Ever Learning DNA

Years ago, getting one's diploma or college degree signaled to society that you were finished with "finishing school." You were polished to the nth degree. You had accomplished everything that needed to be done in order to qualify you as knowledgeable in your field.

Now, we tend to see that viewpoint as mythical. We are always learning. There is always a frontier where someone is serving as pioneer, making discoveries.

All that goes to say, I guess I don't feel so bad when I assess my position in the world of genetic genealogy. After all these years, it is okay to still be ever-learning. So when John D. Reid of Canada's Anglo-Celtic Connections posted about a limited-time offer to view a presentation from Genetic Genealogy Ireland 2016, I jumped right on it. If you are interested in DNA testing, you should, too.

The video features Diahan Southard, speaking on "Five Tips to Make Sense of Your DNA Testing." The catch is: the video is only available to view for free on YouTube until November 17.

Diahan Southard comes well recommended. She has spoken at a number of genealogy conferences. I've admired her creative presentation skills at past DNA Day conferences hosted by ISOGG in conjunction with Southern California Genealogical Society's Jamboree each June. If you are a visual or kinesthetic learner, Diahan speaks directly to your learning modality. She gets the message home, clearly. What a perfect complement to a topic with as steep a learning curve as genetic genealogy.

A Genetic Genealogy To-Do List

Now that I'm focused on sprucing up the files associated with various DNA tests for myself and family members, I've set aside this week to make sure I've uploaded everything the newly-configured Family Tree DNA dashboard and components makes available to their customers. Don't wish to miss a lick, when it comes to making new family connections.

Yesterday, I mentioned taking the time to check all the trees of the tests for which I serve as administrator. Thankfully, that task is nearly done. The down side of that accomplishment is having the visual reminder that my trees are woefully inadequate, when it comes to those distant great-grandparents' records that can fetch confirmed matches with fourth through sixth cousins.

On my husband's tree, for instance, every one of the slots are filled, in his pedigree view, up to the rank of second great grandparent. While it is quite pleasing to realize all sixteen slots in that pedigree view are completed, the sad part is the next step. On some of those lines, the next step drops me off in the great abyss of the family unknown.

I can console myself by looking at my mother-in-law's side of the equation, where there I have names enough to go around for another two generations beyond that second great grandparent roadblock on the Irish side. That, likely, is where most of my husband's matches are generated, so it would seem that I'd have an easy go of it, determining how those nine hundred matches line up.

However, we all know that simply isn't so.

Don't think things are any better on my side. While I do have the chart completed, up through second great grandparents, that is with one gaping caveat: I still know no more about my paternal grandfather's family than I did when I started this research effort, years ago. Other than the man's name, itself—and there's considerable doubt about that, even—there is no information to put in all those blanks on that pedigree chart.

So I console myself with the long stretch of ancestors showing in that chart on the maternal side. Thanks to some lines which reach all the way back to Mayflower times, that litany of begats can get rather lengthy. But there are some other maternal lines where the story abruptly ends at that second-great demarcation, as well. I have a lot more work to do, before I can assure a fourth through sixth cousin that we are indeed related.

Now that I've transferred all the information I can into this pedigree chart on my page at Family Tree DNA, my next task is to include, in the "Family View" chart, just how my confirmed DNA matches actually fit in the family picture. There is a slot for everyone in this diagram; I just have to figure out where to insert each of these connections. For some of them, we mutually worked out the pathways two years ago. Who knows where those back-of-the-napkin sketches are, now?

Yet another glitch comes when I realize the name I inserted, as admin, for some family members' tests was the name they are known by now. When my brother met me at a genealogy conference, years ago, to get his DNA test done, the person helping us at the FTDNA booth (it happened to be CEO Bennett Greenspan, himself, that time) asked for his name, and I gave the name I've always called him by. It was his nickname. Guess which name my brother is entered under, in my formal pedigree chart? Hint: not his nickname.

This requires a work-around, now that I'm tagging people in this pedigree chart. Trying to insure test results labeled with female relatives' married names connect with genealogical records properly identifying said family members by their maiden names means I'm left with a tree in which those names are handled quite incorrectly. But that's what will work for the company's system. And I want to make that FTDNA system happy—enough, at least, to compute those matches correctly.

In a way, owing to such convoluted work-arounds, I'm actually happy to be able to hand-enter individual records, rather than having to upload an entire GEDCOM, then go in and re-correct after altering it to make the company happy. When it comes to utilizing DNA testing for family history confirmation, I guess we have to remember we are working with a company of geneticists who are learning to do genealogy, not the other way around.

And so I plod on, now reconstructing those convoluted family pathways that led me from my vantage point in the family constellation to the hiding places of those third-cousins-once-removed (and beyond). I have four more confirmed matches to plug into my husband's tree, and five more to finish for my own. Hopefully that task will be completed by tomorrow evening, because it won't be long and I'll be exploring the matches on yet another company's DNA test when we receive results from 23andMe, as well.

Taking a New Direction

Stymied by research problems—like my lack of progress unraveling the Kelly connections in Lafayette, Indiana—I sometimes find a detour is helpful. Mostly, such re-routing brings me closer to my research goals in the roundabout way of doing some foundational housekeeping chores.

While it isn't spring right now—well, not unless you are Down Under—this calls for some genealogical spring cleaning. In a week, I'll be headed to Houston to a DNA conference, along with our family's newly-minted anthropologist, so this would be the perfect time to take a look at the condition of our family's DNA test results and their corresponding records.

I'm focusing mainly on our Family Tree DNA results right now, because that is who is hosting this conference. Also, since there have been a lot of changes to the layout of the "dashboard" for navigating those test results, I have some catching up to do to get my own readouts up to date with those changes.

For instance, customers may now insert their matches into their family tree posted at FTDNA—assuming, of course, that the customer has actually uploaded a family tree to the site. A lot of customers haven't uploaded any family tree data at all—providing an endless source of irritation for those of us who are interested in connecting with our matches. Because plugging a third cousin once removed into our tree at FTDNA can get messy—although, thankfully, it is now possible to accomplish—I have been neglecting confirmation of those matches in my tree.

But before I can complete those linking exercises, there is another task I need to attend to. This one will turn out to be Job Number One for my spring cleaning duties on my trees at FTDNA: I need to insure that all members of each family tree are present and updated in that tree. Up until this point, several branches were not fully added at FTDNA, even though they are on my own records on Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.com. (Yes, I know, one's tree is never "done," but what I mean here is that the full catalog of what I've researched and recorded in my databases in those other locations is now represented at FTDNA, as well.)

Once that task is attended to for each of the DNA tests I administer, I can begin linking the known matches to their spot in our trees. For this, instead of utilizing FTDNA's Pedigree View, I'll be switching to their Family View, where I will hand-deliver the entries for siblings of great-grandparents and other tedious connections to make it possible to view the exact spot where each of these confirmed matches belong in our trees.

The third task will be to go back and connect with those matches where we know there has to be some common family connection, but I and the other match's admin can't find the proof for the link just yet. This will be the hardest part. Some of those matches are puzzles we've been toying with, off and on, for months.

Perhaps, having given the puzzle a rest, taking it up again with fresh eyes—and newly-added functions in the FTDNA family tree readouts—may make a difference. I hope so; there are probably four or five more matches I haven't yet confirmed just because we're stuck on figuring out the connection.

Of course, that's not even considering the hundreds more matches that have kept me at a standstill, ever since I received news of them. I know some dedicated researchers have taken to building trees for their matches, as well, but I can't say I'm to that point, yet. I know there are some trees out there which are lacking in accuracy, but I'm not quite the kind soul—yet—who is willing to take on that battle.

Maybe another go-round on the cleaning whim. Maybe another spring. For now, I'll take these tasks on, one at a time.

If at First You Don't Succeed, You Can Always Wait

The only positive thought I can console myself with, when searching for ancestors but sadly not finding any, is that the most productive action I can take may be to wait.

That's how it's going to be, it looks like, with my attempt to locate any more details on our Kelly family of Lafayette, Indiana. As helpful as the county archives may have been, it seems every document that could have been found already was.

Oh, I did take a spin through a second online resource for newspaper archives—this time, using the collection available at GenealogyBank—but there was not much to be found there concerning any Kellys.

Among the few curiosities I uncovered—though not for our family's Kellys—was a canal boatman named John Kelly who, in a drunken rage while in town back in 1858, fought another boatman and nearly killed him; the Lafayette city council's proceedings in 1875 which included voting in a man named Frank Kelly as a police officer for the fifth ward of the city; and an informative letter reprinted in the October 6, 1853, Lafayette Daily Journal from an "Irishman, who left here about a year since, for Australia" to seek his fortune in "the gold fields of Victoria." (This John Kelly's advice, following a long and detailed letter: "If you have comfortable firesides, stay by them.")

Wherever our Kellys were in Lafayette, they were keeping a low profile.

It may seem discouraging, after all that traveling, to pack away a research goal without having succeeded in the quest. I'm not taking it that way, though. I've long since learned that, based on how the digitization of historic documents has progressed in the last decade, waiting doesn't mean conceding research defeat. It only means the wise researcher bides her time.

There will be more material available to research at some later point. We can regroup, re-strategize, re-inform ourselves of options—and learn to wait. It may seem I've wandered into a region of faith, not fact, but it's by experience that I've discovered this: revisiting an old research problem often becomes a profitable exercise. Sometimes, a little time makes all the difference.

 

Campaign Turmoil, 1860s Style

Having lost the trail on my Kelly family from Lafayette, Indiana—yet remembering having seen newspaper clippings on Ann Kelly's siblings and nephews while still at the archives in Tippecanoe County—I thought, as a last effort, I could check the various historic newspaper collections I subscribe to, in hopes of locating those articles. I started off with NewspaperArchive.com, where I pulled up any editions including the surname Kelly or Kelley.

Apparently, their collection of Lafayette newspapers is limited to the 1860s. Fine; I'll try anything.

It wasn't long until I realized every article but one—about a drunk named John Kelly who got into a fight and didn't fare so well—had to do with the upcoming election in 1860. Apparently, a Mr. Kelly from Lafayette was active in that year's race for office.

Let's just forget, for a moment, that this Mr. Kelly was likely not connected with our Kelly family, and sit back to enjoy an overview of the election cycle in the year that was 1860.

From the Lafayette Daily Journal, September 17, page 3:

...[a series of speakers] was followed by Mr. Kelly, a young Irishman of this city, who was listened to with marked attention, especially by his countrymen, a number of whom were in the crowd.

From an editorial in the same paper on October 19, page 3:

...we must not overlook the Irish. That class has heretofore been regarded as an integral part of the Democracy. Happily for themselves and the country they are beginning to see and act correctly. They can no longer be bamboozled by the leaders of Locofocoism. ... One of our townsmen, Mr. Kelly, who is an Irishman and Catholic, has, during the whole canvass, been very active and energetic. He has spoken frequently and with great power, and is determined to use all his influence in behalf of Lincoln and Hamlin.

The Daily Journal, again, on October 22, page 3, in a report concerning a local political rally:

...Mr. Kelly was called for. Just as he was about to commence his speech another stone was thrown, evidently intended for the speaker, which struck a small boy in the crowd, inflicting a slight wound on the head. During the speech Mr. Kelly was annoyed by insulting remarks and shouts for Douglas and Breckinridge from the rabble that had congregated for the purpose of trying to drown his voice. Kelly, being gifted with a powerful voice, paid but little attention to the interruptions and made himself heard above all the noise and confusion, only occasionally replying to remarks in a manner that set the crowd in a roar of laughter. A number of Irishmen were present, and all expressed the greatest indignation at the manner in which their countryman was treated by members of a party that boast of their friendship for foreigners and love of free speech.

And from the same Lafayette newspaper at the conclusion of the election cycle, one hundred fifty six years ago to the day:

We trust that our citizens—especially our Republican friends—will not neglect the appointment of Mr. Kelly at the Court House to-night. During the entire canvass he has performed the part of a gallant soldier in the ranks of liberty. We hear of his effective assistance to the cause from all sources. Our Irish friends are particularly invited to be present at the meeting. Mr. Kelly is one of their countrymen and he is a noble specimen of that brave and chivalrous race that has given to the world so many sons of eloquence, song and daring.

Whoever the unidentified Mr. Kelly of Lafayette might have been—newspapers of that era seemingly adept at compelling their subscribers to read between the lines to fetch many of those missing details of the Five Ws—his cameo appearances in local political rallies on behalf of the soon-to-be-elected president, Abraham Lincoln, bring an interesting, if "old fashioned" counterpoint to today's election cycle. 
 

Doubting Thomas

No matter how hard the struggle to break loose, sometimes it just seems impossible to get free of some research dilemmas. When we were in Lafayette, Indiana, trying to find documentation on our Kellys, there was no place more likely to reveal local knowledge on this family than their county's genealogy center. And yet, I came away from that whirlwind tour of Tippecanoe County records with the distinct impression the town claimed more than one Thomas Kelly.

After all, not only were there two Declarations of Intention filed in the Tippecanoe County Circuit Court, but there were other legal papers, including a will. Looking at the details that could be extracted from these documents, it seemed as if there were an older, more successful man by that very name: Thomas Kelly.

Now, I'm not so sure—and am wishing I had gotten copies of records showing that "other" Thomas Kelly, as well.

To rule out the "wrong" Thomas Kelly, there were some alternate techniques I could attempt:

• I could check the Lafayette census records after Thomas' arrival for two records on Thomas Kelly;
• I could check burial records to search for any sign confirming there were two Thomases; and
• I could double-check other known dates for the Kelly family to use these as a yardstick to rule out the "wrong" Thomas.

Using the census records to check into just who this other Thomas Kelly might be yielded less than stellar results. Of course, in 1860, our Thomas Kelly—by then aged twenty three, according to the record—wasn't even living in Tippecanoe County. He was in neighboring Warren County, living with his widowed mother Mary, all his surviving siblings, plus the three young Stevens sons of his by-then-deceased sister Catherine.

To my surprise, though, neither on Ancestry.com nor FamilySearch.org could I pull up a listing for a second Thomas Kelly. Not for 1860, at least. Yet, moving on to 1870—and then 1880—I encountered the same difficulty. No second Thomas Kelly. It wasn't until the 1880 census that I located a second Thomas Kelly: our own Thomas' son, who was born about 1873.

Well, what about burial records? I realize using Find A Grave may not give the entire picture—volunteer-driven as the site is, with the main Catholic Cemetery in town claiming to be less than fifty percent photographed at this point. Still, there was an entry for a second Thomas Kelly—one who died in 1861 and was buried at Saint Mary's Cemetery in Lafayette. A quick click through revealed, though, that this second Thomas Kelly was an infant who died at nine months of age, hardly the twenty five year old Irish immigrant who filed his first papers at the courthouse there in 1852.

This is what sent me scurrying back to my original records to double-check what I knew about this Kelly family. For one thing, I knew this family had to have arrived in Indiana by 1853, because that is when their father, James, died and was buried at Greenbush Cemetery in Lafayette.

Another confirmation of our Kelly family's arrival came with the marriage, in Tippecanoe County, of daughter Catherine to John Stevens, another Irish immigrant, also in 1853. Granted, the marriage record stated her husband's name to be "Stephenson"—and then, two lines later, changed to John "Stevenson"—but the fact that her firstborn son, James, along with his younger brothers, subsequently took up residence with their mother's family provides a reliable census indicator of their proper surname. Of course, son James' birth in 1854 in Indiana validates the family's arrival in America before that year, as well.

It is an unfortunate difficulty, for research purposes at least, that no one in the immediate generation of that Kelly family survived long enough to have their records show up after 1900. With the exception of youngest child Ann—the very one whose descendant's DNA match has me scurrying after all I can discover on her—Thomas and all his siblings died in the 1890s or earlier. Not quite close enough to be in reach, when it comes to the details of modern documentation.

Not to worry, the volunteers at the county's genealogy center told me—I could always pull up the church records, courtesy of FamilySearch.org. Unfortunately, as I've found since my return back home, that is not the case—at least for Tippecanoe County. And writing to the diocese hasn't turn up anything useful, either.

The whole thing leaves me wishing that either the center's operating schedule included more contiguous hours for those traveling in from out of state—after closing that Thursday evening, the center didn't open again until 1:00 the next afternoon—or that I had grabbed copies of even the documents which I was sure referred to the wrong Thomas.

Maybe he was the right one, after all.

One Way Ticket for One

In trying to determine which, exactly, was our Thomas Kelly in Lafayette, Indiana, it helped to find those two Declarations of Intention. It seemed the second of the two documents we located on our trip last week was the more likely to be the right Kelly. That Thomas' age seemed to align with our Kellys' family constellation most accurately—if, of course, the man's recollection of such mundane details served him well. I've seen many a case where that wasn't so, among our Irish immigrant ancestors.

Since the Declaration included Thomas' report of exactly when and where he arrived in the United States, the next logical step was to locate his passenger record. Of course, arriving in New York in 1853 meant his ship came in long before the existence of Ellis Island documentation. Checking the history for the preceding checkpoint, Castle Garden, revealed its immigration station status began in 1855—problem number one for my Kelly search.

Going to the Castle Garden website itself, however, relieved my concerns, for the foundation provides transcriptions of passenger lists dating back to 1820—far before our Thomas Kelly's arrival in 1853.

My thinking, in resorting to the passenger lists at Castle Garden, was first to find whether there was a Thomas Kelly on a ship from Liverpool arriving in New York on the date he gave in his Declaration—June 10, 1853. More than that, though, was to see whether any of the other members of our Kelly family traveled with him at that time.

Sure enough, there was a Thomas Kelly on a ship arriving in New York City on that precise date. His namesake wasn't exactly the sixteen year old our Thomas' declared date of birth would lead us to believe. But the age was close: fourteen.

The next step would be to check the passenger list for the ship he was traveling on—the S. S. Kossuth—and see if there were any other Kellys traveling with him.

This is where my amazement that the actual date was verified began to unravel at the edges. While, yes, there was a Thomas Kelly aboard the ship arriving on the very date he remembered years later in his Declaration of Intention, none of the rest of his family was traveling with him. Not James or Mary, his parents. Not his older siblings Mathew, Rose, Catherine or Bridget. Not even his younger sister, Ann, the one I've been puzzling over, thanks to a DNA match with one of her possible descendants.

Instead, the only results for a Kelly family traveling on that ship included an older spinster, Margaret, a twenty four year old man named Edward, two Ellens, a ten year old girl named Mary, and an eight year old whose name, transcribed, was rendered as "Anty." Hardly the Kellys I was looking for.

Trying the oft-used alternate spelling, Kelley, yielded no better results. Unless this Thomas was traveling solo at that age—a possibility at the far end of the national ravages of a severe famine—I tend to doubt our Thomas' sterling memory served him as well as we hoped, back at the point when he completed the first of his naturalization papers.

Above: Section from search results at the Castle Garden website for Thomas Kelly, date June 10, 1853, from Liverpool to New York City.