Wishful Wednesday - 52 Ancestors Week 5 - The Story of Lillie Howard

One of the challenges in telling our ancestor’s stories is, without documents of their life, how do we know what it was like to be them? I think about all the little failures and successes in my life, that no one will know in the future, that have molded me into the person that I am. So, we dig to find all the documents that we can to bring together as much information about each of those people from whom we came. And, every once in a while, you can find something that tells a whole story in very few words.

For this week’s ancestor, I chose someone who’s not an ancestor at all. But, she’s buried with my family. And, in that one not-so-small gesture, I think it tells a great deal about my family. I’m pleased to introduce you to Lillie Howard.

 I ‘found’ Lillie as I was researching my Burrows family in Cincinnati, Ohio. If you follow my blog, you’ll know I’ve become quite a fan of Cincinnati; it’s a gorgeous city and every time I’m there I feel, well, at home. It’s a welcoming place. And, out of 38 of my extended family buried in Section 54 Lot 93, Lillie has always been an enigma.

The Big Guy had a special Plan for little Lillie. She died on Christmas Day, 1857. Now, mind you, I’ve thought a LOT about little Miss Lillie. I’ve done the math to see if she could have been a child of one of the Hartshorne girls or any of their contemporaries. It just seems impossible.

So, I decided Lilly needed a story. It goes something like this: The Hartshornes, SW and Ann Eliza (Burrows) are at church on Christmas Eve and hear of the plight of this poor baby girl who is tragically ill. Their hearts go out to her, having lost three infant children themselves. When they return to church the next day for the Christmas celebration, they learn of the sad fate of little Lillie: she’s died. In a gesture born of the season, SW tells the head of the Home to have little Lillie’s body prepared and sent to Spring Grove to be buried in their family plot. 

What do you think? Do you wish there was a different story for Lillie?

Wisdom Wednesday - 52 Ancestors Week 4 - Anne Marie Wagner to Mary Wersel

I spent a number of years searching for records of the wife of my 2^nd great grandfather, Frank B Wersel. All of the family information I had indicated she was Mary Ann Wersel; nothing was known about where she came from or what her maiden name had been. Names are funny things; today the 'honor' associated with carrying a family name isn't anywhere as strong as it was in the 19th century. Yet, many of us have had the maddening experience of trying to trace an ancestor who seemingly vanishes only to find them hiding in plain sight with a new name.

In December, 2011 I was blessed to have original materials loaned to me by my Cincinnati cousin so I could digitize them and do a little basic conservation of the old and delicate documents. One of those was this ‘Extrait’:

For those who can’t read French, this is an extract from birth records in Bliesbrucken, Sarreguemines, Moselle, [Lorraine] France which was written in 1844. It’s the birth record of my 2^nd great grandmother, Anne Marie Wagner, born 8 May 1842 to Jean Frederic Wagner and his wife Anne Eve Hensgen. A second document explained the ‘Extrait’:

It’s clear this document has seen better days, and at first glance there isn’t anything there to save. This is an interior passport, a document that allowed a traveler to move freely throughout the area. A closer look includes this little bit of information:

It clearly mentions “Wagner, avec sa femme” and also mentions “Gertrude et Anne Marie”. (“Sa femme” means ‘his wife’); it is dated 26 March 1844, the same year as the birth extract. It would appear that the purpose of getting his daughter's proof of birth was to provide it to the authorities when he requested the passport.

While there wasn’t a document showing how the Wagner family came to the United States, there was a Naturalization document, originating in Cincinnati, Ohio and dated 7 October 1850, for Anne Marie’s father, who is now John Wagner.

Then, on the 7^th day of April, 1860, Anne Mary Wagner was married to Francis John Wersel in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Not to be confused with Frank B Wersel…that’s another story). I’m not certain, but this may be their wedding photo:

Isn’t she lovely? And he’s quite dashing as well, don’t you think? Anne Marie seems to have chosen her husband well; by 1870 their family included five children (George, Henry, Agnes, Franklin and Charles), Anne Marie’s parents (John and Eve) and a female servant. Of course, she’s no longer Anne Marie, but gave her name as ‘Mary’.

By 1880, the Wersel family had added two children, William and Stella. The entire family, including the Wagners lived at 251 Betts in Cincinnati. By now, Anne Marie was living as the wife of a business man; Frank’s upholstery business was booming and he was doing very well for himself.

The following image was taken some time after 1890, the year the Wersel’s son Henry married Laura Richards. Mary Ann Wersel is flanked by her children with her son Henry and his wife Laura standing behind her.

On 18 July 1897, Mary Wersel died. She is buried, along with her husband Frank, in St. John’s Catholic Cemetery in St. Bernard, Ohio.

From Anne Marie Wagner in Bliesbrucken to Mary Wersel in Cincinnati, Ohio. It wasn't a long stretch, from Anne Marie to Mary, but I was held up in my research, initially, because I didn't think to try a different name. Now, it's the first thing I do.

C’est ci bonne, c’est la vie. 

Tuesday Tip – The Moldy Truth re: North Carolina

I’ve been watching the discussions regarding the destruction of materials from Franklin County, North Carolina with (understandable) interest. Along with many of you, my first thought was, ‘OMIGO_!!’ Then, because I’m not involved directly with the Heritage Society, the Clerk of the Courts, the Recorder of Deeds, the Franklin County Commissioners or the North Carolina State Archives, I felt it was best to quiet my voice and simply ‘listen’ to what was being presented on Social Media. I think we’ve all been on the receiving end of a not-so-great social media experience and I felt it was so important not to add an uninformed voice to the fray.

However, as a Professional Archivist, I wanted to have an understanding of how this situation came into being, so I contacted Sarah Koonts, State Archivist of North Carolina. We exchanged several emails, and then we scheduled a call. I’ll discuss what we talked about in another post but I’ll say that, if I lived in North Carolina, I would want Sarah as the steward of the records the State holds. She’s a passionate historian and Archivist, but more importantly, she’s just as frustrated by the series of events that occurred because they ended with the loss of confidence by the public that she serves.

Having said this I’m fully aware of the investment, of time and heart, that the Heritage Society put into trying to protect the material that was located in the basement of the Franklin County Courthouse. However, having read the document provided by Franklin County Manager, Angela Harris, there is only ONE aspect of this situation which seems to need some serious discussion and education: Mold.

In the first posts, I saw comments about the fact that there were materials stored in the basement of the Franklin County Courthouse that were moldy while some had been unaffected. For the record, I have never been in the Franklin County Courthouse basement, so I’m only speaking as an Archives professional not as someone who has been on site. However, after reading Ms. Harris' document and looking at the pictures, I’m very surprised that the people working in that location did not feel the effects of the mold that was there.

I get teary every time I see the picture of the ledgers lined on those shelves that are now gone. But then I see the ‘dust’ too, which is not only dust but mold and know that it would have cost thousands of dollars to rid them of the mold that had infested them. Sadly, while there is plenty to be learned from this situation, the greatest take-away should be that NO records, of such rich research value, should ever be allowed to sit in a basement where they deteriorate to the point they have to be incinerated.

The terrible thing about mold; it appears to be harmless, but it can create a multitude of health problems in individuals who have been exposed to it. Unless going through a clean room after being exposed, those mold spores can travel on your person and be left along your path potentially contaminating everything that you come in contact with. How is that possible? It’s possible because mold goes dormant (that dusty stuff). All it takes is microscopic bits of H²O to come in contact with it for it to rebloom and you have another infestation. This is why there are companies that charge thousands of dollars to provide mold remediation.

I’d like very much for those you who are reading this and grinding your teeth because you think I’m over-stating the dangers of mold to follow this link, from a slide presentation of how mold affects a collection (in this case in Libraries and Archives), not unlike the materials in Franklin County. Please note, at the end of the presentation slides that the presenter mentions, multiple times, that mold remediation/removal from materials should be done by professionals. It’s simply not something that you can do yourself. No amount of hand sanitizer will help. The Library of Congress also has some great information here.

As researchers, of any kind, it’s up to us to be familiar with our local repositories. It’s up to us to be vigilant about staying informed of who the stewards of those materials are because THEY are the ones who are responsible for those materials. And, with public records, those stewards change often. Do you know who your Clerk of Courts or Records of Deeds is, or what about your County Archives? You don’t know if your County has an Archives? Hmmm, maybe that’s something you might want to check out…

We must act locally to save records from needing to be destroyed.