My initial post about this 1860 census entry went out before the final edit on the post was complete was complete. Instead of editing and rewriting the post after it has already gone “live,” I’m posting a followup and linking to it.
I was focusing on Phillip Pipher as a potential sibling to Barbara and did not adequately edit the material on Frances.
The household contains a 12 year old male listed as Frances Haas.
I am of the mind that this Frances Haase is actually a reference to Frances Bieger, daughter of Barbara Haase by her first husband, Peter Bieger. I’m not certain why the gender is incorrect and can only attribute it to enumerator error. Louisa is an obvious reference to Louisa/Louise Bieger, another daughter of Barbara by her first husband, Peter Bieger. It seems reasonable that Frances and Louise would be enumerated under their step-father’s last name.
Guardianship records for Frances and Louise Bieger indicate they were both born in 1851 or after.
There is no evidence to support a Haase child for Conrad before the child Lena who appears in the 1860 enumeration. Family tradition (which admittedly isn’t “good” evidence as tradition can cut a variety of ways and people do not have to be married to reproduce) is that Conrad was never married before his marriage to Barbara in 1859. Conrad’s will lists no child other than Lena and three others he and Barbara had after Lena. The order finding heirs after his death lists those same three children. Of course he could have had children who died before he did.
It seems fairly logical that this Frances is Barbara’s daughter.
The only other reference to Francis/Frances Haase in Hancock County, Illinois, is the 1868 marriage record of Frances Haase to John Michael Trautvetter. This Frances is clearly the daughter of Peter Bieger and Barbara (Siefert) Bieger (later Haase) as evidenced by a variety of records.
This whole thing has got me to thinking about how I should spell Frances’ first name. But that’s another blog post.