One of the cool things...

Oh cool! I emailed William Anderson on a whim - and he actually emailed right back! He said that the date given in family letters as well as in the Ingalls family Bible is 1844.

And again, Rob....Sorry. Maybe we should start a new "Henry Quiner" thread so you can have yours back.

I love history so I find this interesting. Thanks for sharing this. I was a kid when the Edmund Fitzgerald song came out. I think I saw a documentary about the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. The History Channel should do a documentary about these shipwrecks as well.

Savannah wrote:

That's a very possible theory, MissOleson! It's possible, too, that the shipwreck itself took place in 1844, and that some of the wreckage washed ashore in 45, and made the newspapers, and over the years, the dates were confused. I know that some of the wreckage washed up - but I don't know how much

I thought the same thing. But that article made it seem like it was something that just happened. Meaning the discovery was made a short time after the storm that hit it. But maybe it means it showed up a year later. At this rate, I don't know anymore.

Savannah wrote:

Oh cool! I emailed William Anderson on a whim - and he actually emailed right back! He said that the date given in family letters as well as in the Ingalls family Bible is 1844.

Wow! That is pretty neat! Well, I am not saying the family is wrong in any way, but I think until I see if I can find a record of the actual sinking, then I will say for sure which date I believe. Does anybody know when he left before he died? I can't recall reading anything anywhere. I wonder if it was a case of being gone for awhile (leaving in the fall of 1844) and the family not hearing from him and just assuming he died that year. And yet maybe it did really happen in 1845. I know of incidents where that has happened.

Basically, no matter who is right or wrong in this, I am just trying to figure out where the confusion is coming in.

Oh, by the way, I did contact the historical society. So, we'll see when I get an answer (if any!). I have contacted them before (LH related, of course! ). They seem to be pretty good about getting back to people (well, back to me at least - maybe I just annoy them and they want to answer me hoping I won't contact them again ). And I have to be at the library on Saturday. So when I am through with what I have to do there, I will see if someone will help me. I just really want to know if there is an actual record of it going down (with their actual names listed). That would be interesting to see. Especially because when it was written, it was just written for a common man. I think it would be interesting seeing his name there not knowing that years later his granddaughter would become so well-known. Know what I mean?

Savannah wrote:

And again, Rob....Sorry. [color=darkblue]Maybe we should start a new "Henry Quiner" thread so you can have yours back.

Yes, I apologize, too. I thought that we were hijacking this thing a few posts back. And if we had a thread just for her grandfather that would be best.

Savannah wrote:

[color=darkblue]
Hey! I wonder if Beth Ingalls would know why there are two dates given for his death!

I don't know but I can ask Beth. I know another Ingalls relative who might be able to find out. I'll ask her too. I'll send her the link to this thread and see what she has to say.

No need to apologize for the hijacking. It's all connected.

Patrick, here's an interesting site that tells all about the Fitz:

Edmund Fitzgerald Online

Interesting. Thanks,Rob.

Savannah wrote:

Vanesa wrote:

Savannah wrote:

Everywhere I've read, the sites have listed his death in October of 1844. (Or they give a generic "fall of 1844".) But that doesn't mean that it's certain. Just because we read it on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

Edited to add: Interesting...I did find a couple of sites that list Henry's death as having been in 1845, but according to the book Laura's Album: A Remembrance Scrapbook of Laura Ingalls Wilder by William Anderson, it was on a schooner that was on a trading trip to the Straits of Mackinac in 1844 that he and the rest of the crew were killed. (Page 11)

I wonder where the discrepancy is coming from.

Of course, you must be right. As you've quoted later, the "Ocean" was lost in November 1845. But I didn't write it was lost in "the fall of 1844" for I've read it in the net. I never trust internet so awfully much. I fact I've read about the accident in the book "Laura", by Donald Zochert. Of course William Anderson, who is an expert in Laura's lore also tells the date was 1844. He didn't specifies the date of the year, nor the name of the ship. Zochert doesn't mention the ship's name, either.


Vanesa.

P.S: Thank you for the great links!

*gasp* Vanesa! I hadn't even noticed that you'd used that phrase just before I posted! I know that you know your Laura history, for sure. I never for a moment thought that you named a date just because you'd read it on the net. I hope it didn't sound that way to you. I just meant that the sites I'd read didn't list a specific month and day - that's what I meant by "generic fall of 1844". I'm so sorry that it sounded rude!
The credit for the great links and the information about the Ocean in 1845 goes to MissOleson.

I'm still puzzled. I'd like to find out what the right date is for sure. William Anderson is well-known for his Ingalls-family research and has had access to family letters and papers and such, so it seems as if he'd be careful to be accurate with the date.....But yet, the Michigan Shipwrecks site is careful with its information, too - and they have a different date.

Don't worry, Savannah. These kind of facts must be hard to establish for sure. Sometimes there is contradictory info, even in two different serious books.

Your phrase didn't sound a bit rude to me.

Vanesa.

LIWnut wrote:

I don't know but I can ask Beth. I know another Ingalls relative who might be able to find out. I'll ask her too. I'll send her the link to this thread and see what she has to say.

I saw her name connected to an LH genealogy site. Whether or not that was the info that she gave them (they didn't specify any of that), they did list his death as 1844.

Off-topic: Do you want to know one thing that I thought was funny about an Ingalls genealogy I saw a few months ago? Now I can't remember, actually, whether it was Ingalls or Wilder, but it did involve Almanzo. When I decided to lose a few dollars on an ancestry.com membership, I joined for about 3 months. I was bored one day and started to look for "famous" people on there. And I think there were 2 family trees that said the same thing. It said that Laura's husband was named "Almangs". I couldn't understand that. So I eventually found the census (I believe it was that) that was the problem. You see, some of the handwriting in those things aren't very clear. And then the people who enter it online type what they think they see (they did this quite a lot with members of my family - some of it was actually hilarious, the names that they thought they were). So, I saw how they might get "A-l-m-a-n-g-s" out of the way the handwriting looked, but I couldn't believe how people just automatically accepted that into their trees. I actually complained about this to other people when I discovered it and said that I don't know of an easier family tree than LIW's. After all, the information really is OUT there. So, it just fascinated me that these people were connected to a fairly well-known person and they didn't bother to make sure that her husband's name was spelled correctly. Or that the people on ancestry.com didn't know. There wasn't ONE person that didn't know what his name really was?!?!

Savannah wrote:

Thanks, Marilyn! I was looking at all of the "Caroline Years" books - and they indicate 1844 for Henry's death, too. This is very curious. One site said that he was lost at sea in 1844, and presumed dead. Maybe they found his body in 1845?

Well, I will admit to being guilty of not having read any of those books yet. I have them all. I just haven't had the time to read them (I want to do it when I can just read them all straight through in a row). But that is what I was kind of saying about the schooner itself. Maybe it happened in 1844 and that was discovered in 1845. When you think about all of this, it is really sad, isn't it? I always feel bad for the people who are "lost" like that.

Rob wrote:

No need to apologize for the hijacking. It's all connected.

That's good. Thanks! I always feel guilty when something like this happens to a thread that someone else started. So this is good to know.

MissOleson wrote:

Off-topic: Do you want to know one thing that I thought was funny about an Ingalls genealogy I saw a few months ago? Now I can't remember, actually, whether it was Ingalls or Wilder, but it did involve Almanzo. When I decided to lose a few dollars on an ancestry.com membership, I joined for about 3 months. I was bored one day and started to look for "famous" people on there. And I think there were 2 family trees that said the same thing. It said that Laura's husband was named "Almangs". I couldn't understand that. So I eventually found the census (I believe it was that) that was the problem. You see, some of the handwriting in those things aren't very clear. And then the people who enter it online type what they think they see (they did this quite a lot with members of my family - some of it was actually hilarious, the names that they thought they were). So, I saw how they might get "A-l-m-a-n-g-s" out of the way the handwriting looked, but I couldn't believe how people just automatically accepted that into their trees. I actually complained about this to other people when I discovered it and said that I don't know of an easier family tree than LIW's. After all, the information really is OUT there. So, it just fascinated me that these people were connected to a fairly well-known person and they didn't bother to make sure that her husband's name was spelled correctly. Or that the people on ancestry.com didn't know. There wasn't ONE person that didn't know what his name really was?!?!

You make that sound really funny! Surely they could have even checked Wikipedia?

"Almangs"??? My!!! I bet they didn't even watch the show! But oh, wait...thanks God they didn't, for they could believe that the poor man was named "Zaldamo"!!!

Vanesa.

alexczarn wrote:

Surely they could have even checked Wikipedia?

Yeah, right?!?! They could've checked something! So forever in their trees it is going to say that this woman named "Laura Ingalls" was married to a man named "Almangs Wilder".

Vanesa wrote:

"Almangs"??? My!!! I bet they didn't even watch the show! But oh, wait...thanks God they didn't, for they could believe that the poor man was named "Zaldamo"!!!

Vanesa.

I am calling him "Zaldamo" all the time! Actually, I take it back. When I am talking about the real Almanzo I call him by his actual name. But if I am talking about the TV Almanzo, I always call him "Zaldamo".




Alright. I have something to say about Henry Quiner. The historical society chose to finally ignore me. So forget about them!! It isn't like this place has anything more exciting going on! They could've helped me!

Anyway, I was at my genealogy class yesterday. It dealt primarily with researching vital records, wills, et.c. During this class, one of the things that was mentioned was the family bible. She said that they are great reference points, but you need to see actual records for more accurate information. So, I still haven't figured out why their bible says 1844. I am saying this because of something that I found out.

I talked to a librarian there. Yes, I interrupted her work to find out anything on this man. She did it, too! I didn't expect her to, but she did! So, if you ever happen to read this, THANK YOU AGAIN!!!!

Anyway, I would've liked to have made copies of it, but I don't think I was even supposed to touch any of it because she showed it to me without making the effort of giving it to me. She did tell me that I could find the info from the library online, but I can't figure out how to do that! I did find some other stuff, though, along the way.

Alright. At the library there were some articles and a record of the ship. Where she felt the discrepency came in was the fact that there is this record of the schooner being driven ashore in March 1844. But the actual capsize of the schooner happened in November 1845. Some of the articles mentioning the incidents were from the Milwaukee Sentinel. Also, there was one reference to this in an 1899 book called The History of the Great Lakes. The library has it, but I didn't even bother to look because it is where I can't easily access it. It is apparently for researchers only. Know what I mean? And the way that she said it, when talking about the reference to the book, she said it like that was the truth. The shame of it is, though, his name isn't recorded correctly. It lists him as "J. Quinn". But like we said, that is too much of a coincidence. You know that is him (all of the other names matched). What I am figuring is that there had to be some sort of book they had to sign when they set sail. And maybe his handwriting appeared to say that instead of "H. Quiner". Never forget "Almangs"!! Anyway, she said that what she had in her hand was the facts. Plain and simple. That was when I was told that I could look it up online in the library's records. BUT DO YOU THINK I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT???

Anyway, this is what I ended up finding:

*Library Website -

Quote :

Schooner lost in gale in Lake Michigan Nov. 1845. Found capsized between Chicago, Ill. and St. Joseph, Mich. Loaded with lumber. All aboard dead including Capt. McGregor of Milwaukee, Wis.

http://countycat.mcfls.org/search~S1?/amcgregor+alexander/amcgregor+alexander/-3%2C0%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=amcgregor+captain&1%2C1%2C/indexsort=- If you click on "more details", you will see the brief description of it (I found that by using this site - http://www.wmhs.org/html/ ).

*Maritime History of the Great Lakes -

Quote :

In the loss of the Schooner OCEAN, four of our citizens have passed from time to eternity. Just before the OCEAN sailed from this port, Capt. McGregor came to our office, subscribed for our paper, and with boyancy of health and spirits good humeredly contrasted the varied and exciting life of a sailor with the monotony of a printer's existence, and his hearty laugh and jovial voice still ring in our ears. He has left a wife and 1 child. The Mate, Mr. Russel, has also left a wife and child.
The second mate, Quiner, has left a wife and 5 or 6 children to mourn his loss. The cabin boy, an Irish lad, has left a mouther who was partially dependent upon him for support.
We hope the tears of widows and orphans will incite goverment to some action in favor of our Lake harbors. - Milwaukee Gazette.
Daily National Pilot, Buffalo
November 22, 1845

The obituary. There it is. It is listed right under the article that I included in a previous post (I found that one on another site). http://images.maritimehistoryofthegreatlakes.ca/54141/data?n=7


So, I am tending to believe it happened in 1845. I have seen some records now. I can't really think anything else. But that is my own personal opinion of it, of course.

You did an outstanding work, MissOleson. You are a erson who wants to reach the truth and that's great for an historian or a genealogist. Congrats for your interest in family records and archives; if there were no persons like yuo, we would never know anything about our pasts.

I tend to believe that the accident happened in 1845, but the family maybe believed that Henry Quinner had died in 1844. As you've said previously, maybe he left his family behind for working purposes in 1844 and they wouldn't saw him any more .

Vanesa.