I went to the Family History Center on Wednesday and captured complete Revolution War and Bounty Warrant files for two of my Revolutionary War soldiers - Isaac Buck of Sterling MA and Philip Row of Tewksbury NJ.
The San Diego FHC has access to Footnote in their Premium Database links on the computer systems. I thought it would be useful to compare the pages included in the complete file (assuming the file on Footnote is complete) with the pages I downloaded last year from HeritageQuestOnline, which has only "selected pages" available online.
On the HeritageQuestOnline site (accessed by library card), the Pension File W2350 for Philip Row of Tewksbury NJ has 12 pages:
1. Cover sheet for File W2350.
2. Outside view of the cover of the Pension Packet.
3-6. Letter request for a pension from Mary Row, widow of Philip Row, written in 1840, which testifies to her husband's service, their marriage, and her continuing widowhood.
7-8. Family paper with marriage information on it, two views.
9-10. last two pages of Mary Row's letter (same as 5-6)
11-12. Letter request for reconsideration from son Philip Rowe of Indiana.
On the Footnote site, the Pension File W2350 for Philip Row of Tewksbury NJ has 48 pages:
1. Cover sheet for File W2350.
2. Outside view of the cover of the Pension Packet.
3. Inside view of the cover of the Pension Packet.
4-7. Letter request for a pension from Mary Row, widow of Philip Row, dated 4 February 1840, which testifies to her husband's service, their marriage, and her continuing widowhood.
8-9. Family paper, two views, submitted to prove the marriage of Mary Smith and Philip Row, in German with English translation.
10. last page of Mary Row's letter (same as 7)
11-14. Letter affidavit from John Blane, dated 3 February 1840, testifying to his concurrent service with Philip Row.
15-16. Letter affidavit from William Youngs, dated 4 February 1840, testifying to his concurrent service with Philip Row.
17-19. Letter to Secretary of Interior dated 27 May 1850 by Lewis Condict, pension examiner in NJ. 20. NJ Bounty Warrant data showing pay for Reinhart's regiment.
21-22. Letter request for reconsideration from son Philip Rowe of Indiana.
23-24. Letter from Will Cumbach in 1856 asking for information on behalf of Philip Rowe.
25-29. 2nd Letter to Secretary of Interior dated 14 May 1850 by Lewis Condict asking for resolution of appeals to rejected claims.
30. Approval of report letter from Secretary of Interior to Lewis Condict dated 19 June 1850
31-35. Rejection Letter from Secretary of Interior dated 11 September 1847 to Lewis Condict for Mary Row and Mary Beach.
36-37. Letter to Secretary of Interior dated 27 May 1850 by Lewis Condict appealing decision.
38. Letter to Secretary of War dated 27 May 1850 from Mahlon Dickerson testifying to character of Lewis Condict.
39-43. Request on 24 December 1846 by Lewis Condict to Secretary of War withdraw arguments for several pension cases.
44-45. Letter of 14 August 1847 from Lewis Condict to Secretary of War submitting appeal in cases of Mary Row and Mary Beach.
46-47. Letter to Secretary of War by Congressman John L. Robinson dated 28 May 1850 requesting approval of pensions for Mary Row and Mary Beach.
48. Letter dated 14 August 1847 from Lewis Condict to Secretary of War soliciting an appeal.
For this particular case, the HQO file included the letter from the applicant, Mary Row, and her son Philip Rowe. However, it did not include the supporting letters by two comrades of Philip Row, which provide more detail about his service and their experiences, nor all of the correspondence between Lewis Condict and the Departments of War and Interior concerning the application, the rejection, the appeals, etc.
It's an interesting comparison, isn't it? I don't understand why they duplicated some pages in both files.
Needless to say, the Footnote file provides a lot of information about the approval, rejection and appeals process. I'm guessing that the entire file was transferred back and forth by mail or courier between Lewis Condict and the different government Departments each time a letter was sent. How else would they have all of these papers, unless they made a handwritten copy on both ends of the correspondence?
Perhaps one of my astute readers know the answer to this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment