He is found with his father George in the 1850 and 1860 Census (helpfully listed with middle initial H in 1860). The presence of George W, Frederick and Phoebe Ann in that household adds proof because other documents prove William’s close association with them, and they with each other.

Whether born in Kratzerville or New Berlin, I’m not sure -- but as a married adult he first lived in Mifflinburg. After the death of his wife and two daughters, William moved to Kansas with his brother. He took his youngest son with him.

My sister-in-law’s husband was born in California. Many of his ancestors started out, like ours, in the eastern U.S. (one of them in Maine) -- but then moved, over the generations, sometimes jumping over 2-3 states at a time to eventually end up in California. Along the way, some of his ancestors lived in Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, Iowa and Texas. I’ve always found it interesting, in contrast, that on both my mother’s and father’s side, not one of my direct ancestors was born very far west of the Susquehanna River, nor for the most part ever lived any further west either.

William H Diehl, though, is an exception to that rule (there’s one other on my mother’s side, too). He married and had his family in Mifflinburg -- but later in his life, after his wife died and his oldest son was grown, he moved to Kansas. He gets the honor of being my ancestor with the most “wanderlust”.

1850. He lives with his father in New Berlin.

1860. He lives with his parents and is listed as William H and the "H" helps prove him to be the same William H in the 1870 Census, now married and head of household in his own right.

1870. William H and Rachel live in Mifflinburg with son George. A neighbor is Washington Heisler with 24 year old son, Newton.

1880. This family unit -- the household of William H Diehl that lived in Mifflinburg, PA in 1870 totally disappears in 1880. For a long time, I thought the only remnants were George age 17 found in Middlecreek Twp, Snyder County working on the Roush farm (no relation that I know of) and the widow Rachel living in the Newton Heisler household in Mifflinburg. I did not know what happened to George’s siblings, Edmund and Maude.

Later I determined that the widow Rachel was in fact the sister-in-law of William H Diehl, wife of his brother Frederick. And that Maud had died in 1872 and his wife Rachel E died in 1874. And then, much to my surprise, I found William and his son living in Kansas with his brother Frederick who was not only not dead but he had a young wife named Kadda.

1880. Fred Diehl age 33 blacksmith born in PA lives in Valley Falls, Jefferson Co, Kansas with wife Kadda age 21 also born PA and Maude age 2 and an unnamed son 3 months. Also living with them is William H Diehl 38 a blacksmith born in PA and Fred's nephew Edwin age 14 born PA.

1900. Maybe living in Jackson County, KS.

On findagrave.com, there is recorded a tombstone for William Diehl born 24 Sep 1841 died 20 Apr 1925. When I first learned this, I wondered if this was our William, but I didn’t know for sure until I contacted the person who had posted that listing and asked if he knew whether William was buried near Rachel. He sent me a photo showing they shared the same tombstone. Case closed.

On 24 Feb 1886, William H Diehl of Jefferson County, Kansas deeded to his two sons George W and Edwin A Diehl, both also of the same place, the same half lot of land in Mifflinburg that George Kleckner had deeded to Rachel Diehl back in 1871. What is especially of note is that Goerge W was not in Kansas with his father and brother in 1880, I wonder if he really did go live there with them for awhile before returning to marry Ella Yerger.

In the miscellaneous records book of Union County, I found a “certificate of service” recorded 6 Jul 1894 for William Diehl from 25 Aug 1864 to 30 May 1865 in Co F200, PA Regiment Inf Volunteers. I do not know if it is our William.

1900 and 1910. There is a William H Diehl living at the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers. I had sort of thought this may well be William and would tie in with the Certificate of Service I found at UCCH. Occupation Carpenter, that’s the rub. And birth Apr 1841. He is widower. I found his admission record at Ancestry.com and it’s not our William.

In the probate and Orphans Court Records of 1772-1855, p 76, May term 1855 the record states that Joseph had 6 children -- Isaac and Lydia, who were over 21 years of age; and George, Susanna, Sarah, and Catherine who were under 21 years of age.

The "H" raises some interesting questions. What does it stand for? Mom had a distant great-uncle born in 1842 named William Henry Harrison Curry. He was clearly named in honor of (then) recently deceased President William Henry Harrison (”Old Tippecanoe”) who died in April 1841. I believe William Diehl may also have been William Henry or more likely William Harrison Diehl. Note too, his older brother was George Washington Diehl.

William Diehl has been a tough man to track. I knew I had identified him, as William H, in the 1870 Census married living with his wife, two sons (one of whom was our ancestor -- at that time called George) and a daughter. I also knew from careful study of the 1880 Census that the family had totally dissolved during the 1870‘s -- meaning probably any number of them had died. I couldn’t find any two of them living in the same household. Specifically, I couldn’t find William H and assumed he was among those who had recently died.

The full story of this long saga is told in the Kleckner chapter, but when I finally determined that it was Rachel and two of her daughters who had died in the 1870's, I then tried again to find William H Diehl in the 1880 Census and I did then find him -- living in Kansas with his son Edwin and his brother Fred. It was most certainly him as he was listed as William H, the ages were right for all three persons, all were born in Pennsylvania and finally both William and Fred were blacksmiths -- the very same occupations as stated for both in 1870.

A minor discrepancy was that his son was Edmund in 1870 and now Edwin in 1880, but those kinds of things are not uncommon in Census. His name really was Edwin, I’m quite sure. The other discordant note, quite an interesting one actually, was that Fred was married to a woman named Kadda in Kansas and yet his first wife was still alive back in Mifflinburg. behind that curious detail.

The name William Diehl is not uncommon so I have never been able to identify him with certainty in Census after 1880. In 1886, a deed was recorded whereby William H Diehl of Jefferson County, Kansas transferred a half lot in Mifflinburg (deeded to his wife in 1870 by her father, George Kleckner) to his sons George W and Edwin A -- both also said to be of Jefferson County (though I suspect in error as it pertained to the residence of George W). That is the last known record of William H. I do not know where he lived or what he did after that but I do know that when he died in 1925, he was (brought back?) and buried with his wife in Mifflinburg.

I know this final detail of his life because I found, in a list of Mifflinburg graves, that a William Diehl was there with an 1841 birth date, which based on everything I knew was about right. So I contacted the man who had made the listing and asked him if he knew if William was buried near Rachel. Rather than answer my question, he did me one better, and sent me a photo. William and Rachel share a tombstone!

Meiser said she was maiden name Kleckner and that led me to the 1850 and 1860 Census where she was listed as a daughter of George. I have found several other documents since that prove this relationship including George Kleckner’s 1874 will with distributions from his estate made to Rachel’s two surviving sons: Edwin A and George W and a deed showing that George gave Rachel and her husband William a half lot in Mifflinburg in 1871, later deeded by Wiliam to his sons Edwin and George.

She is with her father in 1850 and 1860 and now I know in both cases it says Rachael E and I misread it early on as Rachael R. She is with her husband in 1870 and then she dies, while Rachel R Diehl survives.

A listing was posted on Ancestry.com of graves people reported seeing and there was Rachel E Diehl b.unknown d.12 Dec 1874 buried Mifflinburg Cemetery. It turns out this was the 1 year-old daughter of Rachel E -- who died in childbirth having her -- but it was this record that tipped me off to reconsider everything I believed about Rachel.

Then on findagrave.com, I found a report of her tombstone that said she was born 10 Dec 1844 and died 1 Apr 1873. And still later, I found a church record which says she died 1 Apr 1873 age 29 years 4 months 22 days, which computes to 10 Nov 1843. For now, I’ve gone with her tombstone, as reported, for her birth date. Her date of death is not in dispute.

Robert Foster, guardian of George W Diehl and Edwin A Deihl, children of Rachel E Diehl (born Kleckner) late of Mifflinburg, was filed in 1885 and showed monies received from the Executors of George Kleckner, deceased, their grandfather.

I have also tried to trace the Heisler family of Mifflinburg, who Rachel R lived with for awhile after her husband died to see if they were a relative of hers of some kind. I don’t think they were, but Mrs. Heisler was originally a Klingemann, descended from an ancestor of our mother. Just an interesting coincidence.

RACHEL E OR RACHEL R?
The secret to determining the life history of our ancestor Rachel Kleckner came down to determining whether she was Rachel R Diehl or Rachel E Diehl because there were two Union County women named Rachel, both born in the early-to-mid-1840's, who married men named Diehl (brothers, in fact). One died in 1873 and the other in the 1920's.

The very first things I knew about our ancestor Rachel were: her maiden name was Kleckner (from Meiser) and she was born about 1845 (from the 1870 Census). So, I then examined the 1850 Census looking for young Rachel Kleckner to identify her parents and I found her and read her name as Rachel R Kleckner. So, I believed from the outset she was Rachel R.

I then found her in the 1860 Census where she was clearly named Rachel E Kleckner, but I just assumed that was a typo. Then she married and in 1870 was identified only as Rachel Diehl. After the William H and Rachel Diehl household dissolved before the 1880 Census, the problem became one of finding any trace of the original family in the 1880 Census and there I found Rachel R Diehl living in Mifflinburg in the Newton Heisler household. I was sure it was her because the Heislers had been neighbors of the Diehls in 1870 in Mifflinburg. I didn't know what happened to the rest of the family, but at least I knew where Rachel had gone.

And Rachel continued to show up -- in 1900 living with the Rishel family in Selinsgrove as a housekeeper and then in 1910 and 1920 with Catherine (or Anna C) Frederick in Milton, said to be Rachel’s sister, both widows. I worked hard to figure out who Catharine (Kleckner presumably) Frederick was. I learned she was the widow of Jacob Frederick but couldn't find any way to connect her to Rachel Kleckner.

But the most troubling detail was that in 1910, when asked the number of children she had had and the number still living Rachel answered 0 and 0.

Even so, I still thought I was correctly tracking the life of Rachel Kleckner and it was just that there were some strange things about her I needed to find out. Until finally, one day, I saw a fairly recent listing of all the tombstones in Mifflinburg Cemetery and Rachel Diehl was listed. My whole theory on Rachel (Kleckner) Diehl having survived came crashing down like a house of cards.

And so I went “back to square one” and realized my error was in ever believing she had been Rachel R Kleckner. I re-examined the 1850 Census and while her middle initial does look like an "R", it certainly could be an "E" and whoever transcribed the Census for the on-line index saw it as "E". I also then realized that a marriage notice I had found in a book based on old newspaper clippings identified her as Rachel E Kleckner, bride of William H Diehl.

I also traced back to determine who Rachel R Diehl was, a story told more fully in the Diehl chapter. I learned that both William H Diehl and Frederick Diehl, sons of George of New Berlin, married women named Rachel — William married Rachel E Kleckner, Frederick married Rachel R Fries. Both Rachels were born in about 1844. Both William and Frederick seem to have moved to Kansas between 1870 and 1880. But only one Rachel survived and that was Rachel (Fries) Diehl, sister of Catherine.

Church records of Mifflinburg, which I only found much later, tell our Rachel's story. She died 1 Apr 1873 age 29 years 4 months 22 days. She had a daughter Rachel E Diehl who was baptized 3 days later on 4 Apr 1873 who had been born on 24 Feb 1873. So I think the mother died as a result of complications from the birth of her daughter. Tragically, Rachel's older daughter had died about six months before her mother and then the young daughter Rachel also died a year or so after.

No wonder William H moved far away.