Matrilocality … and Bullers 3b

We know that, upon marrying Margaretha Epp, our ancestor Peter P Buller immediately moved to her family farm, a clear instance of matrilocality. We wondered what could possibly have prompted him to do this, given the fact that his own family, the children of Peter D and Sarah Siebert Buller, already farmed a quarter section (160 acres). Although we may never know the precise reason for Peter and Margaretha’s decision to live with her parents, doing so must have seemed more promising to them than casting their lot with his parents—if that was even an option.

This raises the question of why Margaretha, the eleventh child born to Cornelius and Katharina Epp, was so fortunate as to have the opportunity to take over or acquire the family farm. As before, we cannot know for certain, but we do gain some interesting insight in our investigation of this mystery.

Why was Margaretha able to acquire the Epp farm?

We should start with some basic facts:

1. Both of Margaretha’s parents were still living when she married Peter P in early 1890. Her father Cornelius Epp died four years later, on 3 November 1894; her mother Katharina Tieszen Epp less than two years after that, on 2 March 1896. Both are buried in the Buller (Mennonite) cemetery just to the south of their farm, where so many of are family also have been laid to rest. We note that both parents were living at the time of Peter and Margaretha’s marriage simply to make the point that there was no lack of parental ownership of the farm. Peter and Margaretha moved in with her parents, or so it seems; they did not replace them.

2. As mentioned several times, Margaretha was the eleventh child born to Cornelius and Katharina (they had thirteen children total); also worth noting is that probably six of Margaretha’s siblings had already died when she married Peter. We know that three died in Russia, and at least two (possibly three) died in the U.S. before Margaretha married Peter in 1890 (the children who died were Gerhard, Cornelius I, Katharina, Elizabeth, Anna, and probably David). Counting Margaretha, this left seven children of Cornelius and Katharina who could have laid claim to the Epp family farm.

3. The oldest son, Heinrich, was one of the original settlers of the Henderson area, so he had a farm before anyone else in his family. His story is worth recounting in a bit more detail. Heinrich married Sarah Friesen back in Molotschsna colony, and they and their son Cornelius were among the first Mennonite groups to arrive in the U.S. (in New York on the S.S. Teutonia, 3 September 1874). To be clear, Heinrich arrived in the U.S. three years before his parents and other unmarried siblings. That Heinrich immediately secured a farm is evident on the map below, which shows the locations of the farms of the first Mennonite settlers. In the section northwest of the red arrow (which points to the location of Henderson), the name Henry C Epp is written in the northwest quarter, which is the same person as Heinrich, Margaretha’s older brother. (Section 11 in the lower right corner of the map was to become home to the rest of the Cornelius and Katharina Epp family three years later, in 1877; in the lower left corner, section 12 became home to Peter D and Sarah two years after that.)

****

Not to pursue a rabbit trail too far, but Smith’s The Coming of the Russian Mennonites may confuse or conflate Henry C Epp and the Reverend Henry H Epp, who emigrated to the U.S. on the same voyage as Henry C and who also settled near Henderson. If you look closely, you can make out “Rev Henry Epp” in the lower panel, the east half of section 9. This is a minor matter, but those who read Smith’s book should keep in mind that the reference to “Rev. Heinrich Epp, of Elizabethal” as one of Henderson’s founding families is to the Reverend Henry Epp who lived south of Henderson (1927, 1974). The following photo of “Heinrich Epp, Founder of the Henderson, Neb.. Colony,” is perhaps of Henry C Epp (Margaretha’s brother), who lived north of Henderson. Reverend Henry was in his mid-fifties when he arrived in the U.S., with a total of four children (some foster), the youngest of whom was seven. Henry C was in his mid-twenties and had a two-and-a-half-year-old son upon arriving, with a second son born a year later. Given the number and ages of the children in the photo, it seems possible that the photograph is of Henry C Epp than of Reverend Henry Epp.

****

The point we do not want to miss in all that is that Heinrich was already established on his own farm, so he would not have felt any need to acquire his parents’ farm.

4. Margaretha’s two living older sisters married before she did, both to a son of Johann and Katharina Siebert, the parents of our own ancestor Sarah Siebert Buller. Elisabeth married Johann J Siebert, and Maria married his younger brother Kornelius. We do not know for certain that both brothers had their own land, although a 1911 plat map shows Cornelius Epp as owner of the quarter to the southwest of the Epp/Peter P farm. One would think that the older Johann J Siebert (the son) also had his own farm, but I cannot verify that.

5. This leaves brothers Cornelius, Peter, and Nicolas (Claus) Epp as Margaretha’s remaining siblings who might have taken over the family farm. Cornelius married in 1880, ten years before Margaretha; where he lived or what he did before his death in the Henderson area in 1918 I do not know.

Peter and Claus take us down a different rabbit trail. At some point they both left the Henderson area for new territory. According to the Grandma database, Claus married nine months after Margaretha, remained in the Henderson area for five years, then “migrated to a homestead in the Schmidtsberg area south of Waldheim, (N.W.T.) Saskatchewan. In 1902 they moved to the Carsen School district northwest of Hepburn, Saskatchewan and a few years later to Langham, Saskatchewan, where Claus died.” For Peter, Grandma reports that he was married six years before Margaretha and that he died in Langham, Saskatchewan, on 31 August 1935. Interestingly, Cornelius’s widow also died in Langham; clearly, a number of the Epp family ended up there (on Langham, Saskatchewan, see further here).

What, if any, relation there might be between the move to Canada and possession of the Epp farm is a big question. Perhaps her parents favored Margaretha and wanted her and Peter to move in with them and eventually take over the farm. If so, Peter and Claus may have left for other locales because they could see that there was no available land in the Henderson area. Or, perhaps the timing was simply wrong when Cornelius and Peter married (his parents were not ready to think of turning over the farm to anyone at that point) but right when Margaretha and Peter P married.

Whatever the explanation for why Margaretha, of the four most likely candidates to take over the Epp farm, was the one who did so, we can draw two important conclusions. First, it was not assumed, as we might have thought previously, that control of the farm would be given to a son; in this case three sons were apparently passed over (for whatever reason) as the land was made available to a daughter. Second, this arrangement required a matrilocal marriage, as Peter P left his family and joined both his wife and her parents on the farm that they had settled when they first emigrated to the U.S.

Looking ahead, this was not the last instance of a Buller adopting a matrilocal practice. At least one more remains to be mentioned, and other related practices have yet to be explored.

Source Cited

Smith, C. Henry. 1927. The Coming of the Russian Mennonites: An Episode in the Settling of the Last Frontier, 1874–1884. Berne, IN. : Mennonite Book Concern. Available online here.

Matrilocality … and Bullers 3a

Like father, like son—or so one might surmise from the next instance of Buller matrilocality that we will consider. Just as Peter D lived near or with his wife Sarah Siebert’s family after they married, so also their son Peter P lived with or near his wife Margaretha Epp’s family once they married.

The evidence for this is found in the Buller Family Record, where Aunts Sarah and Maria state that “in August 1936 the parents moved to Ontario, California. Mother had lived on the farm home near Lushton, Nebraska, for fifty-nine years, then in Ontario, California, until her death in 1951” (Peter P page). If by 1936 Margaretha had lived on the farm home for fifty-nine years, then she began living there in 1877—which is consistent with the fact that six-year-old Margaretha and most of her family immigrated to the U.S. in the summer of 1877 (arriving in Philadelphia aboard the S.S. Vaderland on 29 June 1877).

If Margaretha lived fifty-nine years on the Epp farm 4 miles east of Henderson—and, by implication, nowhere else—we can reasonably conclude that Peter P moved to that same farm when they married on 27 February 1890. As with Peter D, what we see is the textbook definition of matrilocality. That much is clear. What is less obvious is (1) why Peter P moved to his in-laws’ farm instead of staying with his own family and (2) why Margaretha, the eleventh child of Cornelius and Katharina Epp, had the opportunity to live on the family farm and eventually take possession of it. We will do our best to explore these questions fully yet carefully, without engaging in too much speculation.

Why did Peter P practice matrilocality?

It was relatively clear why Peter D lived with Sarah Siebert’s family a generation earlier: her family owned and farmed land; Peter D’s family did not. That was not the case with Peter P and Margaretha. Peter P’s father purchased 80 acres shortly after the family arrived in the Henderson area, and when Peter and Margaretha married he was in the process of homesteading an additional 80 acres adjoining the original plot. In other words, Peter P’s father Peter D did own land that would potentially be available for one of the children to buy and farm at some point.

Further complicating the picture is the fact that Peter P did eventually own (or so it seems) the entire 160 acres of the family farm. The 1916 plat map shown below clearly lists Peter Buller as owner of the northeast quarter of section 12 in the Farmers Valley Township in Hamilton County. Even if we are somehow misunderstanding who actually owned the property, one thing is clear: Peter P Buller (his father Peter D died in 1897) controlled and farmed the entire quarter.

The point of highlighting this in this context is simple: Peter P clearly had the opportunity later to acquire the family farm, so why did he move to Margaretha’s family farm when they were married? That part of the question we may never know. Perhaps the couple felt that their chances of acquiring the Buller farm were slim (there were nine other living children in the family, and Peter had an older brother Johann) and they chose to follow a more promising course (the Epp farm). We should recall that Peter D was only forty-five when Peter P and Margaretha married, and no one could have known that he would die a mere seven years later. Whatever led Peter P and Margaretha to choose her family farm over his, we do know that they moved there when they married and lived there until they moved to California forty-six years later.

The question of why Margaretha, the eleventh child of Cornelius and Katharina Epp, alone of all her siblings, or so it seems, had the opportunity to live on the family farm and eventually take possession of it is another intriguing question. This will require us to explore Margaretha’s family history a bit, which we will do in a subsequent post. Suffice it to say for now that Peter P and Margaretha Epp, like Peter D and Sarah Siebert, practiced matrilocality, perhaps for essentially the same reason: to ensure access to farmland that would support their families in the years to come.

C. Henry Smith, The Coming of the Russian Mennonites

I recently received an interesting book written by an early and (as far as I know; please correct me if you know otherwise) generally reliable Mennonite historian: C. Henry Smith. A professor of history at several Mennonite schools and colleges (e.g.,  Elkhart Institute, Goshen College, Bethel College, Bluffton College), Smith wrote a number of works about the Mennonites, including:

• The Mennonites: A Brief History of Their Origin and Later Development in both Europe and America (Berne, IN: Mennonite Book Concern, 1920). Available online here.


• The Mennonites of America (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1909). Available online here.

Both of those more well-known works are worth reading more than once; I suspect the same will be true of a book I only recently discovered: Smith’s The Coming of the Russian Mennonites: An Episode in the Settling of the Last Frontier, 1874–1884 (Berne, IN. : Mennonite Book Concern, 1927).

The table of contents lists the following chapters:

1. The Ancestral Home in Prussia
2. A Century in the Land of the Czars
3. Spying out the Promised Land
4. A Petition That Miscarried
5. Beginning the Great Trek
6. Lending a Helping Hand
7. Establishing Frontier Homes: Kansas
8. Establishing Frontier Homes: Dakota—Minnesota—Nebraska
9. Establishing Frontier Homes: Manitoba
10. Transplanting a Bit of Russia
11. The Little Red School House
12. The Organized Church
13. Keeping the Faith

As far as I can tell, no Bullers are mentioned in the book—but at least one member of our family is both mentioned (p. 175) and pictured (opposite p. 100): the Reverend Isaac Peters, Grandma Malinda’s great-grandfather (see further here).

One other intriguing lead appears on page 174 and the photo opposite. Mention is made of Heinrich Epp of Elizabeththal (Molotschna), and the caption under his photo identifies him as the founder of the Henderson “Colony” (i.e., village). What is interesting is that it appears (this is only a hunch for now that awaits further investigation) that Heinrich Epp was the older brother of our own ancestor, Margaretha Epp Buller, that is, wife of Peter P. If this proves to be the case, then not only will we have learned a little more about our own broader family (the Epp part), but we will also gain greater insight into another instance of Buller matrilocality.

But enough talking about the book; it is far better to read the book. Thanks to U.S. copyright law, anyone reading this blog can also read the book for free. The Coming of the Russian Mennonites was published in the U.S. in 1927, so it is now in the public domain. That means it is legal for us all to read a scan of my copy, now converted into a handy (although large) PDF file. If you want to read the book for yourself, feel free to download it to your computer or device and read it on your preferred app. The 41 MB file has been posted and will remain accessible here. Beatus lectio!

Matrilocality … and Bullers 2

Recently we have been looking at our family history in the light of social anthropology, as a way of filling in possible details and adding nuance to what we know about our ancestors. First we learned that Mennonite inheritance was typically bilateral and partible, meaning that female and male children shared equally as heirs to their parents, often by means of the inheritable portion of an estate being divided up (or partitioned). The offered us some insight into the disposition of Peter D Buller’s estate both after his passing as well as that of his wife Sarah some years later.

After exploring Mennonite inheritance practices we turned to matrilocality, an arrangement in which a husband resides with or near his wife’s parents. We noted in the previous post that matrilocality was fairly common in Mennonite circles, since it provided young couples the best chance of having land of their own to farm. That is, access to adequate farmland did not depend solely on the husband and his family; often the wife was the landed member of the pair, in which case the husband would live with or near her family.

This raises the question, of course, whether any of our ancestors practiced matrilocality. The answer, for those who have been paying attention these past years, is an unambiguous yes. Bullers practiced matrilocality early and often. Can you name the first known Buller couple to do so? The answer is revealed below the map.

The map shows roughly the central part of Molotschna colony, which is a helpful clue to the answer to our question. If you recall, David and Helena Zielke Buller and their family lived in the village of Waldheim (northeast corner). Their son Peter D married one Sarah Siebert, whose father Johann not only lived in but also owned farmland tied to the village of Kleefeld (southwest corner). Any guesses where Peter D and Sarah lived?

Of course, we already know the answer. According to the Buller Family Record, Peter D and Sarah first lived in Kleefeld, then moved to Alexanderkrone immediately to the east (this is where Peter P, Grandpa Chris’s father, was born in 1869), then moved back to Kleefeld in 1871 to live with Johann and his wife Katherina and the rest of the family, until they all emigrated to the U.S. in 1879.

This is as clear an instance of matrilocality as one might want. To our knowledge, Peter D and Sarah never lived near or with his parents; they always lived with or near Sarah’s parents. Although we can never know definitively why they did so, it seems fairly likely that it was somehow related to Johann and Katherina’s landedness. Peter D’s father David was landless until at least three years after Peter D and Sarah married (see here), and when he finally did acquire land it was only a half-Wirtschaft (plot) 88 acres in size—barely enough for one family, let alone multiple families.

Johann Siebert, on the other hand, owned a full Wirtschaft of 176 acres, and he and his family owned their own house with ample area for a garden and, in all likelihood, a barn for the livestock that were taken to the village pastureland whenever possible.

We should also not forget that Sarah was the oldest child in her family, as likely a candidate as any to be given first chance to acquire the family farm, should both her parents die early. If, as it turned out, Johann and Katherina lived for a number of years, Sarah and Peter D still would have shelter, plenty to eat, and meaningful employment assisting with the Siebert family farm.

In light of all this evidence, it seems safe to conclud that Peter D and Sarah practiced matrilocality in order to provide themselves and their family access to land. Whether land-driven matrilocality became a pattern with our family or was an anomaly will be explored in subsequent posts.

Matrilocality … and Bullers

An earlier post referred in passing to matrilocality being relatively common in Mennonite circles. Matrilocality is a label social anthropologists use to describe a marital arrangement in which a husband resides with or near his wife’s parents. (As a side note, some biblical interpreters see this practice reflected in Gen 2.24’s statement about a man leaving his father and mother and clinging to his wife.)

Both the extent of matrilocality and the manner in which it is applied varies from society to society, time to time, and even situation to situation. In some societies matrilocality is the norm; in others, such as among our Mennonite ancestors, it was an option but not a universal expectation. Further, matrilocality is more common among agriculture-based families than among those who no longer depend upon accessible land for their financial survival (i.e., most grandchildren of Chris and Malinda Buller). Finally, in some cases matrilocality involves the younger couple living in the same house as the wife’s parents, while in other instances the couple leaves nearby on land or in a house provided by the wife’s parents.

Royden Loewen’s Hidden Worlds: Revisiting the Mennonite Migrants of the 1870s offers a number of interesting examples of matrilocality and insightful explanations of its significance for both individuals and the Mennonite community at large. We can do no better than to read Loewen’s own words before exploring how the practice of matrilocality was enacted within our own family.

Loewen begins by laying out the conditions underlying the practice of matrilocality, namely, the continuation of partible, bilateral inheritance practices in North America:

Other evidence, such as land ownership among Mennonite women in Jefferson County, Nebraska [i.e., Fairbury area], supports the idea that midwestern Mennonites transplanted not only partible inheritance, but also bilateral inheritance practices. … In Jefferson County, Nebraska, for example, fifteen of the eighty Mennonite landowners in Cub Creek Township [Jansen area] in 1900 were women and only one of these women was widowed. (Loewen 2001, 42) 

Loewen then moves from the general to a particular instance of the inheritance practices:

An even closer examination of an individual household suggests it was the Mennonite inheritance practices that enabled this.  In 1891, just after the death of his first wife, fifty-nine-year-old Jakob Klassen divested himself of 200 acres, almost half his total acreage. The land was divided equally among his youngest five children, ages thirteen to twenty-nine, including a fourteen-year-old daughter, Sara. His eldest daughter, Katherina, who had received her share of land shortly after her marriage in 1879, received nothing. In 1896, when Klassen retired, he turned over his remaining 300 acres to his children, giving a piece to each child, including his two daughters. (Loewen 2001, 42) 

Loewen explains elsewhere (2001, 38) that inheritance designated for minor children was held in trust and did not become a child’s possession until her or his twenty-first birthday. The point that must not be missed is that both female and male children received the same inheritance. Why was this important? Loewen continues:

The significance of this was that the Klassen daughters of Jeffereson County secured matrilocal households. Inherited land attracted the husbands of the Klassen sisters to settle on the western side of the township in the Klassen village of Neuanlage. Tax and census records for 1900 show that while both Abram Rempel and Isaak Friesen, the two husbands, were residents of Cub Creek, they owned no land. A letter from 1896 states that at least one of these men, Abram Rempel, “at the present is living on his wife’s land near her parents.” (Loewen 2001, 42–43)

The practice of these Nebraska Mennonites was fundamentally no different from those of Mennonites farther north in Canada. Later in Hidden Worlds Loewen recounts the practices of Mennonites in two communities—Hanover, Manitoba, and Waterloo, Ontario—showing both their similarites and some differences. In the process he brings to several new considerations that might inform our own view of Buller inheritance and residency practices:

The consequence of [bilaterality] in Ontario was similar to its consequence in Manitoba. In both places, a single household secured two avenues, through the husband’s line or through the wife’s, by which to accrue land. Matrilocality in both Manitoba and Ontario was evidence that men often relied on the inheritance of their wives to help establish an independent household. The bride’s patrimony may have been the reason why farmer Cornelius Plett’s eldest son, Heinrich, settled in the village of his wife, Elisabeth Reimer, in 1889. Not only was Elisabeth in line to receive a 325-ruble inheritance from Russia, but her father, Reverend Peter Reimer, was also one of the wealthiest men in her village. This practice was especially frequent when men hailed from poorer households than their wives. (Loewen 2001, 80)

Loewen continues:

In Ontario, the bilateral system had one consequence not seen in Manitoba. Unlike Hanover women, Waterloo women sometimes remained single, but in their unwed state they also sometimes aided men in establishing farms. When David Bergey, for example, sought to raise the $7300 required for the 100-acre land purchase in 1900, he turned to his [unmarried] sister, Lydia, for $1100, and to two other women for an additional $4800, thus raising more than 80 percent of the required money from women. Most often, however, women used their inheritance to help establish their own households. As in Manitoba, there were signs of this practice in matrilocal residence patterns. In 1882, for example, farmer Ephraim Cressman moved to Breslau, the home of his wife, Susannah Betzner. In the following years, at least two of Cressman’s brothers, Allen and Isaiah, actually moved onto farms owned by their wives’s parents. (Loewen 2001, 80–81)

Loewen’s examples and interpretations are rich and deserve a closer examination than we can give them in this already-long post. For the time being, then, let us sum up what we have learned thus far: Mennonites’s partible, bilateral inheritance practices created the conditions in which matrilocality became not only acceptable but also fairly common. This, of course, raises the following question: Which Bullers practiced matrilocality and why?

Source Cited

Loewen, Royden. 2001. Hidden Worlds: Revisiting the Mennonite Migrants of the 1870s. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Partible, bilateral inheritance … and Bullers 3

In the first post of this series we learned that typical Mennonite inheritance practices were partible and bilateral. The latter term indicates that all children regardless of their gender were treated equally in the division of a parent’s estate: each child received an equal share. The partible aspect supported the bilateral one: an estate was partitioned or divided into shares, so that each heir received her or his rightful part. In many cases a surviving spouse was granted half of the deceased spouse’s estate, and the rest was divided between the children.

The second post explored how those practices may have been worked out after the death of Peter D Buller in 1897: it appeared at first glance that Peter D’s son Peter P bought the farmland that was part of the children’s half of the estate and, at some point, the remainder that had passed on to his mother Sarah Siebert Buller.

After a brief detour (excursus) identifying Peter D as the homesteader of the south 80 acres of farm, we are ready to consider yet another curious piece of evidence: a 1923 plat map of Farmers Valley in Hamilton County.

The writing is small and difficult to make out, so let’s focus in on the northeast quarter of section 12.

The 1916 plat map showed Peter Buller as owner of the entire quarter. However, seven years later, in 1923, not only does Peter not own the quarter, but ownership of the quarter has been divided, with H. B. Alger owning 120 acres and Mrs. J. Penner the northeast 40 acres. Notice further that Mrs. John Penner also owned the 80 acres to the west of the former Buller farm, and in 1916 that 80 acres had been owned by John Penner, the obvious conclusion being that he died in the interim.

What is curious is not that the land was sold nor that a neighbor (Mrs. John Penner) bought it; what is striking is that the farm was not sold as a unit. If, in fact, Peter P owned the entire 160 acres, one would expect him to have sold it as an undivided unit. It is certainly not impossible that he divided up his land and sold 75 percent of it to one person and 25 percent to another; it is simply a little odd.

One further consideration deserves mention: Sarah Siebert died 15 February 1922, that is, a year before the 1923 plat map was made. Is it possible that Sarah still owned the land (perhaps “owning” and “holding title” were not identical then?) and that the division took place as part of the distribution of her estate? To be clear, there is no direct evidence supporting this notion and plenty of evidence (the 1916 plat map) calling it into question. However, it is an intriguing thought.

If Sarah retained title to half of the 160-acre farm when her husband Peter D died, she would have had property (perhaps the north 80) that could be divided (partible), liquidated, and distributed to all ten children (bilateral). This would provide a plausible explanation for the division of the land, with Mrs. John Penner buying a 40-acre plot.

Without conducting a land title history for the northeast quarter of section 12, we cannot know the course of events with any certainty. At the moment, therefore, we should probably keep the issue of what happened to the farm after Peter D’s passing an open question.

Excursus: Which Peter homesteaded?

It occurs to me that the identity of the Peter Buller who in 1893 homesteaded the south 80 acres of the northeast quarter of section 12 has been right before our eyes all along. Follow along …

Homesteading was open to any U.S. citizen or person who had filed intent to become a citizen who was at least twenty-one years of age or head of a household, provided that the potential homesteader had never taken up arms against the U.S. If a person met these qualifications, he or she could gain ownership of a specified piece of farmland upon fulfillment of a few conditions, the most important of which were that the homesteader had to live on the land and farm it for five years.

Based on our knowledge of these requirements and the evidence of the Peter Buller homestead grant below (this is the grant, the transfer of deed, not an application), we can determine which Peter was our family’s homesteader. Look closely at the homestead grant below, and see if you can determine the answer to our question.

The key piece of evidence is the date of the grant recorded toward the bottom: “the twenty first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and [‘eighty’ crossed out] ninety three.” In simpler terms, the date was 21 January 1893.

According to Ancestry.com (here), the process of securing a homestead involved several steps: (1) a potential homesteader filed an application at the nearest district Land Office; (2) this started the clock ticking for the residency, improvement, and cultivation requirements; (3) after the five-year period of initial homesteading was completed, the homesteader returned to the Land Office, signed an affidavit attesting and provided documentation proving the fulfillment of the conditions; (4) the Land Office officials then forwarded to the General Land Office in Washington, DC, the completed documents for final approval and the creation of the official grant, one copy of which was for government archives and the other for the recipient of the grant; this last action officially transferred title to the land to the homesteader.

What we see pictured above is the approved and signed transfer of title of the 80 acres to one Peter Buller and, we read, “to his heirs and assigns forever.” Since the grant was made in early 1893, the application must have been made at least five years before that. In all likelihood, it was made a little more than five years prior, so sometime in 1887.

Peter D’s son Peter P was eighteen years old and unmarried in 1887 (he and Margaretha married in 1890), so he would not have been eligible even to apply for a homestead. Remember from above that only those twenty-one or the head of a household could apply. This demonstrates conclusively that Peter D (the father) was the one who homesteaded the land.

One additional piece of evidence confirms this. When Peter P and Margaretha Epp married, they lived on her parents’ farm (the Epp farm) 4 miles east of Henderson. Even if Peter P had been able to apply for a homestead in 1887, he certainly did not fulfill the five-year residency requirement. Within three years of the homestead application being filed, Peter P and family lived elsewhere.

Now we know which Peter Buller homesteaded the south 80 acres of the northeast quarter in section 12 in Farmers Valley Township of Hamilton County: it was Peter D. Based on this, we can draw two more conclusions:

1. Peter D’s estate included all his personal items and the entire 160 acres of the original Buller farm. Presumably half of that was transferred to Sarah Siebert Buller upon Peter D’s passing and the other half sold (to Peter P), with the proceeds distributed equally among Peter D’s ten living children.

2. Peter D did become a U.S. citizen, or at least file the intent to do so, no later than 1887. Nearly two years ago we wondered if Peter D ever became a U.S. citizen (see here). Now we know that he did.

Partible, bilateral inheritance … and Bullers 2

The previous post described the general contours of Mennonite inheritance practices, then read about the enactment of those practices within a particular context: the Chortitza colony in Russia during the 1870s. This post picks up where we left off and and asks in what ways, if at all, this knowledge of the typical Mennonite approach to inheritance might fill out our understanding of our family history.

It should be admitted from the outset that much of what follows is speculative, since we are trying to piece together snippets of information within the context of what we now know regarding Mennonite inheritance practices. With that fair warning, let us start with the first possible inheritance situation in the U.S.

As is well known, having been recorded in the Buller Family Record (BFR) and all, Peter D Buller died at the youngish age of fifty-two, on 28 September 1897. At that time, it appears that he owned 160 acres of farmland in the northeast corner of section 12 in Farmers Valley township of Hamilton County (see below). The BFR reports that Peter D purchased 80 acres of that farm shortly after he and Sarah (Siebert) and their children arrived in Nebraska, and we earlier learned that an additional 80 (the south half of the quarter) was added in January 1893 via the Homestead Act (for earlier posts on both topics, see here and here). Since the Homestead document does not include a middle initial (see here), we do not know whether Peter D or Peter P homesteaded the second 80 acres.

When Peter D died in 1897, he had ten living children (ages in parentheses): Johann (29), Peter P (28; our ancestor), Katharina (26*), David S (23), Cornelius P (21), Sarah (20), Jacob P (18), Heinrich P (15), Abraham P (13), and Maria M (7; an earlier daughter Maria had died as an infant). Given what we learned about Mennonite inheritance practices applies, we would assume that half of the farm was transferred to Peter D’s widow Sarah and the other half sold, either to one of the children or a third party, with each child receiving a tenth of that sale price (i.e., the total was divided equally among ten children: seven males and three females).

If that is what happened, it is not reflected in the plat map above. This 1916 map—so nineteen years after Peter D’s death—shows that Peter Buller owned the entire northeast quarter of section 12. How this came about we do not (yet) know. Several explanations seem possible:

• If Peter P (the son) was the Peter who homesteaded the south half of the quarter, his ownership of that portion would be reflected on the plat map. Of course, that still does not explain how the north 80 acres came into his possession.


• It is possible that (1) Peter P bought the estate half of his father’s farm (paying his siblings their share of the purchase price) and (2) later purchased the other half of the farm from his mother Sarah. This would explain how Peter came to own the entire quarter while his mother was still alive (Sarah lived until early 1922).


• It is conceivable, although probably unlikely, that the listing of “Peter Buller” on the plat map is not completely accurate, that Peter farmed the entire quarter but did not own it all, part of it being legally owned by his mother.

Other considerations complicate the matter further. We will touch upon one here and leave the other to a subsequent post. By 1916 Peter P and family (including Grandpa Chris) were living 4 miles east of Henderson on the Epp farm. They had been for quite a while, probably since 1890, when Peter P and Margaretha married and moved there. (Recall that the BFR states that Margaretha lived on that farm for fifty-nine years before she and Peter moved to California in 1936.)

Since Peter P and family already lived 4 miles east of Henderson, if he purchased the Peter D farm from the estate (other children) and then from his mother, it was not for a place to live but rather to increase his land holdings. If this is what transpired, one cannot help but be impressed that twenty-eight-year-old Peter not only farmed but also owned more than a half-section of land (see the 1911 plat map in this post).

This calls to mind another possibility to consider before we end this post:

• Perhaps Peter and Margaretha used their Epp farm as collateral for a loan to buy the Peter Buller estate and Sarah portions. This would explain how a young and growing family (they had three children in 1897) were able to acquire a significant amount of land.

What do we know thus far? Peter P apparently came into possession of at least part of the family farm a mile west of Henderson when his father Peter D passed away in 1897. It seems that sometime after that Peter P also purchased his mother’s half of the Peter D estate—assuming that Mennonite custom was followed in the distribution of the estate (it probably was).

To be honest, we have as many questions as answers at this point, including:

• Which Peter (father or son) homesteaded the south half of the quarter?
• Why did Peter purchase the land rather than one of his siblings?
• When did Sarah sell her portion of the estate and to whom?
• For how long did Peter own the Buller farm, and to whom did he sell it?

We will explore those questions in several subsequent posts. Whether or not we are able to arrive at any definitive answers remains to be seen.

Note
* Peter D died on Katharina’s twenty-sixth birthday.

Partible, bilateral inheritance … and Bullers

In an intriguing chapter titled “‘If Joint Heirs of Grace, How Much More of Temporal Goods?’: Inheritance and Community Formation,” Royden Loewen discusses the community-building effect that traditional Mennonite inheritance practices played among the groups who immigrated to North American in the 1870s. In the process, he identifies two aspects of those practices (and other social realities) and discusses them from a sociological perspective.

Although we should not presume that the precise practices identified were applied uniformly in all Mennonite contexts of every time and place, we can perhaps gain some insight into our own family history by considering what we have previously learned from this sociological angle.

Loewen writes:

Mennonites carried to North America in the 1870s a culture of bilateral partible inheritance. “Partibility” meant that the estates were divided, often literally, into fragmented eighty-, forty-, and even twenty-acre parcels. “Bilaterality” meant that both sexes, girls and boys, inherited land equally. (Loewen 2001, 26)

According to Loewn, bilaterality—treating female and male descendants equally in the distribution of inheritance—reflected the Mennonite desire to obey the implications of 1 Peter 3.7: since husbands and wives were joint-heirs in the grace of spiritual life, they should also be joint heirs with regard to the goods of this life. In other words, both female and male children were to receive the same portion as heirs of a departed parent.

The easiest way to accomplish this, of course, was to divide up the estate and to give each heir an equal “part.” Of course, theory is always easier than actual practice, which is why the Mennonite impulse toward partible, bilateral inheritance took different shapes in different settings.

In Molotschna and Chortitza, for example, Mennonite partible, bilateral inheritance butted up against the Russian prohibition against dividing up a Wirtschaft (farm plot) that a Mennonite had received from the state. The government did not want the originally established plots (65 dessiantines = 176 acres) to be subdivided again and again into ever-smaller pieces, so they allowed the transfer of only the entire plot, not a portion of it. This rule did not apply to land acquired through other means.

To accommodate these restrictions, Russian Mennonites generally liquidated all the belongings of a deceased person, including his or her land holdings, then distributed the revenue generated by the sale equally among all the children. Thus Harvey L. Dyck writes in his introduction to the diaries of Jacob Epp:

Upon the death of a landholder, a child or outsider purchased the undivided property at a family or village auction. The proceeds of such sale were merged with the other assets of an inheritance and distributed equally among the heirs. This combination of indivisible landholdings and equal division of monetized inheritances had the effect of preserving viable agrarian household economies while diffusing wealth broadly within families. (Dyck 1991,  Kindle 1179–82)

It seems that sale to one of the children was preferred, but sale to someone outside of the family was perfectly acceptable in cases when none of the children was able or willing to purchase the land.

Again, what Dyck describes is a tidy theory; in practice, we can see that there was room for give and take and negotiation. Jacob Epp writes in his diary, for example,

20 April 1873
Friday. This morning Julius Friesen of Friesenthal invited me to their place where his father, Diedr. Friesen, wanted my help in dividing up his wife’s estate among the children. I accepted. …After long discussion an agreement was reached providing for the distribution of 900 desiatinas of his 1385 desiatina estate among his nine adult children, that is, 100 desiatinas for each child. The heirs will receive the land this fall, assuming all related obligations. I made a clean copy of the inheritance contract.

21 April 1873
Saturday. When the time came to sign the agreement today, the children expressed reservations. The inventory of the estate showed that half of the assets were not being divided [as Mennonite inheritance practices required]. The children wanted significantly more [than their father was willing to give]. This grieved the aged father who asked me to follow him into an adjoining room where he sought my advice. He was reluctant to distribute more of his property, but also did not want to be unfair. His children feared he might remarry, I pointed out to him, and that his assets would then pass into the hands of strangers. He had no intention of ever remarrying, he replied, and were he to change his mind he would first distribute a part of his assets to his children, ensuring that they received their rightful share. This undertaking was acceptable to all of the children, who now willingly signed the agreement. Then the witnesses signed: Isaac Zacharias and Gerhard Braun of Neuhausen, Jacob Friesen Sr of Friesenthal, and I. Finally, the deceased mother’s clothes were distributed among the children by lot or sold at auction to the highest bidder.  (Dyck 1991,  Kindle 6614–27)

What should not be overlooked is that the death of the wife/mother precipitated this distribution of inheritance. The husband/father did not simply assume sole ownership of the couple’s joint holdings. Half of those holdings—or at least the value of half of those holdings—were to be distributed to the children as heirs of their mother.

Also worthy of note is the negotiation that took place: the inheritance was not distributed according to some rote formula (life is not that neat); the appointed mediators/witnesses negotiated among the parties until a formal agreement could be drawn up and signed.

Further, this Chortitza inheritance was far larger than the typical Wirtschaft: Diedrich Friesen owned 1,385 dessiantines, or circa 3,750 acres. Obviously, there was no problem dividing that estate, since it had not been granted to him by the government. Moreover, each share was still much larger than the “standard” plot of 65 dessiantines.

In spite of these variation, what Epp describes is a clear example of the principle of bilateral, partible inheritance enacted within the limitations of the Russian law. One last aspect of the Epp account is worthy of special note: Diedrich Friesen promised that, if he ever decided to remarry, he would first distribute his assets to his current children. In other words, they would receive their inheritance while he was still living. This may strike some as a bit awkward if not distasteful, but it does open the window to a reality of Mennonite inheritance that we need to explore further, since it may explain some of what we have observed from one of our own ancestors here in the U.S.

Works Cited

Dyck, Harvey L., ed. and trans. 1991. A Mennonite in Russia: The Diaries of Jacob D. Epp, 1851–1880. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Loewen, Royden. 2001. Hidden Worlds: Revisiting the Mennonite Migrants of the 1870s. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

So much to say, so little time to post

Recently every article or book chapter on Mennonite history that I read sheds some new light on the things we know—but perhaps do not fully understand or appreciate—about our family. The latest source of enlightenment is Royden Loewen’s Hidden Worlds: Revisiting the Mennonite Migrants of the 1870s. More about that book later; for now let me simply tease you with the promise that what Loewen writes about Mennonite inheritance customs (they were biliteral and partible) and marriage practices (matrilocality was common) sheds light on several things that we have observed with Peter D and Peter P. For now, I beg your patience.

Tonight’s post is much lighter fare, courtesy of Kristi Buller (more about her below). She graciously provided Buller Time with a number of photographs, three of which are the main attraction of this post.

We begin with the question of provenance. The clock pictured to the right began its existence in New Russia, probably in the Molotschna colony. To my knowledge, we do not know who built the clock, only that it turned up in Molotschna, eventually in the village of Kleefeld, where Johann and Katharina Siebert and their family (including Peter D and Sarah Siebert Buller plus their children) lived.

Like its owners, it traveled from the Old Country to the New on the S.S. Switzerland. It seems that the clock was the possession of Peter D and Sarah when it traveled to the U.S., but all we know for certain is that, whether before emigration or after, it came into their possession.

Dale and Joanne Buller purchased the clock at a Buller auction a number of years ago, and it now hangs proudly on the wall of their home. Dale is of the line Peter D > Abraham P > Albert Abraham > Dale. Kristi Buller, to whom we owe thanks for these photos, is Dale’s daughter-in-law and an avid supporter of all things related to Buller history.

The age of the clock is evident in several aspects, not least of which is the use of rope to hang the weight.

The close-up to the left offers a better view of the ornate patterns painted (?) on the background to the clock face.

However, what is really interesting is what we can see in the photo below: the year 1868.

This was no doubt the year the clock was made. Because there are no known noteworthy events associated with Peter D and Sarah for that year—they married in 1866, had their first child in 1867 and their second (Peter P) in 1869—the simplest explanation is that the clock was made in 1868. (Several Mennonites were quite well known as clockmakers, but we do not know if this clock was made by any of them or by a local artisan.)

If the clock was purchased shortly after its manufacture by Peter D and Sarah, they bought it when they lived in Alexanderkrone, two to three years before they moved back to Kleefeld. Wherever the clock originated, we can say with certainty that it came from Molotschna colony and therefore is a concrete link with family members who lived nearly 150 years ago.

If anyone has further information about or memories of this clock, please send them to Buller Time via email or by leaving a comment. The more we pool our knowledge, the more informed we all are about our family’s rich and interesting history.

Mennonite Genealogical Resources

I think it is safe to say that one could make it a full-time job exploring the many Mennonite resources freely available online. Many of Buller Time’s posts are prompted by and drawn from one or another of these resources.

Our discovery of the name of David Buller’s father Benjamin, for example, depended on a census translated by Sergei Chaiderman and posted by Richard D. Thiessen on the Mennonite Genealogical Resources website (here). Similarly, when we explored early Buller immigrants to Volhynia we drew upon Glenn Penner’s “Mennonite Immigration from Jeziorka, West Prussia to Volhynia, Russia, in 1803 and 1804,” likewise available on the Mennonite Genealogical Resources website (here). Not to say too much, but we will soon discuss another significant discovery about our ancestors from this same resource.

To be honest, Buller Time would not exist without the resources provided by this community of Mennonite historians and genealogists. We owe them sincere and constant thanks for all that they have given to all of us interested in Mennonite history. But beyond that, we also owe this community our own efforts, our own contributions—which is why I am happy to report that Buller Time’s first contributed resource has been posted to the Mennonite Genealogical Resources website maintained by Richard D. Thiessen.

The file, titled “Schönsee, Poland: Mennonite and Non-Mennonite Residents, 1695–1800,” can be accessed via the link here. Low-resolution images of the two pages are shown below, but readers really need to look at the full-size PDF accessible from the preceding link.

The point of the chart is to show both continuities and discontinuities in Schönsee over the course of a century. Some family names, such as Voth and Siefert (and their variants), extend across the entire century. Others, such as Funk, Decker, Bartel, Boltz, and Nickel, come and go but still appear across multiple decades. Other family names, such as Buller (George), Penner, Sperling, Wedel, and others, are listed only once.

We will come back to this chart in several future posts; for now it is enough to note how fortunate we are to join the community of those providing resources for researchers of Mennonite history and genealogy.

Family and football 2

Mary Henrichson graciously sent us additional photographs associated with the get-together at her house before the Nebraska–Fresno State football game this past Saturday (3 September 2016). We also have a complete list of family members in the photos:

Matilda Klippenstein
Wayne and Bev Buller
Wayne and Alma Martens
Randy & Shelly Martens
Calvin & Robin Martens
Mary Henrichson
Steve and Barb Buller
Dennis and Melissa Thorne
Martha Myles
Alan Buller

Banned Bullers?

The David Epp diaries, as mentioned earlier (here), offer us direct access to the lives of Russian Mennonites in the mid-nineteenth century. Anyone interested in Mennonite history from that time and in that place will find in Epp’s diaries a detailed portrait of life in the Old Colony (Chortitza), which was largely the same as that experienced by our forebears in Molotschna colony 60 miles to the south–southeast.

Previously we noted the high incidence of child mortality and wondered how many Buller children died young without having their names ever recorded in a church book or government census (see here). This post looks at another aspect of Mennonite life: the application of the ban.

The idea of being banned probably seems foreign to many today, although it is making a comeback with some forms of social media (e.g., an abusive commenter being banned, that is, prohibited from commenting). Throughout their history Mennonites as a social and religious community have practiced banning as a means of self-regulation. The leaders of the church took seriously their responsibility of maintaining right behavior within the fellowship; the ban, “either exclusion from communion (kleiner Bann) or exclusion from membership (grosser Bann)” provided them the means, the social leverage, that enabled them to perform their duties effectively (Neff 1953).

But enough talking about the ban; much more enlightening is to read of its application to real people in nineteenth-century Russia. As lay leader of several congregations, David Epp frequently reported why and how the ban was applied to members of his community. The following examples provide a good sense of the types of behaviors that provoked banning and the usual course that banning took.

20 January 1853
News from the Khortitsa Community. In the colony of Einlage, Abraham Dyck and his bachelor brother Peter beat and seriously injured Gerhard Friesen, Jacob Braun, and Johann Wiebe. Braun is reported to be close to death and will, in any case, be crippled. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer.

11 February 1853

A letter from the Reverend Jacob Pätkau reports that eight people from Einlage, the innocent as well as the guilty, have been placed in the ban.

***

10 September 1863

The Brotherhood Meeting discussed several matters. … Aron Neusteter and his stepdaughter Anna Peters were placed in the ban for committing fornication, which resulted in the birth of a child. Lord Jesus, our merciful Saviour, grant them genuine remorse to everlasting life. Amen.

15 September 1863

Aron Neusteter and his stepdaughter Anna Peters, who had been placed in the ban, asked to be readmitted to the church. Brotherhood [Meeting]. Aron Neusteter and Anna Peters were received back into the church.

***

21 April 1864
Easter Tuesday. I attended a large Brotherhood Meeting in the Khortitsa church. … The meeting discussed the cases of the church members Johann Kirsch, who had married a Russian woman, and Johann Dyck, who had married a Lutheran woman. It was decided that such persons should not be placed in the ban but released from their church membership in a way that would allow them to maintain relations with church members in the civil sphere.

The congregation then considered what to do with persons who sought readmission to the church after withdrawing and being re-baptized. This was the case with Jacob Peters and Mrs Gerhard Rempel of Borosenko, who now desired close ties with the church. It was decided to wait and observe the genuineness of their remorse.

Peter Peters of Schönwiese was placed in the ban because of adultery and fornication.

***

13 December 1864

The Peter Mantlers appeared before the Ministerial Committee. Elder Gerhard Dyck had informed us that Mrs Mantler had committed adultery with old Jacob Dyck in Nieder Khortitsa. She confessed her transgression to the Brotherhood Meeting and was placed in the ban.

***

15 January 1867
Before today’s service, we met at Reverend J. Pätkau’s house where Elisabeth Wiebe, the unwed daughter of the late Martin Wiebe of Neuosterwick, had been summoned to appear [before the Ministerial Committee] by the brethren Isaac Siemens and Bernh. Bärgen. She had given birth to an infant shortly before Christmas. She confessed to having committed fornication with Heinrich Lepp, son of Peter Lepp of the Grossfürstlich settlement. Brotherhood Meeting. The congregation placed Elisabeth Wiebe in the ban. Grant her the strength to repent, Lord. I wrote a letter to the beloved Elder informing him of the incident.

29 January 1867
Brotherhood Meeting. Elisabeth Wiebe was received back into the church (see entry for Jan. 15, 1867). Jesus forgives sinners.

***

8 October 1867
Before the service, Mrs Herman Peters appeared in my brother Diedrich’s office.… She had committed fornication with her brother-in-law Johann Peters before and after her marriage. Recently, before his death in the Grossfürstlich settlement, he had confessed the matter. Amidst a flood of tears, she admitted her guilt. Abraham Breil of Novozhitomir appeared also, Mrs Jacob Reimer having confessed to committing fornication with him in her youth, at the time of the catechism instruction. He would admit only to having touched her private parts, denying the rest. I urged him to be honest, but he stuck to his story. Even the unchaste deed merits severe censure.

Brotherhood Meeting after the service. Mrs Hermann Peters was placed in the ban. Lord, grant her true repentance. Abraham Breil, however, persisted in his story. I exhorted him to repentance. His case has been held over for now and rests on his conscience. The Lord will bring to light what has been concealed and reveal the secrets of the heart.

14 October 1867
When I got home last night, I found Bernhard Giesbrecht and Julius Janzen of Kamianka waiting for me. On behalf of Mrs Hermann Peters, they requested her readmission to the church tomorrow.

15 October 1867
Sunday morning. With tear-filled eyes, Mrs Peters begged to be readmitted to the church. Janzen, Giesbrecht and I therefore drove to Novozhitomir, where the service was being held. Brotherhood Meeting. Hermann Peters’s wife was received back into the church.

***

25 March 1869
My brother Heinrich writes: “You will have heard of Reverend Heinr. Penner and his confession. In his old age he has been barred from the ministry. This was not our original intention, since he was no longer in office. Blind Agatha has been placed in the ban. She confessed to committing fornication not only with Reverend Heinr. Penner but also with the late bachelor David Dörksen, with a man from the Bergthal colonies and with Peter Hildebrand of Khortitsa. The matter will likely come before the brethren tomorrow since the blind woman will undoubtedly ask to be readmitted [to the church], and Hildebrand will be placed in the ban. It is unspeakably sad how sin can rule over us. ‘Lord, lead us not into temptation.’”

***

21 March 1870
Franz Giesbrecht of Novozhitomir told me his daughter Maria had confessed to behaving unchastely and committing fornication with both their Russian man-servant and Franz Klassen.

22 March 1870
Before today’s service Franz Giesbrecht and his daughter Maria appeared before me. They had been summoned by Peter Janzen and Johann Klassen. Maria admitted the truth of her father’s story. The matter was held over until next Sunday.

29 March 1870
Before today’s service, Franz Giesbrecht, his daughter Maria, Franz Klassen, and the two summoners [Peter Janzen and Johann Klassen] appeared before the Ministerial Committee. Franz Klassen denied committing fornication with Maria. The girl said he had run his hand over her private parts and similarly described her unchaste behaviour with the Russian [servant]. But she contradicted herself and finally admitted her complete guilt. The matter was deferred until the Brotherhood Meeting. Brotherhood Meeting. The matter regarding Maria Giesbrecht and Franz Klassen was presented to the brethren. Klassen was summoned and admitted to having uncovered and touched Maria’s private parts several times. Both were placed in the ban. Lord Jesus, grant them strength for repentance.

3 May 1870
Brotherhood Meeting. … Maria Giesbrecht was readmitted to church membership.

***

15 May 1870
At Elder Ger. Dyck’s request, Abraham Peters of village number one appeared in our [married] children’s zemlianka [a dugout] in the presence of the witnesses David Klassen and Janzen. Peters, who was accused of having committed fornication with a Russian woman, admitted his guilt contritely and shamefacedly.

17 May 1870
Abraham Peters was placed in the ban because of his unchaste conduct.

***

28 February 1871

Prior to the service in Steinau, Mrs Abraham Knelsen appeared before the ministers. The Grossfürstlich Elder Johann Wiebe had reported that she had committed fornication and adultery with Heinrich Friesen of the Nepluiev settlement, to which she confessed. She also admitted that during her first marriage she had done similar acts with Jacob Andres Sr in Einlage, with the teacher Peter Abrahams, and with Jacob Hiebert. I presented the matter to the Brotherhood Meeting. She was placed in the ban, in keeping with God’s Word.

***

19 May 1871

I was called home from my brother Diedrich’s place to talk to Jacob de Veer of Izluchistaia, who poured out his troubles to me. His daughter Katharina had committed fornication with the young man Jacob Bärgen and been delivered of a healthy son. Bärgen admitted his guilt, but refused to have anything to do with Katharina or the child. I told de Veer we would be able to work something out once Katharina was up and about and we could call her and her lover to account. Sin brings people to ruin.

30 May 1871

Before today’s service, Jacob Bärgen and Katharina de Veer, who had committed fornication with one another, appeared in the ministers’ room.… They were summoned by the witnesses Gerh. Andres and Bernhard Wiebe. Her father, Jacob de Veer, was also present. They openly confessed their guilt. De Veer was permitted to take his daughter home. Brotherhood Meeting following the service. I presented the case to the brethren, and Jacob Bärgen and Katharina de Veer were placed in the ban. Lord, grant them strength to repent.

4 June 1871

Johann Bärgen and Jacob de Veer, the fathers of the two members placed in the ban, asked me to help them reach a settlement in regard to the costs of raising the child born out of wedlock. Veer demanded 100 R. plus 25 R. support per year for 8 years, and Bärgen offered to pay no more than a total of 50 R. I suggested that the best solution would be for the two to marry. Bärgen replied that he had recommended this as well, but that his son was set against such a marriage. I then told them they would have to reach a settlement on the payment of [maintenance] costs before the children could be readmitted [to the church]. A multi-year settlement was also out of the question. They finally agreed that Bärgen would pay de Veer 60 R., half by Michaelmas and the rest by May 1, 1871. The two men shook hands and parted in peace. 

4 June 1871

Brotherhood Meeting. Jacob Bärgen and Katharina de Veer were readmitted to the church.

***

25 July 1871
Last night Peter Thiessen’s wife came by, crying and lamenting her fate. She had learned that her husband planned to join the Russian [Orthodox] church and wanted me to help find him. This I promised to do. Peter Thiessen has developed a bad reputation in his dealings with people. He has worked as a supervisor or foreman in the construction of various mills and has always ended up in some kind of trouble.

13 January 1872
Peter Thiessen’s wife came to see me this morning about her runaway husband…, requesting that I collect money for her to buy a wagon that would allow her to hunt for him. She asked if I would initiate the collection at next Saturday’s meeting of Judenplan model agriculturalists, at the home of my brother Diedrich (overseer of all Hebrew colonies of the 4th District of the Province of Kherson). The poor woman hopes she can win her husband back by speaking to him personally. May God give his blessing.

6 February 1872

In the afternoon, my brother Diedrich, Peter Siemens, Corn. Martens, Abraham Unger, and I gathered at my brother Diedrich’s place to talk to Peter Thiessen. He was called in, made a complete confession, and asked for permission to live among us again. I asked him about the rumours that he had committed fornication, and he admitted that they were true. In reply to our question as to how far matters had gone regarding his [rumoured joining of the] Russian [Orthodox] church, he said that he had made only one inquiry in this regard and had not pursued the matter further because he knew it was wrong. The issue will be placed before the brethren on Sunday.

13 February 1872

Brotherhood Meeting. I presented the matter involving Peter Thiessen. The brethren decided that since he had gone astray and committed many transgressions, including fornication, he should be placed in the ban. Friesen, Isaac Siemens, and I were instructed to inform him of our decision.

20 February 1872

Brotherhood Meeting. Peter Thiessen appeared before the brethren, asked their forgiveness, and was readmitted to church membership. Lord Jesus, forgive him, let him keep his renewed vow and walk in the fear of thee. Have mercy on thy flock. Do not let a single lamb go astray.

***

15 June 1872
In the afternoon, Heinrich Olfert of Novovitebsk begged me to talk to his brother-in-law Peter Siemens, who was ill and wanted to see me. Olfert had arrived on Siemens’s springed carriage, and my wife, our little Johann, and I drove back with him. I found Siemens sick and anxious to confess his sins. He was especially tormented by his heavy drinking and the fornication he had committed. In his youth he had also defiled himself with cattle and committed fornication with a girl named Aganetha Schmidt (the daughter of Peter Schmidt of Kronsweide), whom he had seduced by promising to marry her. As a married man, he had had relations with Johann Siemens’s wife (who had seduced him), and with eight Russian women. Dear God, sin has such power. Siemens was contrite. I am sure the Saviour will not reject him.

18 June 1872
Brotherhood Meeting. I outlined Peter Siemens’ transgressions, and he was placed in the ban. May the Lord grant him the strength to repent. It was also decided that if he asked to be readmitted, and could not do this personally [in church], it could be done at his bedside.

23 June 1872
Peter Siemens asked to be readmitted to the church. In keeping with church practice, I received him as a member in the presence of several church members, and we sang a hymn in closing. Siemens is very sick and close to death.

***

16 April 1873
At the request of Elder Gerhard Dyck, I met with him and Reverend Gerhard Enz in Schöndorf, Borosenko [settlement]. Abr. Bärgen, who had attempted suicide, was summoned to appear before us. Also present were the [Borosenko] District mayor Gerhard Rempel and the [Schöndorf] Village mayor David Penner. Bärgen, who is addicted to drink and lives in discord with his wife, showed not the slightest remorse, refusing even to admit that he was a drunkard until the District and Village officials proved otherwise. He was allowed to leave until tomorrow.

17 April 1873
At Elder G[erhard] D[yck’s] suggestion, G. Rempel and I spoke to Abr. Bärgen early this morning, trying to impress upon him the sinfulness of his hatred of [his wife]. We had hoped he would recognize the wretchedness of his condition and be moved to genuine contrition. I did what I could, but, O God, it made almost no impression on Bärgen. His wife wept bitter tears. They did, however, agree to come to G. Enz’s place in Schöndorf, where we exhorted him further to a genuine change of heart. A service followed in the school. There was then a Brotherhood Meeting at which Elder Dyck reviewed Bärgen’s transgressions. Bärgen appeared, asked forgiveness of the brethren, and was dismissed in peace. Lord, Lord, soften his hardened heart to repentance. Lead this lost sheep on to the path of eternal salvation.

28 May 1873
Jacob Klassen of Schöndorf and Heinrich Löwen of Nicolaithal, appearing on behalf of Mrs Abraham Bärgen, requested her readmission to the church. The Elder had placed her in the ban last Thursday because of the discord in her marriage. Her husband … has been under arrest in Khortitsa for some time. I promised to visit [the Borosenko settlement].

30 May 1873
To keep my promise, Heinrich and I drove to Borosenko where I consulted a number of church members about Mrs Bärgen’s readmission to the church. She appeared, but showed little contrition, and we decided to leave matters as they were. Since her husband is still under arrest in Khortitsa, it seemed best that she and her trustees appear before Gerh. Dyck in Rosenthal on Sunday. Her husband would also be asked to appear, and the two could be reconciled. She could then be readmitted to church membership on Sunday, in the Neuendorf church. Indeed, this is what happened.

***

30 October 1873
I was called to Abraham Friesen’s bedside, who … confessed to committing fornication with numerous Russian women and defiling himself with animals, etc. Since seeking the face of God he had come to realize, he said, that he would not find peace until he had confessed his sins to the church. He showed great remorse. May the dear Saviour lead him along the path of repentance and have mercy on him.

4 November 1873 
Brotherhood Meeting. Abraham Friesen was placed in the ban for his transgressions.

12 November 1873
Monday morning, Abraham Friesen, excluded from the church because of his carnal sins, was readmitted to membership.

***

14 January 1875
Tuesday. … My brother Diedrich returned from Khortitsa with a letter from Elder Gerhard Dyck informing me that a Brotherhood Meeting in the Khortitsa church on January 6 had placed Gerhard and Klas Thiessen and Johann Dyck in the ban because of their Nikopol swindle. I am to inform their families and the Neu Khortitsa Village assembly accordingly to ensure that they are treated as separated persons. I forwarded the letter to the Village Elder [of Neu Khortitsa], Dietrich Braun. Heinrich Harder of Gnadenthal, who had been in Khortitsa on business, brought the wrongdoers (together with a formal report from the Khortitsa Volost) home on the 11th.

17 January 1875
Friday. Reverend Pätkau tells me that the three men in question had yesterday been turned over to the District police officer in Sofievka. Lord, grant them the strength to repent.

24 January 1875
Dietrich Braun, the mayor of Neu Khortitsa, and Jacob Neufeld came to talk to me on behalf of the three men placed in the ban, requesting their readmission to the church on Sunday, that is, tomorrow. Johann Dyck and Klas Thiessen dropped by to make a similar plea personally.

26 January 1875
Brotherhood Meeting. The brethren consented to the readmission of Johann Dyck and the brothers Klas and Gerhard Thiessen to the church. Lord Jesus, accept their remorse and wipe away their guilt. Their case has not yet been decided by the courts, however.

Without claiming the least bit of expertise on the ban and its application, I offer a few observations about the practice of the ban in David Epp’s time and place.

1. Sexual misconduct was the most frequent circumstance to which the ban was applied. No doubt this was due to a desire not only to promote sexual purity but also to protect social solidarity and cohesiveness, something that marital unfaithfulness would certainly damage.

2. Epp’s frequent prayers for the ban to lead to genuine remorse and sincere repentance presumably hint at the primary goal of putting someone under the ban. It was not merely to punish but also to prompt a change of mind and spirit that would permit reintegration into the community.

The same is indicated by the situation involving the unwed parents Jacob Bärgen and Katharina de Veer. The ban was lifted and they were readmitted to the church only after their families agreed on the terms of support for the child and were formally reconciled.

3. That being said, we should not ignore the punitive aspect of the ban. It was frequently applied to misconduct many years in the past. Even then, however, one might understand its purpose to be to provoke true repentance and remorse for past sins.

4.  Although not all the entires mention readmission into the church, enough do that we can deduce that banning was not something that was meant to go on forever—or even for long. Jacob Bärgen and Katharina de Veer were readmitted to the church five days after being placed under the ban. Elisabeth Wiebe was received back two weeks after the ban was imposed. Sickly Peter Siemens was under the ban for five days, Maria Giesbrecht for only four. Of course, the length of the ban depended entirely upon the person under it: showing genuine remorse for the sin was a prerequisite for admission back into the fellowship.

5. As Epp readily admits, “the innocent as well as the guilty” could be placed under the ban. I have no explanation to offer for that surprising state of affairs, except to wonder if this further evidence of the ban being used as a lever to encourage reconciliation among disputing parties.

To return to the provocative question in the title to this long post, were any Bullers banned? We do not know one way or another, but, given what we read above, it would not be surprising to discover that Heinrich Buller of Brenkenhoffswalde (here) and Anna Buller of Deutsch-Wymysle (here; see also here) were placed under the ban. Truth be told, I rather suspect that they were not the only ones!


Sources Cited

Dyck, Harvey L., ed. and trans. 1991. A Mennonite in Russia: The Diaries of Jacob D. Epp, 1851–1880. Tsarist and Soviet Mennonite Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Neff, Christian. 1953. Ban. Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Available online here.

Family and football

Our family has quite a history, one might say, with the real U.S. national pastime: football. Buller Time has touched on this before, for example, with memories of the NU–OU game of the century in 1971 (here) or Super Bowl IV between the Kansas City Chiefs and Minnesota Vikings (here).

This week our family will form another football memory, when the Nebraska Cornhuskers host the Fresno State Bulldogs. What makes this particular game special? One of our family will be playing in the game.

Michael Martens (see here), the youngest son of Randy and Shelly Martens, is a wide receiver for Fresno State, number 87, if you are fortunate enough to attend or watch the game. Randy Martens is, of course, the oldest son of Wayne and Alma Buller Martens (brother Calvin is three years younger). For those who have trouble keeping it all straight, Michael is Grandpa Chris and Grandma Malinda’s great-grandson.

If I understand correctly, Michael’s parents Randy and Shelly, grandparents Wayne and Alma, and Uncle Calvin and Aunt Robin will be in attendance at the game (along with my older brother Steve and perhaps several others). In addition, I hear that there will be a weekend reunion of some sort hosted by Mary Jane. If anyone takes photos, please email them to me by using the Click Here to Contact Me button just above the search field. That button gives you my preferred email address, which is far more likely to be seen than my Gmail address.

I am told that, when Wayne Martens asked Dad whom he would be cheering, the latter responded, “Frintschoft,” which is apparently the Low German word for “relations” (see further here). Since I do not know Low German, I will simply wish Michael lots of playing time and a stellar game—but hope for a Cornhuskers victory nonetheless.

*****

Thanks to Calvin Martens, we have photographs from the pregame get-together! How many family members can you identify?