Halloween in the United States

Happy Halloween!

Last year a wrote a post about the origins of Halloween from pagans to Christians with a mention of Ireland.  This year I did a little research about the history of Halloween in the United States.  Initially, I found remarks online that in the U.S. we adopted what they've been doing in Europe and the British Isles for hundreds of years.  Well, that's not the whole story.

In the early years of the United States, Halloween was not celebrated.  With mostly Protestants making up the Christian population of our country, Halloween was considered mainly a Catholic holiday and celebration at the time.  While early colonial America in places like Virginia and Maryland celebrated harvest, they did not take in the full aspects of Halloween.

Based on my quick research, it looks like you can point the finger at those Irish Catholic immigrants fleeing the potato famine for how we celebrate Halloween in the United States.   They brought Jack O'Lanterns with them and other "harvest" and "all hallows eve"  traditions with them.

By the 20th Century, the religious influence in Halloween was gone in the U.S.   It had become and still is a more of a secular holiday for all to celebrate.  We have parades, costumes, trick-or-treating, parties, and more.  The holiday is really aimed at children here in the U.S. at this point in time, but adults still have a lot of fun of their own.

I still recall as a child my own impression of Halloween.  I always thought of Sleepy Hallow and stories of the headless horseman.  Back East, Fall is so distinct, especially in New England.  It really lends itself to the Halloween theme.

So, "BOO!" to you all and Happy Halloween.

Rerun Friday - Scotch-Irish

Back on January 27, 2011, I posted about the "Scotch-Irish".  My post back then seems a little confusing even to me so I've rewritten it.  I want to be as clear as possible with this terminology.  So......here's my updated "Language Lesson" on the term Scotch-Irish with some other terms thrown in.

I'm just not fond of the term Scotch-Irish.  I see it used as a catch all phrase for any surname that could be considered Irish or Scottish.  It is especially common in the United States where so many people have no idea of their surname origins.  On many an occasion, people have asked me if my McGuire surname is Scottish.  My response to them is that I really don't think so.  It's a pretty definite Irish name.  The name is found around the world, however, and even in Scotland.  So is it Scotch-Irish?

The term Scotch-Irish is an American term that is not used in England, Ireland, or Scotland. Scotch-Irish actually refers to Irish Presbyterians and other Protestant dissenters from Ulster Province who immigrated to North America during the colonial years.  Most of the Scotch-Irish were descended from Scottish and English families who had been transplanted to Ireland during the 17th century.   This was known as the Plantation of Ulster.  Many of these "Ulster Scots", as they are referred to in Britain, had descendants who immigrated to America in the 18th and early 19th centuries.  They immigrated from Ireland and mainly to the Appallachian region of the U.S.

Much confusion stems from the use of this term even among those who deem themselves Scotch-Irish.  I think I can clear this up by reminding anyone who thinks of themselves as Scotch-Irish that this group of people were not Roman Catholic.  If you are Catholic and/or your Irish immigrant ancestors were, then you are highly likely not Scotch-Irish.  The more I read about this term, the more I realize that my McGuire's were not Scotch-Irish.  My Maxwell's, while they may have been part of the "Plantation", may be "Ulster Scots".  That's a big maybe on the Maxwell side by the way.

So where did the term "Scots-Irish" come from?  Well it appears to be a misinterpretation of Scotch-Irish.  Scotch-Irish was coined in 1744 and generally refers to those living in the Appalachian region of the U.S.  This term came into play in the U.S. when the mass Irish immigrations occurred in the 1840s-50s.  To differentiate the Protestant Irish in the Appalachian region, they were named Scotch-Irish since the masses of recent Irish immigrants were, in fact, Irish Catholics.  The term Scots-Irish/Scot-Irish does not show up until around 1972 and appears to be a mispronunciation of its predecessor.

Why dislike the Scotch-Irish term?  It really is a misnomer.  People seem to use, or misuse, this term when they come across a surname that could be Irish or Scottish.  I have also seen the Protestant Irish in Northern Ireland referred to as Scot-Irish. I am betting they would not like to hear that since they consider themselves Irish.

I stay away from using these terms as I don't think I identify with the use of them since my ancestors were Roman Catholic.  I actually cringe now when I see Scots-Irish written and used.  I did have a discussion online with someone about the term.   She found it very confusing.  Ultimately, she indicated that there were probably prejudices that went along with the use of these terms.  I agree.

So, whatever you think of the term Scotch-Irish, bear in mind that it is misused and misunderstood by many and those labeled as such may not be fond of it.

Why Deviate Off Your Direct Line? - Revisited

Following Your Blood Line, or The Whole Family

Believe it or not, "choice" comes up time and time again with regards to my family tree.  I am continually presented with a new branch of my tree.  Do I follow the new branch or continue to head up the main branch to the top of my tree?  That tree, by the way, continues to grow and get "taller", if you will, as I creep back in time.

I have come across people who are growing their tree taller and fuller, wider, or overgrown as maybe my tree appears to be.  Yes, there are massive family trees out there on Ancestry.com and on other sites online that represent hours and hours of research and "trailing off" as I call it.  Trailing off on a branch of your family tree can be quite rewarding, complicated, and distracting at times.

There are those that just grow their tree "taller" and have few branches.  It is a different choice than my own.  Many people out there choose to follow only their direct blood line.  They refrain from "trailing off" on other branches of the tree.  Sticking with this method can keep one's family tree research simple and easy to source.  It can also be rather limiting.

If you limit yourself to just your direct blood line, you might miss out on learning about communities and finding stories of how your ancestors lived with the others around them.  When the concept of community and collaboration are added to one's family tree research, the discoveries become endless.  The complexity of this approach can turn some people off, however.  The more complex a family tree, the harder it becomes to share it with others and keep their attention.
                                                                             
So will you lose people if you do choose a more complex approach to your tree?  Probably.  But, can you give up all of the possibilities that come with the "complex" tree?  The possibilities include, and are not limited to, finding relatives with shared research interests, finding research has already been completed, and discovering stories about a family line.

I seek stories about people.  Whether the stories are lengthy or anecdotal, I love the stories.  You never know when you might find 193 letters that were written as correspondence between family members from the U.S. to those who remained in the old country.  You never know if you might find photos of your great great grandfather that were saved by the second cousin that you've never met.  You never know what you might find, so why limit yourself.

In the 1990s, I sought my direct blood line.  That was interesting and all that I had time for, or made time for, back then.  Now, I seek the clusters of people.  It's the way that I have found my female family members but also the stories of the people and the communities in which they lived.  From the Irish Settlement in Newport, New York to my Flanagan's of Termonfechin, discoveries abound from my complex family tree.

From my perspective, seeking the whole family is the way to go.  I have found relatives who have what I refer to as living memories of those who came before us, those whom they knew.  Limiting myself is not in the game plan when it comes to my family tree.  I'll continue to allow my family tree to lead me up or down different branches as they present themselves and offer an interesting story.

Rerun Friday - What's in your backyard? - The California State Library

"What's in your backyard? - 900 N Street, Sacramento, CA" was my original post about the California State Library posted on Thursday, November 18, 2010.

900 N Street, Sacramento, CA, is located about 9.2 miles from my front door. Sometimes you never fully realize what resources are located in your own "backyard" when it comes to genealogy. 900 N Street is the current location of the California State Library. It is across the street from the historical state library on Capitol Mall which is currently undergoing revonations until 2013.

For a somewhat temporary location, 900 N Street is pretty awesome and modern. Most of the library collection had existed in the "old library". 900 N Street houses, and has for quite a number of years housed, the California History Collection. The key with the California history portion of the library is that the collection is on site. The rest of the library is packed up in warehouses somewhere in West Sacramento during the main renovation.

I was amazed by a few things about this library. First and foremost, it is a good size and modern but the building is also occupied by the appellate courts. The lobby area is rather grand and looks like a modern museum. Parking downtown is rather dismal as usual but there are public parking garages nearby within walking distance. The "big deal" is that this place is free just like any other library.

The librarians are onsite to assist you but they do other research for the State of California at the same time. One catch to this place is that unless you are an employee of the State of California, you can't check out the books. The librarians indicated to me that the library is mainly for research. Apparently, people use this location for genealogy research but also writers come there to do their research.

My goal was to locate this library and find the book that contains the mini-bio from 1891 about M. Flanagan (Michael Flanagan). The copy that I have is becoming faded. I wanted a new copy plus the opportunity to see what this library has in store for my research. Within about 20 minutes of getting myself acclimated to this library, I found the book that I was looking for with much assistance from the librarians. The book was in the back marked "fragile". This book is over 100 years old. They allowed me to view it and make photocopies of a few pages.

While trying to locate this book, I looked in their card catalog. It is the real deal when it comes to card catalogs and not computerized as many card catalogs are these days. It is a piece of wood furniture with drawers, cards and all. I went to the drawer that had Flanagan in it. While looking for Michael Flanagan, I also found Joaquin Joseph Flanagan (Corning, CA) and Leo J. Flanagan (Burlingame, CA). I did not have time to fetch the books that contain information about the two of them but I know with some certainty that these two gentlemen are also my relatives.

My success in finding the book with Michael Flanagan included gave me hope in finding more information at that library. The librarian indicated that they also have a photo collection. There exists the possibility that the state may have photos of my relatives. I certainly need to check on my McLaughlin's in this library too. I definitely found Michael Flanagan.

I had limited time to spend at the library that day plus I had my two year old in tow. She was good for about the first 45 minutes and then it was time to get going out of there. My research is there for another day and when I am by myself!

Ancestry.com DNA Beta - Mixed Results

Instead of submitting my own DNA to Ancestry.com which would have likely produced the results of "British Isles", "Central Europe" (Germany included), and "Scandinavia", I decided that any new and interesting finds in our family roots and origins might actually be on my husband's side of the family.

With the legend of a Native American back in his heritage, we submitted his DNA for testing.  What we found was rather unsurprising and seemingly uninteresting at first glance.

-74% British Isles
-16% Central Europe
-10% Uncertain

We had pretty much pegged his origins as 70% Irish and Scottish.  I suppose some English is in there too bringing his DNA up to 74% from that part of the world.  We did not find any Scandinavian DNA in his results at this time.  Sometimes that can be surprising given the Viking influence in the British Isles and, in particular, in Ireland.

Given our very German last name, I was rather taken back that he is only 16% Central Europe.  So while we live with a German last name, we are both around three quarters (no DNA proof for me yet) British Isles.  He's mainly Scottish/Irish and I'm Irish.  We've both been able to trace that back in time for the most part.  In Germany, we both know where our ancestors originate too.

The 10% "Uncertain" leaves us scratching our heads.   What are the testers uncertain of?   Were they uncertain of a potential Native American match or some other origins.  My husband was hoping that that this DNA test would either eliminate or confirm his "American Indian" heritage.  Now, we are still left wondering.

I must admit that my husband does not really look Irish at all.  He looks to be German and maybe some rugged Scottish.  If his DNA proved to be Native American, we would not be surprised at all.  Appearances aside, you just never can tell.

In reviewing the "Beta" DNA for Ancestry.com, we must remember that this is in its infancy.  Ancestry.com is gathering DNA and putting it into a database to help people find blood relatives.  In fact, the test results found a potential DNA match of a 4th or 5th cousin for my husband with 95% certainly.   That's a pretty distant cousin if you ask me.  We actually could not find any surname matches on that person's tree right now.  Will we find a closer relative once more DNA is collected?

It becomes a waiting game.  Any Beta test works that way.   As more and more people order the DNA test, more matches will form, and a more definitive origin can result.  The 10% of uncertain for my husband could shrink over time providing a more exact ethnicity.

I'm certainly game to see what happens.  Once Ancestry.com opens up the DNA tests to everyone, I will submit mine too.  For now, the solo invite was used for my husband.  It has generated quite a bit of interest in his family. 

Rerun Friday - Networking

"Networking" was originally posted on Thursday, October 28, 2010

In my quest to trace my family tree, I have found networking with others to be a key to my success. While message boards are sometimes a futile source of information, the sheer contacts that can be made reviewing them can make the tour of these seemingly timeconsuming posts worth it.

The Member Connect option on Ancestry.com is a networking tool designed to bring people together who are seeking the same family tree information. I find it to be quite effective. How else would I have found my McLaughlin's, Maxwell's, and other descendants of Jack and Minnie Flanagan.

Another rather interesting consequence that can arise out of reviewing Member Connect is that you might find relatives or college professors borrowing your information. I like to refer to it as "snooping around". I mean that with the utmost respect, with a little humor thrown in, and as the bold researcher that I have become can appreciate that method. The boldness is what gets you connected,  can even connect a college professor to the owner of some source documents or letters, plus more stories of those who lived before us.

So I continue with my ultimate attempt at networking which includes this blog, my website, my Facebook site for this blog, and my internal network of family and relatives who have gathered and shared their research about our family lines. I look upon my information online as a respository for anyone who is connected to my family tree or just interested in reading about my quest for more information about my ancestors.

Catholic Church Not Sharing

I don't usually use my blog to talk about religion and politics and I'm not planning to continue to do so in the future.  Even this post does not have much to do with politics from a governmental standpoint.  It does have to do with politics of religion and the consequence it has on genealogy.  I hesitated briefly on posting something so controversial but then I decided to post this anyway.

As to no surprise, the Catholic Church does not like the Mormons (Latter-Day-Saints).  That's probably not a real shocker for anyone who pays attention to these two religions and how they interact (or rather don't interact).

In 2008, the Catholic Church told the LDS Church that they couldn't have their records.  HA!  Now, you LDS can't try to baptize those faithfully departed.  As I read through the online article called "Vatican Orders Catholic Parish Registers Off-Limits to the LDS Church", I had to question what the heck the Catholic Church is thinking.

As a practicing Catholic and with twelve years of Catholic School under my belt, I find that I have a broader perspective on the church and its teachings than your everyday church goer.  Sometimes I don't agree with everything they teach by the way.  Choice and thinking for myself is probably why I am still Catholic.  If there is one thing that those Dominican Nuns taught me, it was to think for myself and seek the truth. 

The truth of the matter in Catholic Genealogy is that church records are spread out all over parishes and you have visit each one to find what you are looking for.   How antiquated and frustrating for the non-LDS genealogist.  That's me!  I have a whole family tree full of Roman Catholics along with a few Lutherans.  I guess the Catholic Church does not think share and share alike is appropriate with church records.

The Vatican's point with ordering Catholic parishes to hold back their records baffles me a bit.  The basis of their denial is so that the faithfully departed Catholics cannot be posthumously baptized in the LDS Church by proxy.

My goal here is not to poke too much fun at or disgrace either church.  Instead, I am noting what I think is unreasonable.  The Catholic Church does not want to share their records for fear that dead people will be converted to LDS.  This insinuates that the Church puts stock in what the LDS believe in that you can baptize dead people.   


I find the refusal of the Catholic Church to share church records with the LDS repository to be quite stifling.  It makes my job in completing my family tree so much tougher.  I completely respect and appreciate that the LDS Church has preserved so much family history and records.

I never did hear back from that Catholic Church in Brooklyn, New York which holds the key to my past ancestors in their church records.  I pray everyday that church does not burn down.  It's the only place where those records exist.  I hope to get there someday and hope that the Catholic Church comes up with a better plan for genealogy for all Roman Catholics.  We need a solution that gets to the main point of all of this --- proving one's family tree and finding your roots.  Mine are mostly Roman Catholic!