American Colonization Society

An interesting find in Google Books this evening. Abram Brewer is one of Jess's ancestors and I know from other research that he lived in Greenwood, Indiana, so this is likely to be him. Here is an image from The African Repository By American Colonization Society that shows he donated $2.00 (a relatively sizeable sum) in 1847 to the Greenwood (Indiana) Col. Society.



The Greenwood Colonization Society was a chapter of the American Colonization Society that was dedicated to the resettlement of free American blacks in Liberia. Providing land and an opportunity to resettle freed slaves and free African-Americans into a self-governing society, Liberia was supposed to be an idealized society. It was founded by the American Colonization Society in 1820 on the west coast of Africa.

In 1832, the following goals of the American Colonization Society were noted:

I. To rescue the free coloured people from the disqualifications, the degradation, and the proscription to which they are exposed in the United States.

II. To place them in a country where they may enjoy the benefits of free government, with all the blessings which it brings in its train.

III. To avert the dangers of a dreadful collision at a future day of the two castes, which must inevitably be objects of mutual jealousy to each other.

IV. To spread civilization, sound morals and religion throughout the vast continent of Africa, at present sunk in the lowest and most hideous state of barbarism.

V. And though last, not least, to afford slave owners who are conscientiously scrupulous about holding human beings in bondage, an asylum to which they may send their manumitted slaves.

The idea of creating such segregation through a process of deportation now seems very racist, but the idea was then seen by many abolitionists as a progressive solution to slavery. Many people believed that it would be impossible for blacks to live in liberty and improve their situations given the inequality and oppression inherent in American society:

"It is taken for granted, that, in present circumstances, any effort to produce a general and thorough amelioration in the character and condition of the Free People of Colour must be, to a great extent, fruitless. In every part of the United States there is a broad and impassable line of demarcation between every man who has one drop of African blood in his veins, and every other class in the community. The habits, the feelings, all the prejudices of society--prejudices which neither refinement, nor argument, nor education, nor religion itself can subdue--mark the People of Colour, whether bond or free, as the subjects of degradation,inevitable and incurable. The African in this country belongs, by birth, to the very lowest station in society; and from that station be can never rise, be his talents, his enterprise, his virtues, what they may. They constitute a class by themselves--a class out of which no individual can be elevated, and below which none can be depressed. And this is the difficulty, the invariable and insuperable difficulty, in the way of every scheme for their benefit. Much can be done for them--much has been done; but still they are, and in this country always must be, a depressed and abject race."--Address from the Connecticut Colonization Society, 1828

Rather than make changes to the American laws around slavery and free blacks and changes to the prejudices of the American public, colonization was proposed. Integration of society was seen as an impossible goal. In 1859, John Latrobe stated about freed African-Americans:

The free...without an especial protector, dependant upon himself alone, living, as the bills of mortality seem to shew, a shorter life than the slave, and made to feel in a thousand ways his social and political inferiority, either frets away existence in aspirations, which, here, can never be realized, or, yielding hopelessly to circumstances, falls with benumbed faculties into a condition that is little better than the slave's.

As an alternative to integration, many believed resettlement in a far-away land that was to be self-governed would provide greater opportunities for black success, economically, politically, and personally.

Resettlement was also supported by those who didn't entirely believe in the abolition of slavery. The presence of free blacks in a community was believed to be an inducement to slave rebellion, for slaveholders an omnipresent threat. As slaves outnumbered whites in most slaveholding communities, any possibility of rebellion created a crisis. In some places, freed blacks were forced to leave the area or were severely restricted.

The presence of free blacks in any location could also create economic pressure for whites who were competing for jobs. This made the deportation of free blacks attractive to many working-class whites who were not abolitionists. The increases in numbers of free African-Americans were often cited in speeches encouraging support of the colonization scheme.

Further, the presence of African-Americans in Africa was presumed to be a way of spreading the Christian religion into the interior of Africa, and so supported by many religious people. Ironically, while the American Colonization Society encouraged this rationale for colonization, many members also decried the poor morals of free black citizens of the United States, assigning them every sort of vice.

There was opposition to the colonization scheme from the British and from American abolitionists. Perhaps most prominently, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in the 1830s:

If I must become a colonizationist, I insist upon being consistent: there must be no disagreement between my creed and practice. I must be able to give a reason why all our tall citizens should not conspire to remove their more diminutive brethren, and all the corpulent to remove the lean and lank, and all the strong to remove the weak, and all the educated to remove the ignorant, and all the rich to remove the poor, as readily as for the removal of those whose skin is 'not colored like my own;' for Nature has sinned as culpably in diversifying the size as the complexion of her progeny, and Fortune in the distribution of her gifts has been equally fickle. I cannot perceive that I am more excusable in desiring the banishment of my neighbor, because his skin is darker than mine, than I should be in desiring his banishment, because he is a smaller or feebler man than myself.

Emigrants supposedly had to agree to moving to Liberia before they embarked, but probably many emigrants had little real sense of what life would be like in the distant country. Many slaves were emancipated on the condition that they emigrate to Liberia, and opponents to the colonization often claimed that some had been forced to embark. Despite positive reports to the members of the American Colonization Society, life was hard for emigrants. The death rate for early colonists was especially high. Still, few negative reports of the colony seem to survive.

The American black community was split on the organization with some eager to move to a land where life would be easier and others distressed by the implications of deportation of free, black Americans. In 1849, Frederick Douglass, himself free and black, wrote:

We are of the opinion that the free colored people generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable number of the free colored people to quit this for a foreign land.

Still, by 1867, about 13,000 immigrants had moved to Liberia.

Liberia was initially governed by the American Colonization Society, but achieved independence in 1847. It existed until 1980, when the government was overthrown. Ironically, the free blacks that governed Liberia had oppressed the native Africans, taking their lands and occasionally impressing them into servitude.

Abram Brewer was 17 at the time of his donation to the Greenwood Colonization Society. D.A. Brewer who donated 25 cents may have been either Abram's brother Daniel or David.

It is impossible to know the motivations behind Abram's donation. Looking at census information, however, it was probably not the increased presence of free blacks locally. According to the statistical information, only a handful of free blacks were enumerated in Johnson County, IN from 1820 to 1850. The high for free "colored" persons was in 1840 with 20 persons, 13 of whom were free colored males, out of a total population of 9,352. Neighboring Marion County, where Indianapolis is located had 625 free colored persons in 1850, but still had a proportionately small number of blacks to whites since the total population was 24,103. No slaves were ever enumerated in Johnson or Marion Counties, Indiana. Abram would not likely have been in competition with free blacks for employment or lands, especially as he was a farmer all his life.

Indiana, however, was a strong proponent of the colonization efforts. In 1851, a law was passed that proposed moving the entire free black population of the state to Liberia and forbade any new free black settlement in the state.

Still, the only possible connection I can make between Abram and anyone of color is that a Caroline Hodges, age 22 and black, lived in Pleasant Township in 1850. She had $800 worth of personal estate, and resided with the George Noble family. Next door was a David Brewer, quite possibly some relation to Abram (maybe his brother?).

The Library of Congress has a collection from the American Colonization Society that provides much information about the immigrants and the society. There is also a timeline that can provide a useful summary of key events and documents. The University of Virginia also has materials related to the colonization, including letters from Liberia. A history of Indiana and the colonization effort can be found here.

Birth Certificate Murkiness, Same-Sex Marriage, and Other Genealogy Controversies

A prelude for the beginning of this post. Please note that this is not actually an invitation for invective regarding homosexuality. It is an opportunity to explore the murky situation of birth certificates, same sex marriage, and genealogy. How we as genealogists and family historians explore the related worlds of biology and family, the ethical dilemmas that result, and how we make changes based on the new definitions of family are some of my favorite topics.

Whether you share my opinions or not, you are welcome to comment. However, inflammatory or derogatory comments will be deleted.

One of my frustrations with my current genealogy program is that same-sex marriages are impossible to create. I use Personal Ancestral File from the LDS Church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so I really shouldn't be surprised. Still, it is aggravating.

Before our son was born, I simply had two different files. One was for my partner's genealogy, and one was for mine and never the twain shall meet. However, after our son was born, I felt like we needed to merge the databases so that both of his parents were recognized. There were two possible work-arounds. One was to label my partner's sex as "male" (or change mine). The other was to add my partner as an "alternate parent".

Unfortunately, this second option would result in two issues. The first was that a marriage would automatically be created for each of us (since children get added to marriages). I could probably have deleted these marriages, but it was still awkward. The other problem was that only one of our trees would be seen at any given point, instead of the nice fan shaped pedigrees that typically result in a two-parent family. Aside from the aesthetics, ease of navigability was a factor in the decision I made to change her sex. I now have lovely report possibilities and so forth, and since I don't print the names of living people on my website anyway, it doesn't really make any difference to other researchers.

Still, I have been wondering how others have solved this solution. With Massachusetts legally recognizing same-sex marriages, there must be genealogy programs that have this capability now... so I went looking online, but instead came up with all kinds of other interesting stuff.

A 2005 blog from Eastman in which he questions the right of the non-biological parent to be on the birth certificate in Massachusetts, likening it to adoptive parents. The problem is one that I've discussed before, but not quite in this way.

In fact, there are a few problems with this whole debate. The first is the assumption that there is a known biological father for same-sex parents. The second problem is the assumption that there was no other way for same-sex couples to be listed on the child's birth certificate. And the last is that birth certificates are reliable indicators of biological parentage for anyone.

Many children who are born to same-sex couples were conceived using an anonymous donor (and for those of you new to this debate, it is always "the donor" and never "the father" in these situations). For many children born to same-sex couples, sperm banks were used (in fact this is the fastest growing segment of the sperm bank industry). The legal reasons for couples to use anonymous donors from banks is clear, since it alleviates possible paternity custody battles after the birth of the child.

The legal reasons to have both parents on the birth certificate are similar. Imagine (or just look in the news for) the custody battles if one partner were to die, be incapacitated, etc. Think about children's need for health insurance, Social Security, child support, etc. This issue was important enough that there have been (for years) ways for both members of a same-sex couple to be listed on the birth certificate. In some states, same-sex couples can put their names on the child's birth certificate after the child's birth by doing a "second parent adoption". Legally, this makes the situation much more clear for everyone, and paves the way for non-biological parents to interact easily with the child care program, school, doctors, and others. In situations where the biological father is known, he has to sign away his paternity rights for these to go through. Also, a federal court ruled that all states have to recognize these birth certificates.

Massachusetts was already one of the states allowing second parent adoption, so many same sex parents had their names on their children's birth certificates before the marriage law was passed. The change to the birth certificate only means that same sex partners don't have to jump through additional legal hoops to have their names listed, but instead do so at the time of the child's birth. It doesn't actually change anything for genealogists looking at these birth certificates.

Incidentally, this second parent adoption law was originally used for stepparent adoptions, but now also covers many same-sex parents and some parents who have used a surrogate to carry the child. Interesting biological and adoptive convolutions can result if a surrogate carries the biological child of another couple. Addressing that through a birth certificate would be pretty challenging!

As seen from the above example, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who create havoc with birth certificates. In all anonymous donor situations (like virtually all done by banks), you wouldn't have any name to enter on the birth certificate anyway. For heterosexual couples who used sperm banks (typically because of male infertility), the father listed on the birth certificate was usually the man who was married to the mother. Many of these children were actually not told how they were conceived.

This is no different (in practical terms) from the Massachusetts debates over the non-biological mother. The only difference is that future genealogists will come across the same-sex birth certificates and immediately know that two women or two men are unlikely to have been the biological parents of the child -- not something that can be said of the opposite-sex couples.

Further, birth certificates in the case of adoption have long been altered to reflect the adoptive parents' names. Birth certificates for children whose mothers are having children born of adultery nearly always reflect their husband's name. Birth certificates for single mothers often don't list a father at all. The many convolutions of the birth certificate make this argument regarding biology a moot point.

So here is the way birth certificates for same-sex couples seem to stand. It appears that Massachusetts still has the mother and father categories and that same-sex parents just cross out the category titles and write in "Parent A" and "Parent B". In Vermont (where there are civil unions), couples are listed on the birth certificate as parents at the time of the baby's birth. A New Jersey couple also recently won this right. In Texas, adoptive couples who are of the same sex must choose one of them to be listed as "mother" and another to be listed as "father". In Virginia, there was a court battle because adoptive homosexual couples had to choose only one of them to be listed on the birth certificate. The adoptive families won and now both parents are listed as Parent 1 and Parent 2. In Canada, Quebec and Ontario list same-sex partners automatically on the birth certificates.

As a complete side note, there was an interesting controversy with a newspaper birth notice as well.

Anyway after getting a little sidetracked, I did find that many other genealogy programs would allow me to add my partner and child. According to the other bloggers, I could switch to the Master Genealogist, Legacy, Reunion, or Family Tree Maker. So I can switch.

Top Ten Things About Modern Culture that Will Annoy Future Genealogists

10. Frequency of modern moving (and distance of moves) - is this John Doe the same as that John Doe?
9. Single parents, adoption, sperm banks - who the &*#)@^$ are their parents?
8. Co-habitation - are they just roommates? were they ever married? who is the parent of these children?
7. The scattering of ashes - I have a relative who was never buried
6. Intransigency of electronic information - but it used to exist!
5. The downfall of the local paper - goodbye information about who is accepting visitors and who left town recently!
4. Distance between members of extended families - I am definitely NOT related to my neighbors
3. Illegal immigration - did they cross the border? when?
2. The abbreviated 2000 census - I hope they completed the long form!
1. The destination wedding craze - they were married WHERE?!

Is Big Brother Archiving?

Recent news reports such as the one where 2.3 million financial records were stolen and where the government collected phone records, have made me wonder more about record management these days and in the recent past.

Obviously, the federal government is archiving most of its materials, as they always have, much of it presumably to become public information long after our deaths. Some of these materials will be of interest to future descendants, including passport and Social Security Applications, military service and pension records, and IRS tax information. I believe it is unknown whether the NSA phone records will be archived or eventually become part of the public record.

Certainly, current trends seem to be pushing for more classified information. According to a 2006 AP survey (referenced here), 616 laws restricting access to public government records and meetings have been passed since 9/11. Only 283 were passed to loosen access.

Vital records are among those discussed as not public information. Some genealogists are fighting these restrictions. News agencies reported that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act of 2004 has a clause that "requires minimum standards for the use of birth certificates by Federal agencies for official purposes." The federal government was attempting to restrict access to the certificates since they can be used as identification, possibly by terrorists. Most states were considering restricting access to the records, and some states have done so, though most seem to have a clause that opens them to the public long after we are all dead.

Some states (such as Colorado) have responded to the federal law by restricting genealogical access to vital records. Or at least, I assume that's what is meant by: "genealogists representing family members with appropriate credentials". I'm not sure what a 'family member with appropriate credentials' would be, and assume that the second clause is misplaced: that the genealogist is supposed to have the credentials. The COGenBlog reported that one searcher was told, "genealogy database printouts, research documents, family letters, genealogy society membership cards, etc., which show proof of genealogy research work related to that person will meet the requirement." The Wandering Author mentions the genealogy community controversy over restricting access to just professionals in a recent post.

But back to our subject.... of far more interest than these government documents (assuming basic facts are established), would be looking at credit card records and search terms. I mean, what better way to figure out what is driving a person? Just ask the advertising companies!

The trouble is that many of these documents are kept by private businesses. Some businesses do maintain archives. There is a listing of some of them here. However, most businesses probably go into and out of existence or through mergers too quickly. Also, I'm not aware of what most of these businesses keep in archives, but I suspect that data on the individual is not high on the list. Financial records for the agency, possibly a list of customers, but probably not your monthly credit card bills.

Still, thinking about all the information about me that is out there... utility and phone records, search information, driver's licenses, magazine subscriptions, credit card and bank statements... wouldn't that be a gold mine for some future descendant! I mean wouldn't you love to know who great-Grandma talked to on the phone, what she bought (and for how much), have a photo (even if it was a license photo), know what she read and what her hobbies were, and if she defaulted on her loans?

Oooh!

Ancestry.com just uploaded a very fun new source. It's the U.S. County Land Ownership Atlases, c. 1864-1918. These are maps that show (often in great detail) the people owning land and/or businesses across the country from the late 1800s to early 1900s. Apparently they are kept by the Library of Congress in the original form.

I have just found several ancestors and am puzzling how to store the related images. I don't REALLY want to download/print all of it. The images are a nice way to see where families lived, especially in relation to siblings, parents, in-laws, etc. While census records can sometimes do that, they won't usually show you (for example) when two parcels of land back up against one another.

The other thing I was able to do with the maps was prove to myself (not without a shadow of doubt, but close) that I didn't just miss an ancestor in the census. I show this family in two censuses twenty years apart and with roughly the same neighbors, but was missing one census in the middle. It was a small town, so I have actually perused the whole town looking for them, not relying on the index at all. I couldn't find them. With the maps though, I was able to trace the census taker's approximate path through town... one that led him/her in a circle AROUND this family and several of their neighbors. Oh well.

I've also located a friend's current house on the map, discovering who owned it in 1867, shortly after we believe it was built. I was able to follow this up with a census search to see that family. Names around them appear nearby on the map as well, so I was reasonably certain that the family didn't just OWN the house, but also LIVED in it. My friends only just moved into the house, so its history is still a bit of a mystery. Hopefully, we'll be able to do a deed search in the future to find out more, but this will satisfy my curiosity for now.

The atlases also have lists in them of area "subscribers" who had prepurchased the books (just like Harry Potter books now!). Some of these are really useful, like the one I saw in Boone County, MO which lists where people's "origins" were. Occupations and addresses are frequently listed in either subscriber lists or in advertisements/directories. Pictures of homes and businesses are included in some of the atlases, but I haven't found any of my ancestors in those (yet?).

Oh, yes, and the maps might be useful if you are trying to figure out geography of an area, including roads, railroad stations, etc.

Here is some of what Ancestry.com says about this source:

Land ownership maps are portrayals of land purchased, granted, or inherited. They range in complexity from rough outlines of the boundaries of one tract of land to detailed county atlases showing every landowner at the time of compilation.

This database contains approximately 1,200 U.S. county land ownership atlases from the Library of Congress’ Geography and Maps division, covering the approximate years 1864-1918. Some photos of county officers, land owners, and buildings or homes are also included. Due to the quality of the microfilm on which these maps and photos were originally located, some of the images may not appear very clear.

While city atlases served a specialized clientele, their rural counterparts, known as county landownership atlases, were a commercial enterprise promoted by subscription campaigns and directed to a wider audience. Based on the pre-Civil War production of wall-sized, single-sheet county landownership maps, atlases showing landownership developed into a popular atlas format starting in the 1860s in the northeastern United States, and expanding into the Midwestern states by the 1870s and 1880s. These commercially published atlases contain cadastral or landownership maps for the individual townships within a county. In addition, they often include county and township histories, personal and family biographies and portraits, and views of important buildings, residences, farms, or prized livestock. (Library of Congress. Geography and Maps: An Illustrated Guide. http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/guide/gmilltoc.html.)

Military Records on Ancestry.com Free

There is currently free access to Ancestry.com's large collection of military records in honor of Memorial Day. They will be free through D-Day (June 6th).

I've found numerous ancestors in this collection, from WWII, WWI, the Civil War, and the Revolutionary War. The WWII and WWI draft cards are especially good, even if you know all the information on them already.

Enjoy!

The Problem with Web 2.0

Okay, so I have to say that I like a lot of the new options provided by Web 2.0 applications which give you the opportunity to work with other people to navigate the web and share information. Wikis are great fun (I love Wikipedia), and I think that blogging has a place as well. Here's my dilemma though. Mostly, I disagree with people about popular culture. For example, I just visited Digg.com. Among their top stories with 174 Diggs was this one about Hayden Panettiere in a See Through Dress. I find this distressing. Am I alone?

Maybe part of the problem is that Web 2.0 is mostly catering to a younger crowd than me (oh dear, I'm aging myself). Are there stats about this? Well, I know that MySpace is dominated by a younger crowd.

Still, I'm a snob about other things as well. The popular books that are on the New York Times bestseller list? Most don't appeal. So maybe the problem is with me! Feel free to consider me a snob about these sorts of things.

How does this relate back to genealogy? Well, I did a quick look at the bookmarks under the tag "genealogy" on del.icio.us. I am really just concerned about the trend toward social networking for family history and genealogy. In my experience, published information about family trees, etc. is best taken with a grain of salt... and sometimes a lot more than a grain or with another kind of substance altogether. As an example, especially of this latter, see this article from TechDirt about fake family trees.

In general, I just worry that people aren't sharing their sources, and aren't doing the kind of quality work that can really be relied upon. This is also why I hated group projects as a student.

And, yes, I know about glass houses. There is certainly stuff on this web site that I have my doubts about. And nearly all of it came from secondary published genealogies or the sort of social networking that I am now railing against. If I could go back to my high school self and give her a stern talking to about this, I would. In the meantime, I am simply doing my best to correct these things whenever possible.

And I know that sometimes this isn't possible. For example, in my Asa Hamlin's Father story, I show how I looked for primary sources to verify Lura Hamlin's parentage, but all I have been able to find so far is in a secondary source... a local history. Still, this information seems more reliable than many other secondary sources I've seen.