John Sedlacek Family: A research note
by Wesley Johnston for the Grand Crossing Czechs project (http://www.wwjohnston.net/famhist/grand-crossing-czechs/grand-crossing-czechs.htm) - last updated 25 Dec 2011
John and Katerina (Kucera) Sedlacek appear in the 1880 Census of Chicago at 69 Fisk Street (now Carpenter Street): http://search.ancestry.com/iexec?htx=View&r=an&dbid=6742&iid=4240466-00178&fn=John&ln=Sedlacek&st=r&ssrc=&pid=29532219
With them are two sons, Frank (age 11) and Joseph (age 1), both born in Illinois. Joseph's brother is listed in the same building, along with Frank & Annie Kral, Joseph & Annie Preucil, and Frank & Katie Havooth (or Havorth).
Only one birth record has been found for a child of John & Katerina. A son Alois appears both on a birth certificate (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12877-34008-48?cc=1462519) and in the birth registers (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11681-159440-64?cc=1463129). He is shown as the second child of Katerina. His father John is a saloon keeper. Alois was born 18 Jun 1879.
Was Alois the same as the 1 year old Joseph in the 1880 census? Uncertain
There is important evidence that the Alois on the birth records may not have been the Joseph on the census.
1 - Technically, the age column in the 1880 census was the age at the last birthday. Since the census taker wrote this all down on 8 Jun 1880, Alois would not actually have yet had a birthday.
2 - All later records of Frank Joseph Sedlacek show his birthday as 18 Jul 1878 -- 11 months prior to the birth of Alois.
However, the birth record of Alois shows him as the second child of Katerina. If Frank, who is age 11 in the 1880 census, was that first child, then Alois would have to Joseph.
But there is also the possibilty that Frank was John's son by a prior wife who had died and that John had then remarried with Katerina and that Joseph's birth simply was not registered, which was a common occurrence at that time. Thus Joseph would have been Katerina's first child and Alois her second. Of course, Alois would then also have died before the 1880 census.
I find no Chicago marriage record for John and Katerina. I cannot find John or son Frank in the 1870 Chicago census. I find no death record for Alois, nor any burial record for him at Bohemian National Cemetery. I find no birth record for Joseph nor any other birth records for children of John and Katerina. Unfortunately at this time, record keeping for children's births and deaths was often poor, so that the absence of a record does not mean the event did not happen. The absence of a BNC burial record, however, does seem significant. And yet even that is not strong enough evidence, since St. Adalbert's cemetery was being used by Catholic families, and John and James' sister Barbora married at St. Procopius church, so that the family did have Catholic ties in Chicago, as opposed to being Free Thinkers, which was the organization that founded BNC.
Interim Decision: Since I do not know enough yet to equate Alois and Joseph with certainty, I am carrying them as distinct. This then necessitates the creation of a prior wife of John Sedlacek as the mother of Frank. I am not comfortable with this. Nor would I be comfortable equating Alois and Joseph. But I have to make a choice, and this is the choice that I am making until further evidence is found.
Was Alois the same as the 4 month old Eduard buried at Bohemian National Cemetery? No
Bohemian National Cemetery records give the following information: the 4-month old child Eduard Sedlacek died 4 Jan 1880 at 162 Dekoven Street and was buried at BNC the next day in row 4, grave 11. I could find no death record for the child. However, I did find his birth record ( https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-12402-124440-0?cc=1462519 ). He was born 11 Sep 1879 at the same 162 Dekoven Street. He was the 5th child of his mother, Johanna (Vosatka) Sedlacek, wife of tailor Adolph Sedlacek, both age 38. I do not know if Adolph Sedlacek was relatedt to John Sedlacek.
Related Coincidence?: There is another aspect of this that is of interest. John's brother James, who is also living at 69 Fisk Street in the 1880 census, had moved by 1900 to 7825 Jackson [now Maryland] Avenue, and next door to him was Albert Pech at 7831 Jackson. The same grave in which young Eduard was buried 5 Jan 1880 was used again 22 Nov 1887 to bury 38-year-old Majdalena Pech of 76 Hudson Street. I do not yet know if these two Pech families were connected. And it may be that this was simply reuse of the grave for burial of an unconnected person (and thus purely a coincidence), since such unrelated reuse of graves did happen in the early years of BNC, particularly in the case of child burials.
How Many Wives Did John Sedlacek Have and Who Were They and Which Children Were Theirs?
It appears that the Michael Sedlacek at 843 South Hoyne in the 1900 census ( http://search.ancestry.com/Browse/View.aspx?dbid=7602&path=Illinois.Cook.Chicago+Ward+10.269.12 ) may in fact have been John. His (possibly second) wife Katerina died Aug 1880, having given birth to the son Joseph who is apparently the eldest son in the 1900 family. If this is in fact the family of John Sedlacek, then he had remarried and fathered several more children.
There are several things to note about the 1900 family. Their age difference is about 8 years (he 51 born Jul 1848 and she 44 born May 1856). She came to America about age in 1862 and he about 23 in 1871. They had been married 27 years, with her giving birth to 12 children of whom 8 were then living. But I can find no such marriage record in 1873 or any other year in Chicago. His occupation appears to read "Brewer - laborer" which could be consistent with the 1880 John's "saloon keeper".
I have found three possible marriages for John Sedlacek after 1880. Two were two wives named Anna and one to an Antonia, so that any one of them would be a candidate for the Anna who is the wife in the 1900 census record.
Miss Annie Lunk - married 7 Oct 1880 - https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-12349-255469-44?cc=1463145
It was very common for widows and widowers with young children to promptly remarry after the spouse's death. And this marriage fits that pattern. Furthermore the ages of this couple (32 and 26 - thus about 1848 and 1854) comes close to the 1900 census couple's age difference and birth years.
There is an Anna Sedlacek death at 2151 South Racine in 1922 ( https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12063-166273-61?cc=1463134 ) that is a good possible match for this Anna. The deceased Anna's surivivng husband was John. She had arrived in Chicago about 1868. She was born 24 Jul 1859. On the side of the argument against this being the same Anna as the 1880 marriage and 1900 census, the deceased Anna was born Jul 1859 and not the May 1856 shown in the 1900 census.
Miss Annie Picka - married 12 Aug 1882 - https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11783-173603-83?cc=1463145
Her maiden name could have been PECH, which might explain the PECH family living next to John's brother James' family in the 7800 block of Jackson in the 1900 census. However, this Anna was older than her husband, which conflicts with the 1900 census Anna on South Hoyne. So if this marriage was the correct John Sedlacek (and the marriage says Sedlak and not Sedlacek), then he would have had to have remarried some other Anna who would have been the one in the 1900 census.
Mrs. Antonia Krejcova - married 10 Dec 1888 - https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11767-139885-21?cc=1463145
He was 41 (thus 1847) and she 30 (thus 1858). Their age differential is somewhat close to the 1900 couple's nearly 8 year difference and birth years (1848 and 1854). And this could be the Anna on the 1922 death record that shows a Jul 1859 birth.
The best candidate prior marriage for Antonia is the 3 Sep 1882 marriage of Miss Antonia Hoholkowa to James Krejca https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11783-164097-32?cc=1463145
Uncertainty
The middle Anna does not appear to be either the 1900 Anna census nor the 1922 Anna death. There are no death records for an Anna that would support multiple John's wife Anna having died prior to 1922. My hunch is that the 1900 Michael and Anna are the same as the 1880 marriage of John and Anna and that this is also the Anna who died in 1922 and that this 1900 Michael was also the same as the 1880 John. But there is just too much uncertainty to put this into my database in any way beyond this research note.