtue of “town meetings,” at which they elected their officers and discussed matters of public interest; but their criminal administration was a virtual theocracy, being “an Absstract of the Lawes of Judgmt as given Moses to the Commonwealth of Israel, soe farre forth as they bee of Morall that is of perpetuall and vuniursal Equity. Among all Nations, Especially such where the Church and Common Wealth are commplanted together in holy couenant and fellow shippe with God in Jesus Christ, being Joyntly and vnanimously Consented vnto as Ffundamentall by ye Inhabitants of this Collony of South Hampton.” (The Ancestry and Posterity of Joseph Davis…, p. 12)

Instead, they reveal the dangers of fallen humans setting themselves up as a theocracy. Tale-bearing, backbiting, and taking one another to court were apparently rampant. Accusations of witchcraft, illicit sexual behavior, and other real or imagined crimes could easily land you in court—good for future genealogists but bad for you and your relationships with your neighbors. Fulke’s wife (probably his second, and not our ancestor) was a primary witness in one famous witchcraft trial, which revealed her to be a rather unpleasant person herself.

To be fair to our forebears, we can’t claim to be any better. A glimpse of our own society seen through the lens of court documents would be far worse, and in the 21^st century we have shown ourselves just as ready as in the 17^th to gossip and accuse and participate in witch hunts.

But it was painful reading, and I’m glad to leave behind speculation about the character of Fulke Davis, his family, and his neighbors, and move on to genealogical gleanings.

One of the founders of the Hartford, Connecticut, was named Fulke Davy. Not much seems to be known about him, but the following suggests that he is one and the same with the Fulke Davis who first appeared in Southampton, Long Island, around 1642. Note that this contradicts the widespread belief (in my sources and many others I did not include) that the forebears of Jonathan and Elnathan Davis came to Long Island from Swansea, Massachusetts, where they had settled in the 1660’s—and in particular that Jonathan was born in Swansea. Nonetheless it is very suggestive.

Fulke Davy sold his house and lot to Nathaniel Ward before Jan., 1639-40, and probably removed from Hartford; he witnessed a grant from Jas. Fasaett to Lion Gardner, of Isle of Wight [later Gardiner’s Island], March 10, 1639-40; signed the petition from Jamaica, Middleborough, and Hempated [Hempstead], L. I., to be taken under Conn. government.

Fulke later moved to East Hampton, possibly living for a while on Gardiner’s Island. From there he removed to Brookhaven, and finally to Jamaica (now part of Queens), where he died.

Fulke Davis was possibly born in Wales or England about 1615, and died in Jamaica, Long Island, about 1687. He married, first, a woman whose name is unknown, probably about 1639, and second, Mary Dayton, a widow, about 1660. Mary Dayton, whose maiden name is unknown, had first married James Haines, then Ralph Dayton, before marrying Fulke Davis. Fulke’s known children, all by his first marriage, were Benjamin, Joseph, Samuel, Jonathan, Sarah, and John. It is likely there were several more.

An important key to this puzzle comes from evidence that, around 1700, a Mary Davis was one of the first settlers of Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville), New Jersey, which is near Trenton. She came with three sons: Jonathan, Elnathan, and Samuel. Even though a brother Samuel was never mentioned by name in all the references I’ve found to the Jonathan and Elnathan Davis that clearly belong to my ancestral lines, it’s clear that these are the same people.

Here’s the linchpin, from Records of the Town of Jamaica, Long Island (emphasis mine):

From this we see that the Mary Davis who moved to Maidenhead (then part of Burlington County), with sons Jonathan, Elnathan, and Samuel, came from Jamaica, Long Island, and was the widow of Samuel Davis.  We can also assign possible birth years for Samuel (about 1777) and Elnathan (about 1779), based on Jonathan's birth year of 1775, the order in which Mary names her sons, and the fact that elsewhere she refers to Jonathan as her eldest son.

But was this Samuel Davis the son of Fulke Davis? Here again from the Jamaica town records:

This confirms that Fulke had a son named Samuel, and The Ancestry and Posterity of Joseph Davis claims his son Samuel’s wife was named Mary. But are these the same people? Once again from the Jamaican town records (emphasis mine):

It’s confusing, but the similarity of this description of the land owned by Samuel, the son of Fulke, with the land being sold by Mary, the widow of Samuel, convinces me that they are one and the same. Jonathan, Elnathan, and Samuel, then, are Fulke’s grandsons.

If so, there are still some puzzling questions. First, the question of origin: From Wales or England to Swansea, Massachusetts, and thence to Long Island in the early 1660’s, or from an unknown immigration point to Hartford, Connecticut before landing in Long Island in the early 1640’s?

Many who claim a Swansea, Massachusetts origin for Jonathan Davis say that he was a Baptist, possibly of the Seventh Day variety, from the start. Fulke was a Puritan, and a rogue. If he is the progenitor, how did Jonathan and Elnathan rise to become so successful, and to found a dynasty of Seventh Day Baptists? The first church established in Maidenhead was most likely Puritan in nature, but it soon became Presbyterian, and Jonathan, Elnathan, and Samuel were members. By 1708 Jonathan had become a Baptist preacher, and at some point after that converted to the Sabbatarian branch. 

The Conclusions, in Summary

(My direct ancestors are shown in blue.) 

Fulke Davis was possibly born in Wales or England about 1615. He may have been the Fulk Davy who was one of the founders of Hartford and moved soon thereafter to Long Island, although there is much tradition that the Long Island Davises came from Swansea, Massachusetts. There is a substantial tradition (partly backed by court records) that Fulke was not a pleasant person. He appears on Long Island first at Southampton, then in East Hampton, possibly living for a while on Gardiner’s Island. From there he removed to Brookhaven, and finally to Jamaica (now part of Queens), where he died in about 1687. He married, first, an unknown wife, probably about 1639, and second, Mary Dayton, a widow, about 1660. Mary Dayton, whose maiden name is unknown, had first married James Haines, then Ralph Dayton, before marrying Fulke Davis. Fulke’s known children were all by his first marriage. It is likely there were more.

1. Benjamin Davis was born in 1640. He died on December 20, 1692 at the age of 52 in Southampton, Long Island.
2. Joseph Davis was born about 1645 in Southampton, Long Island. He died in 1691 at the age of 46 in Brookhaven, Long Island.
3. Samuel Davis (see below)
4. Jonathan Davis died in 1674 in Jamaica, Long Island.
5. Sarah Davis
6. John Davis

Samuel Davis (Fulke-1) was born about 1643 in Southampton, Long Island, and died in 1692, at the age of 49, in Jamaica, Long Island. He married Mary (surname unknown). After his death, his widow moved to New Jersey with their known sons to become some of the earliest settlers of Maidenhead (now Lawrenceville), near Trenton.

1. Rev. Jonathan Davis (see below)
2. Elnathan Davis (see below)
3. Samuel Davis, born perhaps about 1677, lived in Jamaica, Long Island, and about 1690 moved to Maidenhead, New Jersey with his mother and two brothers.

The Rev. Jonathan Davis (Samuel-2, Fulke-1) was born on May 15, 1675. He lived at Jamaica, Long Island, but about 1690, after his father died, he moved with his mother and two brothers to Maidenhead, New Jersey (near Trenton). He died between March 20, 1745 and April 17, 1746 at the age of 69 in Trenton, New Jersey. He was most likely a Puritan at first, then became a Presbyterian, and finally a Baptist preacher. Somewhere along the line he became convinced of the Sabbatarian way, and is considered the founder of the Seventh Day Baptist Church at Cohansey (Shiloh), New Jersey, though he was never officially their pastor. Jonathan was tall and fat, and thus was sometimes referred to as "the great high priest." He married Elizabeth Bowen, who was born on May 1, 1675, but they had no children, and he willed his property to his brother Elnathan's sons.

Elnathan Davis (Samuel-2, Fulke-1) was born perhaps around 1677. He lived at Jamaica, Long Island, but about 1690, after his father died, he moved with his mother and two brothers to Maidenhead, New Jersey (near Trenton). He was a surveyor, and apparently became the Surveyor General of New Jersey. The name of his wife is unknown, although it has been suggested that she was Hannah Housely. They had at least five children; these are the five sons named in the will of his brother, Jonathan.

1. Elnathan Davis
2. Rev. Jonathan Davis (see below)
3. Nathan Davis
4. Samuel Davis (see below)
5. John Davis

The Rev. Jonathan Davis (Elnathan-3, Samuel-2, Fulke-1) was born about 1709. About 1731, in Cohansey, Salem County, New Jersey, he married Esther Ayars, the daughter of Isaac and Hannah (Barrett) Ayars. She was born about 1711 in Cohansey, and died after July 5 in Shiloh, Cumberland County, New Jersey. Jonathan was the first settled pastor of the Cohansey (Shiloh) Seventh Day Baptist Church, of which his grandfather Jonathan is considered the founder. He died on February 2, 1769.

Samuel Davis (Elnathan-3, Samuel-2, Fulke-1) was born April 3, 1713. On October 13, 1735, in Cohansey, Salem County, New Jersey, he married Anna Ayars, daughter of Isaac and Hannah (Barrett) Ayars and sister of Esther Ayars, above. She was born November 9, 1713, in Cohansey, and died September 20, 1783 in Shiloh, Cumberland County, New Jersey. Samuel died between August 30, 1785 and October 31, 1785, in Stow Creek Township, Cumberland County, New Jersey.

Hezekiah Scovil Porter was the youngest of Wallace and Florence Gesner (Wells) Porter's seven children, born into the tiny town of Higganum, Connecticut on June 4, 1896. He attended The Choate School in Wallingford, Connecticut.  It is now known as the school that "has educated generations of the upper-class New England establishment and the American political elite," but at the time it was only as old as Hezekiah himself. Twenty years later, John F. Kennedy would graduate from Choate, having been chosen by his class as the person "most likely to succeed." About Hezekiah, the Headmaster wrote:

Hezzie was always a man of deeds rather than of words.  And his influence either on the field, or in the classroom, or about School in general, was of the kind that very definitely made us a better School for his being part of it. In his Sixth Form year Hezzie was President of his class, and in the vote which was taken toward the close of the year, he was almost unanimously chosen as the member of his Form who had "done most for Choate." He was also voted—and there were no near competitors— the "most popular," as well as the man in his class "most to be admired."

But Hez never had his chance to become President.  As with many of his generation, his service ended on the battlefields of France. After graduating from Choate, Hezekiah attended Yale University. But he left during the fall of his sophomore year to join the Army. After four months he was at the front, and five months later he was killed in action near Chatêau-Thierry.

The following quote, and the one above, are taken from Yale in the World War, by George Henry Nettleton (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1925).  You can read a somewhat fuzzy but still legible copy of the article on Hezekiah Scovil Porter by clicking on the images in the middle of my Memorial Day, 2009 post.

On the morning of July 22, 1918, in the course of an American attack on Epieds, north of Château-Thierry, Hezekiah Scovil Porter, Private in the 101st Machine Gun Battalion, was killed in action. His diary closes abruptly with an entry recorded the night before while his company was awaiting the dawn which was to bring the expected advance. Next morning in the midst of the attack he met instant death in the open field as he was hurrying forward with ammunition for a machine gun.

Hezekiah Scovil Porter is my husband's granduncle.  That diary the article mentions?  Porter has it.  That is the reason for this post and the ones that will follow.  I will now step aside and let Porter take over.

One of my "95 by 65" goals is to transcribe Hezekiah's WW I diary.  I knew he had died on July 22, 1918 - but I didn't remember when he had started the diary.  Then I couldn't find the diary.  I had moved it to a "safe place" after I had last looked at it.  Finally, today, I found it again.  It turns out he started the diary October 9th, 1917 - so I am four months late starting a "100 years ago today" transcription.  Since that is the case I plan to have Linda put up two days of transcription each day, one for 100 years ago and one starting from October 9th and moving forward.  I think this will work out such that the missed entries will be finished before July 22 comes.  I hope this is of interest to all of you, and especially to my grandson Noah, who has Hezekiah's name as his middle name and also owns Hezekiah's schoolboy desk.

Thanks to Linda for "volunteering" to put this up on her blog.

Porter (Dad-o) Wightman, February 9, 2018.

A National Public Radio story reports that the 2020 U. S. Census will ask more detailed questions about race and ethnicity, as shown to the left on one of the possible new forms. (Click image to enlarge.)

I can appreciate not being labelled simply as "white" as if some races have further identities but white is simply white. However, it sure complicates filling out the form, and I have my doubts about how much useful information it will generate. I know more about my ancestry than most Americans, and I can't answer this question.

There simply is no room in those boxes to enter "English-German-Welsh-Irish-Scottish-French-Dutch." And if I manage to confirm the (currently quite speculative) Swiss branch, is that really Swiss, given that the family came to Switzerland from Germany? Is my French really French, given that it is actually Norman French, and the Normans were largely invading Vikings from Scandinavia? There's a good chance much of my English is also orignally Scandinavian—DNA testing suggests this as well—and my Scottish may have been originally Irish and vice versa.

Given that my most recent immigrant ancestors came to this country in the 1700's, I think I'll fill in the blank with "American" and let the chips fall where they may. But I've only learned this information recently, after years of research.  That kind of research is even more difficult for African-Americans, thanks to slavery and the "1870's wall," but at least the census offers "African American" as a choice—which just happens to fit exactly into the boxes allowed. I suppose I could try "European American"—but that won't fit.

How many Americans know their ancestry further back than their grandparents, anyway?

There's going to be a lot of guesswork going on.