After reading about the many honorable achievements of Kelly
descendant Harry A. Sullivan of Denver,
Colorado, it was no surprise that
the question of grandchildren was brought up in the reader comments. Harry was
definitely the can-do kind of guy all of us would like to have known. However,
when his mother Julia Creahan Sullivan died in 1930, she apparently left four
busy adult children, none of whom had any descendants of their own.
With a more extensive obituary thankfully supplied from her
hometown newspaper in Lafayette,
Indiana, it was a bit easier to
find traces of what became of Julia’s son, Thomas. According to the 1930
report, he was then located in Kansas
City, Missouri.
Indeed, it was rather easy to go back and pick out a 1920 census entry showing
him and wife Catherine living in that very city, with Thomas serving as ticket agent in a railroad office there. That was corroborated by the finding of
Thomas’ 1917 draft registration card, reporting his employer as “Rock Island,”
likely the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad.
On the day Thomas Francis Sullivan signed that registration
card, he was apparently already married. If we are to believe the 1920 census—and,
with the right states of birth for both parents, plus indication of the right
age for Thomas, we have no reason not
to—then his wife’s name must have been Catherine.
Or was it? Finding Thomas Sullivan in the 1930 census in Kansas City was more of a
challenge. Despite widening the circle to cross over the state line into Kansas City, Kansas,
there was no sign of any Thomas Sullivan married to a Catherine. There was,
however, a Thomas Sullivan of just about the right age, married to someone
named Mary, living in Shawnee,
Kansas.
It just so happens that, if one were to check a map, it
would be apparent that Shawnee straddles the
outer beltway of the current Kansas City metro area. Could Thomas, husband of Mary in Shawnee, be the same as Thomas, husband of Catherine in Kansas City?
Following that same couple—their age difference and states
of birth seemed to track throughout the decades—we find that the 1940 census
tries to help by inserting Mary’s middle initial in the record. No surprise: it
is K. Katherine? Of course, it doesn’t
help that the same record shows Thomas’ middle initial as S, not F.
The only consolation was that, though there was another
Thomas Sullivan found in census records of the area, that person’s state of
birth was Illinois—not a match for our Colorado son of Julia. However, not
making our dilemma much easier, there coincidentally was a Thomas F. Sullivan
back in Denver,
who had also married a woman named Kate.
Perhaps that was why there is a Find a Grave memorial for a
Thomas and Mary C. Sullivan at Mount
Olivet—the same cemetery
in which our Thomas’ siblings and parents were buried. Tempting as that bit of
information may be—that Thomas and
Catherine apparently had a son—it is likely not our Thomas Sullivan.
If the 1930 and 1940 census records for Shawnee,
suburb of Kansas City,
were indeed for Julia’s son Thomas, they do not indicate signs of any children
for the couple. If that is so, then Thomas and his wife join his married sister
Regina in also
remaining childless. Couple that with their sister Florence—a lifelong school
teacher in an era where such women who wished to keep their position remained
single—and their unmarried brother Harry, and that adds up to a total of zero
grandchildren for our Kelly descendant who left her hometown in rural Indiana
for the adventure of life in the booming 1880s city of Denver.
Though Julia’s four children were not remembered by any
descendants, theirs were contributions remembered—at least, we can hope it was
so—in a very different way by the communities they benefited.
Looks like Thomas might be the only one that "maybe" had children. Odd that a family with four children died out -
ReplyDeleteYes, it would seem odd, except that these descendants all seemed to have a different sort of mission in mind.
DeleteOh I hate getting to the end of a line.
ReplyDeleteMe, too, Wendy. After Harry's story, I was kinda hoping to meet a descendant of his...
DeleteDarn no grandkids...seems that one out of four might have had one kid:)
ReplyDeleteYeah, disappointing. Makes me wonder if something about the times...World War I, then the Depression...had an impact on the choices of those four when they were young. I think the reasons behind the choices all of us make can be pretty complex.
DeleteToo sad when there is no generation to follow.
ReplyDeleteI know it happens from time to time, but it was unexpected, considering Julia had four children. But yes, I agree, Colleen: sad.
DeleteSo sad, indeed. I have families with large sets of children who married but had no children. I wonder if early childhood diseases like measles caused some men to be sterile.
ReplyDeleteMeasles...now there's a thought. Thanks for bringing that up, Lisa. So many small details of daily life that we so take for granted that they become nearly invisible.
Delete