Amanda Butterfield Genealogy

I have finished the research project for my history 482 class. It is turned in and out of my hands (for this class anyways). I have thoroughly enjoyed working on the Canter family project throughout this semester, and if my client so chooses, will gladly continue working on it. I have to defend my project to two AGs next Thursday, but am confident in my research. Next week I will write about how it goes!

I am in an upper-level family history course at BYU, and I am currently finalizing my project for the semester. I have spent the last week trying to write a research report of 100+ hours of research. Granted, I had written smaller reports along the way, but I cannot stress to you how much easier it had been if I had written the report as I did my research. Even a weekly summary would have saved me hours of trying to figure out what problems and thoughts need to be sent to my client. Luckily, this work is pro-bono, so I am not wasting client funds. I encourage all of you researchers (and myself) to learn from my mistakes. Try to write the client reports as you do the research. I have heard that you should write your client every 10-20 hours of research. Good luck with all of your research and client reports!

I had the opportunity to attend the Computerized Genealogy Conference hosted by BYU this last weekend. The conference focused on how technology can aid the typical researcher. There were so many classes I wanted to attend, but of course, I can only be at one place at one time. I was fortunate to have a class that was designed just for me: Internet Sources for the Midwestern States. I am not as up to par with internet research as I should be, and this class (along with 3 other internet research classes I attended) gave me a good foothold on internet research. Some of the sources listed in the midwestern class were a tremendous help, giving me access to records I have been trying to find for several weeks now. I highly recommend this conference to any genealogist, as it is a huge time saver to use technology in family history research.

As I have researched in various facilities, I have noticed that many library users are not aware of certain etiquette in using archive and library facilities. I implore all genealogists and library users to follow a few guidelines when doing research:

1. Treat the materials with respect. This means you should handle documents and books carefully so as not to cause any damage to them. For example, resting your elbows on books can break the binding. You should also always be aware of copy policies of original documents. Some documents are too fragile to copy without assistance from a staff member. Others are restricted from photocopies altogether

2. Be considerate when using microfilms. Most libraries require you to refile your own films and fiches, though I can't tell you how many times I have seen piles of microfilms left by the reader after someone has finished with them. Also, many libraries ask you to limit the number of films you have at one time. The Family History Library and BYUFHL request 5, I think. This is to allow other researchers an opportunity to use the films they need. Again, I can't tell you how many times I have seen someone with well over a dozen microfilms at their reader. You can only read one at a time, it's really not too much trouble to get up a few extra times to get films.

3. Be helpful to others, and respectful to staff members. A little courtesy goes a long way. Many library users you may come across may be newcomers to genealogy. They may not know how to use a reader or make copies of microfilms. By helping them, you not only give genealogists a better reputation, but you can also teach them how to properly use library resources so they don't damage materials, as mentioned above.

4. Dress professionally. You don't have to wear a suit to the library, but perhaps sweats and flip-flops are a little too casual. When you dress respectable, staff members will most likely be more courteous and helpful, and they will trust you more with documents.

These are just a few simple suggestions for all library users. I'm sure the AG and CG websites have a more complete list than this.

I have been struggling for weeks on the problem of which of the 12 children of George Madison Canter and Elizabeth Hannah Gilliland were alive in the 1900 census. According to both the 1900 and 1910 census, Elizabeth gave birth to 12 children. 8 were still alive in those census years. I had been able to verify that two of the deceased children were Eliza Etta Canter and Lydia Eunice Canter. However, I have had no such luck verifying the other two. George M. and Louisa Jane were the most likely candidates, as I have found no other records for these two past the 1880 census in Kansas. However, I have not been able to find any information on Sarah L. after her marriage to Jesse Webb in 1896. She also could have been one of the deceased in 1900. I had ordered George Madison's civil war pension file (the shortened genealogical version), and one of the documents states that in 1898, George had 8 living children, listing them by name: Mary, Catharine, William, Della, Sarah, Stella, Chloe and Janey (Cora Jane). George M. and Louisa Jane must have died sometime before 1898.

I will continue to try to find the death records for these two, but at this point, I'm not sure they ever made it out of Kansas. Their family moved back to Ohio in 1882, and I have searched death records between 1882 and 1900 with no luck. Unfortunately, civil registration in Kansas did not occur until after 1900, so I have struggled to find replacements for birth and death records of these two children.

As I have progressed throughout my research, I have tried to find my families in every census year they would appear. So far, thanks to Ancestry.com, this has been quite successful. However, multiple families are missing from the 1860 census. George Madison's family, his wife's in-laws, and some of his brothers' families are not to be found. I am almost certain they are still living in Jackson County, but just to make sure, I have done national searches for them. What is curious is that multiple families are missing. They are farmers, so they live in rural areas, and from what I have gathered, they live next to each other.

My current theory is that their area or neighborhood was missed by the enumerator either due to unclear enumeration districts, or bad weather which has been known to prevent census enumerators from traveling to rural houses. Any other thoughts as to why these families would all be absent from the 1860 census?