Jump to content


Photo

Custom Searching for Civil War Sesquicentennial Report

Searching Timelines

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 mfsinback

mfsinback

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:52 AM

I am working on a Civil War Sesquicentennial report of my ancestors who fought and died during the Civil War.
Is there a way to do a customized search of my 6000 person file to pull out a report that would list only those who died between 1861 and 1865?
Could this type of search then be limted to first or second cousins of an individual?

I use RM5 and FTM212. If these programs cannot search in this fashion, are there others that would if I just loaded my GENCOM file?

Thanks

#2 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3568 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:44 AM

I am working on a Civil War Sesquicentennial report of my ancestors who fought and died during the Civil War.
Is there a way to do a customized search of my 6000 person file to pull out a report that would list only those who died between 1861 and 1865?
Could this type of search then be limted to first or second cousins of an individual?

I use RM5 and FTM212. If these programs cannot search in this fashion, are there others that would if I just loaded my GENCOM file?

Thanks


I'll break this into pieces. Let's suppose you are looking for the first cousins of John Doe and that John's parents were William Doe and Elizabeth Smith. Are you looking for John's cousins on the Doe side of the family or on the Smith side of the family? Let's say you are looking for both. It would be easy to adapt the technique I'm describing for just the Doe side of the family or just the Smith side of the family. Go to William's father (and John's grandfather) Samuel Doe and color code as follows. We will color code the cousins with some color such as fuchsia that you are probably not already using.
  • Tools -> Color Code People * Set Color Fuchsia * People selected from a list (do not pick "Descendants at this point - we have to do that later)
  • Position yourself on Samuel Doe (again, even though he is already the highlighted person! - the design of the process at this point is terrible and needs to be fixed because it starts with the first person in your database instead of at the highlighted person)
  • Mark group -> Descendants of highlighted person * Direct descendants only for 3 generations * Ok
  • Unmark group -> Descendants of highlighed person * Direct descendants only for 2 generations * Ok
  • Ok
At this point, you will have color coded only John's cousins who are descended from his grandfather Samuel. If Samuel's wife Sarah Jones had no other spouses and no other children except with Samuel, you are done with the Doe family. Otherwise, repeat the process for Sarah. If you want the cousins from the Smith side of the family, repeat with Elizabeth Smith's parents Joshua Smith and Mary Anderson. If you want second cousins, go to John Doe's great grandparents and from there mark for 4 generationsn and unmark for 3.

Strictly speaking, the process I've described will also color code John Doe himself and his siblings because all of them are in the third generation from their common grandfather. You may or may not want that. I suspect you do. But if you don't, you can go to John's father William and as a separate step unmark William's descendants.

Also, strictly speaking the process I've described does not distinguish between females (who probably weren't soldiers) and males (who might have been). If this is a concern, you can also unmark the females. Finally, the process I've described does not distinguish between males who died of war service or who might have died for some other reason. For example, John Doe might have had a much younger cousin who was born in 1862 and who died in 1863. The infant was surely not a soldier. Whatever strange situations like this that you might encounter can be dealt with with appropriate unmarking.

Having done all this color coding, searching for John Doe's cousin is accomplished by searching for individuals who are color coded fuchsia. So if you want John Doe's cousins who died between 1861 and 1865, search for individuals who are color coded fuchsia AND who died after 1860 AND who died before 1866,

Another way to accomplish the same thing would be to incorporate the testing for death dates in the marking/unmarking process. That is, after getting the cousins marked, also unmark all individuals who died before 1861 and as a separate step unmark all individuals who died after 1866. This would leave you with your fuchsia individuals being the cousins who died in the Civil War.

If you make marking the cousins and testing for death in the Civil War be separate processes, it's hard to make this work with Named Groups. That's because you really can't test for membership in a Named Group with a search. But if you are testing for cousinhood and testing for death in the Civil War all as a part of the marking/unmarking process, then you can make a Named Group with the desired individuals just as easily as you can color code the desired individuals.

Jerry

#3 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1640 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 10:32 AM

How about Who Was There List in the report section under lists.
say USA for people who lived...
on this date 1860-1870
Life Span 85 or what ever
People to include Everyone
Min = 0
Max age = 85
Check what ever ones you want to see in the check books Generate report and see what it does or go by your Groups.

Yes get both female and male. but you can do a rtf to word and eliminate those you do not want then your list is workable.


Got 213 pages for 15,000 in my database. But you do see what fact you have and other items.

changing age Min to 15
changing age Max to 65 got 110 pages

Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#4 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:28 PM

For just Ancestors who died in the Civil War, I highlighted myself on the Pedigree view screen and counted back the generations to the generation of ancestors that would be in the Civil War.

In my case, it would be generation 5, and I am counted as the 1st generation for search. For my ancestors, Generation 6 was too old and Generation 4 was too young in my database.

Group or Color code search.

Highlight myself on the list.

Mark Group:
Select Ancestors of highlighted person
Select Ancestors only
Select 5 generations

Unmark group:
Ancestors of highlighted person
Ancestors only and 4 generations
Click OK

Unmark group:
Select Clear people by data fields

Sex is female
OR Death date is before 1861
OR Death date is after 1865
OR Death date is blank

A male would then need to unmark hisself.

I had one male ancestor that died during the Civil War date range. I could have added OR Military is blank to my Unmark group search to eliminate any persons who had no Military fact.

That seemed a lot of work to get one person or even 2 or 3. So I highlighted myself on the Pedigree view and then highlighted each male ancestor, 8 people, in the 5th generation in turn checking the death dates.

I only had one male ancestor who died in the Civil war date ranges. This is the same person found in the search and took a lot less time and effort. I know that ancestor was killed during the Civil War so I didn't need to open his Edit person screen and check the Military fact for his service.

I could create a Group and mark that person in the list.

On checking out Nettie's suggestion to use the Who was there list, I entered her criteria for place, date and Life span of 85.

But, instead of everyone, I chose Select from a list and used the same search I made for the Group or Color Coding. The report gave me the same one person.

#5 R Steven

R Steven

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:52 AM

I would create a group which you then could then iteratively refine. I tried your search on a 12000 person file and it seemed to work pretty well. There are a few iterative refinements in my file which you might considered checking for in yours.

In these kinds of searches, I have found it helpful to make the most restrictive cuts first. In my file, that turned out to be the cut for people who died between 1861 and 1865. (By the way, do you want to include people who died of Civil War injuries within a few years of the war? I noticed a few of those in my file.)

Under Groups, I started by clicking on the Add, Edit, or Delete named groups icon. From there I clicked on the New button. I then clicked Mark Group/Selected people by data fields. For criteria I used Death date is after 11 April 1861 and Death date is before 10 April 1865. Then I clicked OK (Marked 102 people), OK, OK. I named the group Civil War Deaths. (Note that this excludes people who may have died as a result of injuries in the war, but not during this time period.) Close.

I could have refined the search further, but wanted to illustrate iterative refinement as I noticed things about people in the list. The first obvious refinement is that my list included some women who died during this period and were not likely Civil War soldiers. I eliminated them from the list by clicking on the Add, Edit, or Delete named groups icon in the Groups tab. I then selected Civil War Deaths and clicked on Edit. To eliminate the women, I clicked on Unmark Group/Clear people by data fields. I changed the search to Sex is female and clicked OK. It said it unmarked 6032 people (roughly half the file), but it really just eliminated the women from the named group. I clicked OK, OK, and Close and noted that the group no longer included the women. A Statistics report with this group showed there were 58 men now included.

Next I noticed that at least one of the men died outside the United States. A few died in Utah Territory, whose residents generally didn't fight in the Civil War. I generally have the country included in my place names, so I then Edited the group as above by Unmarking those with Death place contains Utah, Sweden, California, or England (the areas in my file who didn't fight in the Civil War; your list will vary). I originally tried eliminating people whose Death place didn't include United States, but realized that this eliminated people who died during the Civil War, but for whom I didn't have death place information yet.

Note that you can't select people in a named group by Editing the group and then marking those group members who also have an additional characteristic you would like to Mark. For example, when I tried to Mark the people who were in the Civil War group but who also had a Death place which contains United States, I expanded the list to include everyone who died in the United States.

I then used Jerry's technique to further restrict the list to first or second cousins.

Once the list is small enough, there may be single individuals you want to eliminate from the Group. As Laura nicely noted, they are more easily eliminated individually rather than constructing a complicated data filter. For instance, I still had a person in my list who had an unknown death place, but with facts that indicated his death in 1862 was probably outside the United States. I eliminated him by editing the group and selecting Unmark Group, selected the specific person, and then eliminated the family with him as a parent. (In this case, his children wouldn't have fought in the Civil War either.)

#6 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3568 posts

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:46 AM

I could have refined the search further, but wanted to illustrate iterative refinement as I noticed things about people in the list. The first obvious refinement is that my list included some women who died during this period and were not likely Civil War soldiers. I eliminated them from the list by clicking on the Add, Edit, or Delete named groups icon in the Groups tab. I then selected Civil War Deaths and clicked on Edit. To eliminate the women, I clicked on Unmark Group/Clear people by data fields. I changed the search to Sex is female and clicked OK. It said it unmarked 6032 people (roughly half the file), but it really just eliminated the women from the named group. I clicked OK, OK, and Close and noted that the group no longer included the women. A Statistics report with this group showed there were 58 men now included.


I think there is already a wish list item associated with the fact that if you are working with a subpopulation of 102 people and do an unmark to reduce the number further, it might report that it unmarked 6032 people which is obviously a lot more than your subpopulation of 102. I think users would be much better served if a mark operation only counted individuals who were not already marked, and if an unmark operation only counted individuals who were not already unmarked. The strange mark and unmark counts that are reported don't really affect the ultimate number in your results set, but they sure make for a lot of confusion.

Jerry