Love and Other Complications: The 3 marriages of Charles F. Buehler

My grandmother remembered her grandparents– Charles F. Buehler and Mary Moritz– as a kind, happy couple who always had a silver dollar to slip into her hand when she was on her way home.  She also remembered they would talk in German when they didn’t want the grandchildren to understand them.  When my grandmother knew them, they lived in a big house on Belair Road just north of the city of Baltimore, Maryland.  The most intriguing thing about her grandparents (the fact that baffled her friends) was that she only had “one set” of grandparents and they were both her mother’s parents and her father’s parents!  Huh?  Of course, she actually had the regular number of grandparents, but the other 2 passed away long before she was born.  Charles F. Buehler and Mary Moritz were married in 1895 and each had children from their first marriage.  Charles’s son (already grown in 1895) married Mary’s daughter (also grown) in 1901, and my grandmother was the last of their many children.

Another characteristic my grandmother mentioned was that the Buehlers were notoriously close-mouthed about the past, i.e. Anything Interesting We Want to Know.  They did not count on a great-granddaughter who had access to the census, and an obsession. In 1910 the enumerator asked the head of household an interesting question– “Number of marriages”.  Mary Moritz Buehler answered as expected, two.  Charles F. Buehler answered THREE.

Charles F. Buehler and Mary Moritz

Charles Frederick Buehler and Mary Moritz

 

It’s taken me many years, but here is what I found.

Charles F. Buehler (or Carl F. Buhler or Karl F. Buhler) was born in a town called Murr, outside Stuttgart, Germany, where his family had lived since the 1600s.  He married a girl there, Dorothy Fredericke Ziegler (nicknamed Ricka) whose family had been in Murr just as long.  Here is their family group sheet:

Buehler-Ziegler Family Group Sheet 1

Buehler-Ziegler Family Group Sheet 2

For those of you who can count, their first child was born in 1876, but they were married in 1878.  My first thought was that their son Charles William had a mother who died, and this would account for the 3 marriages.  I checked the civil registrations in Germany and discovered that he was in fact, the illegitimate son of Carl and Ricka.  He was born in his grandfather Ziegler’s house, seen here in the present day:

Ziegler House, Modern view.PNG

No matter what your families have told you, children have always been born out of wedlock.  In Germany in the 19th century it was common.  A war might interfere with a timely visit to the church.  Sometimes a couple had to have permission from the town to marry, and to pay a fee– to prove they could support themselves.  If they couldn’t get permission, they often lived together as man and wife anyway, until they could marry.  In any case, Carl and Ricka did marry, and had 4 more daughters together, 3 who survived to adulthood.

In the early 1880s, the family– the large, extended family–began to talk about leaving for North America.  Ricka’s older sister Minnie had a married a man named Karl Vogel.  Karl had already been to America once, with his mother, in the 1870s.  He came back to Murr– perhaps to marry Minnie– and by 1882, the Vogels emigrated to Maryland, along with other Ziegler siblings.

Carl Vogel’s family:

Carl Vogel Family Group Sheet 1

Carl Vogel Family Group Sheet 2

You were expected to apply for permission to emigrate.  For some reason (I have yet to discover) Carl F. Buehler left without telling anyone.  The minister of their church noted in the Familienbuch that Carl snuck away in April of 1886, and his wife and children left without saying goodbye in June. I have not found a passenger list for Carl F., but I did find his wife and children with their father/grandfather, Gottlob Ziegler, on a ship in June of 1886.  In addition, Carl’s wife Ricka, their children and Gottlob Ziegler are in the Wuerttemberg, Germany Immigration Index (meaning they applied to leave).  Carl is not.

Carl Frederick Buhler Family Church entry leaving for North America

Once they arrived in the United States, they settled in Baltimore, Maryland.  All together, those who left Germany were: Carl Vogel and Minnie Ziegler, Carl F. Buehler and Ricka Ziegler (and children), Minnie and Ricka’s father Gottlob Ziegler and their siblings Frederick Ziegler (b. 1862), Louise Ziegler (b. 1865), Caroline Ziegler (b. 1867) and Bertha Ziegler (b. 1869).  Frederick remains in Baltimore, marries and has a family.  Louise Ziegler disappears from the public record until 1930, where she reappears, unmarried, and eventually purchases the Vogel house following Minnie’s death.  Caroline and Bertha Ziegler disembark and disappear into the ether.  I swear I will find them someday!

Frederick Ziegler’s family:

Frederick Ziegler Family Group Sheet 1

Frederick Ziegler Family Group Sheet 2

Ricka only spent 3 years in America.  She died on November 9, 1889 of septicemia (blood poisoning) following a miscarriage she had 3 weeks prior.  It was, no doubt, a horrible, painful death.  In the end, Carl found himself with 4 motherless children, age 12 and under.

There was a family story that claimed Charles F. Buehler and Mary Moritz had met on the ship coming to America and that both of their spouses died on the journey and then they married each other.  That is not true, as Mary Moritz came with her family from Prussia more than a decade before the Buehlers.  But maybe the ship is where Carl met the widow Christine Geotting.  8 months after Ricka’s death, Carl married Christine.  I doubt it was a love story, though I can’t know what their feelings actually were.  I do know that a man had to work and he needed a wife to help raise his children and run his household.  July 20th, 1890 they became man and wife.  By March of 1895, the marriage was officially dissolved, though it actually ended many years before. Thanks to court records, we can hear the rest of that story in the words of those involved.

Testimony of Karl F. Buhler, the Plaintiff, in this case:

1 Q. State your name, age, residence and occuption

A. Karl Buehler or Buhler, forty-one years of age; 1015 Point Lane, Street Paver

2 Q. Do you know the parties to this suit?

A. Yes. I am the Plaintiff and my wife is the Defendant.

3 Q. When, where and by whom were you married to your wife, Christine Buehler, the Defendant, and look at this paper, here filed as Plaintiff’s exhibit No. 1 and state what it is?

A. It is a copy of my marriage certificate from the minister who married us; we were married in this city on the 20th of July, 1890, at the residence of my brother in law, Karl Vogel, No. 1115 Somerset Street, in this city.

4 Q. After your marriage where did you live with your wife?

A. 1027 Point Lane.

5 Q. How long did you live with her?

A. Three months.

6 Q. How did she come to leave you and what was the direct cause?

A. I found out from her own words that she came from Florida and that before she was married she went with single men, and of course we quarreled, and she treated my children three girls and one boy, bad, and left on the 28th of October, 1890.

Charles F. Buehler and children

Charles F. Buehler and his “3 girls, one boy” after their time with Chistine Goetting. L-R Bertha Buehler Biedermann, Charles F., Ricky Buehler Baliko, Charles William, and Louise Buehler.

Karl Vogel, a witness of lawful age, produced on behalf of the plaintiff, having been first duly sworn, deposeth and saith as follows, that is to say:

1 Q. State your name, residence and age and occupation?

A. Karl Vogel, thirty-nine years of age, 1512 Spring Street; cabinet maker.

2 Q. Do you know the parties to this suit?

A. Yes, I know them both, I am his brother-in-law. [from his first marriage– he is not related to Christine Goetting]

3 Q. Were you present at the marriage of Karl Buehler to Christina Buhler, and if so, when did this marriage take place and where?

A. Yes, they were married at my house 1315 Somerset Street and I was present when they were married, by Pastor Timotheus Stiemke.

4 Q. What was the conduct of the Plaintiff towards his wife, how did he treat her?

A. He treated her good and worked hard for her.

5 Q. Do you know the circumstances connected with his wife deserting him on October 28th, 1890?

A. All I know is Mr. Buhler came to see me that night, and told me his wife had gone away without cause.

6 Q. Was the abandonment final and deliberate and has it continued uninterruptedly for more than three years, and is there an reasonable hope of a reconciliation between them?

A. It was final and deliberate and it has been more than three years and they will never live together again.

Q 7.  Do you know if any issue was born as a result of this marriage?

A. I know there was no children.

8 Q. Where has Mr. Buehler resided for the last 2 years?

A. He has lived here continuously for more than 9 years.

Though the court ran an article in the Daily Record 4 weeks in a row, Christine Goetting never responded to the complaint against her.  The divorce records go on to say that she is believed to be residing “somewhere in the State of New York” since she left Baltimore.  Other testimony to the same effect is offered by a friend named Agatha Heidrich.  The court granted the divorce on the 23rd of March, 1895.

On June 30th, 1895, Charles F. Buehler married Mary Moritz– known in family lore as “The Widow Lutz” and this time it was a love story.  Mary Moritz Lutz worked in her mother-in-law’s grocery store, following the death of her husband. Mr. Buehler shopped there, and admired her.  She was probably the impetus for his filing for divorce.  They were together for 35 years, and had one child together–Albert Ernst Buehler, born in 1896.  The back of a family photo indicates she was loved by her step-children as a mother: Ricky Buehler Baliko wrote she is sitting with “my dear Mother and Father”.

Charles and Mary Buehler Alex and Ricky Baliko

L-R: Alexander Baliko, Mary Moritz, Charles F. Buehler, Ricky Buehler Baliko

It’s a happily ever-after kind of story–but what really went on between Charles and Christine?  Such a short marriage, and such an abrupt abandonment– was there more to it?

I bolded certain phrases in the divorce testimony of Charles F. Buehler and Christine Goetting.  Charles F. testifies that “he found out she came from Florida and that before she was married she went with single men, and of course we quarrelled.”  Is being in Florida her sin?  Going with single men before they married?  Or is that just a polite 1890s talk for a bigger problem?

Ever curious, I decided to see if I could find Christine Goetting Buehler in New York. I found an interesting record in the birth index for New York City, and sent for a copy.

John Buhler birth certificate

On March 30, 1891, Christine Goetting Buhler is living at 406 West 5th Street in New York City.  There, she gave birth to a son that she named John Buhler.  She named his father as Charles Buhler, and said he was a seaman (which would explain why she was alone in New York– Charles could be conveniently on a boat on the other side of the world-forever).  Baby John is born only 8 months after Christine and Charles were married.  Though John could be Charles Buehler’s son, it is also possible he is not– and Charles knew he was not– and that was the actual nature of the quarrel about “single men”.  A baby born March 28 would have been conceived in early July.  We know Charles’s track record– his first child was born illegitimately and he married the mother and stayed with her many years.  This pregnancy shouldn’t matter, unless he thought it wasn’t his.  Late October– the time of this quarrel– is exactly when Christine’s condition would have become obvious to others.  This is speculation based on circumstantial evidence.  He also mentions Christine treated his children badly. Perhaps that was her personality– perhaps a larger crisis was at play in her life.  Christine never returned to Baltimore that I know of.  I cannot say with certainty that John Buhler was or was not Charles Buehler’s son.  I can say that I doubt anyone besides Christine, Charles and perhaps Carl Vogel, knew he was a possibility.

I have not figured out what happened to Christina and baby John.  If the baby died, I have not found a death certificate.  If Christina remarried, perhaps her next husband adopted John.  I searched the World War 1 Draft records for a boy born on March 28th, 1891– but none turned out to be John–and I followed many leads back through the census.  Maybe a cousin will turn up on Ancestry DNA someday.

There is a NYC marriage record for a Christina Buhler in September of 1893.  The name could be a coincidence.  If not, Christina was comfortable telling necessary lies.  Though she says she is a widow, she claims this is only her second marriage.  Also, in 1893, she would be legally still married to Charles. In addition, she would be fudging her age by a couple of years.  Christine Buhler and Ernst Sautter remain married for many years.  In every census they appear childless.  Here is that certificate:

Christine Buehler 2nd marriage

 

 

Rachel Olmstead: 1st Administrative Account

When Rachel Parsons Maddox Olmstead died on October 11, 1863, she was the guardian of 4 of her minor grandchildren, who had lost their parents just a few years before.  The children in questions were twin boys Edward J. W. Maddox (1850-1887) and Joseph Maddox (1850-?), Rachel Julia Maddox (1854-?) and James T. Maddox (1857-1891). They were the children of George H. Maddox (1823-1858) and Julia A. Orem (1829-1859). Guardianship of the children transferred to Rachel’s youngest son, James T. Maddox.  Rachel died intestate.  Below is a transcription of the 1st administrative account of Rachel Olmstead, found in the index to letters of administration, Baltimore City, Folio 138, book 17, October 1863.

Baltimore City, pg. 527

The First Account of James T. Maddox

Administrator of Rachel Olmstead, deceased

The Accountant charges himself with this amount retained in the settlement of Joseph H-Edward J- Rachel J- and James T Maddox’s Guardian’s Account in the Orphans Court for Baltimore City on the 20th day of September, 1869, being the amount due the Estate of Rachel Olmstead deceased, who was the former guardian of the said Orphans, amounting to $347.21

And he craves an allowance for the following Payment and Disbursements

Cash paid for the funeral expenses of the Deceased, as follows, viz

John D. Lancaster, for a coffin, per account and receipt appears $25.00

Elisha Cox for Hearse and 8 Hacks, per account and receipt appears $24.00

Mt. Olivet Cemetery for digging grave vc per account and receipt appears $5.50

A.L. Abell for advertising death of the deceased in the Daily Sun, per account and receipt appears $1.00

$55.00

Ditto paid Henry Theban for 2 months house rent due by the Deceased, per account and receipt appears $25.00

Ditto P.C. Bradley in full of his claim for Grocer’s per account and receipt appears $5.15

Ditto paid John Graham in full of note and interest on $100 bearing date September 15, 1863, payable 12 months after date, per note and proof of payment appears $100.00

Ditto paid for United States Revenue Stamps .55 cents

Ditto paid Registers Fees and for Copy of Account $6.65

This Accountant’s commission on 347.21 at 5 percent $17.36

Cash retained by this Accountant; a son and one of the Heirs at Law of the Deceased, being in full of his proportion or distributive share of the Personal Estate $68.50

Ditto retained by this Accountant as Guardian of Joseph H- Edward J- Rachel J- and James T Maddox, orphan children of Julia A. Maddox, deceased, and Grandchildren and Heirs at Law of the said Rachel Olmstead, deceased, being in full of their respective proportions or distributive shares of the Personal Estate $68.50

Estate accounted for $347.21

Baltimore City, Ss. On the 20th day of September 1869 came James T. Maddox, Administrator as aforesaid, and made oath on the Holy Evangely of Almighty God, that the aforegoing account is first and true as stated, and that he has paid or secured payment of every sum or sums for which he craves an allowance, which after examination is passed by order of the Orphan’s Court.

Test. G. Harman Brown. Register of Wills for Baltimore City

 

 

James Maddox and Hannah McComas in Harford County Maryland

I did some work this summer at the Historical Society of Harford County in an effort to find “nuggets”–in other words, any information that might lead to more information about the Maddox family that could illuminate their lives or lead my on a new trail.  I thought I would transcribe and comment on some of the documents I came across this summer.

James Maddox (Edward’s brother, John’s son) appears to have been born in 1776.  I base this on the fact that he is not enumerated on the Maryland Colonial Census of 1776 with John and Catrine Maddox and that in 1820, on the Darksville, Berkeley County West Virginia Census, “James Mattax” is presumably the oldest male in the house (age 26-44.  If he were 44 his birthdate would be 1776).  Many researchers in his family put his birth date at 1770, based on his age in the 1850 census, but I believe that could be an error.  In 1830, James and Hannah REDUCE their age so it is the same as their age in the 1820 census–an action more believable with a 1776 birthdate.  He could be younger.  Hannah’s age is listed 80 in the 1850 census, but a researcher at this site has given her birth date as 16 July 1784, and cited the records of St. James and St. George Parish.

In any event, James Maddox married Hannah McComas (daughter of a Harford County landowning family) in 1802 and in the years before he moved to what is now West Virginia, he transacted business that appears on record in the historical society’s court records.  Here is a summary of what I found.

In March of 1806 (CR 75: 75.20.10), John Ely, Peter Dungan and James Maddox are brought to court because they owe 6000 pounds of tobacco to the state of Maryland (unclear why).  They will lose all their property in order to pay this UNLESS John Ely will run an “ordinary” (tavern where official business was transacted) for one year in accordance with the laws of Maryland governing ordinaries.  This same deal appears again in the court record again on the 6th of September 1809.  This time the men who owe the 6000 pounds of tobacco are James Maddox, Peter Dungan and Solomon Maddox (probably James’ brother-in-law).  Peter Dungan promises to run the ordinary for one year in exchange for not forfeiting their property.

In 1809 and again in 1810, James appears in court regarding a debt he owes a John Rumsey:

March 20th, 1809

State of Maryland, Sheriff of Harford County

Commanded to appear in court August 1809, Yoeman James Maddox, who owes John Rumsey of Henry C. 106.91.

In March of 1810 the same debt to John Rumsey is called in, this time naming James Maddox and Charles McComas (probably another brother-in-law) as debtors.

 

In November of 1809, James’ father, John Maddox, appeared before James McComas to record the following sale to James:

“Know all men by the presents that I John Maddox of Harford County and State of Maryland for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred ten pounds ten shillings to me in hand paid by James Maddox of the County and State aforesaid the receipt wereof is hereby acknowledged and myself therewith fully satisfied, have bargained and sold, sett  over and delivered by these presents doth bargain, sell (illegible) set over and delivered to the said James Maddox one cow and one heifer, one sorrel mare and one cart, four strops, two furrow ploughs and one shovel ditto ten chains one sett of plough chains harness and collars one bed bedsted and furniture- To have and to hold the above mentioned property unto the only proper use and behoof of him the said James Maddox, his heirs and assignees forever adn the said John Maddox for my self my heirs executors and administrators all manner of persons claiming by through or under me the said bargained and sold premises unto the said James Maddox his heirs executors administrators and assignees will warrant and forever defend by those presents in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 8th day of November 1809-

Signed sealed and acknowledged in the presence of Jas. McComas

John Maddox X his mark

Harford County, State of Maryland to wit on the 8th day of November 1809 came the within  named John Maddox before me one of the Justices of the Peace for Harford County and acknowledged the within (illegible) of writing to be hiz act and deed and the property therein mentioned James Maddox his heirs and assignees forever agreeably to the true intent and meaning therin and the oath of assembly in such can be made and provided.

Received and recorded the seventh day of December 1809 in liber HD No. V Folio 114– one of the land records books of Harford County Courts and examined.

Henry Dorsey, Clerk

By October 29, 1810, James and Hannah have become residents of the city of Baltimore.  According to two land transactions made that day, this is their place of residence.  In both cases, they sell a small portion of Hannah’s inheritance, Clagett’s Forest.  Part to Issac Kennard for $80.92 (HD V 372, mdlandrec.net) and part to James McComas for $31.

On the 29th of January, 1814 James and Hannah are involved in another sale of land.  Once again, it is identified that they live in Baltimore County, Maryland.  It is interesting to note that this transaction was not filed with the court until November 13th, 1822.

“This indenture made and concluded this 29th day of January 1814 between Charles McComas, James Maddox, Hannah Maddox wife of James Maddox of Baltimore County, Solomon McComas, John McComas of Harford County of the one part and James McComas of Harford Count the State aforesaid on the other.  Witness that for and in consideration of the sum of five shillings to the said Charles McComas, James Maddox, Hannah Maddox, Solomon McComas, and John McComas paid in hand by the said James McComas before the sealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof the said Charles McComas, James Maddox, Hannah Maddox, Solomon McComas and John McComas….” give to James McComas a portion of a tract of land on a rise near Winter’s Run called “Gresham’s College”. Mentions they affirm this against all manner of persons including their brother William McComas.

On December 23, 1822, James and Hannah Maddox, now residents of Berkeley County in the state of Virginia sell Daniel Jones part of a tract of Clagett’s Forest for $400.  They mention that it is part of what Hannah inherited from her father, Daniel McComas. In the description of the land it says one of the boundaries are the lands of William Norris, Solomon McComas and the heirs of Mary McComas.  It also extends to the lands of Nathaniel Hollingsworth (also called the Hollingsworth Line) and out into Winter’s Run and to the borders of Reese Davis’ land–in all about 50 acres.  James signed with his mark, the McComas family (including Hannah) used their signature.

The information about the land bordering that of Nathaniel Hollingsworth is interesting, because Hollingsworth’s land is now part of an educational site called Harford Glen in Harford County.  It is off Wheel Road, near Singer Road. Since it is part of a preservation site, a look around would show you something of what the McComas/Maddox families saw when they lived in Harford County.

 

 

Lafayette Blessed Her

Eliza Jane (Maddox) Scott had a talent for inserting herself into a broader historical narrative.  Three unusual stories were passed down through her family concerning her brushes with history.

The first (totally unproven and very questionable) assertion is that she is a great-granddaughter of General David Wooster of Revolutionary War fame.  The second is that she sometimes strolled the neighborhood with Johns Hopkins and he discussed his plans for a hospital with her.  This is slightly more believable in that both Eliza’s homes were within two miles of Hopkins’ Clifton estate (now Clifton Park).  Also, Hopkins was a Quaker and rumor has it Eliza Jane dabbled in the Society of Friends for a time (also unproven to date).

Her most enduring story however, and the one mentioned in her obituary and that of her daughter Georgianna, goes like this:

Eliza Jane and her sister met General Lafayette on his visit to Baltimore.  The nobleman “as she was fond of relating” placed his hand on her head and said “Bless you my child.”

Marquis De LafayetteThe Marquis de Lafayette was a celebrity.  Beloved by all Americans for his role in the American Revolution, he returned to the U.S. in August of 1824, as the honored guest of President James Monroe.  He went on a multi-city tour, visiting people who had been close to him during the war.

Baltimore went all out for their turn with the General.  According to Thomas Scharf’s Chronicles of Baltimore, the General was conducted through the decorated streets of Baltimore and “was greeted everywhere with the huzzas of the citizens and the waving of handkerchiefs, from every position which afforded the least prospect of beholding him.”

He then attended several large reunion events, while lodging at the Fountain Inn (then on Light and Redwood Streets).  He greeted Revolutionary Veterans and prominent citizens at dinners and balls…and one night he spent an evening at the Inn shaking hands with ordinary citizens.

I think Eliza would like us to believe that she met Lafayette when presented as an honored guest– with the families of Revolutionary Patriots–and maybe she did.  But her story, that “with her sister” she met him (not with her parents), invites us to imagine two little girls slipping through the twilight streets to the Fountain Inn, pushing their way to the front of the crowd to get a glimpse of their hero, and then meeting him face to face.

In Eliza’s story, it is she who is blessed–not her sister– letting us imagine that 10- year-old Eliza conceived of this adventure on her own (either convincing an older sister to accompany her, or a younger sister to some along), and Eliza who captured the momentary attention of a national hero.

We Are No One and Everyone: More Frustration with DNA

We received the results of my father’s 44 marker DNA test from Ancestry.com.  I am sorry to say, we remain unenlightened about the origins of our “Scott” family.  Probably the right person hasn’t done a DNA test yet, so here is where we stand:

  • Our “close matches” on Ancestry are more than 15 generations ago, and only 1 (22 generations divided from us) bears the Scott Surname.
  • Though things start out looking right on the Scott Family Tree DNA Project, nothing is yet to pan out because we differ on at least 4 markers from everyone, sometimes more.
  • No luck on Ysearch either.

To sum up, there’s a lot more to understand about DNA than I think some services lead you to believe.  This error in thinking/presentation caused a frenzy of excitement for one week after the results came in.  Ancestry determined our “closest match” within 150 years to be a family named Saunders.  I contacted the Saunders who live in England and found out their line were mariners from Dover.  Hooray!  We decided Joseph must be an illegitimacy from their line, or perhaps lived under an assumed name.  We spent a week mouthing “Saunders” and thinking how much we liked the last name “Scott” better.

Once we calmed down (on both sides of the Atlantic) we realized that Mr. Saunders had taken a 33 marker test AND a 44 marker test…and Ancestry had connected my father’s 44 marker test to Mr. Saunder’s 33 marker test.  At 44 markers we don’t match at all.  What a waste of time!

But we remain “Scotts” until proven otherwise.  That’s something.

The DNA Results

I’ve learned a few things about DNA since I last wrote.  First (and most startling), Joseph Scott of Baltimore or wherever (my great-great-great grandfather) is NOT related to James Scott of Campbell County, Virginia.  We differ on four out of twelve markers tested.

Secondly (but most easily corrected) I really ordered the wrong test.  I ordered two tests from the company I used due to cost– I covered the cost of the Campbell County Scott’s test (since it was my idea) and the best I could afford was two, 12-marker tests.  But in reading up on it since, 12 markers are not sufficient for genealogy (for the most part).  Oh, I don’t mean that there’s a possibility James and Joseph are related after all–4 out of 12 misses is huge, and dismisses them as relatives at all.  BUT, 12 out of 12 matches with another family means only that we might be related with 50% probability within 14 generations.

Once I received my Dad’s DNA results, I plugged his values into the Scott Family DNA Project and saw that he was an 11/12 value match for an Elijah Scott family (SC 1795).  And entering his values manually into Ancestry.com’s DNA database gave us a host of 12/12 matches– with lots of last names, only one of which was Scott–a Scott family from England.  So, I know something and nothing.  My father and I want to know more, so this month we are purchasing another DNA test– the 46 marker test available from Ancestry.com.

But hang on, what has happened here?  What about the Bible that was supposedly seen, and the Campbell County Scott family researcher who knew things about my family that were not in the public domain?  I’ve been wracking my brains to find an explanation.  Here are some thoughts:

  • the DNA test could be inaccurate because of an unknown adoption or infidelity in either Scott line.  That could be partially resolved if one of Benjamin Franklin Scott’s descendents take the DNA test as well– it would be helpful to know if the descendents of Eliza Jane and Joseph Scott both carry the same Y-DNA.  But that would only tell us that no infidelity occurred on OUR side, and doesn’t address the possibility of adoption somewhere in either line.
  • James Scott and Joseph Scott could have been half-brothers with the same mother, but different fathers.
  • The connection between the families was not through the Scotts at all, but the Maddox women had a connection (cousins if not sisters?)

The eyes see what they see.  For 10 years I have worked under the assumption that the Scotts of Campbell County were related to the Scotts of Baltimore.  I leave you with two photos– the first of John Gordon Scott (Joseph Scott’s son) and the second of William Peerman Scott (James Scott’s son, courtesy of Janet Scott White).  I still see a resemblance.

Caught in a Bad Romance? Eliza Jane Maddox of Baltimore and Joseph Scott of ?

History and Science are coming together this week, so I need to skip ahead a bit, to the namesake of my blog, my great-great-great grandmother, Eliza Jane Maddox (1813-1903).

There is something striking and unusual about Eliza Jane Maddox’s place in the historic record. Though supposedly a married woman, in each census she is enumerated as the head of the household (with no husband listed).  For that matter, I have never found a marriage record for Eliza Jane, though I have found marriage documentation for 5 of her 9 siblings.  Yet, according to her 1903 obituary, Eliza Jane was the widow of Joseph Scott and she had 6 children with him.

I had a sense early on that Joseph’s absence on the census might be the result of his being a mariner, and that would be why he was not home….ever… when the census was taken (though I found it strange he is not listed anyway, as the census includes anyone living within the household in the previous 12 months).   That feeling intensified when I visited Eliza Jane’s grave at Mt. Olivet Cemetery.  Though 24 people are buried in the Maddox plot, Joseph Scott isn’t one of them.  Eliza’s tombstone stands near that of two of her children, and her inscription reads “faithful unto death.”

In 2002 I met two wonderful researchers of the Scott/Maddox family:  Harriet S. and Margaret N., who were descended from Eliza and Joseph Scott through their daughter Georgianna (I descend from their son Charles).   They provided me with an image of Eliza Jane.  They thought that “faithful unto death” was probably not as romantically intentioned as I chose to believe, but they confirmed that Joseph Scott was a mariner.  Their family lore said that Joseph “died at sea” on his way to Scotland.  I have wondered often since then if “died at sea” was a euphemism for “got drunk and fell out of a rowboat,” or “actually had a wife and whole other family somewhere else” but I have nothing to back that up…yet.  It’s just a byproduct of my frustration with my ggg-grandfather, who seems to have lived a life entirely in the margins of history.

Joseph and Eliza’s off the grid love affair lasted at least from 1835 until at least 1856—maybe a bit longer.  Joseph appears only a handful of times in one record (at least in the one record that I am certain it’s him) and that is the Baltimore City Directory in the 1850s at Eliza’s house on 23 May Street.  Otherwise his presence is peripheral. Like the mention in his wife’s obituary, he is first mentioned when his daughter Mary Scott Jones died in 1861.  She is listed as the daughter of Eliza Jane and “the late Joseph Scott”.  Sometime between 1856 (when his last son was conceived) and Mary’s death in 1861, Joseph faded out of the picture—without even an obituary.

Who was Joseph Scott and where did he come from?  Did he actually die in the time period the Scott family claims, or was Eliza Jane’s widowhood something like another of my great-grandmother’s post-marital experience:  her “dead husband” was actually living down the street with their married daughter, but (sick of his drinking) he was “dead” to her!  When the census taker asked where Joseph was born (in the box by the child’s name) over the years we get mixed answers.  Eliza always said Maryland when answering for her children.  Her children (as adults) mentioned Virginia a handful of times.  My grandfather, John G. Scott, always told me that the Scotts came from Southwest Virginia and were somehow divided over the Dred Scott decision (with the Baltimore Scotts being outraged by it).  Is that a clue?  It’s such a specific event in history to pass down, might there be some truth to it?

One night in August of 2003 I dreamed that I was on a ship with Joseph Scott and his son Benjamin Franklin Scott (who was briefly a sail-maker) and we were fighting our way through a gale.  The next day I received my first email from Benjamin Franklin Scott’s great-great-great grandson (insert chills here).  Jim’s family was also on a quest to find Eliza Jane and Joseph.  We shared information and Jim mentioned that he had just found a researcher online with a Scott/Maddox family tree —and it included our family.  We emailed this researcher who was a descendant of James Scott and Elizabeth Maddox of Campbell County, Virginia.  She told us that she had seen a Bible years before that listed James Scott and Elizabeth Maddox and their children, along with Joseph Scott and Eliza Jane Maddox and some of their children.  The Bible seemed to indicate that James Scott and Joseph Scott were brothers, the sons of a John D. Scott (she had no dates of birth or death listed for Joseph or John D.).  It also appeared to indicate that Eliza Jane Maddox and Elizabeth Maddox were sisters.  The latter supposition is definitely not true (Eliza is the daughter of Edward and Rachel Maddox of Baltimore, Maryland.  Elizabeth is the daughter of Sherard Maddox and Catherine Simpson of Campbell County, Virginia and she had a sister named Eliza Jane too—more than 20 years younger than mine).  But could James and Joseph be brothers?  We are certainly an obscure family.  No one has written anything on us—in my opinion there is no reason we would be in another family’s Bible, unless we were related.

Genealogy requires a high standard of proof.  Since the researcher has never furnished a photocopy of this Bible page, nor have I found any records tying the Scotts together, I have filed this away under “probably true” but have despaired of ever finding out for certain.  As the years have gone on, I have investigated other possible angles.  When I discovered that a photo of my great-great grandfather Charles Scott (Eliza and Joseph’s son) was taken at a studio on Market Street in Wilmington, DE in 1853 (a city where we have no relatives to my knowledge) I went looking for Joseph Scott there.

I found one—also on Market Street, and he was a patent medicine dealer turned book seller who traveled frequently to Baltimore during the course of his career.  He was born in 1796 and died in 1856—the year Eliza and Joseph’s last child was born.  He was single until the last few years of his life, when he married a wealthy woman from New York.   I went to the Archives in Delaware to read his will (hoping it would mention a consort and illegitimate children!) but all he had went to the only wife I can prove he was his—not Eliza Jane.  Here and there I have tried to contact other researchers of the Campbell County Scott-Maddox family, with little luck.

But recently the stars aligned and I found the right person to marry up my history with a little definitive science.   I met a researcher with a private tree on Ancestry.com whose father is a direct male descendant of James Scott of Campbell County through his son William Peerman Scott.  Not only this, but when I mentioned the possibility of a DNA test, the family was quite willing.  So this week, my father (a direct male descendant of Joseph Scott) and the researcher’s father are swabbing the inside of their cheeks and sending the results to a lab in New Mexico that will then conduct a Y-DNA test.  What will that accomplish?

All males carry a Y-chromosome that are generally identical down the paternal line.  In other words, a snapshot of my father’s DNA will show the same chromosome carried by his father, and his grandfather, etc. and thus of Joseph Scott and of Joseph Scott’s father.  If the James Scott descendant in Virginia carries the same markers, then we know we share a common ancestor in the recent past (probably Joseph and James’ father).  If not, I will know Campbell County, Virginia is a dead end.

Though Joseph Scott did seem to have done his best to remain out of the public record—at least as far as his Baltimore family was concerned—soon I’ll have a very different, highly definitive identity for him.  Maybe I will never know where he truly spent his time (or how lost at sea he was), but with my father’s DNA (Campbell County positive or not) I can plug into any number of Scott family DNA projects and hopefully connect us to the rest of the family he omitted from his record.