Week 19: Nurture #52Ancestors
I assume Amy picked this last week’s prompt as it falls near Mother’s Day and it’s a great time to remember those mothers (and fathers) who nurtured us when we were small and those that still look out for us even though we are adults. I hope I never get so cynical that I don’t recognize and thank the nurturing souls that help me navigate these perilous times.
There is a story in my family tree of grandparents nurturing two grandsons whose mother seems to have abandoned them.
I wrote about my husband’s 2ndgreat-grandparents, George Washington Baty and Mary Elizabeth Elliott, just last week. They were the parents of at least 11 children, born between 1847 and 1866. When I first started researching them, I thought that they had 13 children. However, I started to wonder about their last children, John Rufus, born in 1868 and Charles Henry, born in 1875.
As I dug into it more deeply, it seemed more likely that Charles and Rufus were probably the sons of Frances, George and Mary’s daughter. I say “probably” because I don’t think I have found enough evidence to support my theory. Further, I have not (yet) found anything where Frances acknowledged these boys as her own.
Frances was unmarried and 15 years old when Rufus was born in Lawrence County, Missouri.[1] We know that his father was likely from Tennessee.[2] Sadly, no birth records were required to be kept in Missouri at this time. Frances was still unmarried and 22 years old when Charles was born in Kansas. Again, no birth records were required to be kept in Kansas then. Until she was married in 1877, Frances and the boys lived with her parents on their family farms. Once she was married however, she left Kansas and these boys for good.
One piece of evidence that Charles and Rufus were not the sons of George and Mary is the Warranty Deed by which the family farm was sold.[3] Mary and the children of George all signed the deed and it was legally required that ALL the heirs of George be signatories. The fact that neither Charles nor Rufus signed the deed is good evidence that they were not sons. Further, the 1880 U.S. federal census does list Rufus as a grandson.[4] Lastly, Mary’s obituary does not mention Charles or Rufus as sons even though they were still alive.[5]
There is other evidence that points to Frances being the mother of Charles and Rufus, but it is inconclusive. Sadly, Rufus never married and Charles only had daughters, so tracking down their fathers with a Y-DNA test won’t work.
In 1880, Charles was five and Rufus was 11. They were living with their grandparents on the family farm.[6] As I mentioned last week, George and Mary were running a busy farm and these young grandsons, along with a son, a daughter, and Mary’s mother, Emma, must have worked hard to have such a successful farming operation.
After George died in 1890, Mary and Rufus were the only ones left on the farm.[7] The 1895 Kansas census shows that Mary and Rufus were still cultivating crops, albeit at a much lower level. Of the forty acres that made up the farm, they only had 16 acres of cotton. Their butter production was still an impressive 100 pounds and they had two horses and one milk cow. This census shows that they also had some apple, pear, peach, and cherry trees.
I can imagine how comforting it was for Mary and Rufus to have each other. Charles left the family farm in 1893 and all of Mary’s children had moved out of the area.[8] Reading between the lines of some of the local newspaper articles, I get the sense that Charles may have not had a pleasant a life on the farm; he did leave when he was only 18. Rufus stayed with his grandmother until he was 27 when it appears Mary moved in with one of her daughters who came back to Neosho.[9]
Sometimes, we don’t get a say on who raises us. I hope that George and Mary gave Rufus and Charles the love and nurturing every child deserves.
[1]1870 U.S. census, Lawrence County, Missouri, population schedule, Ozark Township, p. 10 (penned), dwelling 72, family 72, George W. Baty; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://wwww.ancestry.com: accessed 4 May 2017); citing NARA microfilm publication M593, roll [not noted].
[2]1880 U.S. census, Neosho County, Kansas, population schedule, Canville Township, enumeration district (ED) 163, p. 4 (penned), dwelling 37, family 38, George Baty; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://wwww.ancestry.com: accessed 4 May 2017); citing NARA microfilm publication T9, roll 390.
[3]Neosho County, Kansas, Deed Book 56: 537, Mary E. Baty, et al., to John Golobay, 14 November 1902; Office of the Register of Deeds, Erie, Kansas.
[4]1880 U.S. census, Neosho Co., Ks., pop. sch., Canville, ED 163, p. 4 (penned), dwell. 37, fam. 38, George Baty.
[5]"Obituary," Chanute (Kansas) Times, 12 Nov 1909, p. 5, col. 4; digital image, Chronicling America (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85030529/1909-11-12/ed-1/seq-5/# : accessed 10 May 2015).
[6]1880 U.S. census, Neosho Co., Ks., pop. sch., Canville, ED 163, p. 4 (penned), dwell. 37, fam. 38, George Baty.
[7]1885 Kansas state census, Neosho County, population schedule, Canville township, p. 12 (penned), dwelling 70, family 73, M.E. Baty; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://wwww.ancestry.com: accessed 4 May 2017); citing Kansas Historical Society, 1895 Kansas State Census, microfilm reel v115_105.
[8]"Earlton," The Erie (Kansas) Record, 16 February 1900, p. 2, col. 6; digital image, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 27 Aug 2018).
[9]1900 U.S. census, Neosho County, Kansas, population schedule, Canville Township, enumeration district (ED) 147, p. 5 (penned), dwelling 94, family 94, Thomas Knowles; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://wwww.ancestry.com: accessed 20 May 2017); citing NARA microfilm publication T623, roll 492.
The Baty family farm as it looks today.
Open Records for Kansas Appraisers, “Neosho County, Kansas, Property Ownership Map,” Parcel Numbers 067-074-17-0-00-00-008.00-0 and 067-074-17-0-00-00-007.00-0; digital image, ORKA – Open Records for Kansas Appraisers (http://jade.kgs.ku.edu/orka2/CoSelect.aspx : accessed 8 May 2017).