Author: Nancy

I have been researching my family history since 1999 in my spare time. I have made several trips to local repositories in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut to do research in addition to using online resources. I even did a trip to Northern Ireland to try to find my Irish roots. I have attended conferences for RootsTech, National Genealogical Society, Federation of Genealogical Societies and Association of Professional Genealogists. Additionally, I have completed the Boston University certificate program for genealogical research as well as the Intermediate Genealogy Research classes at the Genealogical Research Institute of Pittsburg and at the Institute of Genealogy and Historical Research. I love doing genealogy research.

Why Everyone Is Named Marie

On February 15, 2026January 27, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

One of the first things modern researchers notice when working with French-Canadian records is the repetition of given names. In the Seguin dit Laderoute family, this is immediately apparent: nearly every daughter of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute carries the given name “Marie.” At first glance, this can appear to be an error, a copying problem, or evidence that multiple individuals have been conflated. In reality, it reflects a deeply rooted religious naming practice rather than personal preference or family tradition.

Devotional Given Names in Catholic Québec

In New France, naming practices were shaped by Catholic theology and devotional culture. Children were commonly given the names of saints or religious figures at baptism, particularly those of the Holy Family. As a result, “Marie” appears frequently as a given name for girls, while “Joseph” and “Jean” appear frequently for boys.¹

These names were bestowed as acts of devotion rather than as practical identifiers. Consequently, the first given name recorded at baptism was not necessarily the name used in daily life.

The Seguin dit Laderoute Daughters

Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute and his wife Marie Barbe Filion had several daughters whose baptismal names begin with “Marie,” including Marie Élisabeth, Marie Françoise, Marie Geneviève, Marie Barbe, Marie Jeanne, and Marie Véronique.²

Despite sharing the same initial given name, these women were not distinguished in daily life by “Marie.” Instead, they were known by their second given names—Élisabeth, Françoise, Geneviève, Barbe, Jeanne, or Véronique. Parish priests, notaries, and later clerks might record either form, depending on context and habit.

This practice explains why the same individual may appear under different given names across records. A woman baptized as Marie Geneviève might later be recorded simply as Geneviève, Marie, or Geneviève Marie, without any intention of identifying a different person.

Hyphenation and Modern Assumptions

Modern readers often notice that some given names appear hyphenated while others do not, and may assume that this distinction reflects how the names were used or understood at the time. In eighteenth-century Québec, this assumption is misleading.

In the original parish registers, multiple given names were typically written without hyphens. Spacing, capitalization, and order varied, even within the same register. Hyphenation became more common in later transcriptions, printed genealogical works, and modern databases, reflecting editorial standardization rather than historical practice.³

As a result, forms such as “Marie-Françoise” and “Marie Françoise” usually represent the same name. The presence or absence of a hyphen should not be read as evidence of which name was used in daily life, nor as an indicator of formality or importance.

Why This Causes Confusion for Modern Researchers

Modern record systems and databases tend to treat the first given name as the primary identifier. When applied to French-Canadian records, this assumption often leads to errors. Individuals may be split into multiple profiles or merged incorrectly based solely on variations in given-name order, spelling, or hyphenation.

In families such as the Seguin dit Laderoute family, where several siblings share the same devotional name, relying on “Marie” as an identifying feature is particularly unreliable. Place, date, family relationships, and associates provide far more dependable evidence of identity.

Not Limited to Women

Although “Marie” is most visible among women, the same devotional practice applied to men. Men frequently carried “Marie” as one of their given names, just as women sometimes carried “Joseph” or “Josephte.” These combinations were expressions of devotion and carried no implication of clerical error or gender confusion.⁴

This practice becomes especially important when tracing later generations, where men such as François Marie Beauchamp appear in records with or without the devotional component of their given name.

Reading the Records as They Were Created

The repetition of “Marie” among the Seguin dit Laderoute daughters is not an anomaly requiring correction. It reflects a naming system that served religious and cultural purposes rather than modern administrative ones. The challenge for researchers lies not in fixing the records, but in learning to interpret them on their own terms.

In the next post, the focus will shift from given names to surnames and to the use of dit names such as “Laderoute,” which introduce an additional layer of complexity to the same family.

Notes

Allan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 63–66.
Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), baptisms of the children of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute and Marie Barbe Filion, various parishes.
René Jetté, Dictionnaire généalogique des familles du Québec (Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1983), introduction.
Ibid.

The Seguin dit Laderoute Family: An Introduction

On February 14, 2026January 27, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Before examining the naming practices that often complicate French-Canadian genealogical research, it is useful to clearly establish the family at the center of the discussion. This post introduces the Seguin dit Laderoute family of Québec, a well-documented family whose records provide a strong foundation for understanding later naming patterns and research challenges.

Later posts will explore why the records for this family can appear confusing to modern researchers. Here, the focus is simply on identifying the family and situating them in place and time.

Part of a map showing Boucherville in 1761.

Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute

Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute was born on 24 August 1682 in Boucherville, Québec, and was baptized the same day.¹ He was the son of François Sequin dit Laderoute and Jeanne Françoise Petit, both natives of France who settled in New France during the seventeenth century.²

Pierre’s baptism on the same day as his birth reflects common practice in New France during the late seventeenth century. Catholic teaching emphasized the necessity of baptism, and infant mortality rates were high. As a result, newborns were often baptized within hours of birth, particularly in established parishes such as Boucherville. Same-day baptism was customary rather than exceptional, and does not indicate an emergency or unusual circumstance in this context.³

Pierre died on 9 November 1760 and was buried at Saint-Henri-de-Mascouche.⁴ His life spanned a period of rapid population growth in the colony, and his movements remained largely within what is now the greater Montreal and Lanaudière regions.

The use of the dit name “Laderoute” appears consistently in records associated with Pierre and his immediate family. At this stage, it is sufficient to note that “Seguin” and “Laderoute” refer to the same family line and are not competing surnames.

Marriage and Household

Pierre married Marie Barbe Filion on 4 February 1704 at Boucherville.⁵ Their marriage occurred shortly before the death of Pierre’s father later that same year, a sequence that is well documented in parish records.⁶

Following their marriage, Pierre and Marie Barbe established a household that appears across multiple parishes over time, including Boucherville, Île Jésus, Lachenaie, and Mascouche. These shifts reflect normal settlement patterns within the colony rather than relocation to distant regions.

Children of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute and Marie Barbe Filion

Pierre and Marie Barbe Filion had several children, many of whom survived to adulthood and married locally. Their known children include:

Marie Élisabeth Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1704, who later married Michel Beauchamp⁷
Marie-Françoise Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1704⁸
Antoine Joseph Seguin dit Laderoute, born and died in 1711⁹
Marie Geneviève Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1712, who later married Jean Beauchamp¹⁰
Marie-Barbe Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1714¹¹
Marie-Jeanne Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1718 and died in 1749¹²
Marie Véronique Seguin dit Laderoute, born in 1720¹³

At first glance, the repetition of given names and the consistent appearance of “dit Laderoute” may appear unusual. These features are not anomalies, but reflect common practices in French-Canadian Catholic families of this period.

A Family Well Documented in the Records

The Seguin dit Laderoute family appears frequently in baptismal, marriage, burial, and notarial records. Their documentation is neither sparse nor contradictory. On the contrary, the volume of surviving records makes this family particularly useful for illustrating how naming practices—rather than missing evidence—can complicate interpretation.

Several of Pierre’s children married into other established local families, including the Beauchamp family, creating overlapping name patterns that persist into subsequent generations.

Setting the Stage

As research progressed, it became clear that this single family illustrates many of the challenges encountered in French-Canadian genealogy: repeated devotional given names, inherited dit names, and inconsistent name usage across different types of records.

This post serves as an introduction to the family itself. Subsequent posts will examine these naming practices in detail, beginning with the widespread use of devotional given names such as “Marie,” and why those names do not always identify individuals in the way modern researchers expect.

Notes

Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), baptism of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute, Boucherville, 1682.
Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), marriage and burial records of François Sequin dit Laderoute and Jeanne Françoise Petit.
Allan Greer, The People of New France (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 64–65; see also parish baptismal registers for Boucherville in the 1680s.
Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), burial of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute, Saint-Henri-de-Mascouche, 1760.
Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), marriage of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute and Marie Barbe Filion, Boucherville, 1704.
Ibid.; burial of François Sequin dit Laderoute, Montréal, 1704.
7–13. Québec, Canada, Vital and Church Records (Drouin Collection), baptisms and burials of the children of Pierre Seguin dit Laderoute and Marie Barbe Filion, various parishes.

Rosa Susan (“Rosie”) Smith Revisited: What the Records Reveal Years Later

On February 13, 2026January 26, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Looking Back at an Earlier Story

When I first wrote about my 2× great-grandmother Rosa Susan “Rosie” Smith in 2018, the outline of her life was already clear: a childhood in Pennsylvania and Michigan, a long marriage to William Doonan, years spent in northern Ontario, and a life that stretched into the early 1950s. What remained unclear then were the brief, uncomfortable gaps — especially Rosie’s short-lived first marriage to Thomas Osborn and the compressed timing of her remarriage to William Doonan.

In the years since, additional records, closer reading of familiar sources, and the availability of autosomal DNA evidence have allowed some of those gaps to be examined more carefully.

Re-examining the Marriage to Thomas Osborn

Rosie married Thomas Osborn on 17 February 1882 in Bay County, Michigan, when she was just sixteen years old.¹ The marriage was solemnized by Justice of the Peace Nathaniel Enman and witnessed by Charles Horsford and Mary Ann Leary.² It was formally recorded on 27 April 1882.

Marriage record of Thomas Osborn and Rosie Smith marriage.

At the time of the earlier post, it was unclear whether this marriage ended through divorce or death. A subsequent review of the complete 1880 federal census for Beaver Township and Kawkawlin Township — examined page by page — failed to locate Thomas Osborn in either community.³ No additional census, land, probate, or newspaper records have been identified that place him in Rosie’s orbit before or after the marriage.

The record, taken as a whole, suggests a marriage that existed briefly and left no lasting documentary footprint beyond the register itself.

A Compressed Timeline, Clarified

Rosie’s daughter, Rosa Jane Doonan, was born on 22 August 1882 — less than seven months after the Osborn marriage and several months before Rosie’s marriage to William Doonan on 11 November 1882.⁴ The timeline, while long visible, takes on sharper focus when examined alongside later evidence.

Marriage record of William Doonan and Rosie Smith

Modern autosomal DNA results now provide important clarification. Multiple DNA matches descending through independent children of Rosa Jane consistently align with William Doonan’s family.⁵ This pattern strongly supports William Doonan as Rosa Jane’s biological father and shows no comparable genetic connection to Thomas Osborn.

What once appeared as an unresolved question in the paper record is now better understood through the combination of documentation and DNA.

What the Witnesses — and Their Absence — Suggest

The Osborn marriage was witnessed by two community members who do not appear to have been relatives of either the bride or groom. No Osborn or Smith family members were listed as witnesses. Combined with Osborn’s absence from local census records, the marriage appears to have been formally executed but socially thin — a legally valid union that did not establish a shared household or lasting family connection.

This does not explain why the marriage occurred, but it helps explain why it disappeared so completely from the documentary record.

What Hasn’t Changed

What has not changed since the earlier post is the broader shape of Rosie’s life. Her long marriage to William Doonan, the birth and loss of children, the move to northern Ontario in 1908, and her later years as “Grandma Ball” within the extended family remain exactly as they were first understood.

If anything, the additional research sharpens rather than softens that picture. Rosie’s brief marriage to Thomas Osborn now appears as a momentary interruption rather than a defining chapter — a small but telling episode in a life otherwise shaped by endurance, adaptation, and persistence.

Conclusion

Family history rarely unfolds neatly. What can be known at one moment often changes as new records surface and new tools become available. Rosie’s story is no exception. The outlines were always there, but time and patience have filled in some of the finer lines.

This later look at Rosie’s life does not replace the earlier telling. Instead, it reflects the ongoing nature of historical research — the understanding that some answers arrive only years after the first questions are asked.

Sources

Bay County, Michigan, Marriage Register, Thomas Osborn and Rosie Smith, 17 February 1882.
Bay County, Michigan, Marriage Register (officiant and witnesses), same entry.
1880 U.S. Federal Census, Beaver Township and Kawkawlin Township, Bay County, Michigan.
Michigan Birth Records, Rosa Jane Doonan, 22 August 1882; Bay County, Michigan, Marriage Records, William Doonan and Rosie Smith, 11 November 1882.
AncestryDNA autosomal matches through multiple independent descendant lines of Rosa Jane Doonan.

Henry Munson (1818–1886)

On February 12, 2026January 24, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Early Life and Trade

Henry Munson was born 16 June 1818 in Franklin, Delaware County, New York, the son of Daniel Munson and Frances “Fanny” Tolles. According to a biographical sketch published during his lifetime, his father operated a blacksmith shop, and Henry worked there during the winters, learning the trade at a young age.¹ This early training would shape his working life for decades.

At approximately eighteen years of age, Henry left home and traveled west to Fort Defiance, Ohio, where he spent two years engaged in boating and farm labor.¹ This period reflects the common pattern of young men acquiring experience and capital before permanent settlement.

Arrival in Michigan and Marriage

By the late 1830s, Henry had relocated to Saginaw County, Michigan. He was married on 1 June 1839 in Bridgeport to Elizabeth Foster, daughter of Nathaniel and Mary Foster.¹ The marriage marks the beginning of a long association with Bridgeport and Taymouth Townships that would continue for the remainder of his life.

Their first child, James H. Munson, was born in Bridgeport in 1840, followed by Mary Emaline Munson in 1841. Census and vital records indicate that the family remained in Bridgeport through the 1840s and 1850s, during which time Henry balanced farming with blacksmithing.²

Family Growth and Loss

Henry and Elizabeth Munson became the parents of eleven children. Not all survived to adulthood, a reality reflected both in census records and later family documentation. Ransom W. Munson, born in 1843, died in 1853 at the age of nine, reportedly at the Cass River.³ James H. Munson, their eldest son, died in Taymouth Township in 1881 at the age of forty-one.⁴

These losses occurred alongside the steady growth of the family, which included children born in Bridgeport and later in Taymouth Township. The movement of birthplaces within the family mirrors Henry’s gradual transition from Bridgeport into rural Taymouth.

Settlement in Taymouth Township

In the fall of 1861, Henry Munson purchased eighty acres of land in Taymouth Township, Saginaw County, on section 5.¹ This land purchase represents a permanent commitment to the township, coinciding with a period of agricultural expansion in the area during the Civil War era.

Federal census records place Henry in Bridgeport in 1860 and confirm his residence in Taymouth Township by 1870 and 1880.² Over time, his landholdings increased, and by the early 1880s he was reported to own eighty-seven acres.¹

Community Presence and Newspaper Mentions

Henry Munson’s name appears repeatedly in Saginaw County newspapers during the late 1870s, reflecting his continued residence and standing within the community. In 1879, his name was listed among the jurors involved in the murder case arising from the death of Heber K. Ives, in which Allen Barnum was charged.⁵ His appearance in these reports relates specifically to jury proceedings and represents routine civic service rather than personal involvement in the crime itself.

The repeated publication of juror lists across multiple issues explains why Henry’s name appears more than once in connection with the case. Such reporting was typical of nineteenth-century newspapers as trials progressed through examination, jury selection, and court sessions. These references provide valuable confirmation of Henry’s presence and civic participation in Taymouth Township during the period between the 1870 and 1880 federal censuses.

Occupation and Public Identity

Throughout his adult life, Henry Munson was identified as both a farmer and a blacksmith.¹² This dual occupation was common among early settlers and reflects the practical demands of rural Michigan communities, where skilled trades were often combined with agricultural work.

Politically, Henry was identified as a Democrat, a detail included in the 1881 county history.¹ While brief, this note situates him within the civic culture of the township and suggests engagement with local political life.

Later Years and Death

By 1880, Henry Munson was sixty-two years old and residing in Taymouth Township with his family.² The death of his son James in 1881 occurred during this period and would have marked a significant personal loss late in Henry’s life.

Henry Munson died on 12 December 1886 in Taymouth Township at the age of sixty-eight.⁶ He was buried in Taymouth Township Cemetery, where his grave remains among those of other long-standing township residents.

Assessment

Henry Munson’s life is documented across a wide range of contemporary sources, including federal censuses, land records, a published county biography, and local newspapers. Taken together, these records present a clear picture of a skilled tradesman and farmer who followed a well-documented path from New York to Michigan, established landholdings in Taymouth Township, raised a large family, and remained a visible and trusted member of the local community until his death.

The convergence of government records, printed biography, and newspaper accounts makes Henry Munson one of the more thoroughly documented nineteenth-century residents of Taymouth Township and provides a solid foundation for understanding both his life and the broader settlement history of the area.

Sources

History of Saginaw County, Michigan (Chicago: Warner, Beers & Co., 1881), biographical sketch of Henry Munson.
1850, 1860, 1870, and 1880 U.S. Federal Census, Saginaw County, Michigan.
Michigan death records and family documentation for Ransom W. Munson.
Michigan death records for James H. Munson, Taymouth Township, 1881.
Saginaw Herald (East Saginaw, Michigan), 16 October 1879, reporting the death of Heber K. Ives and related proceedings; Saginaw Courier-Herald, 23 October 1879, “The Ives Murder,” listing jurors, including Henry Munson.
Michigan death and burial records for Henry Munson, Taymouth Township, 1886.

Taymouth Township, Saginaw County, Michigan: Formation, Naming, and Place

On February 11, 2026January 23, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Taymouth Township, located in southeastern Saginaw County, Michigan, appears frequently in nineteenth-century records tied to families who settled along the Flint River and its tributaries. Although the township name is well established by the mid-nineteenth century, its formation, original name, and the evolution of local place names require careful reconstruction using legislative acts, census records, plat maps, and contemporary histories. When read together, these sources provide a clear timeline for the township’s creation and naming, as well as continuity of settlement before and after its organization.¹

Indigenous Presence and Early Land Use

Prior to Euro-American settlement, the Flint River valley in what later became Taymouth Township was home to Chippewa (Ojibwe) communities. Land along the river formed part of the Pe-won-o-go-wink (also rendered Pewanagowink) reservation, meaning “Place of Stones,” a name preserved in later historical accounts and visible on early plat maps.²

Treaties signed in 1819 and 1837 resulted in the loss of most Indigenous lands in the region, despite earlier assurances that certain tracts would remain reserved. By the mid-nineteenth century, only a small community remained near the Flint River, associated with an Indian church and cemetery later connected with Rev. Daniel Wheaton (Che-Me-Gas).³

The Area Before Township Organization

In the 1840 federal census, residents who would later be enumerated in Taymouth Township were listed under Saginaw Township, reflecting the fact that Taymouth had not yet been created as a civil township. Importantly, comparison of the 1840 and 1850 census schedules shows the same individuals—identified by full first and last names—appearing in both enumerations. This continuity demonstrates that the population did not relocate; rather, the civil jurisdiction governing them changed following legislative action.⁴

Creation of Faymouth Township (1842)

Taymouth Township was formally created by an act of the Michigan Legislature approved on 17 February 1842. The statute set off territory from Saginaw Township and established a new township under the name Faymouth. The act defined the township boundaries in detail and specified the location of the first township meeting. The law stated, in part:

“All that part of the county of Saginaw (now a part of the township of Saginaw) included in the following boundaries, viz.: commencing on the east side of Flint river, on the county line between Saginaw and Genesee, at the southeast corner of township ten north, range five east; thence north on said township line to the northeast corner of said township; thence west on said township line to the northwest corner of section four; thence north on section lines to the bank of Cass river; thence down said river to its junction with the Shiawassee river; thence up the Shiawassee river to the county line between Saginaw and Shiawassee; thence east on said county line to the place of beginning; be and the same is hereby set off and organized into a separate township by the name of Faymouth, and the first township meeting shall be held at the house of A. F. Hayden.”⁵

This language confirms that Faymouth was the township’s original legal name and that its boundaries were clearly defined at the time of organization.

The Name Change from Faymouth to Taymouth (1844)

Two years later, the Michigan Legislature enacted a statute changing the township’s name. An act approved in 1844 stated explicitly:

“The name of the township of Faymouth, in the county of Saginaw, is hereby changed to Taymouth; and all acts and proceedings which have been had under the name of Faymouth shall be of the same force and effect as if done under the name of Taymouth.”⁶

By the time of the 1850 federal census, the township appears consistently as Taymouth Township, confirming that the name change had been fully implemented in civil and administrative records.⁷

Villages, Post Offices, and Changing Place Names

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, several village names appeared within Taymouth Township. Blackmar, located along the Flint River and the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad, developed into a recognized center of industry and commerce and was acknowledged by the U.S. Post Office Department.⁸

Plat maps reveal additional local place names whose usage changed over time. Morseville appears on the 1916 plat map but is absent by 1920. In its place, the 1920 map labels the same location as Taymouth, suggesting a renaming or re-identification rather than abandonment. Verne, by contrast, appears on multiple maps and does not disappear, indicating greater stability in that place name. Comparison of the 1877, 1916, 1920, and 1955 plat maps highlights how local nomenclature evolved while settlement itself remained continuous.⁹

1877 Taymouth Township plat map — 1877 Plat map for Taymouth Township

Land, Agriculture, and Community Development

By the late nineteenth century, Taymouth Township was described as one of the most agriculturally productive areas in Saginaw County. The Flint River and its tributaries supported mills, salt works, and transportation, while fertile soils sustained farming throughout the township.¹⁰ Despite these developments, Taymouth retained a predominantly rural character shaped by its river, its early settlers, and its layered history of Indigenous displacement and resettlement.

Conclusion

The history of Taymouth Township can be traced clearly through legislative acts, census records, and maps. Residents first enumerated in Saginaw Township in 1840 became citizens of Faymouth Township in 1842, and of Taymouth Township following the 1844 name change. The appearance and disappearance of local place names such as Morseville and the persistence of others like Verne reflect changes in labeling rather than population movement. Together, these records provide a precise framework for understanding Taymouth Township’s formation and for accurately interpreting nineteenth-century documents associated with families who lived there.

Sources

Michael A. Leeson, History of Saginaw County, Michigan (Chicago: Charles C. Chapman & Co., 1881), 917–937.
Margaret O’Sullivan, “Broken Promises – Stolen Land – But Still a Proud People,” Montrose Museum, Spring 2024.
Ibid.
1840 U.S. Census, Saginaw Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.
Michigan Legislature, An Act to Organize the Township of Faymouth, approved 17 February 1842.
Michigan Legislature, An Act Changing the Name of Faymouth Township to Taymouth, 1844.
1850 U.S. Census, Taymouth Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.
Leeson, History of Saginaw County, 922.
Taymouth Township plat maps, 1877, 1916, 1920, and 1955.
Leeson, History of Saginaw County, 917–918.

Wesley Weldon (1807–1880)

On February 10, 2026January 23, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Early Life and Family

Wesley Weldon was born in 1807 in Glastonbury, Hartford County, Connecticut, the son of Wareham Weldon and Permelia Andrews. His mother died in Glastonbury in 1817, when Wesley was about ten years old.¹

He married Emeline Munson, also a native of Connecticut. By 1830, Wesley was living in Franklin, Delaware County, New York.² Over the following decade, the family moved west. By the early 1830s, they were connected with Michigan, and their daughter Frances Marie Weldon was born about 1833.³

By 1840, Wesley Weldon was residing in Saginaw, Saginaw County, Michigan, placing him among the early settlers of the region.⁴

Settlement in Saginaw County

By 1850, Wesley and his family were living in Bridgeport Township, Saginaw County, where he appeared in the federal census as a farmer.⁶ He continued to be recorded in Bridgeport Township in subsequent census years, including 1860 and 1870, with his post office listed as Bridgeport.⁷

1850 US Census showing Wesley Weldon household — 1850 US Census for Bridgeport, Saginaw County, Michigan. Wesley Weldon is enumerated next to his brother-in-law Henry Munson.

One record places him in East Saginaw in January 1862, indicating that he traveled into the city at times, likely for business or personal matters, though no specific purpose is documented.⁸ By 1880, Wesley was again enumerated in Bridgeport Township, listed as a widower.⁹

Wesley and Emeline had at least three daughters who survived to adulthood: Frances Marie, Adelia, and Julia. Frances Marie died in 1872. Emeline Munson Weldon died in Bridgeport Township on 4 March 1876. Wesley did not remarry.¹⁰

Later Years

By the late 1870s, Wesley Weldon was in his early seventies. Contemporary newspapers later described him as an “old resident” of Saginaw County, stating that he had lived in the area for more than forty years.¹¹ His occupation continued to be identified as farming.

Despite residing in Bridgeport Township, records indicate that Wesley traveled into the city of Saginaw, as reflected by the location associated with the events surrounding his death.

Discovery in the Saginaw River

On 1 October 1880, the body of Wesley Weldon was recovered from the Saginaw River within the city of Saginaw.¹¹ Newspaper accounts indicate that family members were present in Saginaw at the time of his identification, but the surviving records do not establish a sequence of events involving a prior disappearance or organized search. The evidence supports only that Weldon was found deceased in the river and subsequently identified.

Early newspaper reports described the case as a possible drowning, a preliminary characterization common in river recoveries.¹¹ This assessment was reconsidered following a medical examination.

Coroner’s Inquest and Medical Findings

A coroner’s inquest was held on 2 October 1880. The examining physician documented a contused wound on the back of the head approximately two inches in length, five broken ribs—some fractured into multiple pieces—and a fracture of the spinal column at the middle of the back.¹²

The coroner noted that the head wound showed clotted blood, indicating that it occurred before death. Examination of the lungs led the physician to conclude that Weldon had not breathed after entering the water, and that death occurred prior to the body being placed in the river.¹²

Based on these findings, the initial drowning explanation was rejected. Newspapers subsequently described the case as a homicide.¹³ No suspect was identified, and no further legal proceedings are documented.

Part of page 1 of Wesley Weldon's Coroner's Inquest. — Part of page 1 of Wesley Weldon’s Coroner’s Inquest. This was found in Record Group 71-131 Saginaw County Clerk records box 8 at Michigan State Archives.

Probate Proceedings

Probate proceedings for Wesley Weldon’s estate were initiated in October 1880 in the Saginaw County Probate Court. Administration was granted, and his surviving daughters were identified as his heirs.¹⁴ The probate records address only the disposition of his estate and do not include discussion of the circumstances of his death.

Conclusion

Wesley Weldon lived most of his adult life in Saginaw County as a farmer and long-term resident of Bridgeport Township. His death in 1880 was determined by medical examination to have occurred prior to his body entering the Saginaw River. Although the evidence ruled out accidental drowning, the death was never resolved, and the identity of the person or persons responsible remains unknown.

Sources

Ancestry profile of Wesley Weldon, citing Glastonbury, Connecticut vital records.
1830 U.S. Federal Census, Franklin, Delaware County, New York.
Ancestry profile of Wesley Weldon; birth of Frances Marie Weldon.
Ancestry profile of Wesley Weldon; birth of Adelia Weldon.
1840 U.S. Federal Census, Saginaw, Saginaw County, Michigan.
1850 U.S. Federal Census, Bridgeport Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.
1860 and 1870 U.S. Federal Census, Bridgeport Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.
Residence record dated 14 January 1862, East Saginaw, Michigan.
1880 U.S. Federal Census, Bridgeport Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.
Ancestry profile of Wesley Weldon; deaths of Emeline Munson Weldon and Frances Marie Weldon.
“An Old Farmer Found Drowned,” Detroit Free Press, 1 October 1880.
Coroner’s Inquest for Wesley Weldon, Saginaw County, 2 October 1880.
“A Murder in Saginaw County,” Evening Leader (Pontiac, Michigan), 4 October 1880.
Probate Records of Wesley Weldon, Saginaw County Probate Court, October 1880.

Born in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Somewhere Else? Resolving Conflicting Records for George Lawhead

On February 9, 2026January 20, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

Anyone who researches nineteenth-century families eventually encounters the same problem: the records do not agree. Birthplaces shift. Ages fluctuate. Census entries contradict one another. The question is not whether conflicts exist, but how they can be evaluated responsibly.

George Washington Lawhead provides an unusually well-documented case study. Across census records, military documents, marriage records, and his death certificate, his place and year of birth vary repeatedly. Rather than choosing a single record and discarding the rest, this post examines how those conflicts can be weighed and resolved.

The Competing Birthplaces

Records associated with George Lawhead list three different states as his birthplace:

Ohio
New York
Pennsylvania

Ohio appears most frequently, including in the 1850, 1860, and 1880 federal censuses.¹ New York appears once, in the 1870 census.² Pennsylvania appears in the 1900 census and on George’s death certificate.³

When evaluating these conflicts, the first question is not which record is newest or most detailed, but who supplied the information and how close that informant was to the event being recorded.

Census Records and Enumerator Error

The 1850 and 1860 censuses place George in households headed by relatives, listing his birthplace as Ohio. These entries were created while George was still a child or young adult and likely relied on information provided by family members with direct knowledge of his birth.

The 1870 census, which lists his birthplace as New York, presents a different problem. That same census page incorrectly lists New York as the birthplace of George’s mother-in-law, who is known from other records to have been born in Vermont. The surrounding entries show a strong pattern of Michigan and New York birthplaces, suggesting enumerator habit rather than individual accuracy. In this context, the New York entry is best treated as an error rather than a competing claim.

Pennsylvania and Late-Life Informants

The 1900 census and George’s 1905 death certificate both give his birthplace as Pennsylvania. In each case, George himself was unlikely to have been the informant.

The 1900 census information was almost certainly supplied by Henrietta Savage, with whom George was living at the time. The death certificate lists the undertaker as the informant, who would have obtained his information secondhand, most likely from Henrietta.⁴

These records were created decades after George’s birth and depend on memory rather than firsthand knowledge. They also conflict with the majority of earlier records, making them less reliable for determining birthplace.

County Confusion: Morrow vs. Monroe

Several records narrow George’s birthplace further, naming Westfield Township and alternately identifying the county as Morrow or Monroe. This apparent contradiction dissolves when examined historically.

Morrow County, Ohio, did not exist at the time of George’s birth. It was formed in 1848 from portions of Delaware, Marion, Knox, and Richland counties. Westfield Township later became part of Morrow County, but would have belonged to Delaware County at the time of George’s birth in 1845.

Morrow County – the colors indicating the 4 counties from which it was formed.

Monroe County, Ohio, does exist, but has no Westfield Township. The similarity in pronunciation between Morrow and Monroe provides a plausible explanation for the inconsistency. When combined with the presence of Lawhead family records, burials, and probate documents in what became Morrow County, Westfield Township in central Ohio emerges as the most consistent location.

The Question of the Birth Year

George’s reported birth year varies among 1842, 1843, 1845, and occasionally 1846. The date itself, February 10, remains consistent across multiple records.

The earliest census records support an 1845 birth year. Later records, including enlistment papers and some marriage records, imply an earlier birth year that would have made George legally eligible to enlist at age eighteen in 1861.

Age inflation among underage Civil War enlistees was common and well documented. Once a false age entered the record, it often persisted, especially in documents created close in time to military service. In George’s case, the later reappearance of an earlier birth year can be explained by proximity to his enlistment and the continued reuse of that information in subsequent records.

When all records are considered together, 1845 is supported by the greatest number of independent sources, including early census records and family documentation.

Weighing the Evidence

Resolving conflicting records requires pattern recognition rather than certainty from a single source. In George Lawhead’s case:

Ohio appears as his birthplace in the majority of records
Early records agree more consistently than late ones
Errors cluster by document type rather than randomly
Informant knowledge declines over time

Taken together, the evidence supports a conclusion that George Washington Lawhead was born on 10 February 1845 in Westfield Township, in what later became Morrow County, Ohio.

This conclusion does not require discarding conflicting records. Instead, it acknowledges them, explains them, and assigns them appropriate weight.

Conclusion

Conflicting records are not obstacles to genealogical research; they are evidence themselves. They reveal who was asked, who answered, and how information moved through families and institutions over time.

George Lawhead’s records demonstrate why no single document should be treated as definitive in isolation. By examining context, informants, timing, and patterns, it is possible to reach a conclusion that respects the complexity of the historical record without overstating certainty.

In that sense, George Lawhead’s story offers more than a set of dates and places. It offers a model for how genealogical conflicts can be approached thoughtfully and responsibly.

Sources

1850, 1860, and 1880 U.S. Federal Census records for George Lawhead.
1870 U.S. Federal Census, Grant Township, Iosco County, Michigan.
1900 U.S. Federal Census and Michigan death certificate, 1905.
Michigan death record, East Jordan, Charlevoix County, Michigan.

A Three-Inch Pension File: How the Federal Government Rebuilt One Man’s Family

On February 8, 2026January 20, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

By the time the Civil War pension file of George Washington Lawhead was closed, it measured nearly three inches thick. That volume was not the result of a single application or a simple claim. Instead, it reflected decades of filings, investigations, affidavits, and competing narratives—all attempting to answer one question the federal government demanded be resolved with precision: who legally belonged to George Lawhead’s family?

The answer, as determined by pension law, did not always align with lived reality.

Henrietta, Ethel, George, Jessie Lawhead

Mary King and Claims Made During George’s Lifetime

Mary King began applying for George Lawhead’s pension while he was still alive.¹ She asserted abandonment and dependency, describing a marriage that had ended when George left her while she was pregnant with their second child. No divorce had ever been obtained.

These early claims were denied, but each filing generated documentation: correspondence, affidavits, and field examiner reports. Pension officials were required to confirm George’s service, identity, marital status, and financial responsibility. As a result, much of the pension file predates George’s death.

Mary’s persistence mattered. Although unsuccessful at the time, her filings preserved testimony and evidence that would later become central to posthumous decisions.

Abandonment, Not Divorce

Under nineteenth-century pension law, abandonment did not dissolve a marriage. Without a legal divorce, Mary King remained George Lawhead’s lawful wife regardless of separation, distance, or the passage of time.

This distinction would later prove decisive. Pension officials consistently noted that George had never obtained a divorce from Mary.² The legal bond between them remained intact until his death, even as George formed subsequent families elsewhere.

Henrietta Savage and a Public Separation

By the early 1890s, George was living with Henrietta Savage. Henrietta was herself legally married and the mother of several children when she left her husband to live with George. In January 1892, a Michigan newspaper reported on the separation, making the situation a matter of public record.³

George and Henrietta lived together for years and had two daughters. Census records show them functioning as a household, and George supported the family financially when able. None of these facts were disputed during the pension investigation.

What remained in question was not whether the family existed, but whether it could be recognized under the law.

The Pension Bureau’s Role

The Bureau of Pensions did not judge morality or domestic harmony. Its task was narrower and more rigid: to determine eligibility under federal statute.

Investigators examined:

the legality of each marriage
the absence or presence of divorce decrees
the timing of relationships
sworn testimony from claimants and witnesses

Each relationship was assessed not as a lived experience, but as a legal status.

Competing Claims After George’s Death

George Washington Lawhead died on 20 January 1905.⁴ After his death, two women filed pension claims as his widow: Mary King and Henrietta Savage.

This triggered one of the most detailed posthumous investigations in the file. Pension examiners revisited decades-old records, re-interviewed witnesses, and re-evaluated earlier findings—including the determination that George Lawhead and George Loyd were the same man.

Mary King’s claim rested on the absence of divorce and the validity of her marriage. Henrietta’s claim rested on years of cohabitation, financial dependency, and the presence of minor children.

The 1912 Ruling

In 1912, the Bureau of Pensions issued its final ruling.⁵ Mary King was declared George Lawhead’s lawful widow.

The decision rested on two findings:

George had never divorced Mary King.
Mary’s earlier marriage was determined to have been legally void due to her age at the time, rendering her free to marry George in 1865.

As a result, all of George’s later marriages were deemed legally invalid for pension purposes. Henrietta Savage’s claim was denied, as were claims filed on behalf of her children.

This ruling did not negate the existence of George’s later family. It simply placed that family outside the boundaries recognized by federal pension law.

Children Acknowledged, Benefits Denied

One of the most difficult aspects of the case was the treatment of George’s children with Henrietta Savage. Pension records acknowledged their birth and dependency. Their relationship to George was not disputed.

However, under the law as applied, their mother was not a lawful widow, and the children were therefore ineligible for benefits derived from her claim. The pension system recognized biological relationships but prioritized marital legality.

Why the File Is So Large

George Lawhead’s pension file is thick because it documents conflict over time, not a single dispute. It contains:

early abandonment claims
identity investigations
medical examinations
competing widow applications
posthumous legal review

Each layer built upon the last, preserving voices that would otherwise be lost: Mary King’s persistence, Henrietta Savage’s testimony, family members’ affidavits, and investigators’ conclusions.

Conclusion

The pension file of George Washington Lawhead illustrates the distance between lived family and legal family in nineteenth-century America. It shows how federal systems imposed rigid definitions on complex human relationships—and how those definitions carried lasting consequences.

By the time the government finished reconstructing George Lawhead’s family, the man himself had been dead for years. What remained was a record not just of service and disability, but of how law, identity, and family collided in the aftermath of war.

Sources

Pension correspondence and affidavits filed by Mary King during George Lawhead’s lifetime.
Bureau of Pensions examiner notes regarding marital status and absence of divorce.
Michigan newspaper report, January 1892, documenting Henrietta Savage’s separation.
Michigan death record for George Washington Lawhead, 1905.
Bureau of Pensions ruling on lawful widowhood, 1912.

George Lawhead, George Loyd, and the Photograph That Proved His Identity

On February 7, 2026January 20, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

By the time George Washington Lawhead’s Civil War pension file reached its final size—nearly three inches thick—it was no longer simply a record of military service and disability. It had become an investigation into identity itself. The central question was deceptively simple: was George Lawhead the same man as George Loyd?

For years, the Bureau of Pensions treated that question cautiously, reopening it repeatedly as new claims, affidavits, and correspondence arrived. What ultimately resolved the matter was not a census record, a marriage license, or even George’s own statements, but a single photograph.

Mary King and the Name “George Loyd”

When Mary King married George in 1865, she believed his name to be George Loyd.¹ She used that name consistently in later correspondence and pension filings, including applications she submitted while George was still alive.

This discrepancy could not be ignored. Pension law required certainty of identity, and the appearance of two different surnames raised the possibility that Mary’s husband and the veteran whose service records existed might not be the same individual. Rather than dismissing her claims outright, the Bureau undertook a prolonged inquiry.

Investigators gathered affidavits, compared timelines, and examined whether the names Loyd and Lawhead represented two separate men or one man using more than one name.

Post-War Name Usage and the Uncle Theory

Within the pension file is a recurring explanation for George’s inconsistent use of surnames. According to testimony and examiner notes, George was believed to have come to Michigan with an uncle following the deaths of his parents. The relationship was reportedly strained.

Note written by Mary King found in George Lawhead’s Civil War pension file.

It was suggested—never proven, but treated as plausible—that George enlisted in the Civil War in part to escape that situation and later continued using a different surname in civilian life to avoid contact with his uncle.² Pension officials recorded this explanation explicitly as a theory, not as established fact.

They also noted a practical consideration: Lawhead, when spoken indistinctly, could easily be heard as Loyd. No evidence was found that George legally changed his name or attempted to conceal his identity for fraudulent purposes.

Why Paper Records Were Not Enough

On paper alone, the case remained uncertain. Census records varied. Marriage records conflicted. Informants changed over time. Some records gave George’s birthplace as Ohio, others as Pennsylvania or New York. His reported age fluctuated by several years.

Each document could be explained individually, but taken together they failed to provide certainty. Pension officials needed evidence that could transcend clerical error, memory lapses, and inconsistent reporting.

They found that evidence in a photograph.

The Discharge Photograph

Among the materials submitted during the pension investigation was a photograph taken in Jackson, Michigan at the time of George’s discharge from the army. The image had been preserved for decades and was introduced as part of Mary King’s claim.

Rather than accepting it at face value, pension examiners used the photograph actively. It was shown independently to multiple witnesses, including George’s sister, Margaret A. Dutcher, and a former wartime comrade.³

First page of Margaret Lawhead Dutcher’s deposition

Both identified the man in the photograph as George Washington Lawhead. Their identifications were made separately and without prompting. Each confirmed not only the likeness, but also the circumstances under which the photograph had been taken.

This identification became the turning point in the investigation.

How the Bureau Reached Its Conclusion

With the photograph confirmed by two independent witnesses who knew George under different circumstances, the Bureau of Pensions concluded that George Loyd and George Washington Lawhead were the same individual.

This determination rested not on a single document, but on the convergence of evidence: consistent military service, overlapping residences, family testimony, and visual identification. From that point forward, the question of identity was treated as resolved.

All subsequent pension decisions, including rulings on lawful widowhood and eligibility, were based on this conclusion.

Why the Photograph Mattered More Than Documents

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, identity documentation was often fluid. People moved frequently, names were spelled phonetically, and informants were commonly neighbors, spouses, or officials with incomplete knowledge.

The photograph cut through those limitations. It connected the man known personally to family members and fellow soldiers with the veteran described in military records. In doing so, it accomplished what no single written document could.

Without that image, Mary King’s claims may have failed permanently. With it, the Bureau was able to reconstruct George Lawhead’s life across decades of inconsistent records.

Conclusion

The question of whether George Lawhead and George Loyd were the same man was not resolved quickly or casually. It took years of investigation, repeated applications, and careful evaluation of evidence. In the end, the decisive proof was visual rather than written.

That photograph anchored George Washington Lawhead in the historical record and allowed pension officials to proceed with judgments that would shape the fate of multiple families long after his death.

Sources

Pension affidavits and correspondence filed by Mary King.
Bureau of Pensions examiner notes regarding surname usage and family testimony.
Deposition of Margaret A. Dutcher and corroborating testimony of a wartime comrade identifying the discharge photograph.

George Washington Lawhead (1845–1905): A Life Reconstructed from Records

On February 6, 2026January 20, 2026 By NancyLeave a comment

George Washington Lawhead was born on 10 February 1845 in Westfield Township, in what later became Morrow County, Ohio.¹ He was the son of James Lawhead and Temperance Gilson. His childhood was brief and unsettled. James died in 1846, when George was just over a year old, and Temperance followed in 1851, leaving her children orphaned while still young.²

By 1860, George was living in Michigan, a move that placed him among relatives and, eventually, on the path to military service.³ The details of his early years survive only in fragments, but later records suggest a childhood shaped by loss, movement, and dependency on extended family.

George Lawhead tin-type portrait found in his Civil War pension file.

Civil War Service

George enlisted in the Union Army on 9 September 1861 at Charlotte, Michigan.⁴ He served as a private in Company B of the 2nd Michigan Volunteer Cavalry, a regiment that spent much of the war in the Western Theater.

Partial page of re-enlistment of George Lawhead. He re-enlisted in 1864 for another 3 years.

His service records document extended periods of duty and movement, including assignments associated with the regimental train and service in Tennessee.⁵ Like many cavalrymen, George endured long rides, exposure, and physical strain—conditions that would later be reflected in repeated pension medical examinations.

A photograph taken in Jackson, Michigan at the time of his discharge from service would later become one of the most important documents connected to his life, though its significance would not be fully realized until many years later.

Marriage to Mary King and Early Family Life

After the war, George married Mary King on 16 October 1865 in Eaton County, Michigan.⁶ They had two children together:

James Loyd Lawhead, born 28 February 1867
Charles Loyd Lawhead, born 4 April 1869

The marriage did not endure. George left Mary while she was pregnant with their second child and moved east into Saginaw County. No divorce was ever obtained. Mary would spend much of her adult life raising their children under difficult circumstances, a situation later documented extensively in federal pension records.

Marriage to Emma Mae Stiles and Children

On 31 January 1869, George married Emma Mae Stiles in Albee Township, Saginaw County, Michigan.⁷ This marriage produced three children:

Margaret Jane Lawhead, born 2 July 1872
Renaldo Lawhead, born 16 August 1877, who died in infancy on 14 October 1877
Effie M. Lawhead, born 26 July 1879

Emma Mae Stiles died in April 1886. Her death marked the only point at which George Washington Lawhead was legally widowed. His earlier marriage to Mary King had ended through abandonment rather than death or divorce, a distinction that would later carry significant legal consequences.

Later Marriages and Life in Michigan

George married Helen Vorhees on 17 August 1884 in Saginaw County, Michigan.⁸ The surviving record of this marriage is brief, and little documentation remains regarding their life together.

By the early 1890s, George was living with Henrietta Savage. Census records, land transactions, and newspaper notices place him in Eaton, Iosco, Saginaw, Crawford, and Charlevoix counties over the course of his adult life.⁹ Real estate notices published in Saginaw County newspapers show both purchases and sales, suggesting frequent movement rather than long-term stability.¹⁰

Henrietta Savage and Children

Henrietta Savage was legally married to another man when she became involved with George Lawhead. In January 1892, a local newspaper reported that she had left her husband and children to go with George.¹¹ The matter was public and later became part of the documentary record surrounding George’s pension.

George and Henrietta had two daughters together:

Ethel Mildred Lawhead, born 24 October 1892 in Frederic, Crawford County, Michigan
Jessie Leuella Lawhead, born 22 April 1896 in East Jordan, Charlevoix County, Michigan

George lived with and supported Henrietta and their children for several years, forming the final family unit of his life.

Illness and Decline

By 1890, George’s health had begun to fail. Pension records and medical examinations document chronic sciatica, lumbago, rheumatism, kidney disease, impaired eyesight, and increasing difficulty with mobility.¹² Over the next fifteen years, he filed repeated requests for increases to his invalid pension as his condition worsened.

These medical records provide a rare longitudinal view of a Civil War veteran’s decline, tracing the progression from working laborer to physical dependency.

Death and Burial

George Washington Lawhead died on 20 January 1905 in East Jordan, Charlevoix County, Michigan, from heart disease.¹³ He was buried two days later in East Jordan Cemetery. Contemporary newspaper accounts note the participation of members of the Grand Army of the Republic in his funeral.¹⁴

Even after his burial, questions surrounding his marriages, identity, and family obligations remained unresolved, setting the stage for years of investigation and competing pension claims.

Conclusion

George Washington Lawhead’s life cannot be understood through a single record or a simple narrative. It survives instead through census entries, military documents, marriage records, newspaper notices, and—most notably—a Civil War pension file of extraordinary size.

This post traces the outline of his life: orphaned child, young soldier, husband, father, and aging veteran. The deeper questions—of identity, legality, and how the federal government ultimately judged his family—are stories of their own, explored in later posts.

Sources

Family and census records indicating birth in Westfield Township, Ohio.
Probate and death records for James Lawhead and Temperance Gilson.
1860 U.S. Federal Census, Roxand Township, Eaton County, Michigan.
Compiled Service Records, Company B, 2nd Michigan Cavalry.
Ibid.
Eaton County, Michigan, marriage records, 16 October 1865.
Saginaw County, Michigan, marriage records, 31 January 1869.
Saginaw County marriage records, 17 August 1884.
U.S. Federal Census records, 1870–1900.
Saginaw Herald, real estate notices, 1878 and 1881.
Grand Rapids Herald, January 1892.
Invalid pension medical examinations, 1890–1904.
Michigan death record, East Jordan, 1905.
Charlevoix County Herald, January 1905.