Rachel's Picture Found! Now Let's Date It!

I'm excited to report that this week I made contact with a McConnell family researcher through Find-A-Grave. He let me in on a few corrections to the family of John C. and Rachel (Browning) McConnell and we began talking more and more about the family and their children. While he was descended from John and his first wife Jane Boals/Boles, he knew an awful lot about John's second family because he'd been interested in genealogy from a young age and managed to talk to many of the 'old ones' before they passed on.

In the course of our converstions I mentioned that I had a picture of John C. McConnell given to me by a few surviving relations. He was curious about the photo, saying he had a few photos himself (a set of four consisting of a man and wife and two boys) that he'd always been suspicious were McConnell's but who weren't identified on the backs as such. He'd run into another McConnell descendant who'd owned the same set but his weren't identified either. I sent him the picture of John I had as a comparison, hoping that there would be a match. His next email was an excited YES! (truthfully, there were a lot of hallelulahs and praise Jesuses too!)

I was just as thrilled as he was, because as I said, he had a set! He had John......and RACHEL!

I haven't seen pictures of too many of Samuel and Margaret's children. I only have two: Ezra C. and John Wesley Francis. I also have pictures of the two girls, Laura and Mary, that Samuel had with his second wife Sarah (Bell) Gaddis Browning. Out of fifteen, I only have four. Rachel's picture makes it five. It's a very thrilling addition to the fold.

Once I received the photos I wanted to analyze them to establish a date range. John C. McConnell died in 1873 so that gave me a topmost range to work with.

First, the things that you can't see. This photo has been cropped; I know this because the sender told me. No worries, though, because I also have the photos of John C. and the two boys. The photos of the boys haven't been cropped and the sender told me that the pictures of Rachel and John are framed exactly like those of the boys. The boy's photos are all on thin paper stock and all have two golden double lines encircling them. The sender says there are no photographer's stamps or studio names on them at all.

The pattern on Rachel's dress is quite striking and she is wearing a matching cape. Her sleeves bell outwards between her elbows and shoulders but become less so at the wrist. Are they leg'o'mutton sleeves? I can't tell because of the way the cape covers her shoulders but I don't think they are. They seem more bishop style, tighter near the wrist with some sort of trimming near the cuff. I think I see just the barest hint of a small row of buttons down the front of her bodice -- perhaps a double row, hidden by the cape? -- and I'm questioning whether her skirt isn't of a split style, with some sort of pleated panel in the front and the pattern to each side. She has a simple but delicately scalloped wide white collar with a brooch or cameo in its center. Her hair is center parted and smoothed neatly behind her ears into a bun.

The boys are both wearing shawl collar vests that are higher up on their necks than the one John is wearing. The boy on the left, who I judge to be the elder by a few years, is holding a work or mechanic's hat. I can't tell whether John is wearing a bow tie or some sort of cravat tucked into his vest because of the length of his beard but both boys are wearing small bows tucked underneath their collars. Both boys have sack coats on -- the eldest's of tweed or patterned wool, the other's dark -- and the seams of each are falling off their natural shoulder. John's coat seems longer than the boys' coats but that might just be a trick of the edge of the photo. John sports a single button on one side. His is more fitted to his shoulders and it appears that part of his coat collar is made or trimmed in velvet. All three are wearing their hair parted to the side. The boys seem to have oiled their hair and pushed it up off their heads but John has a full length chin beard. His hair is thin and a little full at the sides.

Looking at the pictures as a whole, I would say that they were taken by the same photographer on the same day. All four appear to be seated on a simple wooden chair; the tip of it can be seen in Rachel's photo and its seat in the elder boy's. The background is the same in all the pictures, though in the pictures of John and the boys a white strip (perhaps a baseboard?) can be seen to their bottom right. I believe the fullness of Rachel's skirt is blocking the view of that strip in her photo.

It will help at this point to have some information about the McConnell family. Rachel was born in 1825 and John in 1807. Their eldest, Theodore, was born in January 1850 and their second son, John W., was born in December of 1853. I believe that Theo is the elder boy holding the hat. Does he look about 15-16 to you? He does to me. I think the other boy looks about 12-13. The elder boy has the look of Rachel in his nose and the set of his mouth while the younger has more the look of his father.

Now to the dating. It's important that we look at these pictures as a unit as well as individually where that's concerned. Rachel's wide white collar, the double row buttons, and the bishop style sleeves all point to a date of the early 1860's. The dress styles of both the boys and John look to be near the same dates but I think, given the style of ties the boys are sporting, might be more toward the middle of the decade. I would be content to think that Rachel, being a woman in or nearing her 40's, might wear styles a couple of years out of fashion. All in all, I would say this set of photos dates about 1865 or 1866.

But the real kicker is something I questioned about her photo the moment I saw it. Most of the dresses I've seen on women in this date range have skirts that are full and consistently patterned. Rachel's dress has a pleated middle section. Now it could be that she's simply a heavy-set woman, but is it possible that she's pregnant?

Rachel had children born in 1850, 1851, 1853, 1855, 1859, 1860, 1862, and 1864. She was also possibly pregnant one other time (either in 1857 or around 1866 -- but the child in this case was either stillborn or died as an infant (I say this because in the 1900 census Rachel stated she was the mother of nine children and I can only account for eight.) If she IS pregnant in this photo, it might date the image to around 1865 and it would match the ages of her sons Theo and John W. If this image is older (say, 1870-ish) it would still match the ages of her sons (though their identification as Theo and John would certainly be in question) but Rachel would not be pregnant, just heavy.

So what say you all? Is this c1865-6, or closer to 1870?

Browning v. Beck Pt 9 - What A Web We Weave

I've learned much more about the Brownings than I could have hoped to learn by taking the time to research and analyze the Browning v. Beck cases brought up by Samuel and Julia Ann.

Far and away, the most important aspect of both cases are the statements made by Samuel and Julia Ann. To my knowledge, Samuel Browning never left a will. I've looked for his will in Crawford County and the surrounding counties (Shelby County was the county he and his second wife were residing in at the time of his death and the county his youngest daughter's daughter said he died in) with no luck. Since I've been able to find no will I considered he might have died intestate, so of course I've also looked into probate records. Nothing. In birth he seems to have hatched and in death he seems to have simply faded away. It's frustrating...

The legal statement he made for this case then, is very important to me. Considering my lack of any other written documentation, this statement is the best proof I have that Samuel was Julia Ann's father. I have implied sources like census records and the statement "dau of S&M Browning" on Julia Ann's tombstone, but this document states their relationship clearly.

Julia's statement, taken side by side with Samuel's, demonstrates another important familial link. Julia states that she was with her sister Rachel. One could infer from this -- and I do -- that Rachel is also Samuel's daughter. Couple this with Rachel's appearance on census records with Samuel and Margaret and I have a fairly good circumstantial case for saying that Rachel is also a daughter of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee.

There are other relationships that these two statements help to bolster by contributing that extra layer of circumstance. Rachel's son John Wesley McConnell is found in the 1870 census of Noble County, Indiana as a farmhand in the household of Isaac F. and Susannah Crago. Susannah's maiden name was Browning and this couple had been married in Crawford County, Illinois, where the Brownings had moved in the early 1850's. To all appearances, the fact that one of Rachel's sons was living in Isaac and Susannah's household certainly shores up the idea that Susannah (Browning) Crago was another of Samuel and Margaret's daughters.

Additionally, a young girl named Emma Hoy spent some time in Harrison County in 1870, visiting (or living for a time) with Rachel's family. Emma was the daughter of James Hoy and Margaret Browning. James and Margaret were found in the 1850 census of Tuscarawas Co., OH, living with Julia Ann and her husband, James Hoy's brother John Hoy. To find James and Margaret Hoy's daughter Emma staying with Rachel and her family is another circumstance that lends credence to the idea that Margaret, wife of James Hoy, is yet another of Samuel and Margaret's daughters.

I'm sure there are more hidden gems to this case that I have yet to discover. It's funny how one seemingly small thread of information can transform into a long and winding one weaving many different aspects of a family together. Finding these threads is one of the deepest sorts of pleasures of genealogy.

Tombstone Tuesday - The McConnells (And My First Trip Back to Their Home)

The tombstone(s) featured for tonight's edition of Tombstone Tuesday really aren't tombstones at all. There aren't any of John Coleman McConnell and his wife Rachel Browning. Their burial location -- in the tiny, mostly-hidden McConnell cemetery right outside of Tippecanoe, Harrison County, OH -- lies directly behind that of their son Theodore McConnell, the stone that is seen in the picture. We know this because Theodore directed that he "be laid at the feet of his sainted mother," and Rachel's will dictated that she be laid beside her husband.

Rachel's husband John Coleman McConnell was the son of Robert MConnell and Prudence Coleman. John was born 1 January 1807 in Belmont Co., OH and died 18 July 1873 in Harrison Co., OH. Rachel was the sixth child of Samuel Browning and Margaret Markee and was born 25 January 1825 in Athens Twn in Harrison County, OH. She died in November of 1902 in Washington Twn. in Harrison County. John and Rachel were married by R. K. Price, JP in the county on 9 April 1848.

I located the McConnell Cemetery and took this picture during my first trip to Harrison County last August. It was one of the two highlights of the trip for me. Of the thirteen children of Samuel and Margaret, one of Rachel's sisters moved to Kansas and a brother to Indiana but Rachel was the only one to choose to stay in Ohio with her husband. The other ten moved to Crawford County, IL, with their parents and cousins.

I imagine sometimes how hard that must've been, to watch your entire family ride away. I know they kept in touch -- one of Rachel's sons went to Kansas to work a summer on his aunt's farm and one of Rachel's Illinois nieces came to stay a while with her and her husband John -- but for the most part, Rachel was alone; bereft of her Browning kindred. She did, however, have nine children and a husband to keep her busy!

The story of finding the cemetery is what I'm here to tell today, though. I'd done the research to ascertain its location before going to OH. My parents and daughter and I drove around the backroads for a few hours and during one go-round I happened to see a farm with a sign that said "McConnell" on it. We got out and knocked on the farm door but no one answered; it looked abandoned. Adjacent to the farmhouse was a ramshackle building made of hand-hewn wooden beams that looked like it might've once been an old home. I walked around to the back and took a picture of the building before heading back to the car.

We drove around another hour up and down the road the cemetery was supposed to be on without any luck. Finally, as we again passed the farm with the building, my father said, "Let's just go up the hill here and stop and ask at the first house we see." It sounded like a plan. We pulled in to the first house on the hill and I got out, knocked on the door, introduced myself and explained that we were looking for the old McConnell cemetery. The lady looked surprised and asked me to tell her who we were looking for. I told her Rachel Browning and her husband John McConnell. The lady just shook her head. "Well, I reckon I know them. John and Rachel were my husband's great-great-grandparents."

Holy cow, I was flabbergasted! Talk about serendipity! She invited us in and she showed me a xeroxed copy of an old picture of John Mcconnell. She said the original was in the hands of another McConnell and it was in an oval frame and couldn't be removed for fear of damaging it. She gave me his name and number as well as the name and number of yet another McConnell researcher. Then she told me her husband was the caretaker of the McConnell cemetery and she'd direct us to its location.

When we got there we saw why we hadn't seen it and would've never seen it if we'd never taken a chance and stopped and asked. The cemetery was tucked way back in the woods and practically invisible from the road. A 'fence' made of blocks ringed its boundaries. My daughter and I climbed the hill. It was too steep for my parents so they rested in the car while I took pictures and sat amongst the leaves for a while. I was thrilled beyond belief to be at the resting place of another of Samuel and Margaret's children.

Counting Rachel I've now stood in front of seven of them (James, Elias, Julia, Rachel, Sarah, Ezra and Edward.) I have pictures of one other (Susannah) and I know where two others (Absalom, Samuel J.) are possibly buried. The resting places of the last three (Margaret, Asbury T. and John Wesley) are currently unknown.

Before I left my cousin's home to go in search of the cemetery she said one more thing to me. She told me to go back down to the McConnell farm and take a look at the old building. I said I had, and she said, "Good. That's where John and Rachel lived. John built it with his own hands." I was so glad I'd taken that picture! The picture above and to the left is the house.

To think.....what if we'd never went and knocked on that door? I wouldn't have found Rachel's resting place. Wouldn't have known I was looking at her home. Wouldn't have been able to see a picture of her husband. And on my next trip next month....I wouldn't have new cousins to meet!

Serendipity.