The Czachorowskys | From Prussia to Chicago: 1870 to 1880

The Czachorowskys are a conundrum. They seem to simply 'appear' in Chicago around 1868. Claiming to be from Prussia I have yet to determine their actual origins. Or their point of entry into the United States. Or why they chose Chicago. As I set out to research one family I discovered others. Curiosity getting the best of me, this turned into the study of five Czachorowsky families living in Chicago c. 1870.  It is my hope with this series to make some discoveries to either link these families together, or prove they are not related. This is a real-time research project, I have not worked on this cluster before. I plan to share my discoveries and my frustrations in hopes that more eyes on the evidence will result in some sound conclusions. Join me as I explore these families, maybe we'll make some discoveries together!

In researching this group of families I began to get confused.  I discovered that the names Frank, Bernard and Leo were used by all the families, Frank being the most common. I began to confuse one Frank with another. What I needed was one of those big boards you see on TV detective shows, so I could lay out all my 'suspects' and get a good visual of who belonged where.  

What I needed was a mind mapping program.

Down the rabbit hole I went .....

Surfacing several hours later I decided on good old pencil and paper to keep this train moving along -  - that software quest will have to be taken up another day.

OK. Here's my rough map:

I focused on the men since I was only looking at the Czachorowsky surname. As you can see Bernard is a dead-end for the moment, and both Leo & Anton had enough children to make things confusing! You can see the use of Frank, Leo and Bernard on both family lines.

Interestingly, searching all the US census (1790 - 1940) records for the surname 'Czachorowsky' (and it's variations) the first time the name appears anywhere is in Chicago in 1870. By 1900 it appears in New York with one family living in Albion; in Wisconsin with one woman living in Milwaukee; in Delaware with one family living in New Castle Co; and in Ohio with one family living in Cleveland. The only family spelling it with a 'y' is the Chicago group.

Now, let's look at the 1870 map and where the three original Czachorowsky men are first recorded living. (The mystery Frank does not appear for the first time until 1880.)  

Granted, Chicago was a lot smaller than it is today, however the population in 1870 was close to 300,000! Notice that these three men lived within blocks of each other. Bears further investigation, I think.

Looking at the census records, Bernard is the first to show up. The 1870 census record shows a woman named Mena Czachorowsky residing at the same address, 12 years younger than Bernard, her occupation: keeping house. This census records both Bernard and Mena as being born in Poland. Bernard lists his occupation as a carpenter. Mena could be a sister, or a wife. The census does not list a 'marriage month', but it does not list a 'birth month' either - and 'Poland' is incorrect. So, the only take-away from this is that Bernard was in Chicago in 1870. Interestingly, every other family on this street was a Prussian immigrant.

There are no other Czachorowskys recorded in any US census in 1870.

The 1870 Chicago city directory lists both Bernard and Anton. (But no Leo) Pay no attention to the spelling, there are so many reasons it's wrong. Illiteracy or a typesetting error come to mind. Or miscommunication - the Czachorowskys certainly wrote and spoke German. Our best clues are the addresses. Bear in mind that during this time in Chicago history street names and addresses were in flux. As the city expanded and more houses were being built houses often needed to be re-numbered. It wasn't until 1909 that things solidified. (Heck, the house I live in had three different addresses in the course of it's life - but never budged from it's present location!)

However, Leo did appear first in the city directories! Here he is in the 1868 edition:

He is boarding on south Jefferson, working as a clerk for Adolph Huebner (a grocer).

Here is Adolph Huebner's listing:

Seems Leo was working for and living with Adolph when he first arrived in Chicago. Did he know him? Another question that has no answer - but perhaps something else to investigate further.

By 1872 all three men are listed in the Chicago city directory:

Anton is still on Morgan, Bernard is still on Mitchell, Leo has moved to Canal. One of the reasons I love city directories is they are published annually. You can find people more readily than relying on the census alone. And you can watch them move around, too!

Leo was said to have been married in 1869, according to the hand drawn family tree. In researching sideways, searching for Leo's in-laws, I found his future mother-in-law in Chicago in 1864.

Huh. Will you look at that. Canal Street.

Here are the trio in the 1878 city directory:

No, Bernard did not move. Mitchell was renamed West 14th Street.

Here they are in the 1880 city directory:

Looks like Anton has moved to Maxwell Street!

Interestingly, Leo, (F Louis here), is the only Czachorowsky recorded on the 1880 census. Chicago or any other US city.

Here's a map of Chicago 1880 showing the addresses and location of our trio:

Of note, the Great Chicago Fire. 1871. Most of the Czachorowskys narrowly miss the fury. They fortunately settled just on the outskirts of the great tragedy as seen here:

However, it is quite possible that Leo was affected. 425 S Canal is just on the edge of the burned area - approximately at the corner of Taylor and Canal. Almost the epicenter! The fire started on DeKoven Street - one block southwest of Canal and Taylor. The fire spread northeast up along the lakefront. Another piece of the puzzle and an avenue of research .....

The final thing I want to cover this week is church affiliation. The Czachorowskys are buried in Catholic cemeteries. So, they must have been Catholic. They most likely attended church regularly. They most likely would have been married in church and baptized their children in church. The million dollar question is which church!?! There are four possibilities based on their residences and the churches operating in Chicago at the time. Better yet, the records are mostly all online!

The bad news? The records are unindexed.

What is that you say?

They are there for the looking, you just have to look at every single record. As such I have not looked at all the records available to me. (As I said in the intro - this is a real-time research project.)

Here's where you come in! A crowdsourcing opportunity! Should you decide to play along, here are the four candidates and the links to the online records. In order of proximity to their residences. (Remember, they would have walked or maybe taken the streetcar to get anywhere in the city - things needed to be close)

1. St Francis of Assisi est. 1857

2. Holy Family est. 1857

3. Notre Dame est. 1864

4. Old St. Pat's est. 1846

Happy hunting! Let me know if you find anything - oh, by the way, some of the records are in Latin or German .....

to be continued .........

*images courtesy of Ancestry.com, Fold3, FamilySearch and David Rumsey map collection

Brick Wall Ancestor | #4 Jane "Jennie" M Whitford Nichols Faulkner

We all have them! Those stubborn ancestors that refuse to come out of hiding. No matter how much coaxing we do! Well, I think it's time to bring them out of the shadows - put their redacted story out there - another piece of the puzzle could be lurking just around the (cyber) corner, in someone's basement, or closet, or sitting in a box on a book shelf ...... You never, ever know where that loose chink will manifest, the one that allows you to push out one brick, then the next. Food for thought. So without further ado....

Brick Wall Ancestor | #4 Jane "Jennie" M Whitford Nichols Faulkner

Jennie hid her secret from me for quite a while. Maybe she hid it from everyone? Maybe she has more that I don't know about yet!

Jennie M Whitford is my 2nd great grandmother. She married my 2nd great grandfather Harrison "Harry" Faulkner and had 3 sons with him. The middle son is my great grandfather Dr. L A Faulkner.

But Jennie is quite the mystery woman! Here's what I know.....

Jennie (Whitford) married Harrison Faulkner in Grass Lake MI on May 1st, 1856. She was 21 and Harry was 27, according to the (very difficult to read) marriage book. Witnesses were Henry B Halbert and Mrs Mary Jane ---- (?) I found Henry - he was married to an Elizabeth not a Mary, so not husband and wife - perhaps friends of the couple.

Harry had lived in Grass Lake since 1834, I don't have any idea where Jennie came from!

By 1859 the couple was living in Faribault, MN. Their first son, Arthur, was born there in February of that year.

The 1860 census shows the young family - here's a screenshot of the record - the census was broken up onto two pages. Says Jennie was born in Ohio. Good to know. But who are James Nichols and Sarah Woodford?

Like you, my first thought was Woodford/Whitford - Sarah could be Jennie's sister! Viewing Sarah's entry, it states that she was born in Michigan - which could explain how Jennie ended up in Grass Lake. But who the heck was James Nichols? (Also born in Michigan?) A step brother? A nephew?

Looking at the 1870 census Jennie is listed as being born in Michigan (!) and neither Sarah nor James are in the household anymore. The other two sons, Lloyd and Louis are there, having been born in the decade between 1860 and 1870.

A quick search for a Sarah Woodford/Whitford brought no promising results - oh sure, there was a good rabbit hole or two, but in the end nothing conclusive. Putting a pin in Sarah, I briefly moved on to James with similar results. 

So, relegating the two to the back burner for the time being, I moved ahead with Jennie. (Work with what you know first!) 

The 1880 census brought a surprise! Jennie and Harry had gotten a divorce! And, Jennie was back to being born in Ohio. An additional promising clue, her father was born in Vermont, her mother in New York. FNU Whitford born Vermont c 1800 might bring a few hints ...... another pin to revisit later. 

Moving forward was relatively simple. Jennie lived for a time in Chicago (Chicago City Directories 1884-1885) with her son while he attended medical school, then after his graduation in 1884, returned to St Paul MN where she remained until her death in 1888.

The Dalby Database lists a notation for her obituary: "FAULKNER - JENNIE M. MRS - FARIBAULT REPUBLICAN - 29/FEB/1888 - DIED, IN ST. PAUL, FEB. 29TH, AGED 53 YEARS. THE REMAINS WILL BE BROUGHT TO FARIBAULT THURSDAY MORNING FOR BURIAL"  I have not been able to find where she is buried and strongly suspect cremation, ashes unknown.

OK. So Jennie Whitford appeared in Michigan in 1856 and died in Minnesota in 1888. Where was she before 1856? Ohio? How did she get to Michigan? Who were her parents? Where was she actually born?

Curious, one year she was listed as Jane, not Jennie. The 1886 St Paul MN directory listed her at 70 Douglas with her sons Lloyd and Louis (no, not a widow - polite way of treating divorced women in the 19th century) A new clue!

On FamilySearch I punched in "Jane Whitford" + Michigan and look what I found!

Our girl Jennie had married Daniel Nichols in 1849. She was 16 and he was 23! Nichols! NICHOLS! Whoa, okay this might lead somewhere. E M Whitford and Elizabeth Whitford were witnesses - parents of Jennie, perhaps? Or siblings? Certainly relatives of some sort. They were from Niles, Berrien Co, MI which is about 130 miles southwest of Grass Lake. Time for more digging!

The 1850 census showed nothing for an E M Whitford (wildcard search) born in Vermont. Dropping the E and M also returned nothing. Likewise for Elizabeth (1850! Women are searchable!)

Argh!

But Jane and Daniel ARE on the census - living with a girl named Mary Woodford age 19. Sister? Seems very likely. Just the three of them, which would make sense if the 10 year old James Nichols living in Jennie's household in 1860 was her son by her first marriage! Jennie would have been very close to giving birth, perhaps Mary was there to help with the preparations.

That's the 'secret'. Jennie had been married previously. At the age of 16! And the other 'secret'? TWICE divorced. Oh, wait, you don't know that yet.......

While I did not find an actual divorce record for Jane and Daniel, I did find Daniel getting married on the 7th of November 1856 (same year as Jennie and Harry's marriage) in Branch, MI. He married Minerva Shook and went on to have six children with her. His family is easily traceable.

As for James Nichols, he bounced around, working as a farm hand here and there until he married Addie Blackburn in 1882; settling in Rice Co, MN, not far from his mother. He remained in farming and raised three children with his wife. Jennie's grandchildren unfortunately were all born after her death.

Results from more digging, that I'm not going into here (if you're really interested contact me ~ mostly checking family trees, doing sideways research and comparing DNA results .... oh, and a lot of rabbit holes!) I discovered who I suspect are more siblings of Jennie's - three sisters and four brothers. There is speculation (family trees - some with DNA confirmation) as to the parents, but nothing that I have been able to confirm with documentation. But you have DNA you say. Yup. And we are all certainly related in some way, but the folks who match with the DNA all have used Online Family Trees as their source to prove parentage - not actual documents. What does the Magic 8 Ball say?  Probably "signs point to yes", but I'm not relying on the old 8 Ball to prove my genealogy.

I'm going to label this Brick Wall as soft, perhaps a crumbling Brick Wall?

And the most sweetly ironic part? The writing of this brought me to my very own front door in a 'seven degrees of separation' kind of way. It was from a random post that caught my eye just today on a DNA match, citing a sketch for a prominent Elgin, IL doctor. Possibly Jane "Jennie"'s brother. Possibly. And where do I live? Why, Elgin, of course!  Most of the tree is sourced with other Public Trees, but I'm feeling kinda excited about the discovery - coincidence? Not sure I believe in such a thing. More like ancestors pointing the way ......

This search is not over!

Here is the genealogy as I have come to know it thus far:

Jane "Jennie" M Whitford b. say 1835 Ohio
                                               d. 29 Feb 1888 Minnesota
                                                m. (1) Daniel Nichols (2) Harrison Faulkner

 children (all marriages):

• James H Nichols b. Aug 1850 d. UNK m. Addie Blackburn (3 issue)
• Arthur Edward Faulkner b. Feb 1859 d. 21 Aug 1823 m. Ellen Lumley (no issue)
• Lloyd Anson Faulkner b. 30 Sep 1862 d. 18 Dec 1933 m. Anna O'Connell (5 issue)
• Louis Nelson Faulkner b. say 1864 d. 31 Aug 1920 (never married)  

siblings: (presumed, not proved)

• Henry K Whitford MD b. 9 Feb 1829 Medina, Ohio d. 15 Feb 1912 Kane, Illinois
• Mary Whitford b. say 1831 Ohio d. UNK (possible twin)
• James H Whitford b. 27 Jan 1831 Ohio d. 29 Apr 1895 Minnesota (possible twin)
• Leonard C Whitford b. 7 Nov 1837 Michigan d. 26 May 1909 Washington
• Jerome B Whitford b. say 1839 Michigan d. UNK
• Sarah Whitford b. 14 Dec 1843 Michigan d. 12 Apr 1910 Washington
• Rhoda L Whitford b. 7 Nov 1846 Michigan d. 9 Nov 1909 Minnesota
• Daniel H Whitford MD b. say 1852 Illinois d. UNK

Of interesting note: Dr Henry K Whitford was a professor at Bennett College of Medicine in Chicago at the very same time Jennie's son Lloyd was attending school there. Did Lloyd go to Bennett because his uncle was a professor there? Curious.

Suspected parents of the the Whitford clan are David M Whitford and Elizabeth Lease. IF these are the correct parents they are last found in LaSalle County, Illinois in 1850. Elizabeth is in a Poor House and David is working his brother-in-law's farm. According to this sketch the family had fallen on very hard times. The trail goes cold after 1850. Well, before that too. I can't prove that this all fits together. It's the most logical explanation I have come up with to date.

I am reminded of the notation on Jane's marriage to Daniel, however, witnesses were E M Whitford and Elizabeth Whitford. Could E M be a woman? Her sister Mary perhaps?

Always more questions than answers!


If any of this rings true to you please contact me and let's figure it out!