Looking for a birth announcement, San Francisco, 1877

[Erato]

"not all events were published"

Yes, that's a problem but it seemed worth a shot to look at the fate of any girl reportedly born on that date in San Francisco.  I have considered several scenarios but none makes much sense to me.

[Lisa in California]

Yes, that's a problem but it seemed worth a shot to look at the fate of any girl reportedly born on that date in San Francisco…

Very true!  I would have done the same. 🙂

[Lisa in California]

You’ve most likely thought of this but there is a chance that she was born near San Francisco and they just said it was San Francisco.  A lot of people have heard of San Francisco but the small towns near San Francisco are not as well known.

[Erato]

The most likely scenario is that my grandmother got it wrong.  Beulah was not adopted.  She was born in 1877 in [or, as you say, near] San Francisco where her mother had gone in order to give birth in a civilized place with accessible medical care.  I haven't caught my grandmother in any other major error, though.  I'd be shocked to learn that she got this wrong.

The other somewhat plausible possibility is that Mary Fenn Logan went to San Francisco in 1877 for an undisclosed medical reason and, while she was there, adopted a recently born and motherless baby.  But in that case, how would she have fed baby Beulah, barely two months old?  The trip out to Micronesia was a couple of months at sea mostly on a rickety missionary schooner and then once they got there, there was no milk, not even any cows. 

Or maybe her son got the place and/or date of her birth wrong on the death certificate.

[Lisa in California]

I know that you’ve extensively researched your family.  However, I am not too familiar (anymore) with your research as I’ve been away from RootsChat for a couple of years. Having said that, my comments are hopefully taken as “food for thought”.

Knowing little about adoption, perhaps I am incorrect but I do wonder why someone would say that someone is adopted when they were not.  The little bit that I have run across, it seems that people were more apt to keep adoption a secret.  At least that was the case in my Canadian findings.

Were the Logan’s familiar with San Francisco; would Mary have gone to a strange city for health reasons?  Or, if Mary was ill, perhaps her doctor recommended a trip to San Francisco?

Was Beulah’s age consistent on census records?  For various reasons, a few of my relatives/ancestors intentionally gave incorrect years of birth.  I’ve also heard of people (especially prior to 1900) not being concerned about their birth year and some actually forgetting the exact year of birth.

If adoption is questioned, did Beulah resemble her “adopted” family?  Do you have photographs to make comparisons?

Is there a chance that Mary did go to San Francisco in 1877 and met Beulah’s family at that time (and kept in touch)?  Perhaps something happened to Beulah’s parents in the early 1880s and the Logan’s adopted her on their way through San Francisco?

[Erato]

"why someone would say that someone is adopted when they were not"

I'm sure my grandmother didn't intentionally lie about it but she might have been mistaken.  Maybe she repeated something she had heard [as a child?] and misunderstood.

"would Mary have gone to a strange city for health reasons?  Or, if Mary was ill, perhaps her doctor recommended a trip to San Francisco?"

They were missionaries in Micronesia in really pretty primitive circumstances.  There was no doctor.  I don't know why she would go all the way to SF instead of just staying in Honolulu but I suppose even Hawaii was a bit iffy in 1877.


I have photos of Robert, Mary, Arthur and Beulah.  I can't say that she really resembles any of them.

[RJ137]

On the other hand, it is also true that Mary Fenn Logan was in San Francisco during the spring of 1877, recovering from an "undisclosed health condition."  Was the undisclosed condition pregnancy?  Newspaper reports have Mrs. Logan returning to the islands in July 1877 with her  [unnamed] child.  Was this child the infant Beulah or was it the Logan's son Arthur, age six?  Other newspaper articles give conflicting accounts of when Beulah first went out to the islands; some say that she was just a few weeks old [1877] and others that she was six years old [about 1882].

I can see where you are coming from in your thought process.

On 1 Feb 1877 only Mary(w/no child) is listed on passenger list from Micronesia.

Shipping News Friend
Thursday, Feb 01, 1877
Honolulu, HI
Page: 13

===============

In June 1877 Mary is heading back to Micronesia with an infant. The use of the term "infant" would seem to rule out their son Arthur.

Pacific commercial advertiser
Saturday, Jun 16, 1877
Honolulu, HI
Page: 4
========

Then on 9 Feb 1878, Mary is listed as passenger and her babe heading to Micronesia. The use of the term "babe" would seem to rule out their son Arthur.

EDIT: Strange?, just reread. The paper was from Feb 1878, but the article says  June 14, 1877?

 Pacific commercial advertiser
Saturday, Feb 09, 1878
Honolulu, HI
Page: 4

[Josephine]

Erato, you seem like a thorough researcher, so you've probably already done this, but have you looked for a baptismal record in the San Francisco area, just in case?

Regards,
Josephine

[RJ137]

 Other newspaper articles give conflicting accounts of when Beulah first went out to the islands; some say that she was just a few weeks old [1877] and others that she was six years old [about 1882].

I assume the term Colonies is in reference to the Islands. This news clip has Robert W, Mary  and their two children arriving in Hawaii from the Islands in Feb 1882. So Beulah was in Micronesia, prior to 1882.

 Daily bulletin
Friday, Feb 17, 1882
Honolulu, HI
Page: 2

=================

Random clip naming family & Beulah in May 1882.

 Los Angeles daily herald
Friday, May 12, 1882
Los Angeles, CA
Page: 3