Through census and immigration records, it looks like every branch of my family tree came over between 1890 and 1910.

Thing is, only one of those branches was even well-known among my family, the others are all lost history. Out of curiosity I've asked some friends and co-workers and several have said similar things - they don't know when their ancestors immigrated, their personal family history just doesn't go back that far.

It takes some legwork, but both my wife and I (thanks to our parents' curiosity during their retirements) have been able to go back to the 1700's for at least some lines. Even the europeans were moving around a lot internationally, though.

The portion of my family tree from the US is about half pre-Civil War, of which most were pre-Revolution. (and my father told me that, while researching, he found the Mormons for some reason have records on way more people than just their adherents. Could be useful)

Regarding Mormons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead#Genealogy...

They believe the dead can be baptized, which is a driving force behind their mission trips to other countries - if they convert one person with a very different family tree, they not only save one soul, but they enable all of that person's dead ancestors to make it into heaven as well.

Wow, that is an interesting fact... thanks. I've never heard this before, and I don't think it's common knowledge among non-Mormons like myself. Interesting stuff...

The Mormons believe they can baptize people after their death (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...).

That’s why they collect lots of genealogical information, world wide (https://www.familysearch.org), so that they can baptize all forefathers of current Mormons.

The baptizing leads to critique, for example when they baptize people of other faiths. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/21/mormons-holoca...:

“Mormons have recently posthumously baptised at least 20 Holocaust victims, Humphrey Bogart, Marilyn Monroe and the Queen Mother, according to a researcher who has spent two decades monitoring the church’s massive genealogical database.”

Suddenly Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead" makes a lot more sense to me.

How does one baptize a death person?

They baptize a living person, who acts as a proxy. If I remember correctly, there's some stipulation that the person in heaven has to actually accept the baptism, they're not just being forced into it. I don't remember the specifics of that though, I left the church a few years ago.

> there's some stipulation that the person in heaven has to actually accept the baptism

Would the unbaptized not be in limbo or hell? I'm a bit confused by the mythology of all this - it seems to be offering a lifeline(deathline? spiritline?) out of eternal torture. If you're in heaven, baptism seems irrelevant, or are there levels of heaven? What good is an act of faith when you're literally experiencing the truth of the claims at that very moment?

The LDS church teaches that all spirits await the resurrection in a 'spirit world,' which is divided into different conditions for the just and the wicked, that heaven is divided into three 'degrees of glory,' and that baptism is a precondition for attaining the highest degree of glory. In this system, nearly all spirits go to heaven after the resurrection. Those who do not accept Christ as their savior receive some punishment / hell in the spirit world, but eventually end up in the lowest kingdom of heaven (so not 'eternal' torture).

> What good is an act of faith when you're literally experiencing the truth of the claims at that very moment?

I don't know what kind of information spirits in the spirit world have, but the LDS church teaches that there's some teaching of the gospel still going on in the spirit world, so presumably spirits don't automatically have complete information. The LDS teaching is that baptism is prerequisite for attaining the highest degree of glory, and all spirits have the opportunity in the spirit world to accept baptism by proxy if they did not have an opportunity during their life to be baptized or chose not to be.

See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned#Latter-d...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_world_(Latter_Day_Saint...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_of_salvation_(Latter_Day_...

Thanks for the information! It's disheartening to know the afterlife has so much bureaucracy.

Had to google that. You use a stand-in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

Why on earth should this post be greyed out? Just the mere mention of Mormons?

My earliest ancestors came over in 1620, the last came over in the 1850s. So during the civil war, all my ancestors were already on this continent. However, none of them participated in the war since they all lived out west, beyond the boundaries of the USA, throughout the war.

The West was involved in the war in various ways. California was a state and Nevada became one. Gold and volunteers were sent east. There were troops sent to secure New Mexico from the confederacy.

None of those are places my ancestors lived.

The civil war took place after the Mexican-American war and the establishment of the border with British Canada. What is the western US now was under US control. Some parts were states, some territories. There was military and political activity all over the region related to the civil war. My ancestors lived in Utah. They didn't go fight, but that doesn't mean they were entirely isolated from the events.

1620 huh? You might be my distant cousin.

In gangs of New York they portray immigrants getting off ships, being recruited and then being put on other ships to head south. Doubtless there's a good dollop of artistic licence involved but it possibly was a thing

~31 million Americans in 1860, so it's likely to be a large number.

Half of my family, of German Dutch ancestry, dates along the east coast to before the Revolutionary War, and spent the better part of 200 years as farmers in the northern Union Appalachia region (the last generation that were farmers is almost gone now; the family farm land - which isn't very valuable land - has been gradually sold off over the past century; the area is difficult land to farm, it's a rough way of life, and it's nearly impossible to compete with modern corporate farming). The other half came over during one of the large immigration waves toward the end of the 19th century.

There's a lot of us, especially in the South. My great-grandfather was a child in the siege of Petersburg. My mom still tells the story of how the family house was struck by a Union cannonball as they were sitting outside it. She heard it directly from her grandfather when she was a child herself.

Some of my ancestors arrived as early as the 1620s. There have been several books about them. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1333427255

My Civil War era ancestors were in Nevada at the time, where we've largely remained since.

Possibly a lot, given the potential exponential descendants 1 person could have. I have several ancestors and their relatives that fought for the North. My kids could trace 5-6 generations back to the civil war, meaning 32-64 ancestors to consider.

I have ancestors living in America in the 17th century.