Fact Checking: Can a Woman Lose her US Citizenship by Marriage?

When searching for something else, a headline in a 1914 newspaper caught my eye:  “AMERICAN WOMEN DENATURALIZED BY MARRIAGE.”

  

The first two paragraphs:

     “Mrs Ernest Thompson Seton, vice 

president of the Connecticut Woman

Suffrage association, has just recently

returned from a short visit to Cuba.  

On her return to this country she 

had it forcibly and disagreeably

brought to her attention that the

United States penalizes women who 

commit the crime of marrying a for-

eigner by depriving them of their cit-

izenship.  Such women, although they

may be American born and of the

purest American ancestry, they are hence-

forth aliens, unless and until their

husbands consent to naturalize and

thus to carry their wives back to into

American citizenship.

     Ernest Thompson Seton, although

he has become so thoroughly identi-

fied with this country in the minds of

the readers of his delightful books, is 

an English subject.  He was born at

Shields, in the County of Durham, and

his first residence, when he crossed

the Atlantic was in Canada.  He and

Mrs. Seton were married in 1896 but

even after marrying an American wife

Mrs. Seton is powerless either to re-

tain or regain her status of American

citizen.  Hence when on the steamer

coming from Cuba she wished to land

at a port in Florida, she found that 

she was not allowed to do so.   She 

must proceed as an alien to a port 

designated for the entrance of immi-

grants and moreover she had to an-

swer the long list of questions which 

is put to the men and women who 

come to this country from Europe or 

Asia.  Had it been discovered that 

she was suffering from any contagious 

disease or had she been a poor wom-

an and therefore in danger of becom-

ing a public charge, she might have 

debarred from landing and de-

ported--not to her native country, for 

that is California--a state where wom-

en are really citizens and have the 

vote--but to the country of her hus-

band.”

Quick summary:  Mrs Seton, a resident of US, born in California visits Cuba probably on a vacation.  She discovers on her way home that she is no longer a US citizen because her husband is British.  She can’t debark at the port where she had expected to debark, instead she had to go to the port where aliens were processed.  There she was treated like an alien: lots of questions to answer, physical examination to determine if she had any contagious disease, and determination to see if she were poor and likely to become a burden upon society.  Such a surprise for what was probably a prominent woman who was married to a well-read author.  She had lost her citizenship by her marriage and the only way to get it back was to have her husband become naturalized!  She could have been deported “back” to not her country (USA), but to her husband’s country, whether or not she ever lived there!

[and yes I know California isn't a country, but they had given the women the right to vote before the 19th amendment was passed in 1920.]

When I read that story, I thought of my own great grandmother Martha Elnora Worthington.  She was born in Chicago in 1865; and in 1889, she married Harry Bogart Richardson who was born in Belleville, Ontario, Canada in 1863!  Did Elnora lose her citizenship?  Did Elnora ever leave the country after she was married?   Did Elnora have any difficulties?   

Time to Fact check the 1914 newspaper story, then answer the questions for Elnora.

Researching the accuracy of these claims, first brought me to Familysearch Wiki:

• "From 1855 to 1922 a woman took the citizenship of her husband. An alien woman who married a United States citizen became a United States citizen.
• From 1907 to 1922, a woman born in the United States who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship and became an alien. For more information, read Marion L. Smith's article, Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940."

Marian L Smith’s wrote two fascinating articles tracing women’s naturalization from 1802 through 1940.  These are in Prologue Magazine. Read the first and click through to the second one.  Relevant to our Mrs. Seton in the above article.

“After 1907, marriage determined a woman's nationality status completely. Under the act of March 2, 1907, all women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date. This changed nothing for immigrant women, but U.S.-born citizen women could now lose their citizenship by any marriage to any alien. Most of these women subsequently regained their U.S. citizenship when their husbands naturalized. However, those who married Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, or other men racially ineligible to naturalize forfeited their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, many former U.S. citizen women found themselves married to men who were ineligible to citizenship for some other reason or who simply refused to naturalize. Because the courts held that a husband's nationality would always determine that of the wife, a married woman could not legally file for naturalization.”

Clearly, in 1914, the immigration agents were correct to treat Mrs. Seaton as an alien, she HAD lost her citizenship because he husband had never naturalized.  But, the law eventually changed: 

“Happily, Congress was at work and on September 22, 1922, passed the Married Women's Act, also known as the Cable Act. This 1922 law finally gave each woman a nationality of her own. No marriage since that date has granted U.S. citizenship to any alien woman nor taken it from any U.S.-born women who married an alien eligible to naturalization.  Under the new law women became eligible to naturalize on (almost) the same terms as men. The only difference concerned those women whose husbands had already naturalized. If her husband was a citizen, the wife did not need to file a declaration of intention. She could initiate naturalization proceedings with a petition alone (one-paper naturalization). A woman whose husband remained an alien had to start at the beginning, with a declaration of intention. It is important to note that women who lost citizenship by marriage and regained it under Cable Act naturalization provisions could file in any naturalization court--regardless of her residence.”

All of the discussions in Marian L Smith’s two articles are quite interesting and worth reading.  She takes the process and fills in the details of the rest of the story and illustrates it for a variety of women examples.  Interestingly, the rest of the original article about Mrs Seton, discusses some other suffragettes who had this same problem and then talked about junior suffrage league meetings and organizing. 

It turned out that the issue of denaturalizing women was connected to the issue of women’s right to vote.

“The era when a woman's nationality was determined through that of her husband neared its end when this legal provision began to interfere with men's ability to naturalize. This unforeseen situation arose in and after 1918 when various states began approving an amendment to grant women suffrage (and which became the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920). Given that women who derived citizenship through a husband's naturalization would now be able to vote, some judges refused to naturalize men whose wives did not meet eligibility requirements, including the ability to speak English. The additional examination of each applicant's wife delayed already crowded court dockets, and some men who were denied citizenship began to complain that it was unfair to let their wives' nationality interfere with their own.”

Back to our Martha Elnora Worthington, born in USA, who married Harry Bogart Richardson, born in Canada.  Elnora was the daughter of a proud member of the Sons of the American Revolution.  Her husband was the grandson and great grandson of United Empire Loyalists.  Did she lose her citizenship by her marriage?  I know her son told stories of traveling to Ontario to visit relatives, so she did leave the country.

They were married in 1889, according to Familysearch Wiki quoted above:

• From 1855 to 1922 a woman took the citizenship of her husband. An alien woman who married a United States citizen became a United States citizen.

And Marian Smith says:

“Just as alien women gained U.S. citizenship by marriage, U.S.-born women often gained foreign nationality (and thereby lost their U.S. citizenship) by marriage to a foreigner. As the law increasingly linked women's citizenship to that of their husbands, the courts frequently found that U.S. citizen women expatriated themselves by marriage to an alien. For many years there was disagreement over whether a woman lost her U.S. citizenship simply by virtue of the marriage, or whether she had to actually leave the United States and take up residence with her husband abroad. Eventually it was decided that between 1866 and 1907 no woman lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage to an alien unless she left the United States. Yet this decision was probably of little comfort to some women who, resident in the United States since birth, had been unfairly treated as aliens since their marriages to noncitizens.”

The key to her citizenship is whether her husband naturalized.  Harry Bogart Richardson came to the USA in 1871 as an eight-year old child.  In the 1910 US census he lists himself as naturalized.  He would have automatically become a citizen if his father naturalized while he was a child and most likely his name would not appear on any naturalization paper, just the father’s name.  

I have not successfully documented his  father’s naturalization.  When I contacted NARA, they sent me copies of a pile of cards, all men were named William Richardson and came from Canada in 1871 and lived in Chicago.  There was no way to distinguish which was OUR William Richardson.  

Paul Went Frollicking and to Places of Diversion in 1780

I wrote about Paul Dakin (1761 in Pawling NY - 1829 in Hudson NY) going frollicking and visiting places of diversion which led to his disownment from the Friends Meeting at Oblong New York in 1780 at the age of 19.  

Oblong Monthly Meeting Men’s Minutes 1757 -1781, Box NY - 105 Page 519 Paul Dakin Acknowledgement, 18th day 10th month 1780

The acknowledgements of Paul Dakin Ferris Doly Daniel Akin & James Akin Condeming their going to frollicks and Places of Diversion Is Left for the Consideration of Next M^o Meeting

______________________________________________________________________

Oblong Monthly Meeting Men’s Minutes 1781 - 1788 Box NY - 105 pages 50, 51, Paul Dakin Disowned, 15th day 11th month 1780

 One of the Friends appointed on Paul Dakins account Report that he has answered his appointment and as there to Nothing appears to alter Conclusion of Last Meeting Concerning him there after Due Consideration this Meeting Doth Testifie against his Mis Conduct and Disownes him from Being any Longer a Member of our Society untill he by his Conduct Manifest Sincere Repentance and amendment of Life and Make Satisfaction to this Meeting which that he may to own Desire and Testification being prepared against him was Read approved and Signed and the following Friends are appointed to give him a copy of his Denial if he Desires it and acquaint him of his Rite to an appeal and if he Shews No Intention of appealing Read it at the Close of a first Day Meeting at at Oblong and Report at Next Meeting That is Wing  Killey & Benjamin Ferris Jr ------------

πππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππ

At the time that I wrote that blog post, I could only imagine what frollicking and places of diversion actually were.  I have found a description for anyone who would like to know what Paul had done to get himself disowned by the Quakers.


From Quaker Hill A Sociological Study by Warrren H Wilson (New York, 1907), p.29:

The Meeting not only provided no play opportunities, but

it forbade the attendance of its members upon the "frollicks,"

which then were held, as nowadays they are are held, in the 

country side.  A gathering with plenty to eat, and in those

days a free indulgence in drink on the part of the men, with

music of the fiddler, and dancing, this was a "frollick" --that

horror of the meeting house elders.  Indeed, it was of inci-

dental moral detriment; for it was outlawed amusement, and

being under the ban, was controlled by men beyond the influ-

ence or control of the meeting.  The young people of the

Quaker families, and sometimes their elders, yielded to the

fascinations of these gatherings.  The unwonted excitement

of meeting, the sound of music, playing upon the capacity for

motor reactions in a people living and laboring outdoors, in-

flamed beyond control by rum and hard cider, soon led to 

lively, impulsive activities and physical exertions, both in 

immoderate excess and in disregard of all the inhabitions of

tradition and of conscience.  That there was a close relation of

these "frollicks" with sexual immorality of the period is

probable.

Now that we know what was involved in frollicking, just a reminder that the Quakers in the 18th century in the Oblong were not the ones with folks singing hymns in their church.  Their meetings for worship were silent unless someone was led to speak.  Singing and dancing, in and out of church, was frowned upon.


The Quakers were trying to "live apart" from the larger world community in a tightly knit community of their own.  However, in the neighborhood, were other settlers who were not Quakers.  The description of the challenges of holding a Quarterly Meeting [4 times a year, meetings in the same area met for worship and business] with Friends from a variety of meetings.  

An account is given elsewhere of the discipline of the

Meeting in its struggle against immorality and "frollicking."

The following quotation from James Woods' "The Purchase

Meeting," vividly depicts the confused elements of the social 

life of that time:  "On great occasions such as the holding

of a Quarterly Meeting, the population turned out en masse.

[Warren, p.28]

The population who turned out en masse are not the Quakers,
but rather the other residents of the Oblong, or in the case quoted above, Purchase meeting, who had no church restrictions on the various forms of amusement described below.

Piety and worldliness both observed the day.  The latter class 

gathered about the meeting house, had wrestling matches and 

various athletic sports in the neighboring fields, and horse

races on the adjacent roads.  The meetings regularly ap-

pointed committees as a police force to keep order among the

meeting  house during the time of worship and business."

[Warren, p. 28]

That was the Quakers' description of the temptations and distractions.  It was also confirmed by those "worldly" folks in the neighborhood:

The stories told by old Quaker Hill residents of the gather-

ings about the meeting house, even on First Day, or Sunday,

confirm the above quotation.  The field opposite the meeting

house, for  years after 1769, when the earliest meeting house

was moved away ...

... An old resident tells

me that crowds of men were always about the meeting  house

before and after meeting, and even during meeting, ...

[Warren, p. 28]

The Quakers might have been trying to live a life of piety and asceticism "separate from the world", but the temptations of the world were nearby and my GGG'grandfather, Paul Dakin succomed to them and as a result was disowned.


The link for this website is http://genea-adventures.blogspot.com/2012/07/paul-went-frollicking-and-to-places-of.html
© Erica Dakin Voolich, 2012.

Oh, What a Difference a Couple Hundred Years Make!

As a member of the Religious Society of Friends in the 21st century, the expectations sound very similar, but not exactly the same as in the 18th century.

My Meeting for Worship does not have any paid clergy, and so all the responsibilities of running the church need to be taken on by everyone in the church community.  Members of unprogrammed Friends Meetings often say "we didn't get rid of the ministers, we got rid of the laity."  Individuals need to take care of all of the jobs, or parts of jobs, that a staff at a church would provide.

For example, last year a young couple in our meeting wrote a letter to the Meeting requesting to be married under the care of our Meeting.  Their letter was read at a monthly meeting for worship to conduct business.  A committee was appointed to meet with the couple to see if they were clear for marriage.

...
Rewind a few years, back to the 18th century:
I was reading about members of Oblong Monthly Meeting in the series of books by Frank J Doherty, The Settlers of the Beekman Patent, Dutchess County, New York, An Historical and Genealogical Study of all the 18th Century Settlers in the Patent, (volumes I -X, 1990 - 2010).  It included examples couples coming to business meeting and requesting marriage under the care of the meeting and a committee of clearness was appointed.

For example:
  “The minutes of the Oblong Friend’s 
Meeting held 14th 6th month 1775 include:  “At this meeting Stephen Osborn,

son of John Osborn and Mary Osborn, deceased, and Sarah Boorn, Daughter of
Nathaniel Boorn and Freelove, his wife, appeared and offered perposals (sic)
with each other and consent of parents Being produced here this meeting
appoints Timothy Dakin and David Hoag to Inquire into the young man’s
clearness from all others in that respect and make a report next meeting.”
[volume IX, page 748]

note:  You might wonder why there wasn't a committee appointed to inquire about the woman's clearness.
Actually, that would have been done by the woman's meeting [there were separate meetings for business back then] and these were the notes from the men's meeting.

But then came the report, a big OOPS:

The 
minutes for the meeting held at Oblong 20th 3rd month 1776 include:  “Stephen
Osborn produced to this (sic) an acknowledgment for his conduct in keeping 
Company with the woman which is now his wife, both living in one house, also
being unchast with her[,] is considered and excepted (sic) and Nathaniel
Stevenson and Reed Ferris are appointed to read it at the close of a first day
meeting at Oblong and New Milford.”
[volume IX, page 748]

...
Fast forward to the 21st century:
That couple in our meeting was found clear for marriage, and another committee was appointed.  This new committee was responsible to help the couple with the planning of the wedding "in the manner of Friends," taking care of the details before, during and after the wedding to make it legal in the eyes of the state, as well as, meeting the religious expectations of our Friends meeting.

A called meeting for worship was held.  The couple married each other surrounded by their family, friends and Friends in the meeting.  At the end of the meeting for worship for marriage, everyone present [all ages] signed the marriage certificate.  At the next meeting for business, the committee "shepherding" the wedding reported back to the meeting that the wedding was held and the marriage was accomplished in the manner of Friends.
That completed the jobs of the committee appointed to help with their wedding -- in the 21st century.

BUT, not so in the 18th century:


  “Ebenezer Peaslee was very active in the Oblong Friends Meeting and is noted
on 51 pages of the minutes from 1757 through 1780.  The first record was when 
he testified to the successful marriage of Joshua Sherman and Mary Soule at the 
meeting held 18th of 8th month 1757. ... Ebenezer Peaslee and Timothy Dakin
were often appointed to verify that a marriage had been consummated properly.” 

[Volume X, page 266]


and

“'Reuben Macy, late from Nantucket & Ruth Howard the daughter
of Edward Howard and Phebe Howard of this place came before
this (Oblong) Meeting (held 18th 8th month 1774) and proposed 
marriage to each other.'  The minutes of the meeting held 20th 10th
month 1774 show that Wing Kelly and Timothy Dakin reported 
that the marriage of Ruth Howard and Reuben Macy was decently
consummated."
[Volume VI, page 720]

...
No one at my Meeting was appointed to investigate and report on the consummation of our young couple's marriage!

What a difference a couple of centuries makes!
I definitely have not been asked to take on the role that my GGGG'grandfather Timothy Dakin had in his Meeting.

©2012 Erica Dakin Voolich
The link to this page is http://genea-adventures.blogspot.com/2012/07/oh-what-difference-couple-hundred-years.html

Death on the Railroad Tracks, the Rest of the Story, part 2

These are the articles that I found on my GGG'grandfather's death that I recently wrote about in Part 1 of Death on the Railroad Tracks:

I found this article years ago, then last  year, I saw the rest of the 2nd article which my GG'grandfather had neglected to glue into his scrapbook.  Like other articles of the day, the title only refers to the content of the first paragraph and the rest of the article might not be part of the same story.

Paragraph #2: "Robert Martin, 83  years old, and employed as a laborer at Garfield Park race track, was stabbed in the head ..."

Paragraph #3:

Paragraph #4:

Paragraph #5: "Fred Fihlicht and Cornelius Kearns, aged 13 and 9 ... were drowned..."

Paragraph #6:

Quite informative: Nathan wasn't only person who died on tracks in that day.  In five paragraphs, we have five different stories of tragedy.  Three people died from injuries that day received on train tracks!

• Frail, elderly Nathan Cobb suffering from dementia, wandered onto the Chicago Northwestern tracks [see part 1].
• The unfortunate Willis Wheeler, who came to town and, as a "colored man," was asked "to move on"-- he got scared and "accidentally" ran into a grip-car.  [The other peoples' race wasn't mentioned in their stories.  Was race an important part of why Wheeler's accident  happened?]
• Nicholas Rickard was killed driving his buggy across the train tracks and was struck by a train and killed instantly.  [Rickard seems to have misjudged how fast the train was coming.]

As a reminder of why so many people were easily injured in the 1890s by the trains and grip-cars, take a look at the corner of Lake and Marion in 1907.  The train tracks are right down the middle of the street.  Can you better understand why Nathan Cobb, Willis Wheeler and Nicholas Rickard all died on 24 June 1892?

1903 photo thanks to Oak Park River Forest Historical Society
Lake Street and Marion, Oak Park IL

Today there is an elevated train on Lake Street.  These tracks weren't elevated at all in 1892!

© Erica Dakin Voolich, 2012
The link for this page is http://genea-adventures.blogspot.com/2012/07/death-on-railroad-tracks-rest-of-story_05.html

Death on the Railroad Tracks, the Rest of the Story, part 1

When looking through my GG'grandfather Robert S Worthington's scrapbook, I found many family obituaries along with other articles and obits of interest to him.

Two of the articles/obituaries were the announcement of his father-in-law's death, Nathan Cobb on 24 June 1892.

So sad, an elderly gentleman, aged 85, walking with two canes and probably suffering from dementia is killed by a train.  The family clearly was caring for him at home and he slipped out of the house unnoticed.

How did he end up on the train tracks?  It wasn't far.  Looking at an earlier map of Oak Park from the 1870s (available at the Oak Park River Forest Historical Society), I noticed he lived a block and a half away.

Ironically, looking at the map close up

There is a picture of a Chicago Northwestern train right where Nathan was hit about 20 years later!

As someone who grew up in towns with trains running through them, the crossings all had signals, the tracks were a bit elevated and would be difficult to easily wander up to if walking with a couple of canes. BUT....

That is not how it was in 1892 in Oak Park.  Frank Lipo at the Oak Park River Forest Historical Society pointed out to me that the trains ran right down the middle of the road, no elevation at all.

Here is a picture of the Chicago Northwestern tracks at Harlem Ave (a few blocks away from where Nathan was hit):

photo thanks to Oak Park River Forest Historical Society
The corner of Harlem Ave and South Blvd

There is no challenge for someone walking with two canes to get onto these tracks!

Today those same tracks are up a full flight of stairs with North Blvd on one side and South Blvd on the other!

©Erica Dakin Voolich, 2012.

The link to this post is: http://genea-adventures.blogspot.com/2012/07/death-on-railroad-tracks-rest-of-story.html

A Murder Found!

I was researching at Allen County Public Library in Ft Wayne, Indiana last week Thursday and Friday.  Such a wonderful genealogical resource with very helpful librarians.
A good friend was with me.  I worked on my some of my challenging ancestors; she spent the time extending her mother's family a couple more generations -- much to her joy.

The night before we went, she talked on the phone to a relative who had mentioned, "you know, there was a murder in the family."  She called and got as many details as she could:  year, names, place, etc.
Unfortunately the place was "Indian Territory," the last name was correct, the first name wasn't, the year was correct.

"Indian Territory" is a rather big territory to look in for someone. 

When we got back to her home Friday night, I got to thinking:  if there was a murder, there's likely a newspaper story about it.   Off to GenealogyBank.com.  On the second try with a search of

last name: Gould
first name: [blank this time]
keywords:  murder
date:  1887
brought up these two articles with lots of details!


With these articles my friend not only has a description of the tragic murder in Burlingame, Kansas on 28 March 1887 of Ella Ruilison Gould by her husband Frank Gould leaving 3 young children parent-less, but she has many clues to use to trace the mother back in the family.

Three shared photos 7 years apart united in this blog!

Tombstone of Martha Searing Worthington
 and two of her children, Harriet and William Henry.
Copyright 2012 by Stephen J. Danko.
Photograph used with permission.

In 2009, genealogist Stephen Danko was traveling to Albany to work on some of his ancestors and offered to photograph the grave of my GGG'grandmother, Martha SEARING who married Denison WORTHINGTON.  At that time I had just learned from the Albany city historian that Martha was buried in the Albany City Cemetery in the LaGRANGE family plot of her husband's 2nd wife.

Martha married Denison WORTHINGTON
at the 2nd Presbyterian Church in Albany
New York on 24 December 1829.

They had three children, Robert Searing
(b. 4 October 1830), Harriet (b. 20 July
1833) and William Henry (b. 23 May 1836).

William died on 19 September 1837, Harriet died on 5 June 1838 and then Martha died on 23 March 1839, leaving Denison, a single father with a seven year old son, Robert Searing.  If you notice, all three of these people died between 1837 and 1839; the small detail of finding their graves in the Albany City Cemetery was that it didn't open for burials until 1843.  Clearly the tombstone with all three names, with Martha at the top (the last to die), was done years after the first death; and at some later time the bodies were moved to this cemetery.  Here is the inscription on the tombstone:

    MARTHA

    wife of

    ??NISON WORTHINGTON

    Died March 23, 1839

    Aged 31ys & 13 ds

    -----

    ALSO

    Their Son

    WILLIAM HENRY

    Died Sept. 19, 1837

    Aged 1 yr 3 mo & 27 ds

    -----

    and Daughter

    HARRIET

    Died June 5, 1838

    Aged 4 ys 10 mo & 16 ds

Denison worked as a clerk and then about 1835 went into the grocery business with Mr Gilbert, it became Worthington & Davis until 1847 when Denison moved to Oconomowoc, Wisconsin.  Before moving to Wisconsin, he married Mary Ann LaGRANGE on 3 June 1840 in Albany NY.

I have not yet found out when the 2nd Presbyterian Church closed, but that is probably when the three bodies needed to be moved, most likely from the Church's cemetery.  Denison and his 2nd wife and children were already in Wisconsin and so the family of his second wife, his in-laws, Gerrit and Mary LaGrange,  must have arranged to move the graves of Denison's first wife and their children into the LaGrange family plot and add a tombstone for them.  He must have had a good relationship with his in-laws!

Over the next 15 years Mary Ann gave birth to seven children before she died 15 June 1856 in Summit Wisconsin.  Denison was left a single father with now 8 children, the youngest was 1 month old.  His oldest son, Robert, moved to Chicago and took a job as a clerk leaving Denison at home with Denison LaGrange (14), William Henry (13), Mary Frances (11), Martha (9), James LaGrange (6), Garrit Hazzard (2) and Frank Town (1 month).

By the 1860 census, Denison is still living on the family farm in Wisconsin with sons William (16) and James (11).
  

Meanwhile back in Albany living with their LaGrange grandparents are Denison (20) who is working as a clerk, Mary (15), Garret (6), and Frank (4).

Martha (13) is living with a physician in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin:

His oldest son, Robert (25) is still in Chicago, now living in a residence hotel and working as a bookkeeper.

He didn't marry his third wife until after the 1860 census, even though 1860 is the estimated  year of Denison marrying Julia PROUDFIT (widow of McNaughton).  She died four years later on 21 February 1864.

I thought I  had sorted out the story of my GGG'grandmother, not sure I'd find any real details of her short life.  Then seven years after I received a copy of the picture of her tombstone, Richard Worthington posted these pictures on my FaceBook page.  I've never seen either picture before, nor have I seen any pictures of Denison and Martha.  What a wonderful surprise!

Martha Searing,