Mystery Monday

Who Was Andrew Gastin?

Who was Andrew Gastin?

If we look closely at this document, we will see on line 39, the entry for the death record of a single man, named Andrew Gastin.

Let's bring this a little closer so that you can see:

and closer still:

Now, we can see a bit better. On Line 39 we see Andrew Gastin. And if we read across, we see he is listed as S for slave, with his owner being one William Bean.  He was listed as a Male. No death date is given, but just directly above him is listed the death of Nancy Bean for October 11th of 1856. Since the last death registered prior to Nancy's date is June 26th, one might automatically assume that the individual died sometime between June and October. But wait, because, above Nancy is listed her mother, Rachel Bean, and Rachel didn't die until November 7th of the same year. And so, we may assume only one thing: all three deaths were reported by William Bean (which is listed on the second half of the page - each entry takes up two pages, with the line extending from one page to the next), and it is obvious since Rachel's death, which is listed before Nancy's did not occur until after, that William simply reported all three at one time. Probably on his first visit to the county seat, in Union, after their occurrences. We can assume that Andrew Gastin died probably in the late fall, after William's last trip to Union until spring.

The cause of death listed for Andrew is "Hooping Cough". Now look directly to the right, and after the cause of death, you will note a number "3" listed. If you were to go back to the top photograph, and follow that column to the top of the page, you will see that this column, and the one preceding it are for the individual's age. Since nothing is listed in the first column, we know that Andrew Gastin was but a mere 3 months old.

Place of burial is not listed in these death records. However, all of the Bean family is buried in the Bean Cemetery, which sits across the road, and just past a large field, atop a knoll, that was cleared during that time, but which has now been over run with tall mature trees. It is said that slaves were buried outside of the fence that once surrounded the cemetery. (the remains of old wooden fence posts, and cattle fencing can still be seen around the cemetery perimeter). I walked this perimeter a few years ago, but could not find any stones that may have marked slave burials. However, there were more stones within the cemetery than of names of those we know who are buried there. While it is told that slaves are buried outside of the cemetery, it is my personal belief that they were buried within the cemetery fence confines.

It is believed little Andrew Gastin is buried here. If you continue across the page, under the column marked "Parents" only one name is listed "William Bean". It is unknown if that literally meant that William Bean was his father, or his owner, as previously written in the column following the fact that he was a slave. If so, who was his mother? Possibly a woman with the "last name" of Gastin? We know that many slaves took on the last name of their owners, not by choice, but simply to mark them as belonging to a particular slave holder.

However, I have been unable to locate a woman named Gastin in the area, either before or after the Civil War.

It is known that some of the former Bean slaves moved to Oklahoma territory following the Civil War. A few years ago, I was in touch with a woman who claimed to be a descendant of William Bean of Monroe County, West Virginia. She said that they used to laugh about their Bean ancestry, and called themselves "black beans". When I returned her wonderfully written email, and asked for more information, I never received an answer. So I am hoping she will find her way to this blog post and write to me once more! I would love to share information!

Little Andrew Gastin's mother may never be known for sure. But, for all intent's and purposes, it looks as if his father was William Bean. And I would wager to bet, that little Andrew is buried somewhere in the same cemetery as that William Bean lies.

It's a sad, sad story of a tiny little 3 month old baby dying of whooping cough. Sadder still, that time has erased his parent's names. At least his mother's name.

I hope, one day, that we will find her. And be able to put a name to little Andrew's Mommy.

Mystery Monday - Am I Related to You?

****DISCLAIMER: The following review is a personal review of the app 'We're Related' for your iPhone, by Ancestry.com. Please be kind...it is a PERSONAL review, and this blogger is NOT obligated to review it.

A personal review of the We're Related app by Ancestry.com 

I've seen a lot of negative talk out there in the cyber world about this app, We're Related. So, I had to give it a try.

I got the app just a short time after its release to the public. I thought of it as simply, 'oh how cute!' You know, I figured it was going to tell me some crazy stuff, much like a Magic 8 Ball (oops, just about told you how old I am!) In any case, I simply wasn't taking it seriously. I mean, there are versions of my family tree on ancestry that date back to 2001 when I first got on to the site. They are not professional in any way shape or form. I wasn't even using sources or making citations back then! I didn't even realize that I needed to! That's how green I was at this thing called genealogy. And over the years, I took my tree off of Ancestry because I saw people using my tree, including my notes! And when I confronted people with  that, they would swear that they NEVER used my notes. (Hint: if you have a genealogy program like FTM, when making personal notes, always end your note with a dash and then either your name or your initials. Dummy's don't even look to see those initials there! They simply download your notes, and say they are their own!)

Okay, so my tree is hidden. And there are NO NOTES attached to my online tree any more. I will share it if I feel like someone is a close enough relative, when asked. Meaning at least a 2nd cousin. Any further away in the chain of relatives, and you are on your own! Sources and citations are included, but no notes!

So, when I got the We're Related app, I thought it would be about as useless as t-i-_-s on a boar hog. (Yeah, you know what that "_" stands for..) It was just going to be for fun. I got some hits that said I was related to some of my favorite genealogy people out there. But since I know that nothing even remotely connected to 2nd cousin would come of any of it, and seeing that our common ancestor was like 8-10 generations ago, no I didn't bother to contact them. Or to put them in my tree. Not that my tree doesn't have some people in it who aren't even remotely related to me, but that's because I did research for some of my cousins, on my Dad's side. (Dad came from a family of 15 children. Grandpa outlived two of his three wives, and had children with all three. So in all fairness, having taken on the mantle of family genealogist, I did do some research for my cousins who are not from my Dad's immediate siblings.)

So, why am I excited about my app? And how, or has it, affected my research?

Okay, so I wanted to know if I really was related to John F. Kennedy. Out of curiosity. But, I didn't have research back as far as the app had our common ancestor. But it did give me some names to pick up where I had not tread before. And it began as a game. Not to PROVE the relationship, but more to DISPROVE it. And a funny thing happened.

I was able to PROVE my ancestry back to the common ancestor! But that still didn't prove that I was related to Kennedy. So, instead of moving backward, as I had to prove my link to the common ancestor, I began researching forward from the common ancestor to see if I could, once again, disprove a relationship with the former President. And guess what. I DID prove we shared the same common ancestor!

So, for about the first 10 or so that I received I went right to work to see who all I am related to, or NOT related to.

Funny thing is this, I was able to provide documentation on those first 10 or so that proved I was related to them. Very distantly mind you, but the connect was there. But I wasn't excited about the connect, I mean, if you're a Christian and believe in the Bible, then you already know we are all related someway. Right? If you could do it, we would all be able to trace our roots back to Adam and Eve. Am I right? (Don't you just love looking at those trees on Ancestry or Family Search that have Adam and Eve listed as their ancestors? As I always say, the proof is in the pudding, and you ain't got no pudding there my friend!)

What I was excited about, was the fact that in doing the research, I was getting hints at where to go to find my next set of grandparents. you know, we all have them. 10x great-grandfather was married to UNK. (We've all got them, don't we? Those mystery grandparents?) Suddenly I had names. And with names I could begin to cross reference marriage bans, licenses, birth and death records, property taxes, and could corroborate distant aunts and uncles. These people had been mysteries to me until now!

Okay, so I'm not supportive of using the trees that you are shown on the app. Some of them are just plain weird and make no sense! But do take some time and look through them. I have busted through SEVERAL brick walls with this app's help!

Not to mention that I can say I'm 8th cousins with Johnnie Depp, or 2nd cousins, 36 times removed with Queen Elizabeth. Okay, laugh. Some of my family really get a charge out of knowing things like that!

But, what if I can tell you that I have reputable research that states I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne? Oh, you too??? Yeah, right, so can 2 billion other people on the planet! But hey, I did the research to find my trail (ancestry) back to him. How many of those 2 billion other people can say the same? (I even found out that Henry VIII had some of my ancestors noggins lopped off!)

So, I am totally infatuated with the app. At first I was able to keep up with doing research on each new tree match. I had to give that up in a hurry! There was no way I could prove everybody as fast as the trees were coming in. And no, I am not related to every tree I am sent. For instance, I am NOT related to Kurt Cobain, or Toby Maguire (through a common ancestor listed as Frances UNKNOWN, yeah let's see you prove that one!)  But without much effort at all I have proven some very interesting people share a common ancestor with me. Sadly, the closest any of them have been is 4th cousin 4 times removed. Care to guess the lucky relative there? None other than the original fright poet, Edgar Allan Poe.

So, if you have a smart phone, go ahead and download the app. But don't take it seriously, unless you're willing to do the legwork to prove that you're related to Charlemagne. Don't forget sources and citations. And none of this "UNK" stuff. Find out who it is, and then set out to disprove it. (I find it easier to find a name, and then disprove the relationship than trying to prove it. I start out with the premise that it's all a fairy tale, unless you can prove it.)

Have fun with it! Use the app when you have your next family gathering and play charades with everyone taking a famous person you're related to and try to guess who it is!  (Just make sure you let everyone know that the connection hasn't been proven unless you actually have!)

Seriously, though, it's a fun app, and it really has helped me break through some walls where I had been stumped before. In some cases moving back only a single generation, or as in the case of Charlemagne, 38 generations!

On a scale of one to five stars, I rate the app with FIVE STARS.

Mystery Monday

Mystery Monday

Just a few short generations ago, there is a mystery that has yet to be solved. That of my great-great-grandfather, William Bean. (Not to be confused with his son also William.)

The elder William first appears in documents in 1804 at the age of 12 when he is placed in servitude as an indentured servant to one Mr. Ballard. A careful review of this document tells us nothing of why William was placed in indenturement. The event occurred on none other than his 12th birthday to be precise, September 18, 1804.

In February of the same year, a brother, John, was also placed as an indentured servant.

What happened to these young boys (John was 14 at the time of his placement) to put them in such a predicament?

DNA tests can tell us that he probably came from England or Ireland. But the trail literally is cold from that point.

There was a William McBean in the area just 10 years prior. This may have been senior William's father. And a Sarah Bean in the 1805 tax rolls that "owed nothing atoll, owning only her clothing and a spinning wheel". These are presumed to be the parents. But there is no definitive proof.

DNA has not been matched to any other Bean lines. Including Beane, Bane, McBean, MacBean, Bein, Been, and well, you get the general idea. It is as if our family literally dropped out of the sky!

We hope to one day find the missing puzzle piece. At least that is my goal.

Here's to hoping it won't be too much longer! Those of us with a real interest, well, we're not getting any younger!

Mystery Monday

William Bean's ancestry, is for the most part, a mystery.

Somewhere a Bible was seen with the inscription of his parents marriage, and their names, along with his birth. No one knows where the Bible is now, so we have only someone's say-so that this was true.

In Morton's History of Monroe County, Morton reflects that William's son stated his father was from Ireland, and had stolen on board a ship to come to America (which would totally through out the Bible theory). And he was then put into servitude as an indentured servant at the age of 12 (actually on his 12th birthday) until the age of 21 to repay his passage and education.

The possible scenario of William's parents went around like crazy, and while not proven, many claim it as cold hard fact. But the recounting of William stowing away on board ship to get to America makes more sense. It explains the DNA testing we have had done so far.

The latest DNA study indicates that William was most likely from England or Ireland, which would explain the story as recounted in Morton's.

Monroe County, West Virginia court records shows that a John Bean was placed in indenture in February 1804. While William was placed on September 18, 1804. William also told his family he had a younger brother named Roy who ran away from indenture and was never heard from again. Court records have not revealed a Roy, however.

Family insist that William told that his father, also named William, fought in the American Revolution on the British side, along with Cornwallis. No record has been found of this however.

There is a record of a William McBean taking the American Oath and receiving local land grants. These would place the younger William right where we expect he should have been.

I did see his exact birthdate listed in a parish record in Baltimore, with William McBean and his wife, Sarah as his parents, which would then throw out the English/Irish theory. But would, in fact, cement the Bible record.

Our DNA tests have matched no one, except for expected cousins from William's line. Which causes one to pause, and wonder if McBean/Bean was his actual name. Unless we are of the last of that line. Even so, we should at least partially match someone else. But nothing to date to tie us to another Bean line, or even another family.

This is my brick wall.

William was born September 18, 1792, in Baltimore, Maryland to the best of our knowledge. He was placed under indenture on September 18. 1804 until the age of 21, where he was to be taught to be a blacksmith (that is fact, we have copies of this indenture).

The rest we know.

It's the past that keeps me awake at night. That mystery of simply not knowing for certain! It's what keeps the research going. It's what keeps it incomplete.

Perhaps I may never know the answers in my lifetime, but by golly, I've made my stamp trying to figure it all out! And that's going to keep me going for a long, long, time.

Mystery Monday

I have decided to once again return to my "What Is It?" probing for Mystery Monday, only somewhat related to the blogging of the same name as prompted by GeneaBloggers, my Mystery Monday will ask you what something is. I'll give you 24-hours from the time of my post to use Your research skills to determine what the item is!

Simple enough. Right?

Well... here is your first item to identify...

You have 24-hours to identify!

Leave your finds below in the comments.

Mystery Monday - 9/27 Revealed

Yesterday we asked the Mystery Monday question...

What Is It?

The answer?

The Archimedes drill predates the Yankee screwdriver by a few hundred years, but it works much the same way. When you drive the handle down in a linear motion, the small chuck at the right end of the threads spins the drill.

I found the picture above on an antique site — this particular Archimedes drill was designed for jewelers, to drill tiny holes in soft metal. I’m sure the torque is nothing to speak of, and the RPM is somewhere just above a plain old screwdriver, but this actually makes it perfect for a few applications.

The drill below, sold by Garrett Wade, accepts bits smaller than 1/16″. Though tiny bits are easy to break, with a drill like this you’ve got way more control and will probably see the flex in the bit before you break it.

The fact that you can buy this tool new makes the antique even cooler — because somebody is still using these.

Congratulations to Greta Koehl for correctly guessing what kind of instrument this is!

Mystery Monday

What Is It?

Okay all you great antique lovers out there!

Here is a common item found in most 19th century workshops.

Can you tell us what it is???

Post your guess below or on your own blog and leave your link below.

[Answer will be revealed tomorrow.]

Mystery Monday

What Is It?

Answer below.

What Is It?

This is a butter churn!

Cornish, Curtis & Greene Butter Churn  At first this antique churn's design looks like a crazy idea, but as soon as you start to spin it, you instantly realize that this fellow had come up with a winner. Because he hooked up his supports at opposing diagonal corners, this puppy revolves almost effortlessly because it is so out of balance.  I have had square churns that were just mounted on opposing parallel sides, and they were slow, off balance, and not at all interesting to see in operation.  This one on the other hand is super both in looks and action, and will be a highlight of the churn collection.  The stencil and writing that remain attest to this fact, and it has info on several of the side panels about all the awards it won at the state fairs and such.  I imagine that it won even more than these.  This is the smallest #1 size, and I would estimate it at about 5 or 6 gallons.