Sticky Dates and Aha! Moments

Date: [unknown] [unknown]
Location: [unknown]

Joseph Peter Miller (1814-1895)
Peter Miller (1779-1845)

Joseph Miller 2012 GeneJ Blog

---

Graphics

Part 1, More about Joseph Peter and Rebecca Miller

02-01-Family-Manuscripts

02-01a-John-I-Miller

02-02-Timeline

Part 2, Still more about Joseph Peter and Rebecca Miller

02-04-Unproven-Census

02-05-RIP

02-06-Obituaries

02-07-Unmarked

Part 3, Aha! Could it be ...

02-08-Calculated-Affair

02-09-Death-Date-Double-Take

02-10-Timeline-Two

02-11-Joseph-Peter-vs-Joseph-and-birth-dates

Sticky Dates

"Sticky content" is developed onto a website for the purpose of causing users to spend more time or return more often to the site. [Wikipedia, "Sticky content."]

Using that analogy, one could say Joseph Peter Miller has "sticky dates," for we found ourselves returning to review the evidence about his birth and death over and over again.

In 1954, John I. Miller, then almost 84 years old, reported that his grandfather was born 5 July 1814. No one would suggest that a 140-year delay (1814-1954) constitutes timely reporting, but we have yet to find "more timely" direct evidence for a date of birth that could be uniquely identified with Joseph Peter Miller.

It did not go unnoticed that the date "5 July 1814," was one day and one month shy of the very timely, documented birth date of Peter Miller's son, Joseph, "6 August 1814." Could the difference in the two birth dates be explained by a simple mis-calculation along the way?

Of course not, this is a Miller!

Birth as a "Calculated Affair"

Joseph Peter Miller and his wife, Rebecca died in March 1895 at Van Wert County, Ohio--three days apart. Both deaths were recorded, and two obituaries were published remarking about the deaths. The earlier of the two obituaries (penned, 12 March 1895) was errant as to the couple's ages (she, "aged 76" and he, "aged 72"), but it reports, "While the funeral of Mrs. Miller was in progress, her husband closed his eyes in death." According to that obituary, Rebecca "died Thursday ... Funeral held on Sunday, at 11:30 a.m."; Joseph "died Sunday ... 12 o'clock

[graphic]

Both Joseph Peter Miller's death record (Van Wert County deaths) and the second obituary (penned, 14 March 1895) report he died 10 March 1895 [separately, a Sunday], then aged "80 years, 8 months and 4 days."

Using the death record/obituary data, Joseph Peter's date of birth calculates as ca6 July 1814--one day later than the date recorded in 1954 by John I. Miller.

[graphic]

John I. Miller wrote a second manuscript in 1962, then approaching his 92nd birthday. Both manuscripts report Joseph Peter Miller's birth date as 5 July 1814, further saying he died 10 March 1895--consistent with his death record and obituaries. (The earlier, 1954 manuscript, however, reports Joseph Peter Miller died one day earlier, on 9 March 1895.)

If in preparing the 1954 manuscript, John I. Miller worked not from a clear recollection but calculated Joseph Peter Miller’s birth date using his age at death (80 years, 8 months and 4 days) and a date of death one day premature (9 March 1895 instead of 10 March 1895), that would explain why we find Joseph Peter Miller’s date of birth reported as July 5th in the earlier manuscript. If in 1962, Joseph’s date of death was corrected, but the estimated date of birth was not recalculated, then a simple mistake may have been separately perpetuated.

For our hard work, at best we could say Joseph Peter Miller might have been born 6 July 1814, a date still one month--albeit exactly one month--different than the recorded birth date for Peter Miller's son, Joseph.

Could the one month difference be explained by an error in Joseph Peter Miller's age at death? Perhaps, but only perhaps. There may be ...

[graphic]

More to the story.

Wikipedia describes Aha! effect as the "human experience of suddenly understanding a previously incomprehensible problem or concept." [Wikipedia, "Eureka Effect."]

The only known record for the date of birth of Peter Miller's son, Joseph (08 Aug 1814), is a St. Jacob's church (Leetonia, Ohio) baptismal record. Armed with evidence about Joseph Peter Miller's birth, we set out to place Joseph Peter Miller's birth in the context of what was otherwise known about Peter Miller's family events, including the recorded birth of his son, Joseph.

It was an Aha! moment.

Peter Miller's first wife, Rosanna Kimmerling died on 17 June 1813. [Family record.] Their son, William Miller, was baptized at St. Jacob's, 19 April 1813, not long before Rosanna's death. [FHL film 862017.]

Peter Miller married Mary Stewart 29 December 1813, about six months after Rosanna's death. Joseph Miller, Peter and Mary's son, was baptized at St. Jacob's on 16 October 1814, a little over nine months after they had been married.

If Joseph was born 6 August 1814, as the church record reports, the birth was about seven (7) months after Peter and Mary were married. On the other hand, if son Joseph had been born one month earlier, that birth would have been only about six (6) months after the marriage--three months shy of the social norm.

[graphic]

Aha! Peter and Mary's son Joseph could indeed have been born a month earlier, 6 July 1814, and if so, there could an explanation for why his birth was noticed in the church records as 6 August 1814.

Miller-mania

Working with Stark County and Paris township records was complicated by extended Miller kinships-- Millers known related by marriage to either Peter Miller (?1779-1845) or Joseph Peter Miller (1814-1895).

1. Peter Miller's sister-in-law, Susannah Kimmerling (Rosanna Kimmerling's sister), was married about 1800 to Anthony Miller (1780-1864). Anthony and Susannah lived at Columbiana County, Ohio, but some of their children settled at Paris township, Stark County or intermarried with families settled there.
2. Joseph Peter Miller's sister-in-law, Catherine Thoma, married 1842 to Emanuel Miller, not known to be related to either Peter Miller or Anthony Miller. Emanuel and Catherine Miller, too, resided Paris township, Stark County.

These extended Miller relationships added a layer of complexity to our review of historical records about Miller men who were said of or from Stark County. This included our review of an 1837 baptismal record, which is the subject of our next section.