Frances Ballenger (aka Ballinger)

When dancing with the ancestors there is a high probability that you will run across two people with the same name. See this post regarding Greenberry Mitchell-1 and Greenberry Mitchell-2, who most researchers combined - mistakenly - into one individual. Oy! In this instance, I'm referring to my 3 x Great Grandmother Frances Ballenger-Adcock. 

Frances is the daughter of James and Dorcas (Dodson) Ballenger/Ballinger, and sister to John, James, William, Edward, Elijah, Peggy (Margaret) and Tabitha. In her father's will, written in 1813 she is referenced as Francis Ballenger, while her sisters as referenced as Peggy Lewis and Tabitha Foster, their married names. So, in 1813 Frances was still unmarried. This is important.

In trying to research Frances Ballenger, daughter of James Ballenger and Dorcas Dodson very few people list her as the wife of William Adcock. Hmmmm . . . But, most sites list her as the husband of Isaac Bishop.

Well, a bit more research and I found that Isaac Bishop did indeed marry Frances Ballenger in 1797. Fine! Dandy! But wait . . . if she married him in 1797, why didn't her father mention her as Frances Bishop in his will? 

The obvious conclusion I'm going with at this moment is this: because she, the daughter of James and Dorcas, was not married in 1797. She was unmarried in 1813, so her father referred to her by her surname. The second obvious conclusion is that the Francis Ballenger who married Isaac Bishop was a cousin to the Francis Bishop who married William Adcock.

Yes, I know, genealogists everywhere are gasping in horror at my conclusions. 

I'd gasp too except . . . I have DNA connections to Thomas and Mary (Durham) Dodson, the grandparents of Dorcas Dodson who married James Ballenger. Yes, some genealogists are gasping even more.

The fact is: families used the same names throughout the various generations, especially back in the day. James and Edward were common names in the Ballenger family, as was Francis. In my Adcock line, all the children of Leonard Adcock named one of their children Leonard Adcock. The grandchildren did the same. A good example is this: Leonard Adcock's son, who married first unknown, named his first child Joseph Leonard Adcock. William's daughter, by his second wife Francis Ballenger, Rebecca Adcock named one of her children John Leonard Smith (this would be my great grandfather). Now all of John Leonard Smith's sons died at an early age. Realizing he would not have a male heir, my grandmother was named Osie Lee (for Leonard) Smith. I have one line where an ancestor - William Boarman - named a child by his first and second wife William. Then, there is my Duvall line where Mareen Duvall had two sons named Mareen - one by his first wife and one by his second. So, as you can see, naming patterns easily produce two individuals in a family with the same name.

The tricky part is separating out the various individuals into multiple people, as I did with Greenberry Mitchell, instead of perpetuating the myth that there was only one individual named Greenberry Mitchell . . . or Francis Ballenger. 

So, when dancing with the ancestors, just because you find it on the Internet, doesn't make it true. Yes, a Francis Ballenger did marry Isaac Bishop and have children with him. But that Francis Ballenger was not the daughter of James and Dorcas (Dodson) Ballenger.

Lazy Genealogists . . . AGAIN

When dancing with the ancestors you are going to come across research done by lazy genealogists. I've covered this topic before and probably will multiple times in the future.

Now, as stated before, back in the day before Google genealogy was much harder. Now, there's a ton of stuff online at Ancestry, FamilySearch and many other genealogy based websites. It's easier to find and prove, in most cases, what you need to find and prove.

In researching my Ballenger/Ballinger line . . . there appears to be more misinformation than facts. People seem to confuse the various James Ballenger/Ballinger's out there. It's frustrating.

They always seem to get the name of his wife correct and his children, but from there . . . it's a hodge-podge of misinformation. 

The James Ballenger/Ballinger that married Dorcas Dodson had the following children, as listed in his last will and testament: John, Edward, James, William, Elijah, Peggy, Francis and Tabitha. He lists his daughters that were married by their married names: Peggy Lewis and Tabitha Foster. He listed his unmarried daughter by her surname: Francis Ballenger.

THIS IS IMPORTANT

Many sites list his daughter Frances, aka Frankie, as marrying Isaac Bishop in 1797. I'm sure there was a Francis Ballenger/Ballinger that married Isaac Bishop in 1797. It just doesn't happen to be the daughter of James and Dorcas (Dodson) Ballenger. If it was, James would have listed her as Francis Bishop in his last will and testament, and not as Francis Ballenger.

There is also the issue of James Ballenger, husband of Dorcas Dodson, death: 1795 versus 1813. The James Ballenger that married Dorcas Dodson and had John, Edward, James, William, Elijah, Peggy, Francis and Tabitha wrote his last will and testament on July 19, 1813. This would not be possible if he died in 1795.

Now, back in the day, researchers might not have been able to find the will. There where most likely multiple James Ballenger's and . . . researchers confused the two. Check out my post on the two Greenberry Mitchells. This was a simple case of two men with the same name living in the same county and early researchers confusing the two. It took me just a wee bit of time to actually separate the two men and sort out their various lives. 

As with any family back in the day, family names were used multiple times. MULTIPLE! James, Edward and William were common names in the Ballenger family. In my Adcock Line, every child of Leonard Adcock named one of their children Leonard Adcock. His grandchildren continued the tradition with their children. Many families did the same thing so that there were multiple people with the same first name and surname in the same area. Separating the various individuals is difficult under the best of circumstances, and close to impossible under the circumstances faced by early genealogists.

That does not excuse the lazy genealogists out there! Take some time to separate fact from fiction when dancing with the ancestors.

Proving Things for Yourself

When dancing with the ancestors you are going to come across family trees created by other researchers. As I've mentioned before, do not take those trees at face value and trust that the information you're finding is 100% correct. There's a chance it is 100% correct, but there's a greater chance it isn't. PROVE THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF!

Okay, now that I've SHOUTED at you, dear readers, on to this post which is about misinformation in online trees. Yes, it happens. It happens on a regular basis. It happens so often it is not even funny.

Now, in my dance with my ancestors, I've come across this misinformation time and time and time again. I come to expect it, rather than not expect it now.

Case in point: all the trees I've found for my 3 x Great Grandfather William Adcock list his wife as Francis Ballinger, daughter of James Ballinger and Dorcas Dodson. This is 100% correct. William Adcock did marry Francis Ballinger. No mystery there, except . . .

Francis Ballinger was the second wife of William Adcock!

AH-HAH!!!

Why is this important, you might be wondering? Well, in all the family trees I've found for William Adcock with Francis Ballinger as his wife, the following children are listed: Joseph Leonard (b. 1806), Jane (b. 1807), David (b. 1814), Francis (b. 1815), Rebecca (b. 1818 - she's my 2 x Great Grandmother), Martha (b. 1821) and Nancy (b. 1827).

For the longest time, I took these facts as presented: William and Francis (Ballinger) Adcock had 7 children. No problem.

Yeah, famous last words: no problem. 

The problem didn't happen until I discovered the last will and testament of 4 x Great Grandfather James Ballinger which was probated in August 1813. His will listed his wife and all his children, including the married names of his daughters. The kicker: his daughter Francis was referred to as Francis Ballinger and not Francis Adcock. 

The will was written on July 19, 1813, which means . . . Francis was not married at that time, therefore . . .

. . . she cannot be the mother of Joseph Leonard or Jane, and potentially not David because she did not marry William Adcock until sometime after July 19, 1813. AH-HAH!

But, every tree out there lists her as the only wife of William Adcock. This was an easy assumption to make . . . until you take into account the last will and testament of James Ballinger.

Then there is the second problem with trees, and this involves 4 x Great Grandfather James Ballenger: every single tree lists his date of death as 1795. Sons of the American Revolution applications lists his date of death as 1795 . . . and his wife as Dorcas Dodson.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you know that James Ballenger/Ballinger wrote his last will and testament on July 19, 1813. This is 18 years past his published date of death. He mentions his wife Dorcas in his will. So, either his a zombie, a vampire, or faked his own death . . . the misinformation about his date of death was never discovered or . . . lazy genealogists got the date from somewhere and kept on using it. I'm not sure which option applies.

So, when dancing with the ancestors take the time to research all avenues/angles and prove things for yourself. Do not take the easy, i.e., the lazy genealogist, way out and trust that the person before you crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's because there's an excellent chance they didn't!

Greenberry Mitchell

Sometimes, when dancing with the ancestors, you come across more than one person with the same name. Such is the case with Greenberry Mitchell. You see, there is not just one Greenberry Mitchell. No, having just one would be far too easy. There are two men named Greenberry Mitchell.

Actually . . . there are three. Okay, one of them is imaginary. Okay, not really imaginary, but, rather the third Greenberry Mitchell is a hybrid. Okay, not a hybrid, actually, but rather the third Greenberry Mitchell is a genealogical mistake. He never existed and yet . . . he has trees on Ancestry. Go figure.

Greenberry Mitchell3 is actually a blending of Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. He is the result of people confusing the other two and ultimately combining him into one person.

Now, first and foremost, this third Greenberry Mitchell probably came into existence a long, long time ago before Ancestry and the indexing of records. He was probably created by some researcher scrolling through microfilm and not realizing that, back in 1832, two babies were born into separate Mitchell families and named . . . you guessed it: Greenberry. It also doesn't help that both of these families lived in Warren County, Tennessee and that both men named Greenberry remained in that county the entirety of their lives.

So, back in the olden days of genealogical research, this was an easy mistake to make. 

Now, I cannot claim to know why the multiple people out there confusing Greenberry1 with Greenberry2, and those creating Greenberry3, never realized there were two men named Greenberry Mitchell. All I know is that it happened, and this post will disassemble Greenberry3 and reveal the truth, as far as I've been able to determine about Greenberry1 and Greenberry2.

I'm not passing judgement. I'm only passing along what I discovered. So, here goes . . .

First - 98% of the trees on Ancestry list Greenberry Mitchell as the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate. 98%! This is a HUGE number. Plus, too many people rely on Ancestry as a solid source of information when, in fact, much of the information is suspect at best. My advice: use Ancestry as a stepping stone in your research, but use the facts you prove and disprove yourself as the actual road of your research.

Robert Mitchell married Jane Tate. This is important. The name Jane is important. The name Jane, and the error of a census taker, is very important in the creation of Greenberry3 and the 98% of trees on Ancestry that I mentioned in the above paragraph.

William Mitchell married Darcus/Dorcas (maiden name unknown, but possibly Coffee).

In the fall of 1831, both Jane and Darcus (this is how her name is spelled according to a census record) became pregnant. In the spring of 1832 both women gave birth to a baby boy and . . . named him Greenberry. Oy!

Flash forward 18 years and . . .

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on August 22, we have the following . . .

• William Mitchell
• Darcus Mitchell
• Mary Mitchell
• Julia Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 19)
• Celia Mitchell (age 14)
• Matilda Mitchell
• Darcas Mitchell

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on November 28, we have the following . . .

• Robert Mitchell
• Jane Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 18)
• Squire J. Mitchell
• Andrew J. Mitchell
• Ruth Mitchell
• John Mitchell
• Susan Mitchell
• Robert Mitchell

Note: Mitchell is transcribed as Mitchael on these records.

For this blog post, Greenberry1 is the son of Robert and Jane (Tate) Mitchell. Greenberry2 is the son of William and Darcus Mitchell.

Greenberry1 married Cynthia Brewer. Greenberry2 married Sarah Dodson. 

But, before I get on with marriages, census records and death records, lets go back to the census records and something I do when I'm researching the ancestor: pay attention to the siblings. In this case, pay attention to Celia Mitchell because she was the key to separating Greenberry1 from Greenberry2. Always remember, and never forget, sometimes the key to a direct ancestor is his or her siblings, especially the female siblings.

By 1860, both Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 have married and had children. As I mentioned, Greenberry1 married Cynthia Brewer. 

In 1860, they're living in McMinnville, Warren County, Tennessee and have three children: George, Robert, and Lowry.

In 1870, they're still in McMinnville, with the following children: L. A., Canabert (i.e., Conner Robert), Laura and David. L. A. is George who was 7 in 1860, but 17 in 1870, and I'm guessing his name is George A., and don't have a clue why it was transcribed as L. A.

In 1880, Greenberry and Cynthia are still in McMinnville, and their son David is still living with them. 

And 1880, is the last I have found of them, most likely because a Greenberry Mitchell died in 1899 and that, would be Greenberry1. More on this in a bit.

So, now we switch over to Greenberry2, who by 1860 was married to Sarah Dodson. They married on September 18, 1857. They were living in McMinnville and had two children: Selitha and Murphy. Murphy plays an important part in the tracking of Greenberry and Sarah in later census records.

In 1870, Greenberry is listed as Green on the Census Record. The census record is mis-indexed under Washington County, TN with the post office of McMinnville (which is in Warren County, TN). On closer inspection of the actual record, the county is listed as Warren. This is just another instance where an indexer made a mistake and created havor for future researchers. On the census record with him are his wife Sarah and their children Tabitha, Murphy, James, Mary, and Ambrose (aka Christie). Also on the census record with him are his sisters Matilda and Dorcas. 

In 1880 they are back in Warren County, and living in McMinnville with the following children: Tabitha (aka Selitha), Murphy, Jas. T., Christie (known as Ambrose in 1870), Minnie, and Dillard. Also living with them at the time is Jane Dodson who is recorded on the census record as the mother of . . .  Greenberry Mitchell. Say what?

Yes, she is listed as the mother of Greenberry Mitchell. And this, dear readers, is where 98% of the researchers out there confuse Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 and create the hybrid Greenberry3. 

It is my belief that everybody who looked at this census record took the fact that Jane Dodson, listed as the mother of Greenberry Mitchell (when, in fact, she was his mother-in-law), was in fact Jane Tate. Robert had died in 1871, so most researchers, without digging any further, made the mistaken assumption that Jane Tate-Mitchell remarried a man named Dodson. Why they didn't connect the dots between Jane Dodson and Sarah Dodson, I don't have a clue!

The problem with the assumption that Jane Tate-Mitchell remarried a Dodson is this: Jane Tate-Mitchell died in 1874. So, unless she's a zombie who then married a Dodson, there's a bit of an impossibility here.

Further research by me, showed, in 1850, that Jane Dodson was living with her husband Eli, and their children Latitia, Sarah, Laura, and Meria. So, the Jane on the 1880 Census record is Sarah's mother and Greenberry's mother-in-law. Then, there is Sarah Mitchell's death certificate which lists her parents as Eli Dodson and Jane Ware. Mystery solved.

Ah-Hah!! 

So, this is an easy mistake to make. It's also an easy mistake to correct if a researcher takes a little bit of time to do, well, do some research and verify the results. 

Taking things at face value, when doing research, is never a good thing.

But, now let's move forward to 1900. Greenberry and Sarah are living with their daughter Ollie, who was recorded as Minnie on the 1880 Census record.

But also, in 1900, in Warren County, we have James Mitchell living with his wife Hattie (he married Hattie Cantrell on September 16, 1880) and their children: Roy E., Waymon, Lueby E., and Lela O. Also in the house with him is his aunt Celia Mitchell!

Now, if you remember, way back in 1850, one of the children of William and Dorcas, along with Greenberry2, was Celia Mitchell. She was the key to beginning to unravel the mystery of Greenberry1, 2, and 3. Then, there is the death certificate for James Mitchell which lists his parents as Greenberry Mitchell and Sarah Dodson.

Now, in 1910, we have Sarah Mitchell living with her son Murphy and her daughter Ollie. In 1920, Murphy is the head of household, but living with him are his sister Ollie, his mother Sarah, and his father Robert. Say what? I thought Greenberry was his father. Well, in fact . . . Greenberry Robert Mitchell was his father! OY!

BUT . . . according to the tombstone located at Riverside Cemetery in McMinnville, Tennessee, G. B. Mitchell was born May 14, 1832 and died April 20, 1902. Sarah was born April 19, 1833 and died October 23, 1927 - this is confirmed by her death certificate. So, if Greenberry (aka G. B. Mitchell) died in 1902 . . . who in the heck is Robert, age 82, listed as the father of Murphy Mitchell? Did Sarah remarry after her husband's death in 1902? Did she marry a cousin? I don't have a clue. All I know is that Greenberry was dead by 1902, so whatever Robert Mitchell is living in the household with Murphy in 1920 . . . it's not his biological father. 

So, the take away from all of this is: do not take Ancestry trees at face value. Prove and disprove absolutely everything for yourself.

The other takeaway is that Greenberry1 is the son of Robert and Jane (Tate) Mitchell and Greenberry2 is the son of William and Darcus Mitchell. This has been proved through census, marriage, and death records.

I can't change the misinformation out there on Ancestry, nor the multitude of people that have merged Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 into Greenberry3. All I can do is put this information out there and hope that future researchers will find this post and apply the correct parental and sibling information to Greenberry1 and Greenberry2.

My final take away is, when dancing with the ancestors, do the hard work for yourself. Sometimes, you're going to run across two people born in the same year, with the same name, and living in the same town/county all their lives. When this happens, a bit of work on your part, can stop confusion and false information from being spread. For the record, it took me less than an hour to deconstruct Greenberry3 into Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. Yes, I have the advantage of census records being indexed and knowing to research the siblings. But, so do many of the researchers out there who continue to perpetuate Greenberry3! Your diligence can help future researchers.

S

Lazy Genealogists

Okay, when dancing with the ancestors, you're going to run across what I call, not too unkindly, lazy genealogists! To put it simply: lazy genealogists want to believe everything they find on the Internet is real! Bonjour!!

Seriously, people, do not rely on the research of others. Prove it for yourself!!!

Case in point: The two men named Greenberry Mitchell.

Now, it's bad enough that families passed their names back and forth, hither and thither, here, there and everywhere without a thought for future generations doing family research. In this instance, there is Greenberry1 and Greenberry2. For this post: Greenberry1 was born May 23, 1832 and died April 6, 1899. He is buried in Trousdale (Jacksboro) Cemetery in Warren County, Tennessee. Greenberry2 was born April 13, 1832 and died October 23, 1927. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery in Warren County, Tennessee.

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on August 22, we have the following . . .

• William Mitchell
• Darcus Mitchell
• Mary Mitchell
• Julia Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 19)
• Celia Mitchell (age 14)
• Matilda Mitchell
• Darcas Mitchell

In 1850, in Warren County, Tennessee, on the census recorded on November 28, we have the following . . .

• Robert Mitchell
• Jane Mitchell
• Greenberry Mitchell (age 18)
• Squire J. Mitchell
• Andrew J. Mitchell
• Ruth Mitchell
• John Mitchell
• Susan Mitchell
• Robert Mitchell

Note: Mitchell is transcribed as Mitchael on these records.

So, there exists two possibilities:

1. It's the same Greenberry recorded on two different census records for 1850. It happens people, more than I care to express right now.
2. There are two different men named Greenberry Mitchell

The reality: there are two different men named Greenberry Mitchell

One Greenberry (we'll call him Greenberry1) married Cynthia Brewer. The other Greenberry (we'll call him Greenberry2) married Sarah Dodson.

This is all fine and dandy expect . . . 99% of the trees on Ancestry link Greenberry1 and Greenberry2 as the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate (more on the reasons for this in a bit).

So, back to 1850 Warren County, Tennessee, and William Mitchell and family. They are living next door to my 3 x Great Grandfather Allen Mitchell, his second wife Sarah and their children. 

Flash forward to 1900 Warren County, Tennessee and Celia Mitchell (single, age 65, meaning born in 1835) is listed on the Census Record with James Mitchell, his wife Hattie and their children and listed as his aunt! James' death record lists his parents as Greenberry Mitchell and Sarah Dodson. So, if his father is Greenberry, and his aunt is Celia, then going back to 1850, their parents would be William and Dorcas/Darcus Mitchell.

And yet . . . most people don't give poor William and Dorcas any credit as Greenberry1 or 2's parents! Shame on those lazy genealogists.

But, why is this, you're probably wondering? Okay, even if you're not, I'm going to tell you that it's all because of what happened in 1880 when the Census Taker arrived at Greenberry2's house and started taking down the information. He recorded the following . . .

• G. Mitchell (Head)
• Sarah Mitchell (Wife)
• Tabitha Mitchell (daughter)
• Murphy Mitchell (son)
• Jas T. Mitchell (son)
• Christie Mitchell (daughter)
• Minnie Mitchell (daughter)
• Dillard Mitchell (son)
• Jane Dodson (mother)

So, any researcher that had ever come across Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate as the parents of Greenberry, in seeing this record, and the notation mother would automatically assume it was 100% correct: Jane Dodson is the mother of Greenberry Mitchell. 

The problem: Jane Tate-Mitchell died in 1874. So, unless she's a zombie who then married a Dodson, there's a bit of an impossibility here.

Further research by me, showed, in 1850, that Jane Dodson was living with her husband Eli, and their children Latitia, Sarah, Laura, and Meria. So, the Jane on the 1880 Census record is Sarah's mother and Greenberry's mother-in-law. 

Ah-Hah!! 

So, this is an easy mistake to make. It's also an easy mistake to correct if a researcher takes a little bit of time to do, well, do some research and verify the results. 

Taking things at face value, when doing research, is never a good thing.

Relying 100% on the work of prior researchers, and assuming they are 100% correct, is NEVER a good thing. 

So, my take away from this is, that Greenberry1 who married Cynthia Brewer is the son of Robert Mitchell and Jane Tate. Greenberry2 who married Sarah Dodson is the son of William Mitchell and Darcus/Dorcas (Maiden Name Unknown, but possibly Coffee), sister of Celia, and father of James T. Mitchell (which is known for a fact based on his death record).

So, when dancing with the ancestors never assume what you are finding is 100% correct unless you have verified it for yourself. Sometimes, the face value is inaccurate. Sometimes, the mother is actually the mother-in-law and the census taker was, well, a bit lazy. 

S

Assuming is the Curse of Doing Family Research - Part 1

When dancing with the ancestors, one of the biggest things that happen are that people assume things. Word of advice: assume nothing!

Example: you're doing research, find the will of an ancestor and it doesn't mention their child, your 5 x great grandmother! So, you assume your 5 x great grandmother wasn't the child of said ancestor whose last will and testament you found.

WRONG!!!

I have found last wills and testaments that list all the known children of an ancestor.

I have found last wills and testaments that list only the male children of an ancestor.

I have found last wills and testaments that only list the wife of an ancestor.

In the first instance, it's a woo-hoo moment because the last will of 5 x Great Grandpa lists all of his children. Yay for me!

In the second instance, it's a holy crap moment because I'm researching 4 x Great Grandma, daughter of 5 x Great Grandpa, and he only mentioned his six sons and not his five daughters.

In the third instance, well, you can figure that one out.

The main conclusion NOT to draw on Scenario two and three: my 4 x Great Grandma is obviously not the child of said 5 x Great Grandpa because he didn't mention her in his will!!

DO NOT DRAW THIS CONCLUSION. DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING!

In many cases, when children back in the day married, the father would give them land and/or money and then not mention them in the will because they already gave them land and/or money at the time of marriage. 

Or, as in Scenario Three - 5 x Great Grandpa left everything to the wife and made some reference "to be evenly distributed among my children at the time of her passing". Yes, I've run across this as well. It's a family researcher's nightmare: the will doesn't name the children. It doesn't mean the children did not exist, or that I'm on the wrong trail, only that 5 x Great Grandpa didn't bother to name the children in the will. It happens!!

So, when dancing with the ancestors and you come across a last will and testament that doesn't mention the ancestor you're researching, don't assume you're on the wrong trail, you have the parents of said ancestor wrong or anything along those lines. Instead, take a step back and consider that maybe the ancestor you're researching already received a bequest from the parent. Try to hunt down land records or other records that can prove the parentage, rather than simply - as I've seen many people do - that because the ancestor is not mentioned in the will they don't exist or you have an error in your research.

Census Tip

When dancing with the ancestors, sometimes you can't find your ancestors on a particular census record. It's frustrating and . . . there are many reasons this might happen: 

• your ancestors weren't home when the census taker came a knockin'
• the census taker transcribed the surname horribly wrong
• the transcriber transcribed the surname horribly wrong
• the census page has not been indexed yet (yes, this still happens)
• the census taker used your ancestors initials rather than full names
• and other reasons

An example from my own research: 3 x Great Grandpa James Matthew Johnson

First - with common surnames, trying to narrow it down is sometimes impossible. In this instance, I had Census Records for the following years: 1850, 1860, 1880, and 1900. I was obviously missing 1870. I did the normal Ancestry search from within James Matthew Johnson and his wife Charlotte (Ballard) Johnson.

Nothing!

Did I mention nothing?

Okay, there were some 2,000 records scattered throughout Kentucky.

I then narrowed the search to Nelson County, Kentucky!

NOTHING!

I was frustrated and then, as happens from time to time with me, I thought . . . why not try searching each of the known children.

Child by child I searched specifically for the 1870 Nelson County Census and . . . voila. I found it! Woo-hoo!

First - James Matthew was listed as J. M. Johnson. Note the usage of initials versus his full name. Second - the person who indexed the record transcribed Lottie as Sallie. It was an easy mistake, but also a mistake that made finding this record quite difficult.

So, when dancing with the ancestors and missing a census record or two . . .

• Search for the children
• Change the search to initials versus full name
• Keep trying!!