NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
R. Scanlon

NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Legg inn av R. Scanlon » 12. februar 2008 kl. 3.38

My trial subscription to footnote.com has turned up this
entry from T289, Organization Index to Pension Files of
Veterans Who Served Between 1861 and 1900:

Name of Soldier: Doe, John W.; Doe, William (alias); Bryant,
John (alias)
Service: late rank ---, Co. L, 7 Reg't U. S. Cav.
Term of Service: enlisted June 9, 1876; discharged Jan. 29,
1877
Additional Services: Gen. Serv. U.S.A. & I 3 U. S. Inf.;
seaman - U.S.S. Marion, Vermont & Independence
Remarks: See Navy I. O. 14248

(There are in fact two more entries for him listing General
Service and I 3 Infantry as the "Service.")

I'm a CMSR newbie, and, as much as I want to exercise my
credit card and start the 60-90 day turnaround clock ticking
down, I'd like to get a couple of answers first, especially
since the NARA FAQ states pretty plainly that I'm going to
have to buy at least 3 separate CMSRs.

What was "General Service"? (I couldn't cajole Google into
giving me much useful)

What is a Navy I.O.? (Another Google miss here)

Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps
running away from home to join the service (he was born
1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is
John Doe)?

Tara

Re: NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Legg inn av Tara » 12. februar 2008 kl. 16.56

"R. Scanlon" <rscanlon@naisp.net> wrote in message
news:rscanlon-06C5C0.21385111022008@news.verizon.net...
<snip>
What was "General Service"? (I couldn't cajole Google into
giving me much useful)


Probably depends on the context. I seem to recall seeing this used to
describe both job type and enlistment type. Could mean he had no special job
rating, kind of the equivalent of "foot soldier." Or it could mean a regular
enlistment, not anything like a commission or attached to a special
division.

What is a Navy I.O.? (Another Google miss here)


Again, context. Could be Intelligence Officer, Issuing Officer, Intercept
Officer.

Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps
running away from home to join the service (he was born
1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is
John Doe)?

No clue on this one. It certainly suggests something was out of the ordinary
but it could be anything from running from the law to just enjoys lying. I
have a few ancestors that just seemed to enjoy messing with the authorities
when it comes to telling them personal info.

--
Tara Larkin
Remove NO SPAM to reply by email.

singhals

Re: NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Legg inn av singhals » 13. februar 2008 kl. 16.30

R. Scanlon wrote:


Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps
running away from home to join the service (he was born
1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is
John Doe)?

I don't know what happens to any of these between NARA and
Ancestry.com I've found these in the CSRs at NARA:

(a) mis-reading of a badly written name -- i.e., can't tell
if it's a W or an M, so NARA wrote a card for both, each
referring to the other.

(b) the company clerk couldn't decide how to spell the name,
so it's in the records as Malcom and Malcolm, both of which
get a card and a cross-ref.

(c) the soldier's name was John Malcolm, he's in there as
John M, John Malcolm, and J Malcolm, each of which gets a
card and a cross-ref to the others.

ONCE and ONLY ONCE, I saw a Wm turn into W. M. and from
there into William M. He wasn't _mine_ so I've no clue who
he thought he was. (g)



Cheryl

R. Scanlon

Re: NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Legg inn av R. Scanlon » 14. februar 2008 kl. 19.18

In article <Y7idnV2oYujoXCzanZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Tara" <NOtnlarkinSPAM@iparagon.net> wrote:

"R. Scanlon" <rscanlon@naisp.net> wrote in message
news:rscanlon-06C5C0.21385111022008@news.verizon.net...
snip
What was "General Service"? (I couldn't cajole Google into
giving me much useful)


Probably depends on the context. I seem to recall seeing this used to
describe both job type and enlistment type. Could mean he had no special job
rating, kind of the equivalent of "foot soldier." Or it could mean a regular
enlistment, not anything like a commission or attached to a special
division.

What is a Navy I.O.? (Another Google miss here)


Again, context. Could be Intelligence Officer, Issuing Officer, Intercept
Officer.

Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps
running away from home to join the service (he was born
1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is
John Doe)?

No clue on this one. It certainly suggests something was out of the ordinary
but it could be anything from running from the law to just enjoys lying. I
have a few ancestors that just seemed to enjoy messing with the authorities
when it comes to telling them personal info.

Thanks, Tara. The period of General Service is distinct from
the terms he served in two numbered regiments; it had been
my experience up until now that a soldier was always
associated with a regiment, but apparently that's not true.
And also up until now I'd never seen cavalry, infantry, and
naval service combined in one career. A propensity for lying
doesn't seem inconsistent here, especially considering some
of his behavior later on. I guess it's time to start
ordering CMSRs and see what's to be seen.

R. Scanlon

Re: NARA Compiled Military Service Record, 1876

Legg inn av R. Scanlon » 14. februar 2008 kl. 19.21

In article <ntWdneL-K4m_kC7anZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@rcn.net>,
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote:

R. Scanlon wrote:


Does the liberal use of aliases suggest anything? Perhaps
running away from home to join the service (he was born
1859, therefore 17 at the time, and yes, his name really is
John Doe)?

I don't know what happens to any of these between NARA and
Ancestry.com I've found these in the CSRs at NARA:

(a) mis-reading of a badly written name -- i.e., can't tell
if it's a W or an M, so NARA wrote a card for both, each
referring to the other.

(b) the company clerk couldn't decide how to spell the name,
so it's in the records as Malcom and Malcolm, both of which
get a card and a cross-ref.

(c) the soldier's name was John Malcolm, he's in there as
John M, John Malcolm, and J Malcolm, each of which gets a
card and a cross-ref to the others.

ONCE and ONLY ONCE, I saw a Wm turn into W. M. and from
there into William M. He wasn't _mine_ so I've no clue who
he thought he was. (g)



Cheryl

Thanks for the comments, Cheryl. Reminds me of the WWI draft
card of Joseph Aloysius Kraatz indexed as Joseph
Aloysiuskraatz.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»