While doing some cleaning up of my family tree, I was going through U.S. Census data to confirm city residences and add in the street addresses, when available. The street addresses were not something I had bothered much with in the past, but with my recent genealogical reboot, it has become a tool I've incorporated to both help corroborate other sources and data, but also to give me a better idea of the world these ancestors lived in, and how that world looks today.
This evening, I was cleaning up my 3rd great grandfather, Thomas J. Mahoney. Born in May 1842 in Ireland, Census data indicates he came to the United States in 1855. He married a Bridget Sullivan, born 1844 in Ireland, and together they had five sons. Each of these boys were born in Connecticut, presumably in Norwich or its surrounding area. Just a few years after Patrick, the youngest child of the family, is born in Connecticut, the family is listed in the 1880 U.S. Census as residents of Richmond, Rhode Island, a town just more than 25 miles east of Norwich. By 1900, however, the family is about 70 miles north, living on Cambridge Street in Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester is the city my grandfather's family, the Mahoney clan, called home for multiple generations.
While I have a decent amount of data on Thomas Mahoney's children living in Worcester, his time in the city is not terribly well documented thus far. In 1900, at age 58, he is widowed and living on Cambridge Street with the family of his son, Thomas. He is working as a day laborer.
I have no date of death for Thomas, so I began to look for him in the U.S. Census after 1900. I found a Thomas Mahoney in the 1920 Census, but I was immediately curious upon seeing the hand-written Census form: "Mahoney, Thomas. Patient."
Patient? Where? What happened?
Before I bothered going down this rabbit hole, I decided to seek confirmation this was the right guy.
Age? 78. That would put him as born circa 1842. That's a match.
Birthplace? Ireland. That's a match.
Birthplace of parents? Ireland. That's a match.
Marital status? Widowed. That's a match.
Everything appeared to be a match, leading me operate on the assumption that there is a very strong likelihood that this is my Thomas Mahoney.
He was listed as being on Belmont Street, so I began flipping back through the earlier pages looking for more information. After a few additional pages, I finally looked at the top of the page. "Name of Institution: Worcester State Hospital."
I had an inkling, but wanted to confirm that it perhaps wasn't just another name for one of the several hospitals in Worcester. A quick Google search confirmed what I already believed to be the case: Worcester State Hospital, sometimes known as the Worcester Insane Asylum, was a mental institution that closed its doors in 1991, more than 150 years after it first opened its doors.
In the end, operating under the belief this is the right man, I'm left wondering what happened.
Was he legitimately insane? Was it an issue of a 78-year-old man battling dementia or Alzheimer's Disease? Perhaps he was just viewed as a burden to his kids, who shuffled him off to the mental institution. Any of the above are viable possibilities.
I'm skeptical I will ever be able to learn what happened and why Thomas was placed into Worcester State Hospital. Any surviving records are surely not public. Barring it stemming from some sort of major incident that would've been found newsworthy, his admission to the asylum is not likely to be recorded in the newspapers. To my knowledge, there are no Mahoney family papers or diaries whatsoever. All the same, I will continue to dig in hopes of uncovering the circumstances.
Further Corroboration
The next step was to begin trying to see if I could find Thomas in either the 1910 or 1930 U.S. Census data.
I was immediately skeptical that he would be found in the 1930 Census after being found in the asylum in 1920. He'd be 88 by 1930, which was another factor making it increasingly unlikely he'd be found. Ultimately, no luck finding him in the 1930 Census.
As for the 1910 Census, there was no reason to believe he wouldn't be uncovered. I did find a Thomas Mahoney that seems to be a fit. Widowed, born in Ireland, and aged 68. Check, check, and check. Immigration year is listed as 1859, four years after what was listed in a prior Census report, but that doesn't seem to be terribly uncommon a discrepancy. This Census entry shows Thomas living with a son, William A. Mahoney, at 80 Temple Street in Worcester. Thomas does indeed have a son named William, and certainly the Worcester residency makes perfect sense. Furthermore, Cambridge Street and Temple Street are just about two miles apart, so this seems to work. The problem, however, comes with the rest of the Census data in comparison to what I previously had on file on William.
William, according to the original genealogical information, was born in Connecticut in May 1867. The 1900 Census data in Worcester clearly shows William as being born in Connecticut in May 1867, and that he's 33-years-old as of the Census recording in June 1900. However, the 1880 U.S. Census in Rhode Island, shows William as Connecticut-born, but aged 15 in June 1880 — that would put him as a newborn around 1865. This sort of discrepancy in Census data is not all that uncommon.
Regardless of whether William is born in 1865 or May 1867, the William A. Mahoney found in the 1910 U.S. Census is aged 37 — which means he would have been born circa 1863. Additionally, he's reported as having been born in Massachusetts, whereas the other Census data is clear that he should be listed as Connecticut-born. This William is married to a woman named Catherine, and is reported as having been married to her for nine years. Together, they have a son, Arthur, born about 1901. Also living with them is William's father, Thomas, as previously mentioned. Additionally, William's brother Daniel is living with the family on Temple Street. This seems to be a match to my previously existing data, though the birth year is slightly different. In this Census data, Daniel Mahoney is also born in Massachusetts, and is listed as 29-years-old, putting him as being born about 1881. In the previously uncovered Census data, Daniel was born in Connecticut in June 1875 (per the 1900 Census). The 1880 Census shows him as aged 6 and born in Connecticut; further corroborating the 1900 data.
Ultimately, this William and Daniel living with their father Thomas could be my 3rd great grandfather Thomas and two of his sons. It may very well not be them either, however. To find out, I will have to take a fresh look at William and Daniel to see what can be further confirmed and what seems to be erroneous information from data collection years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment