Nomadic Roots Research

Author: Joseph Howell

  • Nancy Ann Howell Rigney: Research Ongoing on a War Widow

    Nancy Ann Howell Rigney: Research Ongoing on a War Widow

    An investigation into a War of 1812 widow, the loss of family support, a mysterious family Bible, and a pension interrupted during the Civil War.

    A Widow’s Story Hidden in the Records

    In the mountains of southwestern Virginia, a woman named Nancy Ann Howell Rigney spent much of her life living with the consequences of a war that had ended decades earlier.

    Her husband, Isham Rigney, served in the Virginia militia during the War of 1812. He died while in military service, leaving Nancy to face the responsibility of raising their children without him.

    Years later, Nancy would lose one of those children as well.

    As she grew older, her circumstances became increasingly difficult. She moved away from the Floyd County community where she had family connections and into Carroll County, where the support of nearby relatives was no longer as readily available.

    By 1854, official testimony described her as extremely poor.

    Then the Civil War brought another challenge. Nancy’s federal widow’s pension remained unpaid, and after the conflict she had to prove her loyalty to the United States to seek its restoration.

    Yet Nancy’s story is not simply about two wars.

    It is also about a family Bible, her father’s handwriting, conflicting dates, missing census records, and family relationships that remain unresolved.

    What began as research into a distant Howell relative has become an ongoing investigation into the life of a woman who endured extraordinary uncertainty.

    The Howell Family of Virginia

    Nancy Ann Howell was born on October 26, 1791, in Montgomery County, Virginia, according to the family information assembled during this research.

    She was the daughter of David Howell and a granddaughter of Joshua Howell, my fourth great-grandfather.

    Nancy’s father, David, provides the direct connection between her story and my Howell family research.

    Her brother, Isaac Howell, was the father of Dillard Charles Howell and Lorenzo Dow Howell, two Civil War soldiers whose experiences I have previously researched.

    This places Nancy within a family whose members were affected by two generations of American military conflict.

    Isham Rigney served during the War of 1812. Decades later, Nancy’s nephews would experience the Civil War.

    Nancy, however, was neither a soldier nor simply a name attached to a veteran’s pension application.

    She was a daughter, sister, wife, mother, and widow whose life connected these generations.

    Her story also demonstrates how important extended family relationships could be to a widow attempting to survive in nineteenth-century Virginia.

    Marriage, Children, and the War of 1812

    On December 22, 1808, Nancy Howell married Isham Rigney.

    Isham, believed to have been born around 1790, served as a private in Captain James Hoge’s Company of the Virginia Militia during the War of 1812.

    The couple had three children identified in the family research and pension evidence.

    Their eldest was Jincy Rigney, also appearing as Jency or possibly Jane, reportedly born September 11, 1809. She later married Andrew Harris and is associated with four children: Ishmael, Joseph, Hiley, and Asa Harris.

    Their second child, Andrew Rigney, was born October 2 or 3, 1811, and died November 8, 1882.

    Their youngest, David Rigney, was born October 11, 1813.

    David’s life would end in 1854, when he was approximately forty years old.

    That death is an important part of Nancy’s story.

    By the middle of the nineteenth century, she had already lived for decades without her husband. Now she had also outlived her youngest son.

    We do not yet know the circumstances of David’s death or precisely how it affected Nancy’s household. But it is another loss that must be considered when reconstructing the family relationships and support available to her.

    There is also a significant disagreement concerning Isham’s death.

    Some family-tree information gives January 14, 1815, in Norfolk, Virginia.

    An official Treasury Department report dated April 1, 1854, however, states that Isham died in service on January 14, 1813.

    If the Treasury date is correct, Nancy was pregnant with David when Isham died, making David a posthumous child.

    If the 1815 date is correct, David was already more than a year old.

    The difference changes our understanding of Nancy’s earliest years as a widow.

    For now, the conflicting dates remain an active research question rather than a settled conclusion.

    A Family Bible and David Howell’s Handwriting

    One of the most valuable discoveries in Nancy’s pension papers is an affidavit dated March 15, 1854.

    Two witnesses, L.M. Johnson and Delia Johnson, testified about entries in a family Bible belonging to Nancy Rigney.

    The entries concerned Nancy’s marriage and the births of her children.

    The witnesses attributed the handwriting to David Howell, grandfather of the Rigney children.

    David Howell was Nancy’s father.

    This creates a particularly meaningful connection to the earlier Howell generation.

    The affidavit suggests that David personally recorded important events in his daughter’s family.

    For genealogists, family Bible records can be valuable because they may preserve information recorded close to the time an event occurred.

    But the distinction between original evidence and later testimony is essential.

    The surviving affidavit was signed by the Johnsons, not by David Howell. They testified that the entries they examined were in his handwriting.

    The original Bible pages have not yet been located.

    This leaves several questions.

    Where did the Bible go after Nancy’s death? Did it remain with one of her children or grandchildren? Were any original pages ever submitted with the pension application?

    And could the original handwriting resolve a problem with the eldest child’s name?

    The affidavit appears to transcribe that name as James, while other family evidence identifies a daughter, Jincy or Jane, who married Andrew Harris.

    I have not yet resolved that discrepancy.

    A marriage document involving Andrew Harris, reportedly bearing the signature of Beaufort Howell, may provide another connection to the extended Howell family once it is located and examined.

    The Bible affidavit is therefore both a discovery and an invitation to continue searching.

    Family Bible Affidavit, March 15, 1854. L. M. Johnson and Delia Johnson testified in Carroll County, Virginia, concerning marriage and birth entries in Nancy Rigney’s family Bible, which they attributed to the handwriting of David Howell, grandfather of the Rigney children.

    From Floyd County to Carroll County: Losing Family Support

    Justice William Lewis’s statement, April 22, 1854, Carroll County, Virginia. Lewis described Nancy Ann Howell Rigney as extremely poor and nearly destitute, explaining that she could not afford to travel to court without assistance from a neighbor while pursuing her widow’s pension.

    Another important part of Nancy’s story involves her move from Floyd County to Carroll County, Virginia.

    The Howell family had connections in the Floyd County area, where relatives could potentially provide assistance, companionship, and practical support.

    For a widow raising children, such relationships could make an enormous difference.

    Family members might share food, provide temporary shelter, help with farming or household responsibilities, or assist during illness.

    Nancy’s move to Carroll County placed her farther from the familiar family network she had known.

    That change deserves attention because it may have reduced the support available to her during her later years.

    The precise date and circumstances of the move remain to be established, as does the extent of assistance she received from relatives before and afterward.

    We should also be careful not to confuse a change of county name with a physical move. Floyd County was created from Montgomery County in 1831, while Carroll County was established from Grayson County in 1842. County boundaries and record jurisdictions must be considered when tracing Nancy’s residences.

    Nevertheless, the family circumstances raise an important question: How much did Nancy’s move affect her ability to survive financially?

    By 1854, the documentary evidence reveals a woman in severe poverty.

    On April 22 of that year, Justice of the Peace William Lewis provided a statement explaining that Nancy lived on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge Mountains and could not afford to travel to court.

    His statement described her as extremely poor.

    Here was a woman who had lost her husband decades earlier, whose youngest son died during that same year, and whose access to her extended Howell family network had changed.

    The surviving documents do not prove that David Rigney’s death or the move caused her poverty.

    They do, however, show why those events deserve investigation alongside her financial circumstances.

    Nancy’s story was shaped not only by military service and pension legislation, but also by the people who were—or were no longer—close enough to help her.

    The Pension That Helped Her Survive

    Nancy’s pension records provide a glimpse into her financial life.

    An April 1, 1854 report from the Treasury Department’s Third Auditor identifies an earlier widow’s half-pay pension of four dollars per month, associated with Isham’s military service.

    A later certificate, dated June 27, 1860, recognized an entitlement of four dollars per month beginning February 3, 1858.

    The various dates and administrative actions suggest that Nancy’s pension history was not straightforward.

    Different pension laws, applications, and reviews appear to have affected her claim over time.

    For a woman described as extremely poor, four dollars per month represented meaningful assistance.

    The pension was not simply recognition of Isham’s service.

    It was a source of financial support that Nancy had reason to pursue and protect.

    But even that support would become uncertain.

    The Civil War Reaches Nancy’s Household

    When the Civil War began in 1861, Nancy was approaching seventy years of age.

    Her husband’s military service belonged to a war fought nearly half a century earlier.

    Yet the new conflict would affect her pension.

    A Treasury Department letter dated July 17, 1867, reported that Nancy’s last pension payment had been made on September 4, 1860.

    That date is important because it predates the beginning of the Civil War.

    We cannot simply assume that her payments stopped on the day hostilities began. The surviving documents require a more careful reconstruction of when payments ceased and why.

    What is clear is that Nancy’s pension remained unpaid during the Civil War period and that she later pursued its restoration.

    On July 30, 1866, she submitted an affidavit in Carroll County declaring that she had remained loyal to the United States and had not aided the Confederacy.

    Supporting witnesses also testified.

    Consider the circumstances.

    Nancy had been widowed by the death of a soldier who served the United States during the War of 1812.

    She had spent decades raising her family and struggling financially.

    Now, after another war, she was required to establish her loyalty to the same federal government from which she sought her widow’s pension.

    The pension file includes correspondence about the effort to restore her benefits.

    A certificate dated July 24, 1867, authorized four dollars per month beginning September 4, 1860.

    That date establishes an administrative entitlement, but it does not necessarily mean Nancy had actually received payments throughout the intervening years.

    The surviving correspondence suggests continuing complications.

    Whether all money owed to Nancy was eventually paid remains an important question.

    Nancy Ann Howell Rigney’s loyalty affidavit, July 30, 1866, Carroll County, Virginia. Nancy declared that she had remained loyal to the United States during the Civil War as part of her effort to restore her federal widow’s pension.

    When Official Records Disagree

    One of the most interesting lessons from Nancy’s research is that even government records can contradict one another.

    The disagreement over Isham’s death date is one example.

    Another appears in later pension correspondence, where Isham is sometimes described as a Revolutionary War soldier.

    That identification is inconsistent with the evidence placing his service in the War of 1812.

    Given his approximate birth around 1790, service during the Revolutionary War would not be chronologically possible.

    The reference may reflect a clerical mistake or confusion involving pension classifications.

    These inconsistencies are not reasons to abandon the documents.

    They are reasons to examine them more closely.

    A genealogist must distinguish between what a record says, what the record actually proves, and what remains uncertain.

    The same principle applies to family trees.

    An unsourced date or relationship repeated across multiple online trees does not become reliable merely through repetition.

    Nancy’s story requires us to return repeatedly to the original evidence.

    The Questions Still Waiting for Answers

    Despite the remarkable information preserved in her pension papers, much of Nancy’s life remains unresolved.

    I still want to establish the correct date and location of Isham Rigney’s death.

    I want to determine when Nancy moved from Floyd County to Carroll County and whether land, tax, court, or census records can reveal more about her living arrangements.

    The death of David Rigney in 1854 also deserves further investigation. Where was he living? Did he leave a wife or children? Was he helping support Nancy? Did his death alter her circumstances?

    We know his death belongs in the family chronology, but we do not yet know the full story behind it.

    I also want to identify the original Bible entries attributed to David Howell and resolve the conflicting reading of Nancy’s eldest child’s name.

    Additional questions concern Nancy’s missing census appearances, allegations of a later marriage, and the identities or parentage of Leander and Jehue H., whose possible relationships remain uncertain.

    These questions cannot be answered responsibly by assigning people to families simply because their names appear together in an online tree.

    Each connection requires evidence.

    The pension papers have already revealed far more than a widow’s name and a soldier’s military service.

    There may still be discoveries waiting in county records, pension correspondence, family collections, and surviving documents that have not yet been connected to Nancy.

    Nancy’s Final Years

    According to the family information gathered during this investigation, Nancy Ann Howell Rigney died on February 15, 1868, in Carroll County, Virginia.

    She was approximately seventy-six years old.

    Her life had spanned the early American republic, the War of 1812, the growth of southwestern Virginia communities, the Civil War, and the beginning of Reconstruction.

    During those decades, she experienced the death of her husband and later the death of her son David.

    She also faced changes in her family support network, financial hardship, and repeated administrative struggles over her widow’s pension.

    The records do not tell us everything about her personality, beliefs, or private feelings.

    They do, however, reveal a woman who continued pursuing the benefits connected to her husband’s service despite age, poverty, and the upheaval of another war.

    The Investigation Continues

    I began researching Nancy Ann Howell Rigney because she was connected to my Howell ancestors.

    I expected to find a marriage, a few children, and perhaps a military pension.

    Instead, I found a much more complicated story.

    Her father’s handwriting appeared indirectly in a family Bible affidavit.

    An official Treasury document challenged the death date repeated in family research.

    A justice of the peace described her inability to afford a trip to court.

    Her youngest son’s death in 1854 raised questions about another loss during an already difficult period.

    Her move from Floyd County to Carroll County opened a new line of inquiry into the extended family support she may have left behind.

    And her postwar pension application revealed an elderly widow required to prove her loyalty to the United States.

    Each discovery has brought Nancy’s life into sharper focus.

    Each has also produced new questions.

    I still do not know everything about the woman who was Nancy Ann Howell Rigney.

    But I know far more about her than I did when this investigation began.

    And perhaps that is the most important lesson her story offers.

    Genealogy is rarely a straight line from one answer to the next.

    Sometimes a document settles a question. Sometimes it challenges what we thought we knew. And sometimes the most revealing discovery is a new mystery that sends us searching again.

    Nancy Ann Howell Rigney’s story is not finished.

    Neither is the research.

    Nomadic Roots Research — Following family stories wherever the records lead.

    Research note: This article draws primarily on Nancy Rigney’s surviving pension papers, including the March 1854 family Bible affidavit, April 1854 Treasury correspondence, Justice William Lewis’s statement concerning her poverty, pension certificates, and the 1866 loyalty affidavit. Family information concerning David Rigney’s death and Nancy’s relocation requires further verification to establish its full chronology and significance.

  • Dillard C. Howell: The Brother Who Came Home

    Dillard C. Howell: The Brother Who Came Home

    Gettysburg, Point Lookout, and the Family He Built After the Civil War

    On April 14, 1865, twenty-two-year-old Dillard Charles Howell arrived at Point Lookout, Maryland, as a Confederate prisoner of war. Eight days earlier, Union soldiers had captured him near Burkesville, Virginia. General Robert E. Lee had surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, but Dillard was not yet free.

    The prison held a painful connection to his family. His brother Lorenzo Dow Howell had died there before Dillard arrived. Two brothers from the mountains of southwestern Virginia had entered the Confederate Army. Both became prisoners, and both were connected to Point Lookout. Only Dillard would return to civilian life.

    What happened after his release is as important as what happened during the war. Dillard would marry in Indiana, raise a family, settle in Kansas, and live long enough to tell a newspaper reporter what he remembered about Gettysburg fifty years earlier.

    From Floyd County to the Army

    Military service record identifying Dillard C. Howell as a private in Company A, 24th Virginia Infantry.

    Dillard was born September 10, 1842, in Floyd County, Virginia, a son of Isaac Howell and grandson of David Howell. The family descended from Joshua Howell, an ancestor whose descendants would appear in the records of several American wars.

    When the Civil War began in 1861, Dillard was eighteen. On March 14, 1862, he enlisted in Company A of the 24th Virginia Infantry, a company associated with the Floyd Riflemen. The regiment recruited from Floyd and neighboring southwestern Virginia counties and served in the Army of Northern Virginia.

    Dillard’s compiled military service record identifies him as a private. Muster rolls trace his service through years of campaigning. An 1863 entry identifies him as a blacksmith’s assistant, a practical assignment in an army dependent on horses, wagons, and equipment that constantly needed repair.

    That small detail is worth remembering. An ancestor’s military life was not necessarily a continuous series of battles. Much of it involved labor, marching, waiting, and trying to remain supplied.

    Research tip — Read every service-record card. An enlistment index tells only part of the story. Compiled military service records can include muster rolls, pay information, hospital entries, clothing receipts, and notes about special duties. Compare dates across the entire file before deciding where a soldier was or what he was doing.

    Gettysburg in Dillard’s Own Memory

    **Dillard C. Howell recalls the Battle of Gettysburg.** In an interview published in *The Evening Herald* (Ottawa, Kansas), June 30, 1913, page 6, Howell described his experiences during Pickett’s Charge fifty years after the battle. The original newspaper columns have been rearranged for easier reading.

    In July 1863, the 24th Virginia entered the Battle of Gettysburg as part of Brigadier General James L. Kemper’s Brigade in Major General George E. Pickett’s Division. On July 3, the regiment took part in the Confederate assault on the Union center, remembered as Pickett’s Charge.

    The attack was catastrophic. The 24th Virginia had approximately 395 men at Gettysburg and suffered casualties approaching forty percent of those engaged. Dillard survived, but the experience stayed with him for the rest of his life.

    In 1913, an Ottawa, Kansas, newspaper published an interview under the headline “PLAYED A LOSING PART — Dillard C. Howell, Confederate, Was at Gettysburg.” By then he was an elderly man who had spent decades building a civilian life far from Pennsylvania.

    Dillard remembered soldiers receiving additional ammunition before the assault. He recalled General Lee riding among the troops and warning them to lie down before the cannonading began. Then came the bombardment and the advance toward the Union line. He described men falling around him as Confederate formations crossed open ground under intense fire.

    The assault failed. The surviving soldiers withdrew, leaving thousands dead, wounded, or captured across the battlefield. Dillard also remembered seeing General Pickett after the fighting and an officer overcome with emotion. These were memories recorded half a century later, not a minute-by-minute contemporary account, but they offer something muster rolls cannot: a soldier’s perspective.

    His interview also preserved a surprisingly humorous encounter. Dillard recalled obtaining whiskey and later accepting five dollars from a Union officer for some of it, only to discover that he had been paid in Confederate currency. He could still appreciate the joke decades afterward.

    Most striking was his assessment of the Confederate cause: “I always believed we would lose.” Rather than offering a triumphant battlefield tale, Dillard remembered an army that had suffered a terrible defeat. His words deserve to be read in the context of a war fought over secession and the preservation of slavery, even as his individual experience helps us understand the human cost of that conflict.

    Research tip — Search anniversary newspapers. Fifty-year battle anniversaries and veterans’ reunions often prompted interviews that preserved first-person recollections. Search newspapers where your ancestor lived later, not only where the battle occurred. Try the soldier’s initials, regiment, hometown, and words such as “veteran” or “reunion.”

    Capture and the Prison Where Lorenzo Died

    **Dillard C. Howell’s prisoner-of-war record, 1865.** This register from Point Lookout, Maryland, documents Confederate prisoners held during the final months of the Civil War. Howell was captured near Burkesville, Virginia, on April 6, 1865, arrived at Point Lookout on April 14, and was released on June 13, 1865. *Roll of Prisoners of War at Point Lookout, Maryland*, page 337.

    The 24th Virginia continued serving after Gettysburg, including in the long campaigns around Petersburg. By April 1865, Lee’s army was retreating westward under mounting Union pressure.

    Dillard’s prisoner-of-war record states that he was captured at Burkesville, Virginia, on April 6, 1865. He arrived at Point Lookout eight days later. The camp stood at Maryland’s southern tip, where the Potomac River meets the Chesapeake Bay. Thousands of Confederate prisoners were confined there, and disease, exposure, and overcrowding contributed to many deaths.

    Among those who had died was Lorenzo Dow Howell, Dillard’s brother. Lorenzo’s own article in this series tells the story of his service and death. Here, the crucial fact is the timing: Lorenzo was already dead when Dillard reached Point Lookout.

    We cannot say from the records examined whether Dillard knew that news before his arrival, learned it in prison, or visited his brother’s burial place. Inventing such a scene might make dramatic reading, but it would not make sound family history.

    On June 13, 1865, Dillard was released from Point Lookout, Maryland, according to his prisoner-of-war records. The prison paperwork recorded Floyd County as his residence and included a physical description: light complexion and hair, gray eyes, and a height of approximately five feet nine inches.

    One brother had died in captivity. The other walked away from the camp and into a changed country.

    Research tip — Follow the prisoner trail. Capture cards, prison registers, transfer records, and oaths of allegiance may supply different dates and personal details. Compare each document rather than assuming that the capture date, prison arrival date, and release date describe one event.

    A Marriage in Indiana

    Marriage of Dillard C. Howell and Mary Catharine Bales, November 8, 1871. Their marriage was recorded in Hendricks County, Indiana, six years after Dillard’s release from Point Lookout. This original marriage record provides an important link between his military service in Virginia and his later family life in Kansas.

    Six years after his release, Dillard’s life took a new direction. On November 8, 1871, Dillard C. Howell married Mary Catharine Bales in Hendricks County, Indiana. Their marriage record anchors him in a place between his wartime Virginia home and the Kansas community where he later lived.

    The couple went on to raise five children identified in the family records: Victoria Florence Howell, born in 1873; Henrietta J. Howell, born in 1874; Lorenzo Dow Howell, born in 1879; James Howell, recorded under the names James Emmett and James Everett, born in 1883; and Charles E. Howell, born in 1888.

    The younger Lorenzo’s name carried an unmistakable family connection. Dillard had lost his brother Lorenzo Dow Howell at Point Lookout. Years later, he and Mary gave their son that same name. No surviving statement tells us exactly why they chose it, but the repetition suggests that his brother’s memory remained close.

    A later newspaper notice referred to a son named Everett Howell, who worked at the Illinois State Hospital in Peoria, Illinois. The family’s other records identify James as James Everett, resolving the apparent discrepancy: Everett was not an additional sixth child.

    Research tip — Track names and migration together. A marriage record can place an ancestor between census years. Follow it with children’s birthplaces, census entries, directories, and land records to reconstruct a family’s route. Also remember that a person may appear under a first name, middle name, nickname, or initials. Check relationships and occupations before creating a second person in your family tree.

    A Familiar Figure in Ottawa

    **Dillard Howell temporarily serves as city marshal, 1905.** According to *The Osawatomie Graphic* (Osawatomie, Kansas), May 25, 1905, page 8, Howell wore the marshal’s star and carried his staff of office while the official was away fishing. This brief newspaper notice offers a glimpse into Dillard’s civilian life forty years after the Civil War.

    Dillard and Mary eventually settled in Ottawa, Franklin County, Kansas. A 1903 city directory listed them at 737 King Street, while later records placed them at other addresses in town. These changing entries help trace the household through time.

    Local newspapers reveal a life that was not defined solely by the Civil War. In 1905, Dillard temporarily carried the city marshal’s badge and staff of office while the marshal was away fishing. Another report described his involvement in arresting two men found with suspicious tools. In 1912, he was appointed to replace a departing night watchman.

    Family notices provide quieter glimpses. Dillard and Mary visited their son Lorenzo and his family. A 1915 report mentioned Everett’s visit from Illinois. Another notice identified a married daughter as Mrs. Dwight Brown, a clue for following the daughters after their surnames changed.

    Such short newspaper items may seem ordinary beside a battlefield interview, but they reveal the decades that made up most of Dillard’s life: work, family visits, and relationships with neighbors.

    Research tip — Do not ignore the social columns. A few lines about a visit, wedding, job, or illness can establish relationships and locations missing from official records. Search spouses and married daughters as carefully as the person whose surname you are tracing.

    An Old Soldier Looks Back

    In 1913, Gettysburg’s fiftieth anniversary brought Union and Confederate veterans back into public attention. A Franklin County newspaper identified ten local Gettysburg veterans, including seven former Union soldiers and three former Confederates. Dillard, listed as a veteran of Company A, 24th Virginia Infantry, was one of the three.

    He did not attend the anniversary reunion, but his newspaper interview preserved his memories. It is remarkable that the same man whose military record lists him as a young private in 1862 was still speaking about his experiences in 1913, in a Kansas town far from his birthplace.

    Dillard died on September 5, 1936, in Franklin County, Kansas, five days before his ninety-fourth birthday. He was buried at Prairie City Cemetery near Baldwin City. Mary survived him and died in 1952.

    He had lived through the Civil War, Reconstruction, westward expansion, the First World War, and the Great Depression. Yet one thread linked the young soldier to the elderly husband and father: the name Lorenzo Dow Howell, passed from the brother who died to the son who grew up after the war.

    The Next Howell Story

    Dillard’s story follows Lorenzo’s in our journey backward through the family’s military history. It shows not only how one man survived war and imprisonment, but how his life continued through marriage, children, work, and remembrance.

    The next chapter reaches into an earlier generation. Dillard’s father, Isaac Howell, had a sister, Nancy Ann Howell, born October 26, 1791, in Montgomery County, Virginia. Her story brings us to the era of the War of 1812.

    Military files can tell us when an ancestor served. Newspapers may tell us what that person remembered. Marriage records and census entries reveal the family that followed. The richest family stories emerge when we bring those sources together without pretending they answer every question.

    Lorenzo Dow Howell never returned from Point Lookout. Dillard did. And in the family he built afterward, his brother’s name lived on.

    Historical Note: This story is part of a continuing series exploring the Howell family’s military legacy across generations. It is based on family records, military records, historical sources, and documented family research. Some narrative details are included to place those records within their historical setting. Where surviving records do not establish an exact location, event, or circumstance, the narrative should be understood as historical context rather than a statement of documented fact.

    AI Generated Artwork

  • Lorenzo Dow Howell: Two Wars, One Lifetime, and a Divided Nation

    Lorenzo Dow Howell: Two Wars, One Lifetime, and a Divided Nation

    From the mountains of Virginia to Mexico, the Wilderness, and a prison camp in Maryland—the story of a carpenter, husband, father, and soldier whose life crossed two defining American conflicts.

    History remembers generals, presidents, and famous battles. Yet behind those familiar names were ordinary people whose lives became entangled with events far larger than themselves. Lorenzo Dow Howell was one of them.

    Born around 1826 in southwestern Virginia, Lorenzo served the United States during the Mexican-American War. He returned home, married, worked as a carpenter, and raised a family. Then the nation divided. In 1862, he entered Confederate service with the 4th Virginia Infantry. His records tell of illness, interrupted service, capture at the Wilderness, and death as a prisoner of war at Point Lookout, Maryland, on August 21, 1864.

    His story begins, however, in the mountains of Virginia—and ends with a family connection that leads to another remarkable story.

    Roots in the Virginia Mountains

    Lorenzo Dow Howell was born around 1826 in the region associated with Montgomery and Floyd counties, Virginia. Family research identifies his parents as Isaac Howell (1807–1880) and Catharine Thomas (1810–1850).

    Lorenzo was one of five children born to Isaac and Catharine. After Catharine’s death, Isaac married again and had seven additional children. Across two marriages, Isaac fathered twelve children: Lorenzo, his four full siblings, and seven half-siblings. The family’s children were born over approximately forty years. Some of Lorenzo’s youngest half-siblings were born after his death.

    These relationships place Lorenzo within a large, extended Virginia family. They also provide an important connection to his younger brother Dillard Charles Howell, whose wartime experience would eventually lead him to the same prison camp.

    The First War: Mexico

    War broke out between the United States and Mexico in 1846 amid disputes over Texas, the international boundary, and American expansion. Volunteer companies formed across the United States, including in Virginia.

    James Francis Preston of Montgomery County organized a company known as the Montgomery Grenadiers, associated with the 1st Virginia Volunteers. Historical accounts describe Preston as helping to organize and equip the men at his own expense.

    Among the soldiers identified in Preston’s company was Lorenzo Dow Howell.

    Mexican-American War Service Record — Lorenzo Dow Howell (c. 1826–1864). General index card identifying Lorenzo D. Howell as a private in Captain James Francis Preston’s Company, 1st Virginia Volunteers, during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). The record confirms his military unit and rank during his first documented military service.

    The card identifies Lorenzo as a private in Preston’s Company, 1st Virginia Volunteers. It establishes his unit and rank, although it does not give his individual enlistment dates or movements.

    The Montgomery Grenadiers in Mexico

    Preston’s company served in Mexico during 1847 and 1848. Historical accounts place the unit in northern Mexico, including the areas of Monterrey and Buena Vista. The Battle of Buena Vista occurred in February 1847, before the company reportedly arrived that April. Its documented duties are therefore better described as garrison and defensive service, not participation in that battle.

    Even away from major fighting, military service could be dangerous. Disease, exposure, shortages, and camp conditions threatened soldiers far from home. One account reports that twelve members of the Montgomery Grenadiers died of disease. That is a detail about the company, not evidence of Lorenzo’s personal medical history.

    The war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The United States acquired extensive western territories, intensifying disputes over whether slavery would expand into those lands. Those disagreements helped set the stage for the next conflict in Lorenzo’s lifetime.

    For the moment, he returned to civilian life in Virginia.

    Marriage, Children, and Civilian Life

    On February 8, 1849, Lorenzo married Mary McDonald in Montgomery County, Virginia. He was approximately twenty-two or twenty-three years old.

    Records connect the couple to a growing family. The 1860 federal census lists Lorenzo, age thirty-three, and Mary, also thirty-three, in the Western District of Pulaski County, Virginia, with the Newbern post office. Four younger household members appear with them: Melinda, age ten; Victoria, seven; Francina, five; and Caroline, two. Francina was also known as Fannie. Other family information identifies William Gordon Howell as a child of Lorenzo and Mary.

    The census identifies Lorenzo’s occupation as carpenter. A Virginia birth-register entry associated with Victoria likewise identifies her father’s trade as carpentry; his surname appears in one index as Hawell.

    1860 U.S. Federal Census — Lorenzo D. Hawell, Pulaski County, Virginia. Recorded in the Western District, Newbern Post Office, the household lists Lorenzo D. Hawell, age 33, occupation carpenter; Mary Hawell, age 33; Melinda Hawell, age 10; Victoria Hawell, age 7; Francina Hawell, age 5; and Caroline Hawell, age 2. The 1860 census does not specify relationships between household members.

    Carpentry was a practical and valuable trade in nineteenth-century Virginia. The record gives Lorenzo an identity beyond his military service: a working husband and father living in a community where houses, barns, and businesses depended on skilled hands.

    For more than a decade after the Mexican-American War, Lorenzo’s life centered on family and work. Meanwhile, political divisions across the country were becoming harder to contain.

    A Nation Moving Toward War

    The 1850s brought escalating conflict over slavery and its expansion. The Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and violence in Kansas revealed the depth of the sectional crisis. Following Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860, southern states began leaving the Union. Virginia seceded in 1861.

    The contrast in Lorenzo’s military record is striking. He had served as a United States volunteer in the Mexican-American War. Now, more than a decade later, he would enter an army fighting against the United States.

    The Second War: The 4th Virginia Infantry

    On March 13, 1862, Lorenzo enlisted at Newbern, Virginia, for a three-year term. His Confederate company muster roll identifies him as Private Lorenzo D. Howell of Company C, 4th Virginia Infantry, enlisted by Captain Gardner.

    Confederate Military Service Record — Lorenzo D. Howell, 4th Virginia Infantry. Company muster roll identifying Lorenzo D. Howell as a private in Company C, 4th Virginia Infantry. The record documents his enlistment on March 13, 1862, at Newbern, Virginia, by Captain Gardner, for a term of three years.

    The 4th Virginia Infantry belonged to the Stonewall Brigade, associated with Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. By the time Lorenzo joined, the regiment had already fought at First Manassas in July 1861. One of its earlier commanders was a man Lorenzo knew from a very different war: James Francis Preston.

    A Remarkable Connection Between Two Wars

    Preston had commanded Lorenzo’s company during the Mexican-American War. During the Civil War, Preston became colonel of the 4th Virginia Infantry and led the regiment at First Manassas.

    Historian Michael M. Higgins has explored Preston’s possible association with the Confederate Rebel Yell. That proposed connection remains an interpretation, not a settled fact.

    The stronger, documented connection is remarkable enough: Lorenzo’s Mexican-American War commander later led the very Confederate regiment Lorenzo would join. There is an essential chronological distinction, however. Preston died in January 1862, before Lorenzo enlisted in March. The two men did not serve together in the 4th Virginia during Lorenzo’s recorded Confederate service.

    The Hardships Behind the Muster Rolls

    Lorenzo’s Confederate records are not a continuous account of battlefield action. Instead, they document changing military status, repeated absences, and prolonged illness.

    A November 1862 regimental return describes him as absent without leave beginning in May of that year. Later muster rolls repeatedly record him as absent sick, including references to Lexington, Virginia, and hospital care. The surviving records do not identify the illness.

    Illness was a major burden for soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Poor sanitation, exposure, inadequate nutrition, and infectious diseases could keep men away from their regiments for extended periods. Lorenzo’s muster rolls show how military service could be interrupted without describing everything that happened to the individual soldier.

    A January–February 1864 roll records an absence without leave beginning December 26, 1863. By the March–April 1864 roll, Lorenzo was listed as present. Whatever difficulties had interrupted his service, he was again recorded with his company as a major campaign approached.

    The Wilderness: May 5, 1864

    In May 1864, Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant began the Overland Campaign against General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. The opening battle unfolded in the dense woods of the Wilderness, where tangled vegetation, smoke, and difficult terrain made fighting especially confusing.

    On May 5, Lorenzo was captured at the Wilderness. His prisoner-of-war record establishes the date and location, but does not say whether he was wounded, separated from his unit, surrounded, or captured in some other circumstance.

    After more than two years on Confederate rolls, Lorenzo’s military experience entered its final phase. He was now a prisoner of war.

    From the Wilderness to Point Lookout

    Following his capture, Lorenzo was transported through Belle Plains, Virginia. On May 18, 1864, he arrived at Point Lookout, Maryland.

    Point Lookout, Maryland, prisoner-of-war register, page 215, listing L. D. Howell, private, Company C, 4th Virginia Infantry, captured at the Wilderness on May 5, 1864. Source: Roll of Prisoners of War at Point Lookout, Maryland, National Archives.

    Point Lookout occupied a peninsula near the meeting of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Once a resort area, it became a large Union prison camp during the Civil War. Thousands of Confederate prisoners passed through it, facing crowded conditions, exposure, and disease.

    Lorenzo had experienced prolonged illness earlier in his military service, but no record presented here establishes the cause of his death or links it to that earlier illness.

    The final date is clear: August 21, 1864. Lorenzo died at Point Lookout a little more than three months after his capture. He was approximately thirty-eight years old. Mary and their children would never see him return home.

    Remembered at Point Lookout

    published register of Confederate prisoners who died at Point Lookout identifies “Howell, Lorenzo D.,” Company C, 4th Virginia, with the death date August 21, 1864. An interment report also preserves his name and military organization.

    The Point Lookout Confederate memorial commemorates men who died in captivity. The surviving documentation does not establish the precise location of Lorenzo’s individual remains, but his name is preserved on the memorial.

    L.D. Howell’s name inscribed on the Point Lookout Confederate memorial at Point Lookout, Maryland, where he died as a prisoner of war on August 21, 1864. Photograph courtesy of Find a Grave; photographer credited on the original memorial page.

    For a family historian, seeing that name on the memorial makes the records tangible. The index card, census, muster roll, and prisoner register describe different parts of a life. The memorial marks its ending.

    A Family That Continued Beyond the War

    Lorenzo’s death did not end the Howell family’s story. His children and siblings lived on, and later records continued to preserve his identity.

    A 1930 Virginia death certificate for Fannie Donati identifies her parents as Lorenzo D. Howell and Mary McDonald. Fannie is the Francina recorded as a five-year-old in Lorenzo’s 1860 household. Decades after his death, a document from his daughter’s life still carried the names of her parents.

    The marriage record identifies Lorenzo as a husband. The census and birth records reveal his work and household. The military documents trace his service in two wars, his capture, and his death. No single record tells the whole story; together they allow us to recover something of the person behind the name.

    Two Wars, One Lifetime

    Lorenzo Dow Howell’s lifetime connected two defining conflicts in American history. He served the United States during the Mexican-American War, returned to civilian life, and later joined the Confederate 4th Virginia Infantry. His records reveal the hardships of illness, the chaos of wartime capture, and death in captivity.

    We cannot know from these documents everything Lorenzo believed, said, or experienced. We can, however, place him within his family, his community, and the events that changed the nation around him.

    He was more than a name on a roster: he was a son, brother, husband, father, carpenter, veteran, and prisoner of war.

    And his family’s connection to Point Lookout did not end with his death.

    The Story Does Not End at Point Lookout

    Lorenzo’s younger brother, Dillard Charles Howell (1842–1936), also served during the Civil War. Like Lorenzo, he became a prisoner of war at Point Lookout—but only after Lorenzo had died there.

    The chronology is haunting. Lorenzo died at Point Lookout on August 21, 1864. Dillard was captured later and eventually imprisoned at that same Maryland camp. The brothers were never prisoners there together.

    Unlike Lorenzo, Dillard survived the war. His life continued for decades, eventually taking him from Virginia to Kansas.

    How did Dillard come to be held at the place where his older brother died? What do his military records reveal about his imprisonment, and where did his life lead after the war?

    Those questions belong to the next chapter of the Howell family story.

    Historical Context

    Lorenzo’s life followed the nation from territorial expansion to civil war. The Mexican-American War added western lands to the United States and sharpened disputes over slavery’s expansion. Those disputes contributed to the sectional crisis that brought secession and the Civil War.

    His service in the 4th Virginia Infantry placed him in the history of the Stonewall Brigade and, ultimately, Grant’s 1864 Overland Campaign. His muster rolls show the toll of illness on soldiers; his capture and death at Point Lookout connect his story to the wider experience of prisoners of war.

    The experiences of Lorenzo and Dillard also show how the war reached into individual families. Two brothers from the same Virginia household were held at the same prison camp at different times, but only one returned home. Their records offer a personal view of a national conflict whose consequences lasted for generations.

    Historical Note: This story is part of a continuing series exploring the Howell family’s military legacy across generations. It is based on family records, military records, historical sources, and documented family research. Some narrative details are included to place those records within their historical setting. Where surviving records do not establish an exact location, event, or circumstance, the narrative should be understood as historical context rather than a statement of documented fact.

  • The Road Back to Wilkesboro: How an Indiana Boy Found His Mother’s Homeland in the Civil War

    The Road Back to Wilkesboro: How an Indiana Boy Found His Mother’s Homeland in the Civil War

    If you look closely enough at an old family tree, you start to realize that history isn’t just a collection of random names and dates. It is a living blueprint. Sometimes, the choices made by people generations apart seem to follow strangely familiar roads.

    That is one of the things genealogy has taught me.

    We don’t always know why we’re drawn toward certain places, occupations, or ways of life. Sometimes we simply feel the pull. Then, years later, we open an old record and discover that someone generations before us walked a strangely familiar road.

    Over the last two weeks, I shared how a family road trip through France collided with my grandfather Joseph’s footsteps in the mud of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. I wrote about the spine-chilling moment I realized that decades later, the military had sent me to Germany to wear the same 4th Cavalry crossed sabers that his brother, my great-granduncle George, had worn during his service along the Mexican border.

    But if we want to follow this family’s military story deeper into the past, we have to look beyond the trenches of World War I. We have to go back to a time before tanks, before gasoline pumps, and before the world had ever heard of a global war.

    The next trail leads to their uncle—my great-great-granduncle, Tilghman Andrew Howell—an eighteen-year-old kid from Indiana who marched into the smoke of the Civil War, only to find himself in his own mother’s homeland.

    And even Tilghman isn’t where this story begins. As the records will eventually show, the tradition reaches much farther back—through Howell men and through men who married into the Howell family.

    Born to the Blue Ridge Lineage

    Tilghman was born on August 7, 1845, in the familiar crossroads of Hartford City, Indiana. He was the second of eight children born to George Sumpter Howell and a woman whose maiden name rewrote our entire family geography: Amelia R. Rousseau.

    Growing up in East-Central Indiana, Tilghman was surrounded by his mother’s Rousseau family connections. Amelia’s roots reached back to Wilkes County, North Carolina, and those ties were far more than names on a family tree. Her father, David Rousseau, remained close to Amelia and eventually died in northern Indiana. The Rousseau family line didn’t belong only to the flat cornfields of the Midwest; its roots ran deep into the rugged Blue Ridge foothills of North Carolina.

    Those family ties would become even more significant later in Tilghman’s life. About twenty years after the Civil War carried him into North Carolina, he returned there and married his first cousin—the daughter of Amelia’s own sister.

    But first, there was a war.

    Tilghman was just a teenager when the Union fractured in 1861. For nearly three years, the Civil War raged while he grew from a fifteen-year-old boy into a young man.

    Then, on January 29, 1864, at just eighteen years old, he stepped forward. He signed his name, took the oath, and entered the Union Army as a Private in Company I, 130th Indiana Infantry.

    Tilghman A. Howell of Hartford City appears on the roster of Company I, 130th Indiana Infantry. The roster records January 29, 1864, and his muster out on December 10, 1865.

    Through the Fire of Georgia and Tennessee

    Private Tilghman Howell didn’t get the luxury of a slow introduction to soldiering. The 130th Indiana was mustered into federal service in March 1864 and soon joined the XXIII Corps of the Army of the Ohio as Sherman’s armies prepared to move south into Georgia.

    Tilghman spent his nineteenth birthday in the midst of the Atlanta Campaign.

    With Company I, he served through the fighting at Resaca, the operations around Kennesaw Mountain, and the long campaign around Atlanta. The 130th continued through the operations at Utoy Creek, Jonesboro, and Lovejoy’s Station before the Atlanta Campaign finally came to an end.

    When Atlanta fell, Tilghman’s unit eventually turned back north as Confederate General John Bell Hood carried the war into Tennessee.

    Throughout the bitter winter campaign of 1864, Tilghman served with the 130th at the massive clashes of Franklin and Nashville, followed by the pursuit of Hood’s defeated Army of Tennessee toward the Tennessee River.

    Through those campaigns, Tilghman remained with his company. He was never wounded, hospitalized, or detached from the unit. He had survived some of the hardest campaigning of the western war.

    But it was the final movement of the war that turned his military service into an unbelievable full circle.

    The Homeland Call

    In early 1865, the 130th Indiana was moved by boat and rail for one final campaign against the remaining Confederate resistance.

    Their orders sent them across the map, straight into North Carolina.

    For a nineteen-year-old Indiana kid, entering North Carolina meant that the war had carried him onto the native soil of his mother’s Rousseau family.

    Tilghman moved with the 130th through the North Carolina campaign, including the operations around Kinston and Goldsboro, before the regiment advanced on Raleigh in April.

    Then, on April 26, 1865, the campaign reached its conclusion at Bennett Place, where Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston surrendered his army to Union General William T. Sherman.

    Tilghman had entered the Army as an eighteen-year-old Indiana private.

    Now, at nineteen, he was standing in his mother’s home state as one of the last great Confederate armies surrendered.

    But the Army didn’t send him home immediately.

    The 130th remained in North Carolina after the fighting ended, performing occupation duty for the remainder of 1865. My archival research pulled up Tilghman’s official muster-out record: December 10, 1865.

    He had spent much of the final year of his military service in North Carolina.

    What that experience meant to Tilghman personally, no surviving military record can tell us.

    But genealogy sometimes gives us another way of seeing the story.

    The connection between Tilghman and North Carolina didn’t end when he took off the blue coat. About twenty years later, he returned. There, he married his first cousin—the daughter of Amelia’s sister—and ultimately made his home in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, on the ancestral ground of his mother’s Rousseau family.

    Marriage register for Tilghman Howell and Maggie Transou, 1 August 1893, Wilkes County, North Carolina.

    We cannot know exactly what pulled him back.

    We only know that he went.

    The Civil War had carried an Indiana boy into his mother’s homeland.

    Decades later, the road pulled him back.

    An Unbroken Creed

    Tilghman lived to be 85 years old, passing away in those North Carolina hills on November 17, 1930.

    Because of his long life, the generations overlapped in a remarkable way. While the aging Civil War veteran was living in North Carolina, his grandnephews George and Joseph had already written their own chapters of the family’s military history.

    The surviving records may never tell us how much they knew about one another’s military service.

    But genealogy lets us see something they may never have been able to see themselves.

    The pattern.

    Tilghman served during the Civil War. George and Joseph served in the generation that followed. My father later chose military service. I eventually put on the uniform myself. And today, one of those little boys who traveled through Europe with me has grown up to make that same choice, putting on the uniform to lead soldiers of his own.

    Different generations. Different wars. Different lives.

    But the thread keeps appearing.

    And as I work backward through the records, I keep discovering that Tilghman wasn’t the beginning either.

    The trail continues deeper into the family tree, through Howell men and through men who married Howell women—men whose service reaches into earlier American wars and, eventually, back to the Revolution.

    Maybe that is one of the greatest gifts genealogy gives us.

    We spend our lives making choices without always understanding why certain things appeal to us. We choose occupations. We move across the country. We wander. We serve. Sometimes we leave home, and sometimes, years later, the road pulls us back.

    I’ve seen that pattern in my own life.

    I’ve been drawn to things and only later discovered them buried in my family history. I’ve watched the Howells move from place to place across generations. Sometimes they stayed somewhere for years. Sometimes they put down deep roots. But sooner or later, somebody seemed to feel that pull of the road again.

    Genealogy doesn’t necessarily tell me why.

    It tells me that the pattern was already there.

    Tilghman’s 1864 military record gives us the raw facts of a Civil War private. The rest of his records reveal something larger: an Indiana boy went to war, survived some of the hardest campaigns of the western theater, followed the Army into his mother’s North Carolina homeland, and decades later returned there to build the rest of his life.

    Was that pull family connection? Memory? Circumstance? Something deeper? Or simply chance?

    The records cannot answer that.

    But after seeing the same kinds of patterns surface again and again in my own family, I have learned not to dismiss the pull simply because I cannot explain it.

    Sometimes genealogy doesn’t tell us why we chose the road.

    It shows us that someone in our family walked it before us.

    Historical Note: This story is part of a continuing series exploring the Howell family’s military legacy across generations. It is based on family records, military records, historical sources, and documented family research. Some narrative details are included to place those records within their historical setting. Where surviving records do not establish an exact location, event, or circumstance, the narrative should be understood as historical context rather than a statement of documented fact.

  • The Long Trail of the 4th Cavalry: How a Century-Old Legacy Met Me in Germany

    The Long Trail of the 4th Cavalry: How a Century-Old Legacy Met Me in Germany

    Every soldier knows that the military is built on a foundation of unspoken connections. We wear the patches of campaigns fought before we were born, and we walk the parade grounds where legends once stood. But sometimes, history doesn’t just echo—it pulls over to the side of the road, looks you right in the eye, and hands you a pair of crossed sabers.

    Last week, I shared how a family road trip through France collided with my grandfather Joseph’s footsteps in the mud of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. That discovery showed how our family’s past and present were riding in the exact same car down a French highway in 2002. But as I kept digging deeper into the archives, the threads of our family tree stretched back even further, revealing a second, jaw-dropping intersection with the past.

    This is the story of Joseph’s brother—my great-granduncle, George Grover Howell—and a century-old cavalry legacy that my own archival research finally brought to light.

    The Heat of the Gas Boom

    Before I cracked open the records, the paper trail made George look like a standard turn-of-the-century Midwest tradesman. Around 1908, Hartford City, Indiana, was booming, driven by the discovery of natural gas. A 21-year-old George was earning his living as a glass worker, a grueling and dangerous trade spent around roaring pot furnaces.

    But George was looking for a different kind of intensity. On June 30, 1908, just shy of his 22nd birthday, he walked away from the factory floor and signed up for the United States Regular Army.

    He was assigned to the prestigious 4th Cavalry Regiment and sent north to Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

    And this is where one of those strange little details in genealogy helps tell the story.

    If you look up George in the 1910 U.S. Census, the government lists his status with the cold, technical term “inmate.” It’s a quirk that confuses modern researchers, but George wasn’t behind bars. He was a young cavalryman living in the barracks at Fort Snelling.

    George Grover Howell in the 1910 U.S. Census at Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The census classified soldiers living in the barracks as “inmates.”

    For me, that census entry transformed George from a name on the family tree into a soldier. He was living the life of a Regular Army cavalryman—years before the United States entered the First World War.

    Patrolling a Wild Frontier

    In the summer of 1911, George completed his first three-year hitch. Loving the soldier’s life, he chose to “re-up” immediately.

    His timing was historic.

    As the Mexican Revolution erupted into violence, the 4th Cavalry was ordered to the southwestern border. George went from Minnesota to the blistering, cactus-lined desert of the Rio Grande.

    This was the era of the “Old Army”—a frontier military still dependent on horses, pack animals, isolated posts, and cavalry patrols. George served along the Mexican border during a period when revolution and instability just across the international line had become a serious concern for the United States.

    By 1914, George was stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso County. General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing arrived there in April 1914, placing two men whose military careers would take very different paths at the same post during the final months of George’s enlistment.

    When George was discharged from Fort Bliss in September 1914, he walked away a corporal and a veteran of six years in the Regular Army.

    George Grover Howell’s military record documenting the end of his six years with the Regular Army at Fort Bliss, Texas, in 1914.

    That document closes the first chapter of George’s military life.

    But only the first.

    The Replacement Mystery

    The mechanical skills George had developed over the years transitioned well into the rapidly changing industrial world. By 1917, he was working as a machinist for the Bowser Manufacturing Company in Fort Wayne, building early automotive gasoline pumps.

    When America entered World War I, local newspapers reported that George had joined his brother Joseph in the volunteer hometown Lafayette Battalion.

    But when I followed George into the military records, I found something different.

    George entered the Army again on March 5, 1918, and was assigned Army Serial Number 1159531.

    That number became one of the keys to following him.

    A surviving record puts George at Kelly Field, Texas, on March 6, 1918—only one day after entering service.

    George G. Howell’s 1918 military record, showing Army Serial Number 1159531 and his arrival at Kelly Field, Texas, in March 1918.

    That one record changed the direction of the story.

    George wasn’t going back to the cavalry.

    He was entering an entirely different Army.

    By July 31, another roster places George G. Howell, 1159531, with the 322nd Aero Squadron, Flying Department, at Kelly Field in South San Antonio, Texas.

    Then I found him again.

    The roster of the 322nd Aero Squadron at midnight on October 31, 1918, contains the same name and the same serial number.

    But this record gives us something else.

    George appears under the heading:

    SERGEANTS.

    There he was.

    Sergeant George G. Howell, 1159531.

    The October 31, 1918 roster of the 322nd Aero Squadron lists George G. Howell, Army Serial Number 1159531, among the unit’s sergeants.

    In only a few years, George had gone from horses to airplanes.

    His first military career belonged to the old horse cavalry. He had served with the 4th Cavalry along the Mexican border and finished that chapter at Fort Bliss.

    Now he was serving with an Aero Squadron at Kelly Field as the United States Army entered the age of military aviation.

    George had entered the Army in 1908 during the age of the cavalry horse.

    A decade later, he was a sergeant in an Army learning to fight in the sky.

    And his paper trail doesn’t end with the Armistice.

    On November 30, 1918—nineteen days after the fighting ended—George appears on another surviving roster. The name is the same. The serial number is the same: 1159531.

    This time he appears with Candidate Company G, 2nd Battalion, C.I.O.T.S.

    For now, that is where the surviving records leave him. They establish that George’s World War I service continued beyond the Armistice, even though we have not yet reconstructed every remaining step of that service.

    While his younger brother Joseph fought with the 150th Field Artillery in France, George served stateside as the United States Army transformed around him.

    Two brothers had answered the same call.

    The Army simply sent them down very different roads.

    The Timeline Folds Again

    And that is where the timeline folds completely in on itself, bridging nearly a century of time.

    In early 2002, fresh out of basic training, I was shipped across the Atlantic to Schweinfurt, Germany, stationed at Conn Barracks.

    My assignment?

    Charlie Troop, 1/4 Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division.

    When I pinned on that unit patch and looked at those crossed sabers, I had absolutely no idea that I was stepping directly into my great-granduncle George’s military lineage.

    Nearly a century after George enlisted in the 4th Cavalry, I was serving in that same historic regiment, carrying the same cavalry lineage into a completely different Army and a completely different century.

    But our mounts looked a little different.

    Unlike George, who knew the cavalry from the back of a flesh-and-blood horse, an M1A1 Abrams tank was my steed. I was riding a beast made of steel, its turbine engine roaring, carrying the cavalry tradition into a high-tech century.

    George had watched the Army change from horses to airplanes.

    Nearly a century later, I was watching the cavalry tradition continue from inside seventy tons of American armor.

    From horses to airplanes in George’s generation. From horses to an M1A1 Abrams in mine.

    And the strangest part is that I didn’t know any of this at the time.

    George had been dead for decades. His cavalry service existed in old records, census entries, military rosters, and pieces of family history waiting to be put back together.

    I wore those crossed sabers without knowing that another Howell had served in the 4th Cavalry before me.

    It took genealogy to bring us together.

    Me with the 1st Squadron, 4th U.S. Cavalry at Conn Barracks, Schweinfurt, Germany, in 2002. Nearly a century earlier, my great-granduncle George G. Howell had served in the 4th Cavalry.

    The Tradition Continues

    But the legacy doesn’t stop with George and me.

    George and Joseph chose to serve their country when the world was on fire, establishing a tradition of military service that continued through our family.

    Joseph’s son—my father—would eventually answer that call himself.

    Years later, I put on the uniform.

    And today, one of those little boys who held my hand near the concrete pillboxes in Belgium has grown up to make that same choice, putting on the uniform to lead soldiers on the front lines today.

    Just how many generations of our family have answered this call?

    It is a tradition that reaches back through centuries of our family history—a recurring thread of men who, in very different times and circumstances, chose to serve their country.

    George’s surviving records rescued his military story from obscurity. And discovering that nearly a century later I had served in the same historic cavalry regiment revealed something I never knew while wearing those crossed sabers: military service has surfaced again and again throughout our family tree—from the cavalry trails of Fort Bliss, through the battlefields of France, and into the generations serving today.

    But George and Joseph weren’t the beginning of this story.

    Their uncle, Tilghman Andrew Howell, had answered the call decades earlier, marching with Company I, 130th Indiana Infantry, during the Civil War.

    But Uncle Tilghman’s story… well, that’s a masterclass for a different time.

    Historical Note: This story is part of a continuing series exploring the Howell family’s military legacy across generations. It is based on family records, military records, historical sources, and documented family research. Some narrative details are included to place those records within their historical setting. Where surviving records do not establish an exact location, event, or circumstance, the narrative should be understood as historical context rather than a statement of documented fact.

  • The Roadside Ghosts of the A4: The Day My Family’s Past and Future Collided

    The Roadside Ghosts of the A4: The Day My Family’s Past and Future Collided

    Every soldier knows that the military is built on a foundation of unspoken connections. We wear the patches of campaigns fought before we were born, and we walk the parade grounds where legends once stood. But sometimes, history doesn’t just echo—it pulls over to the side of the road and stares you right in the face.

    The only reason I am writing this today is because of a story my wife, Stephanie, recently wrote. She spent countless hours digging through old genealogy records and parsing through World War I military morning reports, meticulously tracing my grandfather’s travels through France. Because of her research, the invisible threads of our family tree suddenly became a map.

    In 2002, I was stationed at Conn Barracks in Schweinfurt, Germany. I was serving in C Troop, 1/4 Cavalry, 1st Infantry Division. Like any young dad with a bit of leave, I loaded up the family car for a European road trip. Stephanie, our 1-year-old daughter, my 6-year-old son, Robert, and my 4-year-old son, Jonathan, all piled in.

    Stephanie with our children during our family trip to Berlin in 2002.

    Our destination was Normandy. As a veteran, I was intent on experiencing the D-Day beaches, wanting to stand where the Greatest Generation cracked Hitler’s Atlantic Wall in 1944. We drove out of Germany, passed through Luxembourg City, and headed up into Belgium. Along the way, I spotted a cluster of old, concrete wartime pillboxes sitting silently near the tree line.

    Captivated by the history, I pulled the car over. Stephanie stayed back with our baby girl while I took both of my young boys, Robert and Jon, by the hand. We walked right out to those cold, moss-covered fortifications, exploring the old firing slits and touching the concrete together. I didn’t know the exact history of those specific bunkers at the time; I just wanted my boys to see a piece of the world their country had fought to free.

    Joseph Howell with his three children during a family visit to Berlin in 2002.

    After a few minutes, we saddled back up and continued our journey to the coast.

    The trip was incredible, but it was the drive back to Schweinfurt that secretly held the real magic.

    Leaving Paris, we took the A4 highway, the Autoroute de l’Est, heading eastbound back toward Germany. It was a peaceful, scenic drive. My family was safe, free, and buckled into the back seat. I was just focused on the road, completely unaware of the geography passing outside my window.

    I didn’t know it then. I wouldn’t find out until Stephanie cracked open the archives this year.

    As our tires rolled down the A4, we were traveling through the Argonne region. We passed Sainte-Menehould and continued toward Verdun, through countryside intimately connected with the battlefields of the First World War. Somewhere north of our route lay the ground over which American soldiers had fought against the heavily fortified German defensive system known as the Kriemhilde Stellung.

    And that is where the timeline folds in on itself.

    Map of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive showing the American advance through northeastern France in 1918. Library of Congress.

    In October 1918, my grandfather—and my exact namesake—Joseph Robert Howell was serving in that campaign. He was an artilleryman with the 150th Field Artillery, part of the 42nd “Rainbow” Division, as American forces fought to break through the German defenses during the Meuse-Argonne Offensive.

    During that fighting, the 42nd Division moved into the line and relieved a battered division that had suffered heavily while fighting across those ridges.

    That unit was the 1st Infantry Division.

    Guns and horses of the 150th Field Artillery, 42nd “Rainbow” Division, waiting to move toward the front in France during World War I. Library of Congress.

    The Big Red One.

    My unit.

    During the final weeks of the war, my grandfather was severely wounded. He survived those wounds, came home, and passed his name down to me.

    Decades later, the Army sent me across the Atlantic to serve in the exact division his division had relieved, proudly walking in the lineage of the 4th U.S. Cavalry—the very regiment his brother George had served in back in 1911.

    But that is a story for another time, a masterclass in connecting the dots in genealogy.

    Driving down that highway in 2002, I missed the chance to consciously connect with him. I didn’t pull over. I didn’t know to look out the window and whisper a thank you. Realizing now just how close I had unknowingly come to the battlefield where he fought, I’ll admit it brings chills to my arms and tears to my eyes.

    But I didn’t miss the connection.

    Not really.

    Because Joseph Robert Howell was in the mud of France in 1918, enduring the artillery, gas, and misery of one of the final campaigns of the First World War, so that eighty-four years later, his grandson could drive his own children through those same valleys in absolute peace.

    And the ultimate victory? The proof that the warrior gene never left our bloodline?

    Years after that roadside stop, that same legacy of military service would quietly wake up in the next generation. One of those small boys who stood with me at those old concrete bunkers would grow up to put on the uniform himself, stepping forward to lead soldiers on the front lines today. The tradition endures, carrying the family’s quiet dedication to duty forward into a third century.

    We didn’t know it in 2002, but as we drove down the A4, the past, the present, and the future of our family were all riding in the exact same car.

    Historical Note: This story is part of a continuing series exploring the Howell family’s military legacy across generations. It is based on family records, military records, historical sources, and documented family research. Some narrative details are included to place those records within their historical setting. Where surviving records do not establish an exact location, event, or circumstance, the narrative should be understood as historical context rather than a statement of documented fact.

  • Are They From Where You Believe?

    Are They From Where You Believe?

    One of the first things we are often given when beginning genealogy research is a place.

    “My grandfather lived in Indianapolis.”

    “My family was from Illinois.”

    “My great-grandmother lived in this county.”

    Sometimes that information comes from a family member. Sometimes it comes from a family tree that has been copied and recopied. Other times, we may have a record that appears to establish where the person lived.

    But before we begin searching for birth certificates, marriage records, deeds, probate files, church records, and all the other records that may tell us about our ancestor’s life, there is a basic question we should answer:

    Did this person actually live where we believe they lived?

    A simple residence survey can help answer that question. We do not need to search every possible record at this stage. Instead, we can begin with a handful of basic sources.

    1. Census Records

    The U.S. federal census is usually a good place to begin because it gives us a snapshot of a household at a particular time and place.

    But remember that word: snapshot.

    A census does not necessarily tell us where someone lived throughout the entire year, and we should not automatically assume that every piece of information on a census came directly from the person we are researching.

    The person providing the information might have been a spouse, child, another relative, landlord, or even a neighbor. Our ancestor might not have been home when the census taker arrived. The person answering the questions may have known some things about the family and guessed at others.

    There is another complication: a person can sometimes appear more than once.

    My own grandmother provides an excellent example. She was born in Illinois and lived in the Arthur and Loami area before later living in Indianapolis. In the 1920 census, however, she appears twice. She was enumerated with her family in Arthur, Illinois, but she was also enumerated separately in Indianapolis, Indiana.

    If I looked at only one of those records, I could come away with a very different understanding of where she was at that point in her life.

    That does not make the census useless. Far from it. It means the census should be treated as evidence that we compare with other evidence.

    2. City Directories

    City directories can be one of our best tools for establishing where someone lived between federal censuses.

    I have seen this in my own family research.

    I located my grandfather in the 1911 Hartford City, Indiana, city directory. Later, I was able to locate him in Indianapolis city directories covering the period from 1921 through 1946. My grandmother also begins appearing with him in later directory entries.

    Instead of having only the federal censuses—perhaps seeing someone in 1920, again in 1930, and again in 1940—the directories allow us to follow a person’s presence in a community much more closely.

    They can also provide more than a name. Depending on the year and publisher, an entry may identify an address, occupation, employer, or spouse.

    When we find a person repeatedly in directories for the same community, we begin building a timeline. Changes in address, occupation, or the addition of a spouse can become clues that lead us to other records.

    The directory is therefore more than a place to find an address. It can help us establish when someone arrived, how long they remained, and when something in their life changed.

    3. Tax Records

    Tax records can be another valuable tool for determining where someone was located, particularly during years when no census was taken.

    I have used tax records in my own Howell research involving Joshua Howell in Botetourt and Montgomery Counties, Virginia.

    At first glance, finding Joshua in records from different counties could make it appear that he moved.

    But that is not necessarily what happened.

    Sometimes our ancestors did not move. The boundaries moved around them.

    County boundaries changed as new counties were created and existing jurisdictions were divided or reorganized. A person could live on the same land for years and appear in records belonging to different counties without ever physically moving.

    That is why understanding the history of the locality is so important.

    When a person disappears from one county’s records and begins appearing in another, do not immediately conclude that the family relocated. Check the history of the county boundaries. Look at maps from the period. Determine whether the jurisdiction changed around the family.

    Joshua’s tax records teach another important lesson.

    Joshua was not the only Howell family member in the area. His brother Benjamin had given some of his children the same names Joshua had given his children.

    That creates an obvious problem: when a tax list contains one of those names, which man is it?

    Fortunately, some of the tax records helped make that distinction. Entries identifying individuals as “son of J” or “s of B” helped separate Joshua’s sons from Benjamin’s sons.

    This illustrates why we should not simply search a tax collection for a name and stop when we find it.

    Look at the entire entry. Look at the other people on the list. Follow the person through successive years. Pay attention to small notations added by the person who created the record.

    And understand the boundaries of the jurisdiction in which the record was created.

    A few words such as “son of J” may separate two men with the same name. A different county name at the top of a later tax list may reflect a boundary change rather than a physical move by the family.

    Tax records can therefore help us establish where someone was located over time, distinguish people with the same name, and sometimes reveal something equally important:

    The ancestor stayed put while the map changed.

    4. Voter Registration and Poll Records

    Where they survive, voter registration records and poll lists can provide another piece of evidence for residence.

    To register or vote, a person generally had to meet residency requirements. That makes these records useful when we are trying to determine whether someone was actually living within a particular city, county, or precinct.

    These records will not exist for everyone, and eligibility to vote varied greatly by time and place. Their absence should therefore never automatically be interpreted as evidence that someone did not live there.

    When they do exist, however, they can provide another independent source supporting a residence.

    5. Newspapers

    Newspapers are one of my favorite resources for establishing where a family was at a particular time because they record something the census often cannot—the everyday activities and movements of ordinary people.

    Do not limit a newspaper search to obituaries, birth announcements, and marriage notices.

    My own family demonstrates why.

    My grandmother was born and lived in the Arthur and Loami area of Illinois before later living in Indianapolis. I have found newspaper articles concerning my grandmother herself in the Arthur and Loami area as well as Indianapolis, along with many newspaper entries involving other members of her family.

    Those articles help fill the spaces between the major records.

    A small social notice about visiting relatives might seem unimportant. But it gives us a name, a place, and a point in time. Several such articles collected over a period of years can help us follow the movements and connections of a family.

    My grandfather even received a speeding ticket that made the newspaper. It may not have been an event he wanted preserved for future generations, but for a genealogist, it is another dated piece of evidence placing him in a particular area.

    I have found countless newspaper entries involving members of my family in Hartford City and Indianapolis, Indiana, and around Arthur and Loami, Illinois.

    This demonstrates another important part of a residence survey:

    Do not search only for the person you are researching.

    Search for their spouse, parents, siblings, children, and other close relatives.

    Your ancestor may be mentioned in an article indexed under someone else’s name. A notice about parents receiving a visit from their daughter and grandson could help place that daughter in the community even though she was not the main subject of the article.

    But keep the evidence straight.

    An article placing a brother in Arthur establishes the brother’s presence there. It does not automatically establish that every member of his family lived there.

    Each piece of evidence needs to say what it actually says.

    When a Newspaper Gives You Another Question

    Newspapers can also give us a location that creates more questions than answers.

    I encountered exactly that with my great-granduncle, Tilghman Andrew Howell.

    In the newspaper obituary for his mother, Amelia Howell, née Rousseau, Tilghman was listed as living in “Washington.”

    Washington.

    But what Washington?

    Was the obituary referring to Washington, D.C.? Washington state? Or one of the many cities and towns named Washington?

    Without additional evidence, I cannot simply choose the Washington that seems most likely and begin researching as though I have established his residence.

    Instead, “Washington” becomes a clue.

    Now I can return to the other records in my residence survey. Census records, city directories, tax records, voter records, and additional newspapers may eventually provide the evidence necessary to determine which Washington the obituary meant.

    That is an important distinction in genealogy:

    A location mentioned in a record is evidence. It is not necessarily proof of the location we need.

    Don’t Search Just One Newspaper

    Another lesson I have learned is to search every newspaper available for the area you are researching.

    Do not assume that because you searched one newspaper—or one newspaper website—you have completed your search.

    A community may have had several newspapers operating at the same time. One might have carried a small social notice about your family that another newspaper never published.

    The surviving newspapers may also be scattered among different repositories.

    Some of the major online resources include Newspapers.com, NewspaperArchive.com, and GenealogyBank, but these should be starting points rather than the end of the search.

    Look for local digital newspaper collections as well.

    Then look beyond the internet.

    Newspaper archives may be located at the newspaper itself or at a local historical or genealogical society. But don’t stop there. Check public libraries, state libraries and archives, colleges, universities, museums, and other regional repositories.

    Some collections have been digitized and can be searched from home. Others may survive on microfilm or in original copies and require an in-person visit or assistance from an archivist or librarian.

    The newspaper you need may exist even though it does not appear on one of the major newspaper websites.

    6. Local and County Histories

    Do not overlook the history of the community itself.

    County histories, town histories, anniversary books, pioneer histories, local biographies, and publications produced by historical and genealogical societies can contain valuable clues about the people who lived there.

    Some contain biographical sketches of residents. Others discuss early settlers, businesses, churches, schools, military units, community organizations, migrations, and the families who helped establish the area.

    Even when the person you are researching does not have a biography of their own, look for their family members.

    A biography of a brother, uncle, cousin, neighbor, or business associate may mention your person. It may tell you where the family came from, when they arrived, where they moved, or which relatives remained behind.

    Local histories can also help us understand changing geography.

    Counties were created, divided, renamed, and reorganized. Townships changed. Communities disappeared or changed names. State and territorial boundaries changed.

    If an ancestor appears in one county and then another without any other evidence of a move, the history of those jurisdictions may explain what happened.

    The family may not have moved at all.

    The county line may have moved instead.

    But remember the same rule we have been applying throughout this survey:

    A local history gives us evidence—not automatic proof.

    Many local histories were compiled years after the events they describe. Information may have been supplied from someone’s memory or by descendants of the person being discussed. Names, dates, relationships, and places should be compared with contemporary records whenever possible.

    Local histories are also scattered among many repositories.

    Check local libraries and historical societies, but also look at state libraries and archives, college and university libraries, genealogical libraries, and digital book collections.

    Digital genealogy libraries can contain local histories, maps, family histories, yearbooks, and other books that help researchers understand both the people and the places they are studying.

    Sometimes the book sitting unnoticed on a library shelf contains the clue that explains not only who lived in the community, but why the records suddenly begin calling that same place by another county’s name.

    Build the Foundation First

    The purpose of this initial survey is not to learn everything about our ancestor.

    It is to establish a foundation.

    Start with the location the family believes is correct.

    Check the census.

    Look through available city directories.

    Examine tax records.

    Check voter registration and poll records when appropriate.

    Search the newspapers—and determine which newspapers actually existed for that place and time and where surviving copies can be found.

    Examine local and county histories, both for the people and for the history of the jurisdiction itself.

    Then compare what you found.

    One record may suggest a location. Several independent records pointing toward the same place begin to build a much stronger case. City directories, for example, can provide names, addresses, and occupations and can be especially useful for following someone between census years.

    But never forget that place names themselves can change.

    If your ancestor suddenly appears in a different county, investigate before deciding that they moved. Sometimes the person remained on exactly the same land while a new county was created around them.

    Think about what happened in my own research.

    My grandmother was born and lived in the Arthur and Loami area of Illinois before later living in Indianapolis. Yet in the 1920 census she appears in two places, once with her family in Arthur and once in Indianapolis.

    My grandfather can be followed through years of city directories, connecting him first to Hartford City and later to Indianapolis.

    Joshua appears in tax records from Botetourt and Montgomery Counties, but that does not by itself mean Joshua moved. Understanding the changing county boundaries is necessary to understand what those records actually tell us. At the same time, notations such as “son of J” and “s of B” help distinguish Joshua’s sons from the similarly named sons of his brother Benjamin.

    Newspapers provide still more pieces. I have found articles about my grandmother in the Arthur and Loami area as well as Indianapolis, along with countless entries involving other members of the family. Even something as ordinary as visiting relatives—or as embarrassing as a speeding ticket—can provide dated evidence of someone’s presence in a community.

    And one obituary tells me that Tilghman Andrew Howell was living in “Washington” without telling me which Washington.

    Each source gives us another piece of the puzzle.

    Only after establishing where the person was living should we begin digging deeply into the major records of that locality—vital records, deeds, probate, court files, church records, military records, and the many other sources that can reconstruct a person’s life.

    Before asking what records your ancestor left behind, make sure you know where to look for them.

    Your ancestor may indeed have lived exactly where the family always said.

    But first, ask the question:

    Are they from where you believe?

  • Two Numbers, One Story: Unraveling the Mystery of My Father’s Social Security Records

    While researching my father, Robert Gordon Howell, I came across something that immediately caught my attention. Among the many records documenting his life were references to two different Social Security number prefixes: 312 and 457. At first glance, it appeared as though he may have been associated with two different Social Security numbers.

    For most people, that would raise an obvious question: How could one person have two Social Security numbers?

    As a genealogist, however, I have learned that the first conclusion is rarely the correct one. Rather than assuming an error—or assuming the records were correct—I decided to investigate. That journey led me into the history of the Social Security Administration and introduced me to two of the most valuable records available to family historians: the SS-5 Application for a Social Security Number and the Numident.

    The Beginning of Social Security

    The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1935, creating a nationwide retirement insurance program for American workers. As the program developed, every eligible worker needed a unique number so that wages and future benefits could be accurately recorded.

    Beginning in late 1936, Americans completed an Application for Account Number, better known today as the SS-5. What started as a simple administrative form has become one of the most valuable genealogical records available for twentieth-century research.

    Unlike many government documents, the SS-5 was usually completed by the applicant or with information provided directly by the applicant. Because of that, it often contains firsthand information rather than details supplied by relatives many years later.

    Why Genealogists Value the SS-5

    An original SS-5 application may include:

    • Full legal name
    • Date of birth
    • Place of birth
    • Father’s full name
    • Mother’s full maiden name
    • Employer
    • Home address
    • Signature of the applicant

    For genealogists, few twentieth-century documents provide so much reliable information in one place. When birth certificates are missing or conflicting records exist, the SS-5 often becomes one of the strongest pieces of evidence available.

    The Numident

    While many researchers are familiar with the SS-5, far fewer have heard of the Numident.

    The Numident—short for Numerical Identification System—is the Social Security Administration’s master electronic record for an individual’s Social Security account. It was developed as the agency computerized its records and serves as a lifetime history of a person’s Social Security file.

    Unlike the original SS-5, which records information provided when the account was first established, the Numident may document changes made throughout a person’s life. These updates can include:

    • Name corrections
    • Replacement Social Security cards
    • Changes resulting from marriage or divorce
    • Corrections to birth information
    • Death reporting
    • Administrative updates made by the Social Security Administration

    For genealogists, the Numident often answers questions that the original SS-5 cannot.

    A Research Mystery

    While reviewing my father’s records, I noticed references to two different number prefixes: 312 and 457.

    Rather than jumping to the conclusion that he had two Social Security numbers, I treated the discovery as a research problem.

    Were both numbers actually Social Security numbers?

    Was one the result of a transcription error?

    Could one have been copied incorrectly onto another record?

    Was one associated with a replacement card or an administrative action?

    Or was there another explanation entirely?

    These are exactly the kinds of questions genealogists should ask before reaching a conclusion.

    One of the most important lessons I have learned during years of family history research is that records do not always agree. Government documents contain mistakes. Clerks make errors. Information is copied incorrectly. Sometimes a document raises more questions than it answers.

    That is why original records matter.

    Following the Evidence

    Rather than relying on secondary sources or indexes, I requested copies of the original Social Security records associated with my father’s account. By comparing those records with military files, Veterans Administration records, employment documents, and other contemporary records, I hope to determine exactly why two different prefixes appear and whether they represent an actual discrepancy or a simple misunderstanding.

    This investigation is still underway.

    Like many genealogical problems, the answer may ultimately prove to be quite simple—or it may reveal an entirely unexpected chapter in my father’s life.

    Either outcome will be based on evidence rather than assumption.

    Lessons Learned

    This experience has reinforced several principles that guide my research.

    Never assume a record is correct simply because it is official.

    Always compare multiple independent sources.

    Whenever possible, obtain the original document rather than relying on an index or transcription.

    Allow the evidence—not the theory—to determine the conclusion.

    Those principles have served genealogists well for generations, and they remain just as important today.

    Looking Ahead

    As I continue researching my father’s life, I expect the SS-5, the Numident, and other Social Security records to answer many of the questions that still remain. Whether the mystery of the two prefixes proves to be a clerical error, an administrative correction, or something entirely different, the investigation itself has already demonstrated the value of careful documentation and thoughtful analysis.

    Every record tells part of a story.

    Sometimes the most important discoveries begin with something as simple as a few numbers on a government form.

    For a genealogist, those numbers are rarely just numbers—they are clues waiting to be understood.

    Footnotes

    1. Social Security Administration, “The Story of the Social Security Number,” accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html
    2. Social Security Administration, Application for a Social Security Card (Form SS-5), Social Security Administration, accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ss-5.pdf
    3. Social Security Administration, Program Operations Manual System (POMS): Numident, accessed August 2, 2026, https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/home
    4. Social Security Administration, Historical Background and Development of Social Security, accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.ssa.gov/history/
  • Building the Airfields of Victory: The Story of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion

    Building the Airfields of Victory: The Story of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion

    Like many families of World War II veterans, ours was left with more questions than answers. My father, Robert Gordon Howell, rarely spoke about his wartime service, and many of the details of his military career remained unknown after he returned home. It was only years later, after I began researching his service and obtaining his military records, that one designation repeatedly appeared: Company C, 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion. At first, those words were little more than numbers and letters on official documents. They identified the unit in which he served, but they revealed nothing about where he had been, what he had done, or how the men of the 1877th contributed to Allied victory. Those questions became the beginning of a research journey that continues today.

    As a genealogist and family historian, I learned long ago that one of the best ways to understand an individual service member’s experience is by studying the history of the unit in which he served. While a unit history cannot tell the complete story of one soldier, it can provide valuable insight into where he served, the conditions he endured, and the work performed by the men beside him. With that understanding, I began researching the wartime history of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion.

    The 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion was part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but its mission differed greatly from the combat aircrews it eventually supported. While Army Air Forces pilots flew bombing missions and fighter escorts, engineer aviation battalions built the airfields from which those aircraft operated. Their responsibilities extended far beyond simply constructing runways. They built taxiways, roads, drainage systems, electrical and water utilities, hangars, barracks, maintenance facilities, and countless other structures needed to support military aviation. Without the work of engineer aviation battalions, many of America’s air campaigns during World War II would never have been possible. ¹

    One of the best contemporary accounts of the battalion’s wartime service appeared in the December 6, 1945, issue of Roundup, the official newspaper of the China-Burma-India Theater. According to that article, the 1877th departed the United States in late 1943 and began a long journey across the globe. Traveling through Casablanca, Algiers, and Oran in North Africa, the battalion finally arrived at Bombay, India, on February 14, 1944. Nearly two months had passed since the men had left home. There was little opportunity to rest. Only three days after arriving in India, they were already at work constructing a new airfield at Chakulia. ²

    Chakulia was far more than another construction project. It became one of several airfields developed as part of Operation Matterhorn, the Allied plan to launch B-29 Superfortress bombing missions against Japan from bases in India and China. The B-29 represented the most advanced heavy bomber of the war, but its tremendous size and weight required runways that were both longer and stronger than those built for earlier aircraft. Before the first B-29 could begin combat operations, engineer aviation battalions had to create the airfields capable of supporting them. ³

    The accomplishments of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion at Chakulia were nothing short of extraordinary. According to the battalion’s wartime account, the men constructed a 7,500-foot runway, poured approximately 10,000 cubic yards of concrete, moved nearly 400,000 cubic yards of earth, applied 25,000 gallons of asphalt seal, installed more than 400,000 feet of electrical wire, and built water systems, housing for approximately 3,000 men, hangars, and numerous support buildings. ² Even by today’s standards, those figures are impressive. In 1944, they were achieved under conditions that tested the endurance, skill, and determination of every man in the battalion.

    Bob Howell and unknown soldier, CBI Theater cica 1944-45

    Working conditions were often harsh. Construction crews labored in oppressive tropical heat with limited equipment and supplies. The battalion’s own history recalled that meals were frequently delivered directly to the construction site so work could continue without interruption. Heavy machinery arrived slowly, forcing engineers to improvise until additional equipment reached India. Official Army Air Forces histories likewise describe the shortages of construction equipment and the enormous logistical challenges facing engineer aviation units during the early stages of Operation Matterhorn. ² ³

    The successful completion of the Chakulia project earned the battalion a Meritorious Unit Citation, recognizing the exceptional quality of its engineering work. More importantly, the completed airfield became an important operating base supporting B-29 missions during Operation Matterhorn. ²

    The battalion’s work at Chakulia had scarcely been completed before new orders arrived. According to Roundup, Company A moved north to Sahmaw, where engineers first cleared unexploded bombs before beginning construction of a fighter and cargo airfield. Headquarters and Service Company, together with Companies B and C, traveled through Dinjan, India, where heavy construction equipment was dismantled and prepared for transport aboard C-46 and C-47 aircraft. The article reported that 324 transport sorties were required simply to move the battalion’s remaining personnel and equipment into the Myitkyina area. ²

    Near Myitkyina, the battalion continued its engineering mission by helping construct the Namponmao (West Strip) Airfield. Official Army Air Forces histories record that by January 1945, Namponmao had become an all-weather airfield supporting transport aircraft, fighter operations, medical evacuation flights, and the continuing Allied advance through Burma toward China. ³ ⁴

    Working alongside engineers from other aviation battalions, the men of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion endured far more than difficult construction assignments. Throughout their service in India and Burma, they battled oppressive tropical heat, monsoon rains, mosquitoes, disease, primitive living conditions, and the constant threat of enemy air attack. While the bomber crews who flew from these airfields often received the public recognition, the engineers who built them quietly carried out a mission just as essential to Allied success. Every runway completed, every bridge constructed, every drainage ditch dug, and every utility line installed helped move supplies, launch aircraft, evacuate the wounded, and support the advance toward victory.

    By late 1945, with the war drawing to a close, the battalion’s work in the China-Burma-India Theater had come to an end. According to Roundup, the men began their journey home through Karachi, bringing to a close a wartime route that had carried them from the United States through North Africa, across India, and into the jungles of Burma. ² Like so many American servicemen, they returned home with memories and experiences that few outside their unit could fully understand.

    For my family, however, the story of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion is much more than another chapter in military history. It is part of my father’s story.

    When I first began researching his military service, Company C, 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion was little more than a designation on a government record. Today, those same words represent thousands of miles traveled across three continents, countless hours of labor under some of the harshest conditions imaginable, and a unit whose work helped make one of the most ambitious air campaigns of World War II possible.

    Although I may never know every detail of my father’s wartime service, studying the history of the battalion has allowed me to better understand the world in which he served. It has transformed a simple unit designation into the story of men whose determination, skill, and perseverance helped build the foundations of Allied victory.

    The history of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion also serves as a reminder that history is often written through the actions of ordinary men performing extraordinary work. They were not seeking recognition or fame. They simply carried out the mission before them, knowing that every completed airfield would help save lives and bring the war one step closer to its end.

    As I continue researching my father’s military service, I know there are many more stories waiting to be uncovered. This is only one chapter in his journey, but it is a chapter that has given me a far greater appreciation for what he and his fellow soldiers accomplished during World War II.

    Researching the history of the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion has reminded me that victory was achieved not only by the men who flew the aircraft or fought on the front lines, but also by the engineers whose work made those victories possible. Every record I uncover deepens my appreciation for my father’s generation and the sacrifices they made in places that are often forgotten today. This is only one chapter of his military story, but it is one more reminder of why the men and women of World War II will forever be remembered as the Greatest Generation.

    We will remember them.

    Footnotes

    1. National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, “Origins of Engineer Aviation Battalions,” accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/3526447/origins-of-engineer-aviation-battalions/.
    2. Sgt. Ray Howard, “1877th Built Fields Amid Record Heat,” Roundup (China-Burma-India Theater), December 6, 1945, accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.cbi-theater.com/roundup/roundup120645.html.
    3. Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. 5, The Pacific: Matterhorn to Nagasaki (Washington, D.C.: Office of Air Force History, 1953), accessed August 2, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2010/Nov/05/2001329890/-1/-1/0/AFD-101105-012.pdf.
    4. Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, eds., The Army Air Forces in World War II, vol. 5, Chapter 6, HyperWar edition, accessed August 2, 2026, https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/V/AAF-V-6.html.

    This article is part of my ongoing research into the military service of my father, Robert Gordon Howell, who served with Company C, 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion during World War II. As new records become available, this article may be updated to reflect additional discoveries.

  • Finding My Father’s Missing Morning Reports

    One of the biggest challenges in military genealogy isn’t always finding the record—it’s figuring out where the record is located. That was exactly the situation I found myself in while researching my father, Robert Gordon Howell, and trying to document the two times he was hospitalized while serving with Company C, 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion during World War II.

    Like many researchers, the first place I turned was Fold3.com (https://www.fold3.com), a subscription website owned by Ancestry.com that specializes in military records. I was excited, thinking I would quickly locate my father’s Morning Reports. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that Fold3’s current Morning Report collection only extends through 1939, well before my father’s World War II service.

    For a short time, I thought I had reached a dead end.

    Fortunately, I kept searching.

    While exploring the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) website (https://www.archives.gov), I discovered that many Army Morning Reports through December 1944 have been digitized in the National Archives Catalog. Instead of searching by a person’s name, you search by the month and year, then browse the Morning Reports for the unit you are researching. The key is knowing the soldier’s unit designation and company. In my father’s case, that meant the 1877th Engineer Aviation Battalion, Company C.

    Armed with that information, I was able to locate exactly what I had been searching for.

    The Morning Reports documented both of my father’s hospitalizations. The first occurred from August 9–17, 1944, and the second from November 15–22, 1944. The reports recorded the day he left his unit for the hospital and the day he returned to duty. Although each entry consists of only a few lines, those few lines confirmed important events in his military service that I had never been able to document before.

    As I continued reading the November Morning Reports, another discovery caught my attention. On the report dated November 22, 1944, five soldiers—including my father—were mentioned. Several of the men were listed as being promoted from Private to Private First Class (PFC). That immediately made me wonder when my father eventually earned his promotion to Technician Fifth Grade (Tech 5).

    Naturally, I wanted to keep reading.

    That’s when I encountered another obstacle. The digitized Morning Reports currently available online end with December 1944. The 1945 reports I need, along with the reports from my father’s Korean War service between 1953 and 1958, have not yet been digitized.

    But instead of looking at that as bad news, I see it as my next adventure.

    Now I have a great excuse to take a genealogy road trip to St. Louis, Missouri, and spend time at the National Archives at St. Louis, where the original Morning Reports are preserved. Once I identify the units my father served with during his later military career, I’ll be able to examine those records in person. My hope is that the 1945 Morning Reports will tell me exactly when he was promoted to Tech 5, while the Korean-era reports may help reconstruct the rest of his military service from 1953 through his discharge in 1958.

    That’s one of the things I love most about genealogy.

    Every answer seems to lead to another question, and every new discovery opens another door. What began as a search for two hospital stays has turned into another chapter of my father’s military story—and another destination on my genealogy travels. I can’t wait to see what St. Louis has waiting for me.

    If you’re researching an Army veteran from the World War II era, don’t overlook the Morning Reports. They may not tell an entire story, but they often provide the missing pieces that bring a veteran’s service to life. Sometimes, all it takes is knowing where to look.

    This article is part of my ongoing Military History series. Through original records, photographs, archival research, and family stories, I am preserving my family’s military heritage one discovery at a time. My hope is that these articles not only honor those who served but also encourage others to uncover, preserve, and share the military history within their own families.