Author: Chris Staats

A few years ago, my website was hacked and nefarious hyperlinks were inserted throughout numerous posts. Upon further review, the affected posts spanned years of content. I learned of this when I got a cease and desist email from a consumer watchdog agency alerting me to the issue. Since I couldn’t possibly locate every link in every post and was nervous about a the possibility there was still a back door to my website open somewhere, I decided to wipe the site clean and start over. I thought I backed up the content before I did it, but I was wrong.
Today I decided to start the process of recreating the blog one post at a time using the Wayback Machine. Many posts are dated because of technology, some are just bad, others just meh, so I am trying to weed through them all and just post what interests me, keeping the original post dates as a sort of historical record of my site.

If you’re not familiar with the Wayback Machine, give it a go to try and find now-defunct websites and their content!

Originally published 14 Apr 2017

Among the many Staats photographs I’ve inherited over the years is this photograph labeled “Harry Staats, son of Millison Staats.” That makes Harry my second cousin three times removed. For years, the only record I could find of him was in the 1880 census as a five-year old boy. The picture is clearly of someone in their late teens or early twenties, so surely there must be more to his story? Most definitely.

Harry was born on 19 Jan 1875, probably in Ralls County, Missouri. He was the oldest son of Elisha Millison Staats and Mary Ann Headley. By that 1880 census record, they were back in Caldwell, Noble, Ohio.¹ The family would also live in Marietta and Cambridge Ohio, but Harry didn’t appear in any of those records. What had become of him?

While I have yet to discover all of the details, Harry has turned out to be quite an interesting character! He was married to Elizabeth Smith in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on 26 Mar 1894. Underage? No problem, Harry just made his birth year two years earlier, 19 Jan 1873, and was now magically of age! Interestingly, his bride was of age, but consent was given anyway.² Five months later, their daughter was born in Elwood, Indiana, explaining some of the urgency of the marriage.³

Harry played semi-professional baseball. For two or three seasons, Harry played for the Elwood team, but signed with Terre-Haute in March of 1896.⁴ By May, Harry was playing second base for the Logansport Ottos⁵, about 50 miles north of the Staats’ home in Elwood. Apparently baseball wasn’t the only thing Harry was playing in Logansport. The season ended, but Harry had not returned home. On 21 Nov 1896, the Logansport Pharos-Tribune reported “Mrs. Staats, wife of the ballplayer, was in Logansport yesterday in search of her truant husband.” According to the paper:⁶

“Staats, who has been in the city for the past month shinin’ around a certain young woman, gave out that he had never married the woman who claims to be his wife, but she brought her marriage license with her also newspaper clippings announcing when and where the marriage was celebrated.”

Whoops! Two weeks later, his wife was back and filed an affidavit charging him with desertion and a warrant was issued. Harry was found at the flat of his mistress and her mother, taken into custody, fined $10, and released to his wife. The details were dramatically reported the next day:

“Dirty Dog Harry and his faithful wife left police headquarters and were walking about to kill time…Staats picked up his child and was carrying the little one when Lottie [the mistress] emerged from the house of a mutual friend … and took hold of her lover’s arm. This bit of brazen impudence enraged Mrs. Staats, and picking up a stone…threw it at her hated rival. The missile hit the giddy creature on the back and caused her to retreat.”

According to the paper, Dirty Dog Harry briefly gave his wife the slip to hug and kiss Lottie goodbye. Even Lottie’s mother got in on the action, calling Elizabeth [Staats] a “dirty trollup” before police intervened. But in the end, Harry returned to Elwood with his wife, who was far more forgiving than I imagine I would be under the same circumstances.⁷ That lasted two weeks, when Harry returned to Logansport, his wife reporting to Logansport police that she no longer wanted anything to do with him.⁸ He signed the following spring to play in Lexington, Kentucky, although it appears he instead signed on to an Indianapolis’ team.

In March of 1898, he went to work for the Mutual Telephone company. On his first day on the job, he felt the pole he was climbing was falling, so he jumped. The pole was fine, Harry was not so lucky. He shattered his ankle, crippling him and ending his playing career.⁹ In 1899, Harry underwent several surgeries to regain mobility, eventually having three toes amputated. He briefly managed the Logansport team, but never played again.

There is a gap in the online Elwood papers for 1900, but amazingly given his indiscretions, Harry appeared in that census with his wife and daughter, listed as a bartender. In Jul of 1901, the Elwood Daily Record reported that Harry had resigned his bar-tending position at the Stevenson House in order for he and his family to return to Ohio. At some point before July 1904, Harry and family returned to Indiana, Harry once again making news. This time, he was arrested in a gambling raid. Other articles mention him as a breeder of fox terrier. The last mention of Harry is a July 1905 blurb mentioning that his brother, Allen, was in town visiting.

In 1910, his wife, Elizabeth, and daughter are in the Marion County, Indiana census, living in Indianapolis with Elizabeth’s mother. Elizabeth is listed as a widow. What was Harry’s fate? Was Elizabeth actually a widow, or had Harry run off for good? Only more research will uncover those answers.

1. 1880 U.S. census, Noble, Ohio, population schedule, Caldwell, enumeration district (ED) 195, p. 166 (stamped), dwelling 159, family 178, Weedon Heady household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 11 Oct 2009. His parents were living in Ralls County in the 1870 Census); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm T9, roll T9_1055. [↩]
2. “Pennsylvania County Marriages, 1885 – 1950,” database and images, FamilySearch (http://www.familysearch.org : accessed 14 Apr 2017), Staats-Smith (1894); Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Marriage Dockets 29:99, 1894. [↩]
3. Social Security Administration database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017), entry for Irene M. Fox, 1989, SS no. 315-34-9037. [↩]
4. “With Terre Haute: Harry Staats Will Play Baseball This year,” Elwood Daily Press, 20 Mar 1896, p. 8, col. 1; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017). [↩]
5. “City News,” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 6 May 1896, p. 21, col. 1; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017). [↩]
6. “A Deserted Wife,”  Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 21 Nov 1896, p. 13, col. 3; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017). [↩]
7. “Disgusting Was the Conduct of Lottie Guinup,”  Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 2 Dec 1896, p. 13, col. 2; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017). [↩]
8. “Staats Is Back,”  Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 15 Dec 1896, p. 24, col. 4; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017).   [↩]
9. “Harry Staats Breaks His Left Ankle Yesterday,”  Logansport Pharos-Tribune, 15 Mar 1898, p. 6, col. 2; digital images, Newspapers.com (http://www.newspapers.com : accessed 14 Apr 2017).

Thanks to Mary Milne Jamba for asking this great question!

Mary was concerned about her citation to an 1800 census image for the Northwest Territory found in Ancestry.com’s “1800 United States Federal Census” database. Ancestry’s source information for this database says:

“Ancestry.com. 1800 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2010. Images reproduced by FamilySearch.
Original data: Second Census of the United States, 1800. (NARA microfilm publication M32 [emphasis added], 52 rolls). Records of the Bureau of the Census, Record Group 29. National Archives, Washington, D.C”¹

However, the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio does not appear anywhere in NARA’s listing of those 52 rolls.² It’s not part of that microfilm publication.

If it’s not part of the cited source, where did it come from? It actually comes from a different NARA microfilm publication, “Second census of the United States, 1800, population schedules, Washington County. Territory Northwest of the River Ohio; and population census, 1803, Washington County, Ohio (M1804) [emphasis added]”³

Ancestry has merged this record with the M32 publication. They do mention in the record description, “Lost schedules include those for Georgia, Indiana Territory, Kentucky, Mississippi Territory, New Jersey, Northwest Territory [emphasis added], Virginia, Tennessee, and Alexandria County, District of Columbia. Some of the schedules for these states have been re-created using tax lists and other records. [emphasis added]”⁴

NARA added to the confusion by naming the M1804 publication something that it is not– a federal census. Nor is it a population schedule.

So how did it end up at NARA?

According to a description published by the Washington County chapter of the Ohio Genealogical Society, the film was compiled by Claire Prechtel-Kluskens of the National Archives and Records Administration in 1994.⁵ Quoting the introductory matter on the microfilm, the page states:

“In 1962, all of the schedules reproduced on this roll of microfilm were in the Campus Martius Museum, Marietta, Ohio.  That year they were loaned to the National Archives for microfilming through the courtesy of the Museum, the Ohio Historical Society, and the Commissioners of Washington County, Ohio.  At that time, the negative microfilm was turned over to the Marietta College Library, while the positive was placed in the Microfilm Reading Room of the National Archives, Washington, DC.”⁶

Now that we know how it got there, WHAT IS IT? Below is a sample image from this collection (click for full-size):

Ancestry identifies the source of this image as “Year: 1800; Census Place: Newtown, Washington, Territory Northwest of the River Ohio; Roll: 1,” and cites publication M32 as the original source. But this isn’t Roll 1 of M32; it’s Roll 1 of M1804. For original image, see: http://tinyurl.com/m8935gt

The answer to that lies in statutes, specifically, statutes of the Northwest Territories.

Chapter 102 of the Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory Adopted or Enacted From 1788 to 1833 Inclusive details:
“An act to ascertain the number of free male inhabitant of the age of twenty one in the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio and to regulate the of representatives for the same.”⁷

Passed in 1799, the statute provides that:

“The enumeration shall commence on the first Tuesday of May next [1800], and on the first Tuesday of May every second year afterwards and shall be closed within thirty days after the commencement thereof. The several constables shall within forty days after the commencement of the enumeration, return to the clerk of the peace of their respective counties, accurate returns of all free male inhabitants of twenty one years of age within the townships allotted to them respectively, which returns shall be made in a schedule distinguishing the several families in which may be found a free male inhabitant of the age of twenty one years, by the name of their respective master, mistress, or other principal person therein, in manner following, to wit:
‘The number of free male inhabitants of the age of twenty one years within my township of _________ consists of _______ as appears in a schedule hereunto annexed. Subscribed by me this ____day of ________ AB constable.”⁸

The statute also provides the form of the schedule, worded almost exactly as you see in the image above:⁹

So the images on Ancestry are actually a territorial census, not a federal population schedule, taken to establish the number of eligible voters for representation purposes. While it’s obviously a valuable record set, it’s not quite the record set that the source information indicates. It’s a shame that this census AND the federal census for Washington County aren’t BOTH still around.

Nevertheless, learning as much as we can about  why a record was created and the laws that governed its form and function help us extract as much information as we possibly can. If nothing else, it makes for great conversation-starters at parties…assuming it’s a genealogical party.

The next question: Did NARA ever return the originals they were “lent” in 1962, and if so, to whom?

1. Ancestry.com, “1800 United States Federal Census,“  Ancestry.com (http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7590: accessed 1 Apr 2014),  ”Source Information.” [↩]
2. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “1790-1890 Federal Population Censuses – Part 2,” National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/research/census/publications-microfilm-catalogs-census/1790-1890/part-02.html). [↩]
3. See FamilySearch Catalog entry– https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/720623?availability=Family%20History%20Library. [↩]
4. Ancestry.com, “1800 United States Federal Census,” “About 1800 United States Federal Census.” [↩]
5. Washington County Chapter of the Ohio Genealogical Society, ”Washington County, Ohio, census description 1800 and 1803,” Washington County Chapter Ohio Genealogical Society (http://www.washogs.org/18001803.html: accessed 1 Apr 2014) [↩]
6. ibid. [↩]
7. Salmon P. Chase, The Statutes of Ohio and of the Northwestern Territory, Adopted or Enacted From 1788 to 1833 Inclusive: Together with the Ordinance of 1787; the Constitutions of Ohio and of the United States, and Various Public Instruments and Acts of Congress, Illustrated by a Preliminary Sketch of the History of Ohio; Numerous References and Notes and Copious Indexes (Cincinnati: Corey & Fairbank, 1833), 239; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=zpk4AAAAIAAJ&vq=census&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false: accessed 1 Apr 2014). [↩]
8. ibid. at 240. [↩]
9. ibid. [↩]

I’m in my mid-40s. Even now, I don’t quite fit what many people consider the typical genealogical demographic. I certainly didn’t fit it over 15 years ago when I first started researching. Two-thirds of my research career was spent in relative isolation (no pun intended). I had never even thought about the possibility of connecting with other family history enthusiasts who weren’t my cousins. I had no idea why I would want to do such a thing. Thinking back, I don’t know why I wouldn’t. 

This post is for all of you that are in that same boat, regardless of age. I couldn’t have been the only one, and I would be willing to bet that it’s even more common now. 

In 2009, I decided to attend my first genealogy event: the Ohio Genealogical Society’s annual conference. Held at Sawmill Creek near Huron, Ohio, it was close enough for me to commute daily rather than commit to spending big bucks for several nights in a hotel. I can’t tell you for sure all the lectures I attended. I’m pretty sure I saw lectures about Pennsylvania genealogy and Virginia genealogy. I went to one about Irish research. I think I attended one about researching women ancestors. I know for sure that I attended a lecture about Civil War research.

I know this not because I remember the websites and other resources mentioned during the hour. I remember it because it was at that lecture that my genealogy career really began. I met Brent Morgan. And so it started. Brent and his wife, Sharon, were sitting next to me in this lecture. I don’t remember exactly how the conversation started, but after the lecture we were talking. Upon learning I lived in Cleveland, Brent told me that I should go to the next meeting of the East Cuyahoga County Genealogical Society. He said they were having a great speaker that night. I asked who, and he replied that he was the speaker. I did go to that meeting, and then I joined the group. And I’ve never looked back.

I didn’t attend many meetings that first year, but I also joined the Lake County Genealogical Society to attend some of their programs. I started blogging. At first, I blogged about whatever came to mind, but it quickly evolved into a genealogy blog. Later that year, Lake County hosted Elissa Scalise Powell. I had seen her speak at the 2009 conference, and blogged about the fact that she would speaking at Lake County. I didn’t even think about it at the time.

Enter the 2010 OGS conference in Toledo. By that time, I had gotten serious about genealogy. Just prior to the conference, I joined the waiting list to be part of a ProGen group. I asked if I could attend the ProGen lunch gathering at the conference.  At that luncheon, I met a number of people, including local genealogist, Carla Cegielski, as well as not-so-local folks like Harold Henderson. The conversations were enlightening. Never before had I met so many people who were not only passionate about genealogy, but knowledgeable. After introducing myself, Carla told me that a number of people had attended Elissa’s talk because they had heard about it from my blog post. WHAT?? Someone actually found and read the blog? I had no idea.

My application to the First Families of Ohio was also accepted that year, and I planned to attend the banquet. One of the lecturers I saw at this conference was Craig Scott. Earlier that winter, Craig was speaking in Pittsburgh, but a winter storm prevented me from attending. In the lobby on my way to the banquet, I saw Craig, introduced myself, and told him that I was sorry to have missed his Pittsburgh appearance. He sat down in a chair and asked me what I wanted to know. He spent so much time talking one-on-one with me that I ended up being late for the banquet. I hate being late, but that was well worth it! At the banquet, I sat next to Jean Hoffman, who I had met somewhere along the line, probably having been introduced by Brent.

That conference was yet another mile-marker in my genealogical progression. The people I had met were so inspiring. We shared a common passion, and I jumped at the chance to completely immerse myself in genealogy, even if only for a few days, and with money I really didn’t have. Sitting in the lobby at that conference, I also joined APG.

Over the next two years, I kept my feet moving. I picked up a number of new volunteer commitments, and even started doing some client work. That summer I was put in contact with Margaret Cheney and– much to my horror at the time– launched my speaking career. I was now a member of East Cuyahoga, Lake County, Great Lakes APG Chapter, and the Western Reseve Historical Society’s Genealogical Committee.

The 2012 OGS conference was in Cleveland, my hometown! …and I couldn’t go. Not being able to get the time off work, I was relegated to manning the WRHS table for a few hours here and there. Enter Sunny Morton and Family Tree Magazine. While on my way to the vendor hall, I ran into Sunny. She offered to introduce me to her editor. Have you heard of the “elevator speech?” You know, where you have 30 seconds to tell all about yourself and how awesome you are? Not my strong suit anyway, I totally panicked. I was sure I sounded like a complete dolt and had totally tanked.

After the conference, I was glum, having only been able to spend a few hours there, all in the vendor hall. Even in that limited time, I managed to blow my chance at writing for publication. And a month later, out of the blue, I got an email from Family Tree. And a week later, another email. I went from thinking I’d blown my chance to suddenly having two articles with actual deadlines, almost like a real writer. Though I wasn’t even registered for that conference, it turned out to be one of the best ever, business-wise.

I could go on and on about the 2011 conference in Columbus, or the 2013 conference in Cincinnati. Each was spectacular, and each spectacular for its own reasons. But it’s really those first few conferences that set my life on its current path. Now I don’t expect you all to suddenly decide to become professional genealogists…especially if you like to eat, live well, etc.  However: are you passionate about genealogy and not yet made a connection with the larger genealogical community? Are you are a newcomer looking for information and direction? A serious researcher looking to see top lecturers, immerse yourself in genealogical conversation, and make new connections? A conference can open doors to worlds you never knew existed.

That sounds cliche, but for me, it was totally true. I’ve met so many wonderful people since that conference in 2009– too many to name them all here individually, though I wish I could. I can’t even begin to imagine my genealogical life existing in total isolation. Many of you have provided me with milestone moments equally as important as these conference slices-of-life. Between conferences, institutes, and social media, my genealogical life is SO much richer with you all in it. I can’t thank enough.

So give it a shot. If you’re not sure and have some questions, drop me a line. I’m getting excited for this year’s OGS conference and would love to see you there. You can find the info at http://www.genex2014.org/ and register. Heck, make a long vacation out of it and head down to Richmond, Virginia to attend the 2014 National Genealogical Society conference: http://conference.ngsgenealogy.org/.

Okay, so this gig doesn’t pay much. In fact, if you’re looking for cash, you’ll be sadly disappointed. However, if the satisfaction of helping to sort out the origins of the Staats family in America floats your boat, you’re in luck. Colleague and potential cousin Dottie Staats Kerns has done a fabulous job getting a large number of Staats males from the West Virginia families to test. Purchasing the kits with her own money, she has gotten enough samples from each of the early WV branches that you can start to see the patterns– which line is more closely related to which. You can also see that they are all related to each other, although the exact relationship can’t be determined from the test. None of this replaces the paper trail and traditional research techniques; it’s just another tool in the toolbox. I don’t view these tests as an “answer,” but rather as a way to help guide us towards more evidence that will help guide us to evidence with which to draw a strong conclusion.

All of the WV DNA samples closely match the samples submitted by descendants of Jan Pieterszen Van Huysen family of Gowanus, (the patriarch of the Gowanus Staats family). So far, only one person from the Albany branch has tested. That test did not match the Gowanus branch tests even remotely. However, one test for comparison is simply not enough to draw any theories or conclusions. I won’t get into the details of how yDNA testing works, but at its most basic level, yDNA is passed from father-to-son, essentially unchanged. Ultimately, after analyzing certain “markers” along the DNA strand and how many times a pattern at that point is repeated, it’s statistics. By comparing data between tests, you can estimate 1) whether or not two males are related, and if so, 2) The number of generations within which they likely share a common ancestor.

No one from my branch, the Delaware branch, has tested at all. I don’t think anyone from the New Jersey branch has tested, either, but I could be wrong about that. I would love to get someone from my same DE line to test to help get a better idea where I fit in, but I am ultimately interested in helping build a database of ALL of the Staats families as a tool to help sort out the origins of each. I am especially interested in the Delaware branch, and have reached out to descendants of those families individually. However, I can’t write to everyone, and posting here is my way of hoping to cast the net a little wider.

What’s the catch? There really isn’t one. I have two testing kits at the ready. If you are a Staats male from any of these families and willing to help, I will send you the kits and instructions (it’s just a cheek swab that you rub around, stick in a plastic container, and mail it back to the company in the provided envelope. There’s no charge to you, and you can test anonymously. If you have any other question, please feel free to ask me.

I am always looking for parallels between legal research and genealogical research. In my evidence and torts class this week, we studied Ohio’s Rules of Evidence regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence. It was a loooong stretch of class, and then suddenly we got to what I mentally labeled the “genealogy exceptions.” I woke back up. The “genealogy exceptions,”  as I call them, are hearsay statements that are admissible in court, and they include a large sampling of records that we normally use, or should be using as genealogists.

We’ve all heard “Objection, your Honor. Hearsay!” on TV, but what does it really mean? According to the Ohio rules, ”‘Hearsay’ is a statement¹, other than one made by the declarant² while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”³ In other words, hearsay is a statement by someone without first-hand knowledge of an event, that is given as evidence to support a specific claim.

Start with the general presumption that hearsay is inadmissible. As an example, assume Witness A saw a van run a red light, causing an accident. Witness A then tells Person B (who was not at the scene, and had no personal knowledge of the incident) what they saw. In general, the testimony of Person B will be inadmissible, at least when it is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter– in this case, as evidence of the cause of the accident. There are exceptions…there are a lot of exceptions, but in general, if you didn’t see, hear, or otherwise personally experience something, and you’re not the one making a statement, your statement is not admissible as evidence.

What are some of the exceptions that allow statements by someone other than the declarant to be admissable? Here are a few from Rule 803 I think you’ll recognize:

(8) Public records and reports. Records, reports, statements, or data compilations,
in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (a) the activities of the office or agency,
or (b) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to
report, excluding, however, in criminal cases matters observed by police officers and other law
enforcement personnel, unless offered by defendant, unless the sources of information or other
circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Records of vital statistics. Records or data compilations, in any form, of births,
fetal deaths, deaths, or marriages, if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to
requirement of law

(10) Absence of public record or entry. To prove the absence of a record, report,
statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of
which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and
preserved by a public office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with
Rule 901(B)(10) or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement,
or data compilation, or entry.

(11) Records of religious organizations. Statements of births, marriages, divorces,
deaths, legitimacy, ancestry, relationship by blood or marriage, or other similar facts of personal
or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Marriage, baptismal, and similar certificates. Statements of fact contained in a
certificate that the maker performed a marriage or other ceremony or administered a sacrament,
made by a clergyman, public official, or other person authorized by the rules or practices of a
religious organization or by law to perform the act certified, and purporting to have been issued
at the time of the act or within a reasonable time thereafter.

(13) Family records. Statements of fact concerning personal or family history
contained in family Bibles, genealogies, charts, engravings on rings, inscriptions on family
portraits, engravings on urns, crypts, or tombstones, or the like.

(14) Records of documents affecting an interest in property. The record of a
document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property, as proof of the content of the
original recorded document and its execution and delivery by each person by whom it purports to
have been executed, if the record is a record of a public office and an applicable statute
authorizes the recording of documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in documents affecting an interest in property. A statement
contained in a document purporting to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter
stated was relevant to the purpose of the document, unless dealings with the property since the document was made have been inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in ancient documents. Statements in a document in existence twenty
years or more⁴ the authenticity of which is established.⁵

Notice that almost every exception contains the language “statements of fact, ” and any of the documents listed here will contain them. What we can’t tell from any single individual document is whether or not a given statement of fact it contains is correct. If I’m a lawyer, I’m most interested in winning. The “correct” statement is whichever one most benefits my client. If other statements disagree, I’m going to be looking to keep them out of evidence or otherwise explain them away however I can. As genealogists, though ,we want to bring as many of these “statements of fact,” from as many different admissible sources as possible.⁶ We need to be able to examine and cross-examine (forgive the pun) each source to see what information it contains. We need to look at the information that each source contains, and what sort of evidence that information provides to help solve our case. Then we need to correlate all the various pieces of evidence from all the different sources⁷ to come up with the best possible argument to “prove” our case. As genealogists, we only win when we are the most accurate we can be given the all evidence available.

What does all this have to do with genealogy? It means that, in general, all those Ancestry, FamilySearch, WikiTree, or family history books are hearsay. Don’t admit them to your personal Court of Genealogy. The author or compiler of that tree, in most cases  1) did not have first-hand knowledge of the events about which which he is making a statement, and 2) is making that statement in order to offer evidence evidence to prove an assertion. The assertion in this case is kinship, asserting the correctness of a pedigree chart or family group sheet. What evidence IS admissible are all those sorts of documents that we should be using– the exceptions listed in Ohio Rules of Evidence.

Astute readers may point out a flaw here: I claimed that evidence from online or published family trees is not admissible, yet under exception 803(13), genealogies are admissible. True enough, you can admit them if you choose. But our goal as genealogists is truth, and we are looking to find and admit as much evidence as possible to get that goal. In the process of collecting evidence from all those other documents, that online of published family tree is either going to become superfluous to your argument, or it is going to be shown to be incorrect. If all you have is that genealogy, your chances of winning a case aren’t real good. That’s not to say that the genealogy won’t, in some cases, save you time building your case by pointing you to the actual admissible evidence from which the genealogy was compiled, but that is something better left in your notes than in your finished argument.

You ARE going to write out your proof argument, right? Not many court cases are won by plopping down a stack of papers on the judge’s bench and hoping that he has time to analyze it all and come to the same conclusions you did. Similarly, no matter how carefully a genealogist enters information into a database, no matter how meticulous and correct the source citations are– no one will be able to automatically divine how you determined that John, not Joseph was the father of your ancestor, or that he was married to Mary Williams, not Mary Smith. With three different documents giving two different dates, how did you conclude that the one that didn’t match was the correct date? You need to explain how all that evidence and its analysis fit together to arrive at the sound conclusion you’ve reached.⁸ It’s this written process of analysis and correlation that helps separate sound research from document-collecting.

1. defined as “(1) an oral or written assertion or (2) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Ohio Rules of Evidence, Ohio Supreme Court, Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Judicial System (www.supremecourt.ohio.gov: accessed 7 Dec 2013); Rule 802(A). [↩]
2. A “declarant” is a person who makes a statement. Ibid., Rule 802(B). [↩]
3. Ohio Rules of Evidence, Rule 801(C). [↩]
4. …nice to know that my own marriage record is an “ancient document.” [↩]
5. Ibid., Rule 803(8-16). [↩]
6. This is the first piece of the Genealogical Proof Standard– a reasonably exhaustive search. For all GPS references, see “Genealogical Proof Standard,” Board For Certification of Genealogists (http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html: accessed 10 Dec 2013). [↩]
7. Parts 3 and 4 of the GPS– Analysis and correlation of the collected information and Resolution of conflicting evidence. [↩]
8. Part 5 of the GPS–Soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. [↩]

The Russell Index. Just mentioning the name causes some to shudder. The skeleton key symbol emblazoned with its cryptic “l-m-n-r-t” message. The dreaded columns and rows.  Letters and numbers all over the page. Noooooo! If you do research in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, among others, you are going to have to master this index. I’m here to tell you, though, folks – this is one of my favorite indexes. With just a little bit of practice, I guarantee you’ll learn to love it, too. There are different variations of this index, but each revolves around the use of five key letters that follow the first letter of a given surname.

Russell index books are organized into individual volumes, according the initial letter of a surname. You may also find volumes that combine several initial letters into one volume. For example, you might find a single volume that contains all those surnames beginning with H, I, and J. Once you have the volume in hand that contains the surname you are interested in, ignore the first letter of the surname and identify the first key letter contained within that name. The Russell system uses five key letters: L, M, N, R, and T. If I am looking for the surname “Johns,” I first select the volume that contains the “J” surnames. Next, I need to identify the first key letter in “Johns.” That key letter is “N.” Once we know the key letter, index entries are going to be organized by first letter of the given name. If the surname doesn’t contain any key letters, use the “Misc.” column. Simple enough, right?

Using the chart below, what section would contain entries for Samuel Johns?¹ (answer in the footnote)

This all seems rather complicated. How can I claim this is one of my favorite indexes? While not a true “sounds-like” index, the use of key letters groups similar-sounding surnames in the same section. This makes it easier to search for alternate spellings of names, as they are all in one place. For example, if I am looking for transactions for Rueben Summers, I will find them all in section 152, regardless of whether the name is spelled “Summers,” “Sommers,” “Summer,” or “Sommer.” What if I don’t know the given name that I’m looking for– only a surname? The Russell Index simplifies that search, too. Using the index above, if I’m looking for entries for an unknown Summers, I can start at section 12, go to 22, then 32, etc. In a general index that’s organized by surname, then by first name, and then chronologically by date, you would likely have to scroll through many, many more pages to find every entry of interest.

So how does this work online with FamilySearch record collections? Many of the collections that have been digitized and put online are not indexed, and you have to browse through them similar to the way you would scroll through using the actual microfilm. Many of the films (and therefore the digitized images of that film) contain more than one volume. Therefore, the inside cover of each index book – the page that usually contains the index key- might be found anywhere within the digital collection.

*Most* collections start at the beginning of a volume, in which case it’s fairly easy to find the index key, as it is usually within the first few images of the collection. If that’s the case, be sure to note the number of the image that contains it so you can go directly back to it if necessary. I’ve also found it useful to print out a key for the Russell Index variations that I most frequently use rather than have to keep going back and forth when searching for different names; it’s a real time-saver.

Need more Russell Index practice? Use the Russell index above to look for the following folks– the first few governors of Ohio.

Edward Tiffin?²
Thomas Kirker?³
Samuel Huntingdon?⁴
Return Meigs?⁵
Othniel Looker?⁶
Unknown Worthington?⁷

Just to make sure you don’t cheat and look directly at the answers, below is a Russell Index variation that uses two key letters instead of one. It works exactly the same way, but breaks the indexes down into more manageable chunks when there are lots of entries.

See? The Russell Index is NOT that scary. Take a deep breath, read the instructions, and then show Russell who is boss!

1. Section 153. The only key letter is “n.” Following that column down to given names that start with “S” gives us the answer. [↩]
2. Tiffin, 53 [↩]
3. Kirker, 164 [↩]
4. Huntingdon, 153 [↩]
5. Meigs, 146 [↩]
6. Looker, 124 [↩]
7. Worthington, all those sections ending with 4 [↩]

Each time I post about this subject, I wrestle with whether or not I should be airing the family laundry here in cyberspace. However, as genealogists, we are most interested in the truth. Sometimes the truth is not what we would like it to be. It’s perhaps not like we had hoped it and envisioned it to be, and sometimes it makes us uncomfortable. The main characters in this family story have been dead over 100 years, and I think that this is not only a tale worth telling, but also a lesson in just how incredibly valuable– or perhaps invaluable— court records can be in conducting our research. How-many-ever years ago, this was my first foray into Common Pleas records. The moment I found this case in the index–a dusty book that was long forgotten and stuck in a little-used storage room– is to this day the single-most exciting find I’ve had.

Granted, this is my own family so it’s likely more compelling to me than anyone else. However, more than all the combined documents I’ve found, more than any county history I’ve read, this court case makes my ancestors human–with all their strengths and weaknesses– in a way nothing has before or since. It’s a slice of life that gives me chills and I swear to you, I can see and hear this case as it’s being tried. I can hear the silence…the uncomfortable silence, as witnesses are brought before the judge and jury to testify for and against their children, friends, neighbors, and associates in rural Harrison County, Ohio that day in May of 1838.¹

This is not a good guy/bad guy tale– simply a story of two people; one that also happens to be the story of how my branch of the Staats family came to be.

Backstory:

Edith Staats was the second youngest child of Elijah Staats and Margaret Chandler, born 12 Apr 1818 in Freeport Township in Harrison County, Ohio.² The Staats family came to Freeport from Luzerne Township, Fayette, Pennsylvania in 1815.³ Jesse Brock Pickering was born two days before Christmas, 23 Dec 1818,⁴ a son of Abel Pickering and Nancy Brock.The Abel Pickering family was also in Harrison County by 1817, when Abel was taxed there.⁵ In the 1830 census, the families are enumerated a page apart – the Pickering family in the city of Freeport, and Staats family in Freeport Township.⁶

Jesse Brock Pickering married Elizabeth Manlove Whealdon one day before his 18th birthday, the 22nd of December 1836.⁷  Both the Whealdon and Manlove families were Quaker⁸, and migrated from Kent County, Delaware– just across the New Castle County line where Elijah Staats’s family lived. Their first child, Able, was born 22 Sep 1837.⁹ Elijah Staats’s wife, Margaret Chandler was also Quaker.¹⁰ These families were no doubt, well-acquainted with each other. 

This case focuses on the events of one day in June of 1837.¹¹ Edith was a nineteen-year old single girl, and Jesse eighteen, married, his wife, Elizabeth expecting their first child in a few months. 

The State of Ohio on Complaint of Edith Staats vs. Jesse Pickering:
Court of Common Pleas May Term, A.D.1838. Bastardy.

Passages in italics are quoted from the Common Pleas Record entry. All other information is paraphrased from the same entry unless otherwise noted.¹²

Be it remembered that heretofore to wit on the fifth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty eight: John Knox Esq. one of the Justices of the Peace of Freeport Township Harrison County and State of Ohio filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court of said Harrison County a transcript of the proceedings before him had in a certain action of bastardy…

On the sixth day of February 1838, Edith Staats an unmarried woman entered complaint under oath against Jesse Pickering the defendant setting forth that she, the said complainant is now pregnant and that he, the said Jesse Pickering is the father of said child.

A warrant was issued and Constable Cree returned the same day with Jesse Pickering. The defendant refused to make any compromise. It had been a cold Ohio winter¹³, and it was about to get even colder, as John Knox began the questioning:

Knox: What reason have you to believe that Jesse Pickering is the father of the child with which you are now pregnant?
Edith: Because I know he is.

There’s no hesitation, no beating around the bush, and indeed no sign of backing down. I picture Edith casting a steely stare directly at Jesse as she makes her statements.

Knox: When had he sexual intercourse with you?
Edith: The twenty fourth day of June.
Knox: Had he intercourse with you more than once?
Edith: No.
Knox: Where were you at the time you had sexual intercourse together?
Edith: At our own house (Staats’s)
Knox: Was it at night?
Edith: No, it was in the daytime.
Knox: Were any of the family at home?
Edith: No. There was nobody there but myself.

In that direct, no-nonsense line of questioning, Edith points to a single moment during that day, the 24th of June 1837. She points to one instance of weakness between two people who probably should have known better– who almost certainly did know better. Further testimony would reveal it was likely that Jesse and Edith had a previous, amorous past, but nothing leading up to that moment would prove to have as lasting an effect as that solitary encounter in June. An agent for Jesse, R.R. Price, took over the questioning:

Price: Was this before harvest or after harvest that this took place?
Edith: Before, in June.
Price: Was Mr. Pickering in the habit of paying his attentions to you at that time?
Edith: No, not after he was married. 
Price: Was there not any other young men paying their respects to you about that time?
Edith: No.
Price: Did you not, after Jacob was married, say that you would match them yet?¹⁴
Edith: No. I never said any such thing.

Having already withstood questioning by the Justice of the Peace, Edith is now facing these questions by the agent – presumably an attorney for Jesse. She never backs down, and fires right back. The agent’s questions imply less than subtly, that there was a previous relationship between Edith and Jesse, and perhaps a bitter ending when Jesse married another. It’s easy enough to picture, and clear where the attorney is going with the questioning – that she had a motive to lie. Next up, Jesse himself asks the questions:

Jesse: Do you not remember, Edith, at the time I came to your house to get a piece of paper, did you not consider me clear at that time?
Edith: No. You never denied it to me.
Jesse: You recollect the paper you gave me to clear up this do you?
Edith: No. I never gave you any.

Whereupon the said Jesse Pickering still continuing to refuse to compromise with the said Edith Staats he was required to enter into recognizance in the sum of three hundred dollars…

Standing tall in the face of questioning by a Justice of the Peace, an attorney, and Jesse himself, Edith persevered and took the case to court. As the record shows, Jesse never denied the encounter, but instead focused on a piece of paper– presumably a written statement by Edith absolving him of responsibility. The case went to trial and carried on for at least five days. Twenty three witnesses took the stand including Edith’s mother, and several relatives of both plaintiff and defendant¹⁵– this in a township of less than 1300.¹⁶ Anyone who’s lived in a town that small will understand– there are no secrets.

When the dust settled, the jury returned a guilty verdict. A notice of appeal was mentioned, but no appeal has been found.¹⁷ Based on comments included in the original case files for this case, the defense was trying to prove that Edith had relations with other men during the same time frame, but the testimony was disallowed. Original documents also included the doctor bill for the the birth of Alexander Allan Staats, my great great grandfather.¹⁸

What did one have to pay for child support in 1838? Jesse was ordered to pay $36 plus court costs up front, and  $0.75 per week for five years. It appears payments were made quarterly, but only though 1841.¹⁹

Afterword:

Edith married Daniel Toms in 1847.²⁰ They had no children together. Alexander Staats went on to attend Marietta College, Starling Medical College, and graduated from the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Surgery. He served in the 88th OVI in the Civil War, and practiced medicine in Summerfield, Ohio until a short time before his death in 1913.²¹ Edith passed away in 1901.²² Family legend is that she kept a detailed diary, and that on her deathbed, she asked one of her granddaughters to read the diary and then destroy it. The rest is history…or more accurately, lost to history.²³ The Alexander Staats family has many descendants still alive and kicking, including your author.²⁴ I’ve taken a yDNA test to try and confirm the court’s findings  I’ve had three close matches. They are all Pickerings. And to think– it all goes back to that single fateful day, the 24th of June, 1837.

Ready to check into court records now and see what details they might hold about your own family? I hoped that you would be.

1. Harrison County, Ohio, Common Pleas Record, E:313, May Term 1838, State of Ohio on Complaint of Edith Staats vs. Jesse Pickering, 26 May 1838; Harrison County Historical Society, Cadiz. []
2. (Caldwell) Noble County Leader, 27 Feb 1901, p.2, c.1. []
3. William Wade Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Vol. IV: (Ohio Monthly Meetings) (1946), p. 352; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 29 Jan 2009). []
4. Find A Grave.com, database (http://www.findagrave.com: accessed 10 Nov 2012), entry for Jesse Brock Pickering, memorial no. 38545482, citing Friends Church Cemetery, Springdale, Leavenworth, Kansas. []
5. Further research is needed to confirm the organization of FamilySearch.org’s Ohio Tax records entries for Harrison County. Abel Pickering is listed as early as 1816 in Cadiz Twp, but that information is not consistent with deeds stating Freeport. []
6. 1830 U.S. census, Harrison, Ohio, Freeport Twp, p. 226, line 13, Elijah Statts household; digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 5 Dec 2012); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M19, roll 133. For Able Pickering see 1830 U.S. census, Harrison, Ohio, Freeport Twp, p. 225, line 6, Able Pickering household. []
7. Harrison County, Ohio, Marriage Records, B:486, Pickering to Whealdon (1836); Probate Court, Cadiz. []
8. For Quaker references, see Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Vol. IV: (Ohio Monthly Meetings). []
9. For information on the Whealdon and Manlove families, including Able Pickering’s date of birth, see Jeffery Bryant, Descendants of Isaac Whealdon (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bryajw/whealdon/index.htm: accessed 5 Dec 2012). []
10. Hinshaw, Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Vol. IV: (Ohio Monthly Meetings). []
11. Harrison Co., Oh., Common Pleas Record, E:314. []
12. ibid. []
13. “Review of the Cincinnati Market,” Cincinnati Daily Gazette, 7 Feb 1837, p.3, c. 2; digital images, GenealogyBank.com (http://www.genealogybank.com: accessed 4 Dec 2012). []
14. Jesse is mistakenly referred to as Jacob in this line of the transcription. []
15. Harrison County, Ohio, Common Pleas Execution Docket, G:260, May Term 1838, State of Ohio on Complaint of Edith Staats vs. Jesse Pickering, 26 May 1838; Harrison County Historical Society, Cadiz. []
16. 1840 U.S. census, Harrison, Ohio, Freeport Twp, p. 236 (stamped), population totals (bottom of the page); digital images, Ancestry.com (http://ancestry.com : accessed 2 Dec 2012); citing National Archives and Records Administration microfilm M704, roll 409. []
17. Harrison County, Ohio, Common Pleas Journal, D:175, May Term 1838, State of Ohio on Complaint of Edith Staats vs. Jesse Pickering, 26 May 1838; Harrison County Historical Society, Cadiz. []
18. Harrison County, Ohio, Common Pleas Case Files, May Term 1838, State of Ohio on Complaint of Edith Staats vs. Jesse Pickering; Harrison County Historical Society, Cadiz. []
19. Harrison County, Ohio, Common Pleas Execution Docket, G:261. []
20. Washington County, Ohio, Marriage records, 2:242, Daniel Tom-Edeth Staats (1847); Washington County Probate Court, Marietta. []
21. L.H. Watkins, History of Noble County (Chicago: L.H. Watkins & Co,: 1887), p. 193. []
22. (Caldwell) Noble County Leader, 27 Feb 1901, p.3, c. 1. []
23. Unrecorded conversation between the author and Marguaritte (Cleary) Miller, granddaughter of Alexander Staats, 2005, Barberton, Ohio. The granddaughter referred to in the story was either Mrs. Miller’s mother, Elizabeth (Staats) Cleary or aunt, Violet (Staats) Reed. []
24. Personal knowledge…at least I think I’m still alive. You guys really read these footnotes? []

Husbands, we know we are all on a tight schedule while traveling hither and yon, and those arrival times must be kept. Even though we might be interested, we simply can’t stop for every “LOOK, a historical marker” demand. Ask my wife and she’ll claim I actually speed up. Sometimes I spot them first and try to distract her. Truth be told, I want to know what they say, too.

Fortunately, there is an answer: Remarkable Ohio: Marking Ohio’s History. This great site offered by the Ohio Historical Society is easy to navigate. You can search or browse for markers by location, keywords, and other criteria. You can even click a link to get a map to the markers. Pretty Slick. Check it out.

“Legalese” is an oft-cited reason researchers give for their aversion to using deeds. I won’t waste time on my soapbox, preaching about the miracles to be found in the Book of Deeds – just trust me that those miracles are in there, waiting to be discovered. To be sure, the terminology can be a little daunting. Many resources are out there describing the more common (and important) terms to understand such as quitclaim, fee simple, deed of warranty, etc. Most resources, quite correctly, mention learning to recognize standard legal phrasing – commonly called boilerplate.

Let me suggest that the very best thing you can do to get a better understanding of the language of deeds, is to both transcribe and abstract every deed of interest in your research. These are topics unto themselves, but in brief: Transcribing is copying the deed word-for-word, letter for letter (warts and all), while keeping the line breaks and page layout as close to the original as possible. Transcribing forces you to read every word on the page (and think about those words) without the mental “blah, blah, blah”  skimming that is easy to do when encountering a particularly wordy passage. Abstracting is the process of keeping each piece of the transcription (preserving the original order) that is unique to the document you are working with, and removing the rest (boilerplate). The purpose is to create a concise version, accurate to the original and containing all the pertinent information – a version that  is far easier to work with than the original.

Now it’s all well and good to say “remove the boilerplate,” but how do you go about knowing what is important and what isn’t? The short, but not necessarily easy answer, is experience . By doing the transcriptions and abstractions faithfully and regularly, you will begin to recognize the phrases (with variations, of course) that are standard. It’s not easy to maintain that discipline, but I guarantee you it is worth it in the long-run.  And as you start on the path to deed enlightenment, let Black’s Law Dictionary be your guide.

Black’s Law Dictionary is an invaluable reference, not only for deed and property research, but also probate, Common Pleas, or any other record generated by the courts. Take the time to look up words which with you are unfamiliar. Curiosity and relentlessness in the quest for understanding should be a trademark of your research as a whole, so why not take that same approach with the individual pieces? Even better, you can access a free online version of the Second Edition HERE, While it’s not necessarily inexpensive, you can find an print versions of Black’s Law Dictionary at a reasonable price at half.com, Amazon, or other used or discount retailer. I personally have the 8th edition.[1]

So how about that boilerplate? Ever wonder what some of those words actually mean – those words that Microsoft Word tries to tell you aren’t words? Those words that no matter how sophisticated your voice recognition software, you find yourself arguing with your computer? Here are just a few:

1. Appurtenances

“Something that belongs or is attached to something else <the garden is an appurtenance to the land>“[2]

2. Hereditaments:

“1. Any property that can be inherited; anything that passes by intestacy. 2. Real property; land.“[3]

3. Messuages

“A dwelling house together with the curtilage (land or yard adjoining a house), including  any outbuildings.“[4]

4. Mesne

This is often seen in the chain of title (“…and through mesne conveyances…”) – “Occupying a middle position; intermediate or intervening, esp. in time of occurrence or performance.“[5]

5. “To have and to hold”

This is pretty straightforward language in itself, however, this phrase ordinarily marks the beginning of something called the Habendum Clause – “The part of an instrument, such as a deed or will, that defines the extent of the interest being granted and any conditions affecting the grant.” [6]Even though this phrase is a marker for boilerplate, and is often fairly standard, you really need to be sure to read the section that follows “to have and to hold” carefully to note any exceptions or interest withheld in the transaction. Below are a couple of terms dealing with future interest you might see in that section.

6. Remainder

“1. A future interest arising in a third person – that is, someone other than the estate’s creator, its initial holder, or the heirs of either – who is intended to take after the natural termination of the preceding estate…2. The property in a descedant’s estate that is not specifically devised or bequeathed in a will.“[7] This is one of those definitions that is almost more confusing than the term. However, you usually see this in the habendum clause – that any such remainder is also being transferred to the grantee.

7. Reversion

This one might hurt your brain – “1. The interest that is left after subtracting what the transferor originally had; spec., a future interest in land arising by operation of law whenever an estate owner grants to another a particular estate, such as a life estate or a term of years, but does not automatically dispose of the entire interest…2. Loosely, REMAINDER.“[8] Similar to remainder, this clause is generally assuring that any rights of reversion of interest due the grantor is transferred to the grantee by the deed.

Again – with the above  terms, or any boilerplate really, it is still important to read through carefully to note any exceptions from standard wording. Those exceptions can be clues that are easy to overlook, as they are buried in terminology. Again, Black’ s Law Dictionary is your friend. As you can see, sometimes, the definition isn’t all that much clearer than the term. In those instances, turn to Google to help find examples that you might be able to better understand.

Sometimes, you may still not be able to completely get your head around a term or concept, but the important thing is to take the time to try, to work at it, to not pass it over because it is confusing and makes your eyes roll back in their sockets.

---

[1] Bryan A. Garner and Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Thompson West, 2004).
[2] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.111.
[3] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.743.
[4] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.1011.
[5] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.1011.
[6] definition of Habendum Clause: Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.728.
[7] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.1317.
[8] Garner and Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, p.1345.