Who Says Statute Books Are Boring?

Posted on March 2, 2012 by

There’s no question finding the laws that governed the creation and recording of your ancestor’s documents is an integral part of wringing all of those clues out of records that might have gone otherwise unnoticed. I could, and probably have, posted about this topic in the past. I probably will post about it again in the future. In fact, I hope to eventually publish an article on the subject.

It’s true, though. All of your complaints are true. Books of old laws are hard to read. They use funny words, they use funny typesets, and sometimes you are more confused after having read the law than before you even knew it existed. However, these statute books are an incredibly rich resource filled with all kinds of great stuff you’ll want to know as a genealogist.

But I’m not here to talk about that today. I’m here to gossip. I want to share some dirt on the common townfolk of 1700 and 1800s Pennsylvania.

In the modern world of digitization and text-searchable documents, we rarely just browse through resources. That’s too bad, because while some of these things may not be useful to your specific genealogical search, there IS some juicy stuff buried in statute books. I present you with some cases from Pennsylvania’s Statutes At Large, 18 volumes of which (1689-1809) which can be found free of charge at the Pennsylvania Session Laws website:

1808, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania:

“AN ACT TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE OF JACOB MAYER
AND CATHARINE, HIS WIFE.
Whereas it appears to the legislature that immediately
after the intermarriage of Jacob Mayer, of Leacock township,
Lancaster county, and Catharine his wife, and before consummation,
an unaccountable antipathy and dislike on her
part took place to her said husband, which led her to separate
from him, and that although all reasonable pains have been
taken by him and her father, to overcome her aversion and
to reconcile her to her said husband, there remains no prospect
of reconciliation, which extraordinary and unhappy situation,
can be redressed by the legislature only:”1

1799, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

“AN ACT DECLARING THE MARRIAGE OF ALEXANDER DE TILLY AND
MARIA MATILDA DE TILLY (LATE MARIA MATILDA BINGHAM) TO
BE FRAUDULENT, NULL AND VOID.
Whereas the marriage contract, whether it is considered as a
religious or as a civil institution, ought, above all contracts, to
be free from fraud, artifice and collusion, and it hath accordingly
been the policy of virtuous and enlightened legislators of
every age and country to annul the same, whenever it appears
(among other flagrant causes) that either party, being of tender
years, hath been seduced and ensnared by menaces, intimidation,
imposition, falsehood and deceit, to enter clandestinely into
so important an engagement, without the consent or privity of
parents, guardians or friends
And whereas it hath been represented, and satisfactorily
proved, to the general assembly of this commonwealth that a certain
French emigrant named Alexander de Tihly (commonly
called Count dc Tihly) did, by bribing and corrupting the servants
of William Bingham of the city of Philadelphia, commence
and prosecute a secret correspondence with Maria M. de Tihly
(then Maria M. Bingham) the daughter of the said William Bingham,
of the tender age of fifteen years or thereabouts, and in
the course of such correspondence, by acts the most seducing,
fraudulent and iniquitous, as well as by menace and intimidation,
ensnared the said Maria M. de Tilly (then Maria M. Bingham) into a midnight
elopement from the h6use of her parents,and conveyed her to the house of a
minister of the gospel, who was induced to pronounce the marriage ceremony
between the said parties by false, fraudulent and corrupt representations made to
him by the said Alexander de Tilly, touching the parentage, residence
and age of the said Mariam de Tilly.”2

1806, Adams County, Pennsylvania

“AN ACT DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE OF JACOB SELL
AND EVE HIS WIFE.
Whereas it appears by the memorial and petition of Jacob
Sell of Adams county, fully supported by authentic documents
and vouchers, that Jacob Sell when a young man, in time year
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, married a
woman of the name of Eve Helman, who five months after her
marriage was delivered of a female child, and both being conscious
that the child was not the said Sell’s; and firmly impressed with a
belief that under these circumstances happiness was not to be expected,
mutually agreed to separate: she, the said Eve having acknowledged the
fact, agreed in consideration of the sum of ten pounds paid by the said
Sell, the receipt of which the said Eve has also acknowledged, and
further by a written instrument duly executed in which she has disclaimed
any pretentions to further demands, which shemight be supposed to lay
claim to in virtue of said marriage contract.”3

1780, (No County stated), Pennsylvania

“AN ACT TO DISSOLVE THE MARRIAGE OF GILES HICKS WITH HIS WIFE
HESTER HICKS LATE HESTER McDANIEL.
(Section I, P. L.) Whereas, Giles Hicks, of the state of Penn-
sylvania, Esquire, and captain in the tenth regiment of the
said state hath presented a petition to this house setting forth
that in the month of November, one thousand seven hundred
and seventy-six, when he was a minor of the age of fifteen
years, he was seduced by the artifices of a certain Hester
McDaniel and her relations to contract marriage with her contrary
to the consent of his guardians and other friends:
That the said Hester was at the time of the said marriage a common
prostitute and hath since lived separate from the said Giles in
open adultery with divers other men, by means whereof she
became so diseased of the lues venerea as to be declared incurable
after seven months continuance in the Pennsylvania
Hospital, and praying leave to bring in a bill for the dissolution
of the said marriage after due notice given:
And whereas, it appears to this house that the facts alleged
in the said petition are true:
And whereas, this house did, by their resolve of the twenty first
day of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty,
give permission to the said Giles Hicks to bring in a bill to
divorce him from his said wife Hester, agreeable to the prayer
of his said petition, he, the said Giles Hicks,giving previous
notice of his design and this permission at least three weeks
in the public newspaper printed in the city of Philadelphia, entitled
“The Pennsylvania Gazette and Weekly Advertiser:”
And whereas, it hath been sufficiently proved to the house
that the said notice hath been given:”4

See? And here you thought all this law stuff was boring!

  1. Pennsylvania, Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, Volume XVIII from 1806 to 1809 (Harrisburg: Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer, 1915), 896; digital images, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, Pennsylvania Session Laws, http://www.palrb.us: accessed 2 Mar 2012). [↩]
  2. Pennsylvania, Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801: Volume XVI from 1798 to 1801 (Harrisburg: Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer, 1915), 390; digital images, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, Pennsylvania Session Laws, (http://www.palrb.us: accessed 2 Mar 2012). [↩]
  3. Pennsylvania, Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, Volume XVIII from 1806 to 1809, 56. [↩]
  4. Pennsylvania, Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801: Volume X from 1779 to 1781 (Harrisburg: Wm. Stanley Ray, State Printer, 1915), 267; digital images, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, Pennsylvania Session Laws, (http://www.palrb.us: accessed 2 Mar 2012). [↩]
Posted in Thoughts and Musings | 3 Comments

Lines Askew: Irregular Township Shapes South of Ohio’s Western Reserve

Posted on February 19, 2012 by

One of the benefits of speaking to various groups is that inevitably, you will be asked a great question to which you do not know the answer. Such was the case yesterday while speaking to the Summit County Genealogical Society. Afterwards, a gentleman asked a question about the cause of the irregular township shapes of Franklin and Green Townships in Summit County, Ohio. These two townships are the only two Summit County townships south of the Western Reserve, part of the Congress lands north of the Seven Ranges survey. You can clearly see these irregular quadrilaterals (impressive diction, I know) on this township map of Summit County:

Map courtesy of Wikipedia, used under public domain and GNU Free Documentation License

After a little research, I believe I have at least a partial explanation how the irregular shapes may have occurred.

In 1799, Rufus Putnam contracted for the survey of the Congress lands north of the Seven Ranges Survey, south of the Western Reserve, and east of the Tuscarawas branch of the Muskingum.1 The contract stated that the range lines were to be run parallel to the Pennsylvania boundary, however the law stipulated that they be run according to true meridian, which presented a problem for Putnam and his crews. This survey covered nine ranges, and the area was split between three surveyors: Ebeneezer Buckingham in the west, Zachariah Biggs in the center, and John Bever in the eastern three ranges.2

Given that information, when looking at a map of the survey lines of these nine ranges, it is clear that all of the lines within the western three ranges assigned to Ebeneezer Buckingham are quite a bit off from the Pennsylvania lines fairly closely followed by Biggs and Bever in the eastern six ranges.

Base layer created at http://nationalatlas.gov

 

Based on the above information concerning the division of the survey areas, and convincingly confirmed by the map, Ebeneezer Buckingham is likely the reason that these townships have their irregular shape. While the details of how and why this might have occurred can certainly almost certainly be discovered through additional research, it is this difference in orientation of Buckingham’s surveying in 1799 that results in the map as it appears today. Not to blame Mr. Buckinham entirely – it would appear that he simply extended the original survey line of the Seven Ranges survey (the line running between the green and orange areas on the above map) , which was itself several degrees off, as his point of reference.


The 1805 Treaty of Fort Industry opened areas west of the Tuscarawas for survey and settlement.3 A new meridian, seemingly corrected to again be parallel with the Pennsylvania line, was used for the surveys completed between 1806-1807.4. It also served as the western border of four townships (Franklin Township in Summit County and three Stark County townships) between the Western Reserve and the U.S. Military District.  This corrected line made the irregular shapes more pronounced.

The next challenge will be to try and identify who the gentleman was asking the question so he might have a chance to see my answer! Keep those great questions coming, guys. I love solving problems and learning new things in the process!

  1. Albert C. White, A History of the Rectangular Survey System. Volume 2, Appendix to a History of the Rectangular Survey System, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management, 1983), 37; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com/books: accessed 19 Feb 2012) [↩]
  2. ibid, 37-38 [↩]
  3. George W. Knepper, The Official Ohio Lands Book, (Columbus: Ohio Auditor of State, 2002), 44; digital images, Ohio Auditor of State (http://auditor.state.oh.us/publications/general/OhioLandsBook.pdf: accessed 19 Feb 2012) [↩]
  4. ibid. That the corrected line follows the Pennsylvania line is based on interpretation of the map, not Knepper’s work. [↩]
Posted in Thoughts and Musings | 3 Comments

On the Lighter Side: A Genealogy Poster

Posted on February 16, 2012 by

As any of you who are on Facebook are undoubtedly aware, there are a rash of these “career poster” things being posted. You know the ones: Blogger, Writer, Soldier, etc, etc… The ones where they have a series of pictures, with captions like “What my friends think I do,” ” What my mom thinks I do, ” and so on, finally ending with the punchline picture bearing the caption, “What I really do.” It’s a real “Okay, I see what you did there.” kind of thing – poignantly illustrating the differences between perception and reality in six pictures and very few words, cutting right to the core truth of the…okay maybe that’s a little over the top.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, here is an example of the “Writer”, originally posted by Darin Calhoun on facebook. I happened to see it shared on Laura Prescott’s wall.

So I got to thinking. We need one of these things for genealogists. We’re hip, right? We’re mysterious and misunderstood, right? We sometimes take ourselves and our craft a little too seriously, right?

I went through the series of “what [insert person here] thinks…” questions and chose my images accordingly. Then I put them all together in Photoshop. I think I nailed it.

Posted in Fun! | 2 Comments

Getting My GRIP On.

Posted on February 8, 2012 by

This summer, I am excited to announce, I will finally be making it to my first-ever extended learning event, the Genealogical Research Institute of Pittsburgh (GRIP). Tension was high in anticipation of the sound of the opening registration bell. It was just like those scenes in the westerns. High noon was almost here. We were all lining up, fingers twitching, ready to jump the second we got the signal. Shopkeepers were closing the shutters, women and children were ushered inside to safety. Someone pleaded for reason to prevail. Okay, maybe it wasn’t quite that dramatic, but close.

Registration opened at noon. At 11:55, my computer locked up. I restarted it, which took until 11:57. At 11:58, the mailman pulled up at the neighbor’s house. Why is this bad? The dog hates the mailman (I know, I know. I’ve tried to tell him it’s cliche). He goes nuts. Nuts was not what I needed in such a pressure-packed moment of peak typing performance. At 11:59, he opened our mailbox. I cringed. But wait..what’s this? The dog didn’t hear him!

DING DING DING! We were off! I jumped in, feverishly typing away. OH NO! My password doesn’t meet the criteria?! I shook it off and entered a complicated one – a risky move under the circumstances. There was no margin for error, but I did it. I thrive on pressure.  I raced through the first page. On the second, I had my browser window side-by-side with my Word document that contained all the answers to the narrative questions. I cut and pasted, pasted and cut, and well..I basically just used the keyboard a lot. And then it was over. One final button to press to see if I would be one of those still standing. I took a breath and pressed it.

I WAS IN! I WAS GOING TO PITTSBURGH! It then occurred to me that while I was going to Pittsburgh, I had no place to stay there. I was so fast at registration, I raced right by the “Do you want a room?” question. Fortunately, the GRIP team was responsive and offered me a shared room. If you’re reading this and are some random dude from Seattle – Hi, I’m your new roommate. Scary thought, I know.

So Advanced Research Methods, here I come. If you are interested in genealogy and have not checked it out, go to the course description and look at all the wonderful things I’ll be learning. Some really great stuff taught by some really great people. And this class is just one of four they are offering this summer. I know I’ll see some of you there. Can’t wait!!

(Chris exits, planning to ride off into the sunset – a fitting western-style end to the show…but then he realizes he’s in Cleveland, and there is no sun. So he basically just gets smaller and fades into the grayness)

Posted in Fun!, Thoughts and Musings | 17 Comments

Follow Friday: The Legal Genealogist

Posted on January 27, 2012 by

I don’t normally post in the “Follow Friday” theme, but if you haven’t heard or read about it yet, you need to check this one out. It’s the Legal Genealogist blog, by Judy Russell. I’m not the first one to tout its wonderfulness, but I think it bears repeating.

Judy offers concise, wonderfully written, and wonderfully informative posts about the ways in which the law and genealogy interact. In simple language and casual style, Judy tackles questions that help us understand how laws in effect at a given time and place affected documents’ creation and recording, and also how it affects our modern interpretation of them. How old did someone have to be to sign a document? What was the real purpose of a marriage bond? What was an Esquire? Go to her blog and find these answers and more.

Have a question about a law? Judy is willing to help. Simply submit the question via her Ask TLG page and wait for the magic to happen.

I recently wrote a response to a thread on the APG Members mailing list asking advice in creating a blog. In my response, I made four suggestions, based on my own experience reading and writing blogs (paraphrased here):

1. Be committed to writing, and writing regularly

2. It’s all about the content

3. Don’t use it solely to sell yourself and your services

4. Be interactive and participate in the blogging community

If this were the grading rubric, Judy and the Legal Genealogist blog get an A+.

Run, don’t walk, to check out this great resource!

Posted in Thoughts and Musings | 1 Comment

On the BCG Clock!

Posted on January 24, 2012 by

Well, kids, for those who don’t already know – I’m on the BCG clock. That’s right, I have a December 20th 2012 date with the BCG judges. I have about 11 more months to get my portfolio together, spiffied up, and sent in.

What’s involved? If you are interesed in the requirements, grading criteria, and other information, check the BCG website for all the details.

Why am I doing this? Because I am interested in producing the highest quality work possible, I want my work to be judged. I view achieving certification not as an “end”, but really more of a beginning. For me, achieving certification would be validation of all the time and effort I’ve spent learning, digging, and sweating over this family history stuff. I can’t wait to get both feet firmly planted on top of this first major step. I’ll look back over where I started, smile and enjoy it for a while, and then keep climbing.

I’ve heard some people say they don’t want to go on the clock until their requirements are almost finished. I work to deadlines, and I work under pressure. I need that thing ticking in the background to keep me motivated. If there’s anyone reading this who is on the clock in about the same time frame, let me know and we can keep each other moving! Onward and (hopefully) upward!

Posted in Thoughts and Musings | 3 Comments

New Presentation Idea: Tech Tools for Technologically-Challenged Genealogists

Posted on January 19, 2012 by

While I was working on a project last night, it suddenly struck me: I use a lot of different technology tools to do various tasks involved in genealogical research. I had been banished from my desktop computer because my wife needed to feed her Solitare and Mahjong addictions. I shuffled off to the family room, hopped on the laptop, opened up my Dropbox folder, and continued working right where I left off.

*Ding!* It occurred to me that probably only a handful of people in the local, “offline” genealogy societies had probably ever even heard of Dropbox, let alone how it could be useful in their research. Most of these sorts of tools, while technology-based, really aren’t all that scary, and don’t take a great deal of effort to learn to use effectively. It’s time to take these tools to the masses.

I think I will call this presentation: “Ten Hi-Tech Tools for Low-Tech Genealogists, ” One benefit of the format is that it allows a different selection of ten tools each time out of the gate. They can be adjusted according to anticipated audience proficiency, but also added and dropped as new things come along.

Here are the ten I started with (in no particular order), and I will be adding more as they come to me.

  1. Dropbox – here, there, and everywhere
  2. Transcription (transcription software with built-in image viewer)
  3. Digital camera – the wand scanner before there was a wand scanner
  4. Picassa – free and easy
  5. Google (focus on reader and alerts)
  6. Evernote – I just started playing around with this one
  7. SnagIt – sure SHIFT+PrtScn works, but this works better
  8. FamilySearch (highlighting catalog and wiki, rather than collections)
  9. Social Media – it need not frighten you
  10. Blogs – it’s a funny word, isn’t it? What you can find in other folk’s blogs, and why you might want to start one

Of course, at about five minutes per tool, this is not a study in excruciating detail – just a way to share some things people might want to check out a little further for themselves. What tools do you use that you think should be added to the list?

Posted in Thoughts and Musings | 11 Comments

Terminology Tuesday: Curtesy

Posted on January 10, 2012 by

I have been lecturing frequently at various local genealogical societies about using deeds in genealogical research. While I can talk pretty fast, and pack a lot into an hour, some stuff just doesn’t quite fit. Here’s one of them.

Curtesy (kər-tə-see) – “At common law, a husband’s right, upon his wife’s death, to a life estate in the land that his wife owned during their marriage, assuming that a child was born alive to the couple.”1

Not only is the information contained within any given deed regarding kinship useful on its own merit, but it can be even more so in sorting out conflicting evidence in intestate estates. An interesting thing about curtesy is that the child need not be alive at the time of the wife’s death: “It was necessary only that a child had been born alive. The widower’s tenancy by the curtesy in his late wife’s estate ended upon his death, and the heirs of the wife (usually the children) took title.”2

The example below is from Delaware, whose statutes in place at the time concur with these definitions.3

The concept of curtesy (actually introduced, in this case, in Orphans Court proceedings) is crucial to resolving conflicts between, and errors within, documents regarding my Staats family in 18th century Delaware. How did I apply this? For the sake of brevity, I am omitting a large part of the proof argument in order to specifically discuss curtesy. Necessary background information includes: Elijah Staats was born between 1760 and 1765.4 Abraham Harman and Sarah Richardson were married at least some time prior to Abraham’s death in 17815, and that Sarah (Richardson) Harman married David Staats sometime between 1782 and 1783.6

  • An 1808 deed from Elijah Staats contains a chain of title stating that the property he was selling descended as follows: Abraham Harman died intestate, leaving three sons: John, Abraham, and Benjamin. This property was divided equally, and John and Abraham sold their shares. Benjamin retained his, and also died intestate. At the time of his death, his brothers John and Abraham were also deceased, “whereupon the above described land descended to his two half brothers to wit, Richard Staats (who is since deceased and without issue) and Elijah Staats above named…”7
  • Letitia Richardson, widow of John Richardson, died in 1791 leaving a will. Her will names grandchildren Benjamin Harman, Elijah Staats, and Richardson Staats. At the time of her will, both John and Abraham Harman (mentioned in the deed above) were still living, but are not mentioned in the will.8
  • a 17 Jan 1792 petition by Robert Johnston stating John Richardson had four children , including “Sarah who intermarried with David Staats and is since dec’d, leaving issue by the said David three children, to wit, Benjamin, Richardson and Elijah, and the said David Staats her survived, and thereby became tenant by the courtesy of the said Sarah’s undivided fifth part of her said father’s real estate”9
  • a 1 Mar 1808 petition by Elijah Staats indicating that one of the children of John Richardson was “Sarah who intermarried with David Staats (the petitioner’s father) and is since dead and has no other issue living than the petitioner…”10

This situation is also an example of the need to conduct an exhaustive search, as looking at any one of these documents individually will not yield the complete story, and will likely lead to an erroneous conclusion. Relying solely on the 1808 deed, we might be tempted to arrange the family this way: Abraham and wife were married and had three kids: John, Abraham, and Benjamin. The wife was then married to someone named Staats and had two kids, Richard and Elijah. And we’d be wrong.

Looking at only the 1792 petition would leave us with the impression that Sarah had three children by David Staats: Benjamin, Richardson, and Elijah. And we’d be wrong.

Looking at the 1808 petition, it is directly stated that the petitioner (Elijah) is a son of David, so it would be REALLY, REALLY tempting to assume it to be so. And we’d be wrong. (Note: a deeper, more detailed exploration of potential fathers for Elijah is contained in a yet-to-be published article, but omitted here).

Careful examination of the above information, viewed in the light of intestate law, and law governing curtesy gives us the following picture of these families.

Abraham Harman was first married to an unknown spouse and had two children by that marriage; John and Abraham. It is clear from other Orphan’s Court proceedings omitted here that John and Abraham are older than Benjamin, who was still a minor in 1798 when a third bond was issued in the Abraham Harman estate (This third bond also implies that David Staats was deceased prior to 1798).11 Additionally, Sarah Richardson’s mother, Letitia, does not name either John or Abraham Harman as grandchildren in her will, suggesting they were not children of Sarah.

Abraham Harman did marry Sarah (Richardson), and had child Benjamin, who IS mentioned in Letitia’s will. Abraham died in 1781. Sarah (RIchardson)(Harman) married David Staats between 1782-1783. For a variety of reasons, some again omitted here, David cannot be the father of Elijah, who was born almost twenty years earlier than David and Sarah’s marriage. This and other evidence12 suggests that Sarah was first married to another Staats man, almost certainly a brother of David Staats,  prior to her marriage to Abraham Harman

This is where the concept of curtesy comes in, however. According to the 1792 petition, David clearly did have tenancy by curtesy. Therefore, David Staats and Sarah DID have a child together. That child is almost certainly Richard(son).Obviously, compared with the 1808 deed, the wording of this docket is off, however – David is not the father of all three children. Regardless, that inaccuracy doesn’t affect the ruling here.

Does this explanation work with the extensive chain of title in the deed? Yes. Elijah and Richardson would still be half brothers of Benjamin Harman, even if they are half-brothers to each other.

How does the concept of curtesy affect the O.C. statement that David was Elijah’s father? Elijah is inheriting the former property of John Richardson through his mother. Who his father was is irrelevant to the proceedings, since under the laws of curtesy, he is inheriting through his mother, not his father. David was Elijah’s step-father (and most likely, his uncle, too). Any number of scenarios allow for the record to be recorded as it was, but ultimately, the ruling was correct and what was expected, so who would have cause to question wording in a docket book they likely never saw? I mean besides us genealogists, of course!

Having waded through all that, you can imagine why I can’t fit that into a lecture very conveniently (although I do summarize the family groups – the deed is my example of chain of title). Again,a large part of the article has been omitted here, so if you are looking for holes in the blog post, you may very well find some! My intent here is simply to introduce the term to folks who may not have heard it, and show an example of how knowing and applying the law to your research can make a fuzzy picture at least a little bit less fuzzy

If you would do me the courtesy of leaving me your thoughts on curtesy and my example of its use, I will perform a virtual curtsy in appreciation.

 

  1. Bryan A. Garner, editor, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition, (St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2004), 411. [↩]
  2. Val D. Greenwood, The Researcher’s Guide to American Genealogy, (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Pub. Co., 2000), p. 485. [↩]
  3. Delaware, Laws of the State of Delaware, from  the Second Day of January, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven, to the Sixteenth Day of February One Thousand Eight Hundred an Twenty Nine,” (Dover, 1829), 77; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ax5FAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false: accessed 20 Nov 2011);  “If the intestate leave a husband, who shall have had by said intestate during their marriage issue born alive, whether such issue have lived or died, such husband shall hold all such lands, tenements or hereditaments for the term of his life, as tenant by the curtesy.” [↩]
  4. Elijah’s age is consistently reported in the 1810-1840 censuses, and by calculation is 1760-1765. 1810 U.S. census, Fayette, Pennsylvania, Luzerne Twp, p. 964 1/2, line 28, Elijah Stotts; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 Nov 2009); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M252, roll 54.  1820 U.S. census, Harrison, Ohio population schedule, Freeport Twp., p. 91, line 6, Elijah Staats; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 28 Sep 2011); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M33, roll M33_93. 1830 U.S. census, Harrison, OH, Freeport Twp, p. 226, line 13, Elijah Statts; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 Jan 2009); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M19, roll 133. 1840 U.S. census, Monroe, OH, Union Twp, p. 83, line 25, “Elijah Stales”; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 31 Jan 2009); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M704, roll 416. [↩]
  5. New Castle, Delaware, Probate Files, RG 2454.001, Abraham Harman (1781-1788), administrator’s bond for Sarah Harman (1781); DPA film no. 191, Delaware Public Archives, Dover. [↩]
  6. ibid, administrator’s bond for David Staats (1788). [↩]
  7. New Castle County, Delaware, Deed Books, H3:227, Elijah Staats to Lydia Smith, 10 Aug 1808. [↩]
  8. New Castle, Delaware, Probate Files, will of Letitia Richardson (1791), Delaware Public Archives. [↩]
  9. New Castle County, Delaware, Orphan’s Court Docket Books G:290, petition of Robert Johnson (1792); FHL microfilm 006,547. [↩]
  10. New Castle County, Delaware, Orphan’s Court Docket Books J:546, petition of Elijah Staats (1808); FHL microfilm 006,548. [↩]
  11. New Castle, Delaware, Probate Files, Abraham Harman (1781-1788), administrator’s bond for Robert Johnson, 30 May 1798. [↩]
  12. Other evidence primarily involves the estate transactions of Jacob Staats Senior. [↩]
Posted in Family Findings, How-To, Thoughts and Musings | Comments Off

In Before the Ball Drops: A Review of my 2011 Goals

Posted on December 30, 2011 by

With the end of the year just a few days away, it is time to make that dreaded visit to the always-ambitious list created one year ago.

What craziness had I set out for myself this year and how did I do? Each goal will be rated: “Check”, “Nope”, or “Kinda”, with a description of progress or the lack thereof. You might be asking yourself, “But Chris, why would I want to read about your old goals?” The answer: I have no idea, but people seem to read these posts for some unknown reason, and quite honestly, I checked my own list occasionally throughout the year to see where I stood. Putting goals down in writing is a definite plus…as is putting them out publicly for everyone to humiliate you if you don’t meet them.

Without further adieu, I grade myself:

1.   Continue making progress with the Delaware Staats families research
Self-explanatory. While I haven’t broken down the wall yet, I have cracked it a little. As long as it is a little weaker at the end of the year than it is now, I will be happy.

Check. I uncovered some new info, but more importantly, I finally got some of my thoughts down in writing in an actual proof argument. Progress comes slowly when you’ve been working a family for years, but damned if I didn’t do it.  I should get extra credit for this one.

2.   Publish two articles beyond the local society newsletter level.
This I especially true since I happen to edit my local society’s newsletter! I want to publish one methodology article and one family narrative this year – preferably at the state society or similar level.

Check. Kinda. I had two articles accepted for publishing, but one article that was supposed to appear this month didn’t. But I’m in the holiday spirit, and am giving myself the benefit of the doubt for a late Christmas gift. Cross it off. One of the articles was about using the NARA online ordering system, the other about professionalism.

3.   Finish the NGS Home Study Course
I need to finish the last lesson of the first CD before I lose or break it. And then I need to finish the next two CDs. At least I don’t own CD 3 yet, so it is not in danger.

Nope. I didn’t even get the first CD done, although all I had to left to do was write a measly paragraph to finish it. Because there were no deadlines, this kept getting pushed back in a crunch, and never made it off the back burner. I was engaged in ProGen 8 simultaneously, and ProGen took priority. Maybe one day I’ll try NGS again, but probably not.

4.   Begin (as in actually start the application) the BCG certification process.
No more cheating here and saying that this or that “helps towards getting ready.” I need that pre-application filled out, and that document to start the application in my hands before the ball drops on 2012

Check. That’s right, I did it. I look forward to working on the application over the next year. Plus it makes for an automatic gimme when I set some goals for next year. Since I already used some of the work I had planned to use for submission, I have my work cut out for me over the next year to make sure I have a chance to pass the first time out.

5.   Produce a high-quality newsletter for my local genealogical society.
As of the 1st, I am officially the newsletter editor for the East Cuyahoga County Genealogical Society. One of the things I think I was brought in to do was to help start e-delivery. With that option, the content and layout options are greatly enhanced, and I hope to deliver an appealing newsletter with great content that people can’t wait to get in their inbox (or mailbox, if the whole e-thing fails!)

Check. The change to e-delivery went pretty smoothly. I’ve had several nice comments about the newsletter. One person claimed at the last meeting that it was the best newsletter of any group. I think her lemonade may have fermented some, but I’ll take the compliment. Cross this one off, too. Extra credit here, too.

6.   Begin speaking/lecturing, with a focus on land records and mapping.
Land records always scare people. Maps sometimes scare people. I occasionally scare people. We were meant to be together.

Check. Despite forgetting to breathe for about 8 minutes the first time out, it seemed to have gone pretty well. It lead to some more speaking gigs, and in fact I have two coming up next week. Speaking is still a little out of my comfort zone, but apparently within my skill set. Full steam ahead! More topics are in the works (Hey look – another easy goal for next year). What the heck – extra credit for a job well done. Thanks, Chris. You’re welcome, Chris.

I’m going to lump the next three together, as they all have to do with business goals.

7.    Double the amount of Staats Genealogical Services research clients for compared with 2010.
8.   Finish the Staats Genealogical Services website.
9.   Work to standardize correspondence, reporting, and record keeping formats.

Nope. Kinda. Kinda. Sadly, of all the goals on my list, the ones directly related to business were the least successful. Why? I’m not entirely sure, to be honest, but it’s something I definitely need to investigate as I move forward. Fr a large part of the year…okay, for all of the year, I was finishing ProGen 8. While the monthly assignments were not overwhelming, they did take time to complete. Many of the assignments were along the lines of what I had hoped to do, business-wise. However, between ProGen, work, client projects, and all the volunteer society things I’ve been doing (not to mention family), I just never quite had time to focus on business stuff. Another, more disturbing possibility is simply that I am just not good at the business end of things. I have no doubt that I am an excellent researcher. I know I can write, and I am improving as a speaker. But when it comes time to sit down and hammer out some business projects, I really struggle. Time will tell. I really only have through the summer to focus on the business of genealogy. If it’s not producing at least a little more, I will be forced to abandon efforts to develop the business and refocus on getting a “real job.” *shudders*

10. Increase my  social media presence as a business.

Check…kinda. While I did create a facebook page for Staats Genealogical Services, I’ve not done much with it. Most of my genealogical interaction has still been through my personal facebook page. Perhaps I need to sit down and think about at least creating groups. Hey, that sounds like a new goal!

Final tally: 72% (10 points for “check,” 5 points for “kinda,” and 2 points for “nope.” I get points for “nope” because even though I didn’t get it done, I did make an effort in most cases)

I think this is about where I was last year, point-wise. It’s not a bad score for an ambitious agenda. As I begin thinking about next year it is tempting to scale back in order to give myself a higher score. In the end though, I doubt I will. I’d rather get 72% on an ambitious set of goals than a 90% on a lame set. OH CRAP! I forgot about my extra credit. Graded on a curve, using math so complex, I don’t even understand it (I think it has something to do with Chaos Theory) I actually ended up with an 80%. Yay, me!

Best of luck in meeting your goals, whatever they may be in 2012. Happy New Year every one!

Chris

Posted in Fun!, Thoughts and Musings | 4 Comments

Christmas in Caldwell (Ohio), 1880

Posted on December 25, 2011 by

Merry Christmas 2011! Last January, I happened across this 1880 advertisement while researching something else, and thought it would be fitting come the next Christmas time. It is nothing short of a Christmas miracle that I happened to remember it today. Even 131 years ago: 1) Parents are hard-pressed to fool their children about Santa Claus, and 2) Christmas and commercialism had already bonded.

Enjoy, and may you and yours have a very Merry Christmas or whichever holiday celebrations you enjoy!

Milt. James' Toy Store advertisement, 1880 ("Milt James Toy Store advertisement," (Caldwell, OH) Caldwell Citizens Press, 16 Dec 1880, p. 2. )

 

 

Posted in Fun! | Comments Off