Hello everyone, and thank you for taking the time to read this, and possibly, you may be in a position to answer my questions:
(small intro) I'm a part of the Bartram family, and I've found some discrepancies on different census reports regarding the parentage of my 2nd great-grandfather. The thing is, family notes disagree with the census that claims his parents were born in England, and then one census claims his parents were born in Michigan (well, he was born there, but they were not), and another one (census) says both his mother and father were born in New York.
Okay, so I have a little bit of family records that dispute the official documentation. I'm fortunate to have a 99-year old-great aunt (whom I do not know, but my aunts and uncles know her well), and I'm going to refer you to the the profile in a bit, who may be able to resolve this because it's about her grandfather.
BUT: considering the number of discrepancies with each Census, do I not go back to the previous generation (as believed by records I've received from my family, which for this matter, are not official--and almost everyone is dead), or do I go with the two Census reports that (while neither agrees with the other both say that the parentage of the individual is from the US).
Here's the link--also, I just wrote that profile, so I may be too close to it, and it may be confusing (as may this post). Please let me know if the bio's content is confusing, and if you think I should continue with the family line as I know it (despite the discrepancies in various census reports.).
Charles Perry Bartram
I do have an obituary, which I shall add. But that says nothing about his parentage. And per the family's records, his father died in the Civil War (and he was born in New York), so his mother remarried, and for a time this ancestor uses a different surname. It's the 19th century, so adoption was different, I have a distant relative on the Murdock side who was a Mormon (though she converted to Catholicism after her second marriage), but she was adopted because her mother died during child-birth, and since her father and the family who adopted her were Mormon, the father did not give her to his or to his late-wife's family. I'm just going on and getting more confusing. Adoption in the 18th and 19th century was different than in the 20th century. It was informal (generally) and everyone knew the identity of the parents. So this Charles Bartram lost his father, who died in the Civil War, and his mum remarried another David (Black), so the records are crazy. I trust those sent me records, but I'm not certain if I should go back any further because it's not 100%; it's about 98%. And if I go with David Burr B. as the dad to this man, then I have to stop with Jabez Bartram, because even I (and everyone it seems, who has researched the Bartram family has a problem with Jabez), and I won't take the leap about his parentage, but I have sufficient evidence to prove that this Charles was the son of David who was the son of Jabez, but I don't know if should go back that far considering the issues with different Census reports, and I WON'T take the leap past Jabez (even though many have) because I have no real evidence.