alan pitts
You'd think there was a simple answer
Tue Jan 16 22:59:02 2001


But there's not.

First, men all up and down the line enlisted in companies from both states. If anyone can provide unit designations for Mississippi companies that included a sizeable number of Alabama men, I'd be interested. Meanwhile, I'd check Mississippi index entries as well as Alabama.

Next, think of every possible way the name could look or sound and check those. 'Dykes' or 'Dikes' are obvious, but consider this:

Sometimes names on the muster roll are misspelled. Ancestor searches for these men will surely be frustrating because the index is wrong. Here's an example. The records for Co. "A" 5th Ala. Cav. Regt. includes the name of one 'J. Dicus'. I've searched the 1860 manuscript census of Marion, Franklin, Fayette, Winston, Lawrence and western Walker looking for his name (as well as others from that regiment). A man named John P. Dikes from Franklin seems to fit the age requirements since the muster roll says he's 35, and the census has John P. Dikes being 30 in 1860.

Next we must question the age of your ancestor. Instances of men born as late as 1850 being in service are few and far between. Authentic examples exist, but they are rare. Junior Reserves and even home guards don't include many boys as young as 14 or 15. If an enrolling officer accepted a boy at this age in late 1864 or early 1865, and he wasn't present when his unit surrendered, chances of his name appearing on any war-era document are slim or none.

On the other side of that coin, if your ancestor was much younger than most Confederate veterans, he probably lived longer. His name should appear on the 1907 Census of Alabama veterans as well as the follow-up done about 1921. Also, if he applied for a pension, you've got that path to follow in both states. A complete pension application includes the name of two witnesses swearing that your ancestor served as stated, which usually puts to rest questions asked by doubting Thomases like me!

• And to complicate it even further... — Hayes Lowe, Wed Jan 17 06:47
• Absolutely — alan pitts, Wed Jan 17 12:51
• One more thing — George Purvis, Wed Jan 17 20:42
• Name mixup — George Purvis, Wed Jan 17 00:39