John W. Peterson-Scoundrel?

UPDATE:  6/6/2019  See the end of this post for an update.

Several years back I was researching my Jones ancestry and I came across some information that my 2nd great-grandfather George W. Jones was not really a Jones.  He was in fact a Peterson.  This particular Peterson is not related to my paternal Peterson side but is on my Mother's side.

Supposedly, a John Peterson was going to marry the widow Catherine DeWesse Jones (my 3rd great-grandmother) in 1859 but backed out the last second.

Catherine DeWesse was first married to James Jones in 1834 in Ohio and had at least seven children with him.  James Jones died in 1848 leaving Catherine a widow with all seven minor children.  Ten years later in 1860 Catherine DeWesse Jones was the head of the household with three of her sons and a small boy named George W. Jones, age 1.  My first thought was that this George Jones was a grandson, but I learned later on that he was in fact Catherine's boy, born when she was 39 years old.

I was able to make contact with other Jones researchers who confirmed that George W. Jones was in fact Catherine's son and that the father was a John W. Peterson.  It wasn't until recently that I was able to confirm this story through a court document.

John Peterson and Catherine Jones had planned on getting married in 1859 and even applied for a license (see pic.)  For some reason the marriage never happened.  George W. Jones was born in April of 1859.   Clearly, John Peterson and Catherine Jones were more than just friendly neighbors-According to the Adams Co., IN 1860 census, they lived close to each other.

So the question is:  Why didn't the marriage happen?  It seems natural to think that John Peterson didn't want to follow through since Catherine would have had a lot of pressure to marry the man who got her pregnant.

Is John W. Peterson a scoundrel?  It would be hard to pin that label on him without more information.  It is possible that he wasn't the father and decided to not marry her when he found out she was pregnant or maybe Catherine didn't want the marriage and refused.  I will probably never know.

I have wondered what life was like for Catherine and George.  Considering the time (1860s) children born to women who were not married were often mistreated by society and family.  Yet, it seems that George's half brothers and sisters embraced him and he grew up in a healthy environment and love.  That is good.

In the meantime, I am hoping that through DNA I will be able to see if John W. Peterson is in fact my 3rd great-grandfather.

______________________________________________________________________________

Recent DNA results from ancestry says that John W. Peterson is in my family tree.  Hopefully more links will be established so I can be more confident in these results.

A Ruined Lady: The Tragic Story of Kitty O’Brien

When Reputation Meant Everything 

(updated 2/25/25)

Full Transcript below

It’s easy to romanticize the past, imagining a time when people were more honest, virtuous, and morally upright. But history tells a different story. The truth is, many of our ancestors were simply skilled at maintaining a façade. Social expectations were rigid, and people had little choice but to hide their true selves. Today, with the unfiltered nature of social media, we see just how much human nature hasn’t changed—only the way we present it.

In the 19th century, societal norms dictated strict moral codes, particularly for women. Sex outside of marriage was condemned, and an unwed pregnancy could ruin a woman’s reputation, leaving her ostracized and without support. Women like Kitty O’Brien, whose story appeared in The Cincinnati Enquirer on November 10, 1893, faced not only public scorn but also personal devastation.

Kitty’s story is a sobering reminder of the harsh double standards women endured. After becoming pregnant, she was considered “ruined” in the eyes of society. But her tragedy didn’t end there—her child was taken from her, and what followed was a tale of deception, manipulation, and heartbreak.

Her case is worth a deeper look, but for this post, I want to focus on how 19th-century morality (or Victorian society) viewed women in Kitty’s position. How did she perceive her own actions? Did she feel regret, defiance, or simply resignation? And how do we, looking back, interpret her story today?

"The past may seem distant, but stories like Kitty O’Brien’s challenge us to consider how we view the lives and choices of those who came before us. While we may strive to understand them within the context of their time, it’s impossible not to filter their experiences through our own perspectives. Kitty’s story, like so many others, reminds us that history isn’t just about dates and events—it’s about real people navigating the expectations and limitations of their world."

Here is the full transcription of the newspaper article:

KITTY O'BRIEN

Asks the Police To Find Her Babe

Which the Records Show Was Buried in the Mt. Washington Cemetery.

Kitty O’Brien, the music teacher, called on Chief Deitsch yesterday, and told him that she thought her baby was alive, and was being used to blackmail some one.

Kitty, it will be remembered, figured in a sensation some months ago. She lived at No. 190 Mound street a year ago, and made a living by giving piano lessons. There she met Rena Gelwichs, who had a flat at No. 301 Central avenue. She visited the flat, and met several gentlemen there. One of them, she says, was Captain Powers, formerly one of the proprietors of the New Era Restaurant, on Vine street. She claims that he got her drunk and ruined her.

Last July she found that she was about to become a mother, so she called the Captain to account. The result was that she was sent to Mrs. Shaw’s house, at No. 1616 Eastern avenue. There her child was born. Kitty says that she never saw the child, and Mrs. Shaw told her that it was dead. Kitty now says that her brother wrote to her and told her that he had received a letter from some one saying that the child was not dead, but was being used by some one for black-mailing purposes. If the child was alive, she wanted it. Detective Crawford was detailed on the case, and he made an investigation. He found from the records in the Health Office that the child was still-born and had been buried by Undertaker Watkins, and was interred in the cemetery in Mt. Washington. The certificate was signed by Dr. Countryman.

Kitty says that she never received a cent of money from Captain Powers, and that her brother paid all her expenses. She claims that Rena Gelwichs, who is now in Dayton, received money from Sam Conn, of Winchester, Ky., to pay Kitty’s expenses, and that he paid it for the Captain. Rena paid it to Mrs. Shaw, and the result was that Mrs. Shaw received double pay for her services as nurse.

Chief Deitsch will investigate further.

Source: The Cincinnati Enquirer, November 10, 1893.