He Didn't Really Die in 1906? -- Or What I've Learned From the Census

Submitted by Host GFS Mel@aol.com

As far back as I can remember, the details my Grandma told me about her siblings never changed. She had three sisters and a brother. The brother, John, was born right before the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and died right after at three weeks old. There were never any details about how John died. I always assumed it was one of the many 1906 tragedies too difficult for the family to pass on.

When I began researching the Jackson's (no, not of the Jackson 5 fame), details were difficult to come by. I had one document--my Grandmother's birth certificate from 1912. The only other details about the Jackson's were vague at best. Harry Jackson, my Grandma's father, was a stow away at the age of 10, traveled around the world seven times on various ships, and washed up on San Francisco's shores in time to marry Margaret Jackson, a San Francisco native, in 1904. Harry left almost no paper trail over his life. Harry and Margaret divorced, yet no one remembers when. 

I decided to give the census a try. The 1920 Census had just been released and I was eager to get my hands dirty. It seemed like a good place to start since I had no idea where the family lived between 1906 and 1912. 

I was a little surprised when I pulled up the census page. There were Margaret and Harry with children Margaret, Anna, Viola...and John! At first I thought, this was a mistake. This John was the same age as the baby who died, but surely my Grandma would have remembered her "living" brother. Was the relationship wrong and this John was a nephew or some other relative? Or, maybe this was another John. Families often renamed the next child the same name as one who died. 

I decided to confirm this information with the 1910 census. Sure enough, there he was as plain as day! Obviously, someone wasn't telling me something!

My Grandma confirmed his existence and the fact that he married a woman possibly named Mary. Other than that, I was unable to get any more information out of her. I was able to find out from another relative that John had been the black sheep of the family. No one seems to remember what earned him this status, but sometime in early adulthood, he was kicked out of the Jackson clan. Now, none of his family members were on the candidate's list for sainthood, so whatever he did must've been good!

I learned a couple of lessons from this experience. First, relatives are not always truthful when recounting tales. They may not mean to lie. Maybe they don't know the truth. Maybe the memories are too painful to dredge up. Whatever the reason, relatives gloss over family history to remove the rough edges. And, what harm is there in a brother who didn't really die as a baby? No one is none the wiser!

Second, I learned that the census is an excellent resource for capturing family history at a specific time. Of course, the census has errors. However, by looking at the census, you get a glimpse of your family as a group at a certain point in time. Other records show individuals, but the census is one of the few that shows groups. The 1910 and 1920 census records showed me the Jackson family before the split and before history was revised. I was able to place John back in the family where he belonged. Without the census, he would be another individual whose story was never told.

© 2001 GFNEWS, a monthly publication of the Golden Gate Genealogy Forum, Inc. of Franklin, MA.
(America Online Keyword: roots.) The Editors welcome your ideas and articles,
success stories, favorite genealogy research tips, comments and suggestions.

© 2001 Graphics By Carol, All Rights Reserved