The Brooks line

I've decided to write up one of my family line's history as I know it so far and make it "human readable." I hope it's not too dull to read. I've eliminated a lot of things from the following passages, mostly the names of those I'm not directly related to (except for siblings of a direct ancestor). I've found a lot of direct relative's sibling's family members. Why do I care about what happens to non-direct family members? Well, I didn't used to, actually. When I started out writing things on charts when I was 15 years old, I just wanted those I directly descended from and not make things overwhelming. Now, I recognize and have proven the idea that you can find more information about earlier roots by looking at records of people like cousins. For example, their record might list a smaller birthplace area (such as Sandusky, Ohio, rather than just plain Ohio) for a parent. Or I might go "hey! there's other people with the same last name in that cemetery!" and find that the previously unknown parents are buried there. Also, it'd be cool to find distant relatives living today, but I haven't actually managed that beyond who my Grandpa Larsen's niece knows.

-----
Brooks family, 1833/4-1922

The Brooks branch has been in Michigan a relatively long time. The first record of a Brooks in the state is in the 1860 U.S. Census. Oscar is 27 years old and Elmina (maiden name Holmes) is 24. The census shows the parents and two children, Alonzo and Everett, ages 3 and 1. Parents are listed as born in New York and children in Michigan. Before this, who knows? I just can't get past this 1860 barrier.

Ross, also written as Rob in some places, is born in 1861. Then my great-great grandpa Frank is born in 1863 in Jackson County. In 1869, there is records showing that a baby sister was born but died within the month. This means that the family has moved to Clinton County since 1863. There is no record of Oscar participating in the Civil War.

The second hint of the whole family is in the 1870 U.S. Census. Here, all four children (Alonzo, Eva, Ross, and Frank) living with Oscar and Elmina are listed as born in Michigan. Later that year, Harriet is born. In 1875, Alonzo marries Anna (Warner).  Eva marries Loren A. Stone in 1877.

In 1880, only Ross, Frank, and Harriet are living with their parents. In 1885, Eva died. She was 26 years old and married. It's not clear why she died, but her married name was Eva R. Stone. Ross marries Nellie (Hunt) in 1887.

Frank marries my great-great grandma Bertha (Smith) in 1891. My great-grandpa Lee was born in 1899. He has two brothers, Ebbie (born 1892) and Ransom (born 1906 or 1907). When Lee was 9 years old, the family moved to Oakland County, where he remained the rest of his life.

Great-grandpa Lee marries Bessie (Francis) in 1920. Their first child was born not too long after that but died as an infant. In 1922, my grandpa LeRoy was born. Another son is born in 1828 but dies the same year.
-----

I started listing when and where all these people died but then decided it wasn't all that interesting (and, admittedly, kind of depressing). I've avoided mentioning anyone who is still alive (such as my grandpa's siblings) for the sake of privacy.

If you are one for details, you might have noticed at least one contradiction. Apparently census takers sometimes got the names bungled, or the birth recorders got tired and listed the wrong sex, and so on and so forth. One runs into the "human factor" all the time in genealogy. I use "human factor" as an umbrella term for all those mistakes and other things such as the person lying about their age or where their parents came from.

First, Elmina's name has been spelled Almina, Almira, Alvina, Elmira, and probably other ways. Why am I sure that Elmina is the real one? I'm not; but that's what's on her headstone and is the one that comes up the most. Second, the Everett / Eva confusion. Everett is listed as 1 years old in 1860. Eva is listed as 11 years old in 1870. There doesn't appear to be any record listing both of them as existing at the same time. But I can only find record of Eva past 1870. Weird, huh? Two theories: Elmina didn't really know what sex her 1-year-old was. Or the mix-up is the census taker's fault.

Another less weird one is Rob/Ross, whose actual name is Ross as is shown in marriage and death certificates. However, the sex confusion pops up again a generation later with Ebbie. There are two birth certificates - same date, place, and parents - but they're both listed as girls, with names Effie and Ebbie. However, I know it's a male Ebbie because there are records of him in censuses, marrying twice (to females), and having a possibly adopted daughter. I'm not certain, though, if it was a duplication of the records (I haven't been able to access the actual birth records, just transcripts) or if there were twins born, they were thought to be both girls, and then Effie died young.

This mixing up of genders for birth records or when they're very young interests me. Now, people expect to know immediately whether they say "aww she's so cute!" or "he's going to be a big boy someday!" It's awkward when the baby isn't decked out in pink or blue. But just a century ago? People were a bit more focused on other things, such as making sure the baby got fed which was a bit more of a challenge then for farming folks than for most people today. Most babies spent the first couple years of their lives or so clad in a simple white gown. Makes changing the diapers easier at least. I am not saying that the old days were better; after all, so many infants died and I don't think houses were as well baby-proofed. I'm just thinking maybe we need to think about whether babies need complete, miniaturized sneakers before they can focus on whatever's in front of them - or walk. Okay, strange tangent from genealogy, but that's one of the fun things about doing this kind of research. You never know what you might find!