From the obituaries of her father and step-mother, it is
obvious that Kelly descendant Julia Creahan Sullivan was at one time married, and at a later
time, not. Whether that later time indicated her loss through widowhood is not
yet apparent, and in the end—as I’ve since observed while trawling through census
entries in the “wild west” flavor of her adopted hometown of Denver—may not
reveal anything.
While Internet-powered genealogical research may be a wonder
to behold, the only search results I had previously been garnering were those
of a Thomas and Julia Sullivan of Colorado
Springs. While the names sounded right, as we
discovered, the maiden name for that Julia turned out to be no match for our
subject.
It took that tedious route of cranking through several
options on umpteen pages of results on both FamilySearch.org and Ancestry.com
before I narrowed the search down to one possibility: a widowed Julia Sullivan
in Denver’s 1900 census. Could this be our Julia? Without the name of a husband included in
the entry, it was hard to tell. I couldn’t find any corresponding records—marriage,
death, newspaper reports—to connect what I knew about our Julia with what could
be discovered about this Julia.
There was one other hint, though: an oldest son named
Thomas. I don’t want to make the mistake of assumption here, but I’d say that
could qualify this census entry as a possible candidate, so I took the liberty
of further examination. Here’s what I noticed.
First off, this Julia reported to the census enumerator that
she was born in Indiana.
That was a good sign. She also told the enumerator she was born in January,
1867. That was not a good sign; the 1870 census showed our Julia in her father’s
household at the age of nine, not three.
On the other hand, this Julia—as well as ours—reported her
parents were both born in Ireland.
I’m willing to make some concessions here, while I await further corroboration
from, well, who knows where at this point. There really isn’t much out there
that I can access online so far.
The Sullivan household on Grant Avenue contained five residents in
1900: in addition to the widow, there was oldest son Thomas, aged eleven,
followed closely by his brother Harry, then a four year gap in the birth
sequence before the arrival of daughters Regina
and Florence. Two
year old Florence
likely provides the delineating point for possible dates of death for her father
Thomas—if, indeed, “widow” wasn’t the era’s euphemism for deadbeat dad.
What can be gleaned about the missing father was that he was
born in “New Hamshire”—an entry serving double duty by not only reporting the
senior Thomas’ origin, but heralding the warning that we are working with a
dyslexic enumerator.
Why would I say dyslexic? Taking a look around the very page
upon which the Sullivan household was listed, I noticed, for instance, that a
neighbor worked as a “Sitchman” for the railroad. And, in a very careful hand,
the enumerator made note that Julia’s own occupation was “Captialist.”
Captialist?
Okay, U. S. Census enumerator Frances A. Sigler may now
posthumously entertain the claim that he (or she) made me actually look up the
term. After all, maybe there was an
occupation known as captialist (although my spell-checker doesn’t seem to think
so).
So what woman at the dawn of a new century would
display the pluck of not only choosing aught but demure “homemaker” as her
occupation, but go so far as to claim she was a high rolling capitalist?
Apparently, more than one.
And more than one known as Julia Sullivan.
Life in early 1900s Denver,
Colorado, must have indeed been gloriously
colorful.
Good point about not assuming a man was dead just because a woman was enumerated as a widow. I've read that "widow" was used in different ways: to indicate divorce, long-term separation (such as in times of war, business travel), and of course, death of spouse. As for dates in the census, there is nothing as slippery as a given date of birth. I would think people would know the month, but I've seen "Apr" in the census but "Nov" on the tombstone. How do family members get it so wrong?
ReplyDeleteExactly, Wendy. I've seen examples of all these issues as I go through my family history--as I know you have!
DeleteGiven Thomas Jr was a Law Clerk for a railroad, I suspect Thomas Sr was a railroad man.
ReplyDeleteThis might be him: http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=75081459
Grand Junction of course was a railroad junction. Julia might have had "settlement" money from a wrongful death?
Now, that's an interesting possibility. I'll have to look into that one, Iggy. Thanks for the lead.
DeleteCapitalist? She must have had money to work with:)
ReplyDeleteWell, you know what they say about "Follow the money." She certainly wasn't born with it!
DeleteI suspect that one of the older children gave the enumerator the information:)
ReplyDeleteMaybe so...but what a strange way to list a person's occupation--even if it was a child providing the report. Kinda makes you wonder what kitchen table conversations occurred in that Sullivan household...
Delete