Ville de Lyon, Harve France to New York City

[Oroblanco]

Roy, no offense taken here nor do I take your opinions as bone-pickin’, Amigo. I have no idea which Waltz is which nor do I have a preference for one or the other. But just off the top of my head, here’s what I see:

The Waltz on the Ville de Lyon was listed as being 20 on the transcribed passenger list. But when we look at the original passenger list he’s 28. Which fits with Dutch Jake’s known age.

Then it’s argued that Abstatt Waltz can’t be the Dutchman because his middle initial is F, not W. Well, it turns out the “W” comes from a “J.W. Walls”, and he’s 10 years too old to be the Dutchman.

Then it’s argued that Abstatt Waltz can’t be the Dutchman because his name was Jakob, but his birth records show it’s spelled Jacob.

Now let’s look at just a few things that fit:

Dutchman born 1810 in Wurttemburg. So was Abstatt Waltz. Dutchman had a sister whose son went missing in America. So did Abstatt Waltz. Based on Natchez citizenship application, Dutchman emigrated here in 1839. So did Abstatt Waltz. Dutchman applied for citizenship in Natchez in 1848. Abstatt Waltz is known to be living just down river in New Orleans in 1844. Dutchman went to CA in 1850’s. So did Abstatt Waltz. Dutchman said to have university education. So did Abstatt Waltz. Dutchman said to have helped Julia with finances. Abstatt Waltz had schooling in economics.

That's just scratching the surface of what we kicked around in this thread.

What Mathew and Homar are calling a “Force Fit” is starting to look a little like a “Slip Fit” to me. After 4 pages of discussion I've seen no real evidence given that Abstatt Waltz can't be the Dutchman. That's all I'm saying.

What documentation do we have to show Jacob Waltz traveled to CA in the 1850s? Thanks in advance. <I have seen info linking Waltz to Grass Valley CA as most have, but nothing to place him in CA in the 1850s>

Side thing here but does anyone here reside in or very close to Los Angeles? I have a reason for asking, the actual Federal court records of the territorial courts are held in the National Archives in LA. Including the Phoenix office from the start in 1864 to 1912. This court was first set up in Prescott and moved to Phoenix but I do not know what year. Anyone that lives in LA however could visit the national archives there and look it up to see if the actual citizenship document records for Jacob Waltz are there or not. Thanks in advance for this also.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

PS an afterthought here, but that 1890 register has another tidbit - the statement of WHERE Waltz got his citizenship is Phoenix and at the federal court there. This would rule out the 1861 LA document as "THE" Waltz. I don't buy it that could be a mistake, certainly Waltz could answer the question of where he got his citizenship correctly.

By the way I do NOT contend that mistakes never happened in the recording of these documents and/or the transcribing which can be a painful ordeal. As an example the 1870 US census of Arizona territory has a "J. WATT" residing in Salt River valley in the very spot where Jacob Waltz is known to have lived, with neighbors listed that match the known neighbors of Jacob Waltz. If you look carefully at the handwriting it very easily could have been WALTZ or WALT, the person recording the census writing down what he heard. For further confirmation that this is clearly a mistake by the census taker, the neighboring Peralta is written as PARALTA.

Please do continue.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Roy, a case could be made that Waltz never saw the Great Register. It wasn't compiled until after everyone filled out their registration cards. Every voter was given a registration number, and after everyone was registered, some poor guy in the Recorder's Office had to sit there and write everyone into the register alphabetically.

Since his first voter registration in 1876, which shows he was naturalized 19 July 1861 in Los Angeles, the next two great registers get it right...so for the first 3 elections, the Great Register is correct. Then on the 4th one, 1886, what equates to a "frontier data glitch" happens and the LA court is replaced with the Phoenix Court. Perhaps the same error prone recorder does the 1890 Register, because another "frontier typo" is made, changing July 19th 1861 to July 19th 1881.

On the question of Ol' Jake being in CA in the 1850's: Even in the worse case, we have Jacob Waltz in Phoenix at the time (the only one I'm aware of) saying he was naturalized 19 July 1861 in LA in 3 elections. In the 4th election, it's still 19 July 1861, and the fifth and final election it's 19 July 1881. At the worst case that's a 60% probability that the Jacob Waltz that lived in PHX is the one we all know got naturalized in LA.

If we accept for a moment that this is true, and then look at his citizenship application, the guy that swore as a witness that he knew Jacob Waltz for 5 years prior to the application, lived in CA. So unless the witness (looks like his name was Arlan Freidman, hard to read) was traveling all over the country with Waltz, he most likely knew Waltz for those 5 years in California.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

I cannot say for certain where the man we know as the Dutchman of Phoenix originated from or traveled before he arrived in Arizona and filed some mining claims.
Everyone has their OPINION and that includes myself as well as PotBelly Jim.
I do know that there is a problem with the documentation that has been found for what we "believe" to be the Dutchman Waltz.
The Abstatt Waltz is by no means a sure thing. The handwriting signature alone eliminates him. His given name Jakob F. Walz also eliminates him along with several other discrepancies.
If there is an original 1810 document that shows his name other than Jakob Freidrich Walz I would appreciate seeing it. I know there are later documents changing his name all the way to Jacob Waltz.
The family name was Walz not Waltz and there was no reason for someone to change their name just because they traveled outside their country especially a university educated German. Thousands of Germans named Walz immigrated and never changed their name. There is no good explanation why someone would and if you have to "explain/excuse" it that is a big RED FLAG.
Don Vardon was among the first to know of the Ville de Lyon Waltz and soon realized he was NOT the Dutchman.
I'm happy we can discuss the issues but there are too many issues being ignored, explained away and swept aside to say exactly where the Dutchman originated and what he did before 1864.

Best,

Matthew

 

[PotBelly Jim]

I cannot say for certain where the man we know as the Dutchman of Phoenix originated from or traveled before he arrived in Arizona and filed some mining claims.
Everyone has their OPINION and that includes myself as well as PotBelly Jim.
I do know that there is a problem with the documentation that has been found for what we "believe" to be the Dutchman Waltz.
The Abstatt Waltz is by no means a sure thing. The handwriting signature alone eliminates him. His given name Jakob F. Walz also eliminates him along with several other discrepancies.
If there is an original 1810 document that shows his name other than Jakob Freidrich Walz I would appreciate seeing it. I know there are later documents changing his name all the way to Jacob Waltz.
The family name was Walz not Waltz and there was no reason for someone to change their name just because they traveled outside their country especially a university educated German. Thousands of Germans named Walz immigrated and never changed their name. There is no good explanation why someone would and if you have to "explain/excuse" it that is a big RED FLAG.
Don Vardon was among the first to know of the Ville de Lyon Waltz and soon realized he was NOT the Dutchman.
I'm happy we can discuss the issues but there are too many issues being ignored, explained away and swept aside to say exactly where the Dutchman originated and what he did before 1864.

Best,

Matthew

Matthew, it's been said before that trying to get two Dutch Hunters to agree on anything is impossible. We're all here trying to learn and have some fun discussing what interests us with others of like mind. In your case, I find myself agreeing with your opinions and analysis quite a bit. There's few here that have put the effort into this that you have.

There are documents that show Abstatt Waltz as "Jacob Friederich Walz" at birth. I not only have seen them, I have copies in my possession to refer to. Problem is, I was given them by another researcher as I was asked for my opinion on translation. Since they're not mine, this makes them hearsay. No biggie.

I'm not familiar with Don Vardon nor have I seen any documentation on the Waltz he thinks is the Ville de Lyon Waltz. Hearsay. Likewise, Jerry Hamrick said he found documents proving Ville de Lyon Waltz was the Dutchman. Hearsay.

I'm not even aware of anything that even remotely links Dutchman Waltz (the one who lived in PHX) with the Natchez "Declaration of Intent" in 1848. The only reason I'm a little reluctant to throw it out, is I wonder what led Blair to an obscure 1848 court record in Mississippi, before the internet, when these documents had to be physically tracked down. Something caused him to believe there was something there on the Dutchman, to pick the archives of that courthouse out of the thousands. I don't know what led him to it, but feel certain that SOMETHING did. If anyone has ever found it in the archives and copied it, other than Blair, I have no idea.

This has been a good thread, thanks for bringing it up. I have no problem with ANYONE disagreeing with me or challenging anything I say or think, there's nothing better for my own mind than having to defend a position or theory

 

[markmar]

Jakob is the German version of Jacob.
https://translation.babylon-software.com/english/Jacob/#german

And Walzer is the German version of Waltz
https://translation.babylon-software.com/english/to-german/Waltz/

So , in Europe his name was Jakob Walzer and after was Americanized in Jacob Waltz.

 

[Idahodutch]

Jakob is the German version of Jacob.
https://translation.babylon-software.com/english/Jacob/#german

And Walzer is the German version of Waltz
https://translation.babylon-software.com/english/to-german/Waltz/

So , in Europe his name was Jakob Walzer and after was Americanized in Jacob Waltz.

Markmar,
Generally speaking I would agree that might be more of the norm, however, we all know that it is not that cut and dry with the changing of names or not, when immigrating to America back when.

There has been some excellent hashing over of documents that couldn't help but heighten the awareness to this subject for the audience. Still plenty of ifs and maybes, but the ball continues to roll. . .bit by bit.

 

[markmar]

Markmar,
Generally speaking I would agree that might be more of the norm, however, we all know that it is not that cut and dry with the changing of names or not, when immigrating to America back when.

There has been some excellent hashing over of documents that couldn't help but heighten the awareness to this subject for the audience. Still plenty of ifs and maybes, but the ball continues to roll. . .bit by bit.

I know from my personal experience how names and surnames can change from one country to another. On my FB profile I have my old name and surname, and on my email I have the new name and surname. Not very big difference but for the ones who would want to search my past , would be a big barrier.

 

[Matthew Roberts]

Anyone can misspell or mispronounce your name but only you can change the spelling of it or the name completely. That is true now and it was true in the 1800's.
If a man at Ellis Island misspelled your name there was no national ID and the next town you came to you could go back to spelling it the right way. Unless of course you wanted it to change and there usually had to be a compelling reason. I had a good friend whose family immigrated from Germany in the 1870's, their name was Dittmar, the man at Ellis Island spelled it Ditmer. The family had no trouble reestablishing the correct spelling.
You would almost have to believe an immigrant left Germany with nothing whatsoever that showed his real name and was at the mercy of anyone who decided to change it.

If Waltz really wanted to change his name to the American version of Waltz his name would have been Turner.

 

[Oroblanco]

Since his first voter registration in 1876, which shows he was naturalized 19 July 1861 in Los Angeles, the next two great registers get it right...so for the first 3 elections, the Great Register is correct. Then on the 4th one, 1886, what equates to a "frontier data glitch" happens and the LA court is replaced with the Phoenix Court. Perhaps the same error prone recorder does the 1890 Register, because another "frontier typo" is made, changing July 19th 1861 to July 19th 1881.

Can you post a photo of that first voter registration? Thanks in advance.

Apparently no one here lives close to LA? The federal court records for LA are also stored at the National Archives in LA. It is not too handy for me to pop in there as it is a wee bit of a drive from here (SD).

 

[coazon de oro]

Oroblanco,

To further what you have said consider the 1864 Arizona Territory census taken at Ft. Whipple (Prescott) on which Jacob Waltz is counted.

Waltz is on page A037 and is number 1008.
Age: 54
Single
Where Born: Germany
How long resident (Az): 2 years
If Not a Native when Naturalized: Not
If Not Naturalized and Claims to be a Citizen, by What Right: Blank
Occupation: Miner
Real Estate: Blank
Personal ($): Blank
Remarks: Blank

Waltz answered he was NOT naturalized on this 1864 census. Even though it is commonly believed he applied for citizenship at Natchez in 1848 and received citizenship at Los Angeles in 1861.
The only conclusion one can come to is the Dutchman Waltz was not the Waltz at Natchez and Los Angeles.

Here is that 1864 AZ Territory census. I cannot make it any larger.

View attachment 1807573

Howdy Mr. Roberts,

The Jacob Waltz of the July 19, 1861 Los Angeles citizenship application clearly seems to be the Dutchman. For one, his signature matches his known signatures from Arizona, and it is not Walz either.

As Jim points out, the July 19 stays the same on other documents indicating others made a mistake on the year as they wrote down information. Jim also points out that the date was right in the first three elections. It would be a heck of a coincidence if another Jacob Waltz filed for citizenship in Phoenix in July 19 of any year. I am willing to bet there is no such application in the Phoenix archives.

What I wanted to add is that on the 1864 Arizona Territory Census, the question is "If not a native when naturalized". So in my honest opinion, Waltz answered "Not", meaning he was not a native when he was naturalized. Mr. Davis claims Waltz answered "Nat" meaning that he was naturalized. Even though the o may look like an a, the question is not whether he was naturalized, but rather if he was a native when he was naturalized.

Homar

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Can you post a photo of that first voter registration? Thanks in advance.

Already done, see my post #58. If you still have your Ancestry.com account, all of the Great Registry’s I referenced are there. Not sure if they can be found online anywhere else? If not, I can e-mail them all to you.

 

[PotBelly Jim]

To further beat a long dead horse, as the swaybacked crittur deserves it, my own last name was Anglicized for no good reason almost 100 years after my family arrived in Penn in 1736. They were literate, not running from the law or anyone else, as they were prominent farmers who could easily be found. In fact, the ancestor who changed it had his mother living with him for years, who still used the old way of spelling it. My wife's name, however, WAS changed by immigration officials when her ancestor arrived from Scotland in Savannah. Totally changed the spelling to "phonetic English" and it hardly resembles the original spelling. That change has stuck from then to this day.

I can't emphasize enough that the German spelling of Jacob is regional. There is NO SINGLE GERMAN way to spell it. In 1810 it was Jakob in Baden, it was Jacob in Wurttemburg, now it's Baden-Wurttemburg! And I would add that the surviving descendants of the the Abstatt Walz's, who have never left Germany, spell their last name as "Waltz" today. And that's a fact.

No number of personal anecdotes, opinions, internet searches, etc. on how names evolved is going to prove one way or another whether Abstatt Waltz is Phoenix Waltz. So can we please stop the madness on this name thing?

 

[Gregory E. Davis]

Good morning PotBelly Jim: Question: Since when has it become "Madness" to discuss a question on this forum so long as it STICKS to the SUBJECT? Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Good morning PotBelly Jim: Question: Since when has it become "Madness" to discuss a question on this forum so long as it STICKS to the SUBJECT? Cordially, Gregory E. Davis

Good Morning, Greg. It was a figure of speech. If people want to spin in endless circles trying to exactly quantify something that by its very nature is not exact, such as the spelling of a name at a time and place when it was not consistent, I don't really have a problem with it. Was just pointing out that it's an exercise in futility.

People can post whatever they want, and as far as that goes I could care less if it "sticks to the subject" or not. It's not up to me or any one other member to decide, I would rather leave that up to the mods.

EDIT: That was awful grumpy and I apologize. Please ignore my request to move on from names, if it interests people I sure don't want to squash discussion. I'm off to the penalty box. Please do continue, as Oro says.

 

[Oroblanco]

Already done, see my post #58. If you still have your Ancestry.com account, all of the Great Registry’s I referenced are there. Not sure if they can be found online anywhere else? If not, I can e-mail them all to you.

Thanks I had already forgotten it, and yes I can pull it up via the Ancestry dot com site.

Please do continue, or ditto to what Jim just posted above!

 

[cw0909]

found this,but had to cut and paste the column headers
as copying whole pg was either to big or to small for
a jpg/png file. links below to the pgs i copied
i red lined the waltz ifno
my 6month membership has ran out @ ancestry, i think
i can still access the indexes, maybe ill have a look
in a few days.ancestry may have a copy of this too.

a copy of The 1864 census of the territory of Arizona.
The Historical records survey, Division of women's and
professional projects, Works progress administration.
1938
pg links to imgs
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086976902&view=1up&seq=220

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086976902&view=1up&seq=221

full record
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001306853

 

[Idahodutch]

I have a question, that sounds stupid, but here it goes;
- On this 1864 census, Waltz' age listed as 54. Lets say just for fun, he was born November 2, 1810. It looks like maybe this 1864 census was done before November 2, 1864.
* Question is did the census takers ask "Age" or "Year of Birth", because if this Waltz said he was 54 to the census taker, wouldn't he have been born in 1809? or his birthday was not in November?
Idaho Dutch

 

[Idahodutch]

I have a question, that sounds stupid, but here it goes;
- On this 1864 census, Waltz' age listed as 54. Lets say just for fun, he was born November 2, 1810. It looks like maybe this 1864 census was done before November 2, 1864.
* Question is did the census takers ask "Age" or "Year of Birth", because if this Waltz said he was 54 to the census taker, wouldn't he have been born in 1809? or his birthday was not in November?
Idaho Dutch

Maybe it was like was said earlier in this thread, that sometimes, others gave information to the census takers about those out working, but not present?
Edit: at least I think it was this thread

 

[PotBelly Jim]

I have a question, that sounds stupid, but here it goes;
- On this 1864 census, Waltz' age listed as 54. Lets say just for fun, he was born November 2, 1810. It looks like maybe this 1864 census was done before November 2, 1864.
* Question is did the census takers ask "Age" or "Year of Birth", because if this Waltz said he was 54 to the census taker, wouldn't he have been born in 1809? or his birthday was not in November?
Idaho Dutch

Yep, you got it right. It was done in April. Have you looked at all the censuses he's on? I think you'll find it pretty consistent. I don't know how the census takers asked the question, but for some reason I've found this happened all the time, not just for Waltz. Take a look at others on the census whose age/DOB is known.