Muster rolls ordered online from the NARA

By Anonymous on Thu, 04/11/2013 - 22:43

Forums

I just got some muster and payroll documents from the War of 1812 today for one of my ancestors, John McKelvey and am trying to put together a first reference note.  I looked at the example in EE and read the principles.  The thing is that I ordered the CD of documents online and was not given any information like record groups or the data collection, I just got my CD and a cover sheet saying that the search had been performed successfully.  From my point of view this was functionally a web search that just happened to take a few weeks.  Based on what I had to know to place the order and the results I came up with this:

John McKelvie/McKelvey, (corporal, James Mahar's company), Company muster and pay rolls of McClure's regiment, New York Vols. and Militia, 3 December 1812-6 October 1813, War of 1812; digital images, ordered CD from NARA using form NATF 86 (http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/pre-ww-1-records.html#natf86 : staff searched 29 March 2013).

I did smallest-largest per the advice from 11.38 in EE and then said how I aquired the information, so that someone else can do the same.  Will this work?

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/12/2013 - 11:21

Beirne,

Have you gone back to NARA and asked for a citation? 

Regarding your implementation of the muster-roll example at 11.38, I can understand your wanting to identify the person-of-interest on the muster roll. However, the alterations do leave a misleading impression. When we cite a soldier's individual file,

  • we do lead with the name of the soldier, because that name represents an individual file;
  • we follow that name with a parenthetical identification of the soldier's rank and unit, because NARA uses this to distinguish his file.

If we cite a muster roll in this fashion, then we are implying that there is a separate muster roll for just this man. I don't think you meant to imply this.

When we cite an individual entry on a roll, rather than the roll itself, we have to make it clear that the name we are citing represents just one entry on the roll and, also, that this name we are putting first is not the creator of the roll.

Final question: Why would you isolate just this one man's entry in the citation? Do you not consider all the other details on that muster roll to be important to your research on this man and to your understanding of his military experience?

 

Submitted bybeirneon Fri, 04/12/2013 - 11:50

I actually did mean to imply that there is a separate muster roll for John McKelvey, although I could be wrong to have done so.  What they sent me were company muster and pay rolls for just him.  I think I would consider them pay cards rather than rolls, since I imagine a roll being a big list of soldiers in a table, but I stuck with the wording on the documents.  I have attached what I got to hopefully clarify things.

On your final question about my not considering other information, I think it is because these documents are just about John McKelvey so there are no FANs.  I will of course use the information on the cards to learn more about him.

 

Thanks,

Beirne

Submitted bybeirneon Fri, 04/12/2013 - 11:40

I didn't know I could just ask them for a citation.  I just sent them a request and will see what they say.

 

Thanks,

Beirne

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/12/2013 - 13:56

Beirne,

It's good that you posted the images. What you have received is the Compiled Service Record (CSR) for John McKelvey. Your instinct, to consider them "cards" rather than "rolls" is right on target, although they would not be "pay cards." Each card in the jacket of a Compiled Service Record may carry a line that reads "Muster Roll" or "Pay Roll," but that simply means that the data on that card was taken from the muster roll or pay roll whose details are provided on the card. Your plan to push beyond these cards, to get the actual rolls, is also wise.

You might be interested in QuickLesson 3: "Flawed Records" (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-3-flawed-records). Its subject is exactly this topic: CSRs, muster rolls, and payrolls—with sample images and discussions of problems to which we need to be attuned.

11.32 is the relevant section from EE.

 

Submitted bybeirneon Fri, 04/12/2013 - 18:22

OK, I didn't realize that's what I had, so now things are a lot clearer.  Also, now that I know about the upload feature I'll make sure I use it next time.  I just read your article on flawed records and am glad that at the same time I placed this order I also wrote to New York, where he was a militia volunteer, to get what I could from them as well.  I hope they kind find more than the last time I asked them to check.

I think I may have another CSR, so I'll have to check what's behind it as well.

Thanks!

Beirne

Submitted byEEon Sat, 04/13/2013 - 08:51

Bierne, all the different record types are confusing. None of us will ever live long enough to know and understand them all. Again, your instincts are good—to seek the records at both the state and the federal levels. When doing biographical research, that gives us a much richer, fuller picture of our person.

 

FYI, I heard back from the NARA today on the citation.  They actually called me on the phone because they found two John McKelveys and wanted to make sure they were giving me the information on the right one.  Based on that here is my updated citation:

Compiled service record, John McKelvie, Corp., James Mahar's company, McClure's regiment, New York Volunteers and Militia; Carded Records, Volunteer Organizations, War of 1812; Records of the Adjutant General's Office, Record group 94, entry 510; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

I deviated a little bit from the version in EE.  He didn't give me a year range for the Adjutant General's Office records, so I didn't want to assume one.  I added the entry number, though, since he made the effort to give it to me.  I'll admit, however, I have no clue what the 510 is relative to so I'm not totally sure on that one.

Now I just need my records to come in from New York to get more of the picture.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/26/2013 - 22:08

Bierne, it is good to hear that NARA got back to you. Is the above exactly what they gave you? A couple of things are "off."

Let's start with the "entry 510" that you say you don't have a clue about. This is explained in QuickLesson 4, "NARA Citations & Finding Aids." As you see there, the entry number exists only in the published preliminary inventory (PI) for RG 94. There is no shelf, box, file, or packet at NARA that's called "Entry 510."  Because it represents only a paragraph-long description in the PI, it is cited when we cite the PI. It is not cited when we cite the original record. 

In QuickLesson 4, at footnote 4, you will find a link to a digitized copy of this preliminary inventory, which Jonathan Deiss has placed online. You will find Entry 510 on p. 100 of that PI. The paragraph-long description begins with the series name that you have cited: "Carded Records, Volunteer Organization: War of 1812."

The element that is "off" in your citation (aside from the inclusion of the paragraph number from the PI) is the collection name "New York Volunteers and Militia." Volunteer companies and militia companies were different critters. The name of the series indicates that this set of records covers the volunteers. The PI description (entry 510) does not mention militia.

Considering these points, EE would tinker just a bit with your citation:

Compiled Service Record, John McKelvie, Corp., James Mahar's Co., McClure's Regt., New York Volunteers and Militia; Carded Records, Volunteer Organizations, War of 1812; Records of the Adjutant General's Office, Record Group 94, entry 510; National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Submitted bybeirneon Fri, 04/26/2013 - 23:22

EE,

There is a lot to good information I need to look into in your reply, but I'll cover a few things right away.  Here is the citation as he gave it to me over the phone, so this is unfortunately a derivative citation.  I didn't want to push my luck and ask him email it since he was ready to tell me over the phone.

Record group 94, Adjutant General's office, entry 510, compiled military service records of volunteers, War of 1812, Corporal John McKelvie, McClure's Regiment, New York Volunteers and Militia.

Regarding "Volunteers and Militia", not only was it in the citation I got from the NARA, but it is on every printed page they sent me in the scans, so I took what they gave me literally.  I figured that if I use the same wording that the NARA does then someone else trying to get this record will have better success.

I'm fine with cutting out entry 510 and of course the capitalization fixes.

Thanks,

Beirne

Submitted byEEon Sat, 04/27/2013 - 09:10

Beirne, you are right. The image you supplied back in Message 3 does show McClure's Regiment as a combined regiment of the two separate types: Volunteers and Militia, so you are right to use it as you did. EE should have taken the time to go back and look at that card again before answering your latest post. So, leave in that phrase, in the position where you have it (which makes it a descriptor of the regiment, rather than a collection of series label by NARA), but the other suggestions still stand.

 

Submitted bybeirneon Tue, 05/07/2013 - 07:30

As a follow-up, I got my records from New York.  Unfortunately they are the New York equivalent of the CSR and not real muster rolls or other original documents.  Strangely, they even had less information than the CSR.  Time to do some digging to find the originals.