Black Sheep

I found a wonderful article by George Morgan today. He writes a weekly column for Ancestry.Com which is where I found this article that truly interested and intrigued me. He talks about our ancestors "respectability". I had found a lawyer's receipt for representing and ancestor of my own for murder. I do not know the story but this article talks about criminals in the family. It talks about our ancestors church going habits and health issues. He talks about the errors of imposing our own moral judgements on our ancestors without taking into consideration time period, place and social conventions of the time. If you have any black sheep in your family you might be interested in this article.


"Along Those Lines"
10/28/2005 - Archive
Respectable or Rejected?

How respectable were your ancestors? Your response may well be, “Well, what do you mean by respectable?” The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com) offers four definitions for this adjective:

1. worthy of respect; estimable
2. decent or correct in character or behavior; proper
3. a : fair in size or quantity b : moderately good; tolerable
4. fit to be seen; presentable

We all hope that our ancestors are worthy of respect and decent on character, I’m sure. Were they fair in size or quantity? Some of our ancestors certainly were not slim, wistful little things, to be sure. And we certainly hope that our ancestors were presentable in appearance. (Perhaps we’d better check those old photographs now!)

All of these definitions of ‘respectable’ sound pretty good to me, but the chances are that not all of our ancestors were “worthy of respect” within the family or within their communities. That becomes an important consideration when we try to place our ancestors into geographical and historical context. It isn’t unusual to omit the social contexts of the time and place, and social context is a mighty influence in our ancestors’ lives. “Respectability” often made a big difference in whether a person was accepted into or ostracized from a particular group, and degrees of respectability determined social tolerance of a person in a community or a community’s sub-group.

In "Along Those Lines..." this week, let’s consider just a few of the social characteristics and mores that may have influence our ancestors’ place in a community, and how that may have influenced their lives.

Church-going
Religion was a major force in the settlement of the American colonies. Most colonial settlers to North America and other places made the arduous trip in the name of religious freedom. Religious worship has taken many forms around the world throughout history and individuals’ beliefs have resulted in the establishment of different groups.

Some of my ancestors who had settled on the eastern shore of Maryland, in the New Munster area of Cecil County, relocated as part of a large group to Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. They founded a single Presbyterian church but, after some short time, there were two other Presbyterian churches founded in the area. Why? The distance to the first church for some members was a factor, but there also were some disagreements about the way the church was operated. In another case, the congregation outgrew the facility and started a new church.

Was your ancestor a “church-going” person? Attendance at religious services has long been considered a valid attempt to improve one’s spiritual and personal life. If a person attended church, he (or she) was certain to be at least trying to become a better person. If the person contributed to the church, that support was considered good. However, we have certainly seen or known of examples in which a person attends church in order to “maintain appearances,” and contributes financially to make an impression on others. I read a book perhaps twenty-five years ago about an Englishman who contributed £50 each year to his church to demonstrate his piety, while telling a friend in private that his contribution was merely an investment to draw parishioners into his store where they spent perhaps ten times that amount because they felt he was “a good Christian.” While that is a highly cynical approach to life, it undoubtedly existed.

In a more contemporary family situation, one of my ancestors learned that the minister of his church had engaged in something unethical. He and several other church elders privately confronted the minister with the incontrovertible evidence, but the minister refused to resign. The elders made the evidence public and the congregation became polarized. The result was the fracture of the church into two congregations and a schism in the social structure of the entire town.

It is important to include in your research a study of your ancestors’ religious beliefs, their religious affiliations, and the religious institutions in which they were members. The study of those institutions can contribute a great deal to your insights into your ancestral families. I’ll share a word of caution, though. While the published history of a church by the church, perhaps to commemorate a key anniversary, will provide a great deal of detail, it is apt to omit details of internal strife. Other published local histories and area religious histories may provide more details and contain less bias.

Criminals in the Family!!!
Some families suppress stories of criminals in the family. They are considered a source of great shame. A criminal in the family was, at one time, considered to be an indication of the overall morality of all the direct family members. A family with a convicted criminal was often shunned or completely ostracized by the community. They became social pariahs, unwelcome in most places, including churches, social clubs, and fraternal and other community organizations.

There is an individual in one of my collateral lines, Colonel John T. Prior (1840-1910) who was a criminal but an exception to the situation I described above. He returned to his parents’ home in Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia, on 6 April 1865 to find his mother sobbing over his father’s body in front of their home. Apparently three Confederate deserters had come to the house to steal money and food. When confronted by John’s father, one of the deserters shot and killed him. They then took what they wanted and beat a hasty retreat. John helped his brother bury their father’s body, kissed his mother, and took off in pursuit of the murderers. He finally caught up with them after two months in Texas. Although he killed six other Confederate deserters in the process – the wrong ones – he then killed the ‘correct’ three men. He proved that they were the correct ones when he found his father’s pocket watch in the possession of one of the men. While John T. Prior was undoubtedly a murderer of nine men, he was never tried for the crimes. They were considered ‘justified’ in all cases, even the wrong men.

I have a friend in Pennsylvania whose grandmother is said to have founded the family fortune. Everyone in the family is proud of “Granny” but no one knows anything about their grandfather, not even the grandmother. That’s because “Granny” was once one of the most beautiful “girls” in a notorious gentlemen’s club in Chicago at the turn of the 20th century!

Diseases
Everyone knows about the highly contagious nature of leprosy and the bubonic and pneumonic plagues. These were not, of course, the only highly contagious diseases in history that may have influenced our ancestors. Our immigrating ancestral families arriving at Ellis Island and other ports were examined for such diseases as cholera, plague, smallpox, measles, typhoid fever, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and diphtheria, and those exhibiting symptoms were quarantined. They sometimes were refused entry to the United States and were sent back to the port of origin. The discovery of the highly contagious eye disease, trachoma, which could cause blindness and even death, was reason for immediate expulsion.

Other diseases, such as cancer, tuberculosis (consumption), and any of the so-called “social diseases” may have been too delicate to be discussed, but they certainly were reason for social ostracism. Only the best and most tolerant of friends and relatives would remain for support and comfort. A majority of those with diseases were either institutionalized or, at worst, died abandoned and alone. Often, too, their families would not even claim the body for burial, and the corpse was interred in an unmarked pauper’s grave. (Perhaps that’s what happened to my great-uncle Briscoe!)

Respectable or Rejected?
Family history research may uncover any number of questionable characters, personality traits, aberrations, diseases, and otherwise “unsavory” details. Our elders may not have been willing to discuss these things for any number of reasons. They may have felt some shame or had a desire to protect the family from scandal and/or “those distressing details.” Whatever the case, when you yourself uncover the facts, you will also have to decide whether to make public the information and proofs you’ve found. Will the truth be hurtful to anyone? What other impacts might the truth have on one or more family members? You must weigh the consequences carefully. I’m not advocating burying the truth or altering the truth in the family history. Indeed, I am all for recording the truth for posterity. I am, however, advocating maintaining consideration for the living family members. You may share the information about the “less-than-perfect” ancestors privately with the family, but respect the family’s desire for privacy on certain delicate topic.

I personally enjoy having some “black sheep” in the family. Their stories add another dimension to the family history. Colonel John T. Prior’s story paints a picture of family rage, pride, and his commitment to avenging his father’s death. Was "Granny” right in becoming a prostitute? Were people right in distancing themselves from people with diseases? We can impose the known social traditions of the time upon their stories, such as “murder is a sin,” “prostitution is socially abhorrent,” and “I don’t want to catch that disease and die!” However, we don’t necessarily always know the circumstances and/or motivations of all the persons involved in the story.

It’s easy to be the armchair moralists as we conduct genealogical research. It is often an error to impose our own value judgments on the lives of our ancestors without evaluating the place, the time period, the political climate, and social conventions of the time. It’s therefore a very fine line sometimes to declare that an ancestor or other family member was “respectable” or not.

Look at the people in your own family tree again from a different angle, and consider whether those “black sheep” and ostracized people are really deserving of the judgments made by their contemporaries. Maybe you really should be proud to have them in your family tree after all!

Happy Hunting!
George

Visit George’s website at http://ahaseminars.com/atl for information about speaking engagements.