Sleepless in Seattle?

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

A library to lose sleep over!

On the ground floor of a building on a street called Sand Point Way is a real genealogical treasure. And if you live anywhere in the Pacific Northwest or have ancestors from there, it’s one you really should know about.

It’s called the Seattle Genealogical Society. A vibrant organization of active genealogists where you can feel the enthusiasm whenever you’re around them.

And it has a library to die for.

Talk about a winning combination!

The Legal Genealogist had the great pleasure of being the speaker at the SGS Spring Seminar this past Saturday where the huge gymnasium of an old school house was filled with people wanting to learn more about genealogy and the law.

And yesterday, the SGS Research Library was the scene for a workshop on using circumstantial, or indirect, evidence to link a woman married before the 1850 census to her family where there was no birth, marriage or death record. It’s a tribute to the commitment of this group to methodology and standards that the workshop was sold out and had a waiting list.

But after seeing the library and talking to some of the members and the volunteers, that commitment and that enthusiasm didn’t surprise me at all.

This is an organization that could serve as a model for a lot of genealogical societies. And its library is at its heart.

First and foremost, it’s open long hours — some 30 hours a week — staffed entirely by volunteers. There are state archives that don’t offer that much research time. That allows for lots of activities — a Canadian Interest group, an Irish Interest group, a German Interest group and more. Some of the interest groups are big enough that they won’t fit in the library meeting space! And SGS is open to sponsoring more and new ones if members just ask.

Second, it’s the scene for classes for beginners and more advanced researchers. SGS offers classes in basic computer skills for genealogists, beginning genealogy and more. One program SGS has that I wish existed where I live: a break-down-the-brick-wall meeting where people help each other brainstorm their genealogical problems.

Third, it has simply amazing resources. From its website comes this description of its key components:

     • Library Books and Periodicals: The SGS book collection complements the resources of The Seattle Public Library’s genealogy collection and close liaison is maintained with SPL. Information is not limited to Washington State; significant resources are available for all states, Canada, the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and other international regions.

     • Computer Resources: Computer workstations are available for members to access the SGS collection of computer databases and CD-ROMs. There is wireless Internet access for those who bring their own portable computers. Printing and copying is 15¢ per page, or documents may be saved or scanned to a USB flash drive. … SGS holds a collection of over 200 CD-ROMs with compilations source materials covering both US and international locations, including a special King County, WA, Index to Court Records 1880-1980, compiled by SGS volunteers.

     • Washington State Collections: The library holds a wealth of genealogical information relating to Seattle and Washington state. Resources include:

• Published books, periodicals, and archive collections
• Family Records of Washington Pioneers
• Vertical files of various Washington families
• Rare books relating to the Pacific Northwest
• Seattle City Directories from 1890 to 1990
• Directories for other cities in Washington

     • Microfilm and Microfiche: The SGS microform collection includes the Washington State Death Index 1907-1989, the 1895 Minnesota State Census, assorted national and state census rolls and miscellaneous other donated materials. Microfilm and microfiche readers are available to view the collections.

     • The George F. Kent Collection of New Jersey: The Kent Collection comprises 122 volumes of materials plus a 28-drawer card file. The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey is the backbone of this collection, with a multi-volume index added by SGS. The card file contains thousands of cards indexing cemeteries, church records, deed abstracts, marriage records, military records and family information.

     • Surname Vertical Files: The library holds Surname Files contributed by SGS members. Information in these files includes newspaper clippings, handwritten notes, and short typescripts. Surname Notebooks contain Family Group Sheets submitted by Seattle Genealogical Society members over the last 75 years.

     • Family Histories: The Family History collection includes periodicals, published volumes, typescripts and binders of family materials, cataloged by primary surname.

Dues for SGS are only $40 a year, and the SGS Bulletin — its magazine — and the SGS Newsletter are worth that all by themselves.

What a treasure in the Pacific Northwest.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

What AncestryDNA doesn’t provide

Posted on May 19, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

On beyond AncestryDNA

Reader Ida French is having trouble figuring out how third-party utilities like Gedmatch.com can help in using autosomal test results, and particularly those from AncestryDNA. She writes:

I am still having a hard time understanding how exactly this will help. I have uploaded my raw data from Ancestry to Gedmatch and played around with the tools but don’t understand how this can direct me any better to a match than what Ancestry has given us with our DNA matches. One of my matches is on Chromosome 4, 8.5cm and 1,592 snp. We also match on other chromosomes. My question is where do I go from here?

The bottom line here is that what Gedmatch provides, and Ancestry doesn’t, is the ability to see exactly where in your DNA you and another person match.

Let me give you an example. I can look at my own DNA and that of a cousin of mine who has also tested. At Gedmatch, we show this match-up on chromosomes 11 and 12 (among others):

I happen to know exactly in our family lines this cousin and I match, and that he and I have no lines in common other than one set of third great grandparents.

That much, you may say, you can get from AncestryDNA and its shaky-leaf hint system.

But by knowing exactly where in our DNA this cousin and I match, where I can go from here is to look for others who match me and my cousin in the same place in our DNA.

This process of adding others into your match-list mix allows you to share genealogical information with more people who are likely descended from the same common ancestors.

Once you and any DNA cousin have identified a segment as having come from one set of common ancestors, then you know that anyone else in the future who matches you in that same place is also likely to be a cousin in that line.

The problem with Ancestry, of course, is that the tree of the person you match there may be just plain flat out wrong. There is no other information given there except the tree to see if it’s likely to be true or not.

Let me give you an example. One of my own shaky-leaf hints on AncestryDNA is with a woman whose tree says she is a descendant of my Baker family through a fourth great granduncle Henry Baker and then through Henry’s daughter Nancy who, her tree says, married one Jesse Smith and lived and died in Tennessee.

One hitch here. Henry Baker’s daughter Nancy married Robert Wakefield in North Carolina, and she and Robert remained there, married to each other and recorded in census and court records, until they died and were buried there in NC. No Smith and no Tennessee even remotely in Nancy’s history.

If that match and I had both uploaded our information to Gedmatch, or if we had both tested with a company that provides analytical tools, we could see where in our DNA we match — rather than where in faulty online trees. And if either of us had mapped that segment to a particular line, we’d be able to avoid the time wasted in chasing that non-Baker rabbit down into a genealogical black hole.

Alternatively, had I mapped that shared segment to my Baker ancestors, we’d know to spend more time seeing where in the Baker family that match really belongs, since her descent isn’t in any supposed Smith-Baker marriage.

The downside of Gedmatch, or any third party utility, of course, is that not all those who test uploads their DNA data to the utility site. That means you can only compare your results to those who have uploaded there. But at least when you do compare it, you’re comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, rather than one possibly faulty tree to another possibly faulty tree.

Posted in DNA | 10 Comments

Missing cousin Fred

Posted on May 18, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

Would that he were still here…

Yesterday would have been his 96th birthday. Tall, slim, even stately in his bearing, he occupied a special place in The Legal Genealogist‘s family history… and he is missed.

Frederick M. Gottlieb

Frederick Merledon Gottlieb was born on 17 May 1917 at Wichita Falls, Wichita County, TX.1 He was the second child and only son of Morris Gottlieb and Maud Lillian Cottrell, my grandfather’s sister.

By 1920, Fred’s father Morris had been diagnosed with tuberculosis and the family moved to New Mexico where the climate was expected to be better. In 1920, when Fred was not yet three, they were in Gallup, in McKinley County.2 In 1930, the family was in Albuquerque.3

His parents were far better off — better jobs and many fewer kids — than my grandparents and Fred’s and his sisters’ outgrown clothes were always packed up and shipped off to my grandparents. Though I suspect Fred’s hand-me-downs were intended for one or more of my uncles, it was always my mother who snagged his clothes and made them over into the best things she wore as a child.

During the 1930s, Fred’s father Morris owned a trading post on the Laguna Indian reservation and that’s where Fred learned to play polo. He was recorded on his own in Magdalena village, Socorro County, New Mexico, on the 1940 census, as a retail clerk.4

Fred attended college for a year but on 2 April 1941 enlisted in the United States Army.5 He served throughout World War II in the U.S. Army Air Corp as a flight instructor.6

He married, first, Margaret M. Robinson in January 1948 at Santa Fe, New Mexico,7 and the timing of that marriage is the backdrop for one of the best of my family’s stories.

My own parents were married in Colorado only a few days after Fred’s wedding. About 10 days before my parents were married, my mother telegraphed her cousin Fred in Santa Fe and asked him to walk her down the aisle. Fred telegraphed back on January 14th: “Am getting married January 22nd but will arrange honeymoon so I can ditch her long enuf to escort you. Fred.”8

Years later, after Fred and I tracked each other down researching our family history, Fred gave me the rest of the story in an email:

“Did your mother ever tell you what a hard time I had trying to give her away in marriage? We left Santa Fe after our own marriage for the Broadmoor hotel in Colo. Springs but ran into a heavy snow storm. Didn’t get to the hotel until after midnight and then had to get up early to drive on up to Golden. The roads were quite slick and in my rush, I slid into a sign post and smashed the fender on my father’s new Buick which I had borrowed for the trip! Geez! The sacrifices I make for the women in my life!”9

Fred owned a Mayflower moving franchise in Santa Fe and was the owner of Moore’s Generator Exchange in Albuquerque. After Margaret’s death in a car accident, he married Beatrice Bassett Roach, who served as New Mexico Secretary of State from 1951 to 1954. Between them they raised three children and enjoyed seven grandchildren.10

As with so many others in my extended family whom I hadn’t met, I had long wanted to meet Fred. I enjoyed our email exchanges and letters back and forth, but I wanted to meet him face to face.

And there was something — some intangible than was more than just Fred’s advancing years — that made me feel it was imperative in 2004 to just pack up and go. I went out to New Mexico and had an absolutely glorious time not just with Fred and his wife Bea but with his nephew, my second cousin Dick Moore and Dick’s wife Julie.

I’m so glad I went. Just a few months later, Fred was gone — a sudden unexpected illness had sapped his strength and stolen him away. He died 9 January 200511 and his cremated ashes were buried in the Santa Fe National Cemetery with military honors.12

He was my Mom’s special cousin. He became my special friend. And I miss him.

 
SOURCES

  1. Texas State Board of Health, birth certif. no. 20585, Frederick Gottlieb, 17 May 1917; Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin. And see “Personals,” Wichita Daily Times, Wichita Falls, Tex., 18 May 1917, p. 8. ↩
  2. 1920 U.S. census, McKinley County, NM, population schedule, Gallup, p. 77, enumeration district (ED) 192(A) (stamped), sheet 3(A), dwelling 46, family 52, Morris Gottlieb household; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 Oct 2011); citing National Archive microfilm publication T625, roll 1074. ↩
  3. 1930 U.S. census, Bernalillo County, NM, population schedule, Albuquerque, p. 20(B) (stamped), sheet 18(B), enumeration district (ED) 6, dwelling 408, family 438, Morris Gottlieb household; digital image, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 9 Oct 2011); citing National Archive microfilm publication T626, roll 1392. ↩
  4. 1940 U.S. census, Socorro County, New Mexico, Magdalena, population schedule, enumeration district (ED) 27-9, sheet 8(A), page 100(A) (stamped), household 152, Fred M Gottlieb; digital image, Archives.gov (http://1940census.archives.gov : accessed 17 May 2013); citing National Archive microfilm publication T627, roll 2453. ↩
  5. “World War II Army Enlistment Records, ca. 1938-1946,” Record Group 64: Records of the National Archives and Records Administration; enlistment record of Fred M. Gottlieb, 2 April 1941; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 17 May 2013). ↩
  6. “Frederick M. Gottlieb,” obituary, Albuquerque Journal, 11 Jan 2005. ↩
  7. Frederick M. Gottlieb, (Albuquerque NM), interview by author, 5 Apr 2004; notes privately held by author. ↩
  8. Western Union telegram, Fred Gottlieb to Hazel Cottrell, 14 Jan 1948; privately held by author. ↩
  9. Email, Fred Gottlieb to Judy Russell, Sep 2002; privately held by author. ↩
  10. “Frederick M. Gottlieb,” obituary, Albuquerque Journal, 11 Jan 2005. ↩
  11. Ibid. ↩
  12. Personal knowledge of the author, cousin of the decedent, who was present at the funeral. ↩
Posted in My family | 6 Comments

Seattle’s siren song

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

Seattle bound!

The Legal Genealogist has her feet off the ground. Literally and figuratively.

Literally, because I’m winging my way across the country en route to Seattle for this weekend’s 90th anniversary spring seminar of the Seattle Genealogicial Society.

And figuratively, because I’m winging my way across the country en route to Seattle for this weekend’s 90th anniversary spring seminar of the Seattle Genealogicial Society.

Tomorrow, Saturday, May 18, I’m so very honored to be the speaker at this anniversary celebration, presenting:

    • How Knowing the Law Makes Us Better Genealogists

    • Where There Is — and Isn’t — a Will

    • “Don’t Forget the Ladies” — a Genealogist’s Guide to Women and the Law

    • Using Court Records to Tell the Stories of Our Ancestors’ Lives

Then on Sunday, May 19, it’s a sold-out advanced workshop on Building a Family Using Circumstantial Evidence.

If you’re in the neighborhood tomorrow, come join us. Walk-ins are welcome at Fairview Christian School, 844 NE 78th St., Seattle, with the festivities kicking off at 9 a.m.

Hope to see you there!

Posted in General | 12 Comments

Beating the odds

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

Johnson’s acquittal

One hundred and forty five years ago today, it was Judgment Day in the United States Senate. And the odds were against the man on trial.

There were 27 states then represented in the Senate — the former Confederate States weren’t yet voting again — and a two-thirds vote was needed. Just 36 Senators had to vote yes, and Andrew Johnson would have been removed as President of the United States.

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, had presided over Johnson’s trial in the Senate and it fell to him to poll the members when, on this day, 145 years ago, the first and decisive vote was taken on the most likely of the 11 articles of impeachment to succeed.1

It all came down in the end to one man, Senator Edmund Gibson Ross of Kansas. He was born in Ashlasnd, Ohio, 7 December 1826, raised in Ohio and apprenticed there as a printer. He moved to Wisconsin in 1849 and to Kansas in 1856.2

Most of his career was spent in the newspaper business. He’d worked with the Milwaukee Sentinel, published the Topeka Tribune, founded the Kansas State Record, and edited the Kansas Tribune. A Civil War veteran, he was appointed to the Senate to fill the seat vacated by the death of Sen. James Lane in 1866.3

He was defeated when he ran for a full term in 1870, defeated as a candidate for Kansas Governor in 1880 and held only one additional political job in his life — he was appointed Governor of the Territory of New Mexico in 1885 and serrved for four years.4

Like so many members of the Senate, Ross had been widely lobbied by both sides in the impeachment fight. But no-one knew for certain how he would vote when the time came. Historian David Dewitt was there when Ross was called upon to cast that key vote:

Thirty-six votes are needed, and with this one vote the grand consummation is attained, Johnson is out and Wade in his place. It is a singular fact that not one of the actors in that high scene was sure in his own mind how his one senator was going to vote, except, perhaps, himself. “Mr. Senator Ross, how say you?” the voice of the Chief Justice rings out over the solemn silence. “Is the respondent, Andrew Johnson, guilty or not guilty of a high misdemeanor as charged in this article?” The Chief Justice bends forward, intense anxiety furrowing his brow. The seated associates of the senator on his feet fix upon him their united gaze. The representatives of the people of the United States watch every movement of his features. The whole audience listens for the coming answer as it would have listened for the crack of doom. And the answer comes, full, distinct, definite, unhesitating and unmistakable. The words ‘Not Guilty’ sweep over the assembly, and, as one man, the hearers fling themselves back into their seats; the strain snaps; the contest ends; impeachment is blown into the air.5

Exciting historical times, for sure, and part and parcel of what we as genealogists want — and need — to consider in our family histories. Our job isn’t just to record the names and dates and places, but the stories of our people and their times. The BCG Standards Manual calls on us to consider “the data’s background context…, including … the literature, laws, regulations, customs, and history of the area, time period, population group, and government or military jurisdiction.”6

Consider, if you will, the people touched by this one event, this one day, in the United States Senate.

Clearly, those whose family line intersects that of Andrew Johnson already have this pivotal historical event in their family histories (or they should!). But then there are the 54 Senators who cast votes whose family lines may join with ours in one way or another:

     • To convict: Anthony (RI), Cameron (PA), Cattell (NJ), Chandler (MI), Cole (CA), Conkling (NY), Conness (CA), Corbett (OR), Cragin (NH), Drake (MO), Edmunds (VT), Ferry (CT), Frelinghuysen (NJ), Harlan (IA), Howard (MI), Howe (WI), Morgan (NY), Morrill (ME), Morrill (VT), Morton (IN), Nye (NV), Patterson (NH), Pomeroy (KS), Ramsey (MN), Sherman (OH), Sprague (RI), Stewart (NV), Sumner (MA), Thayer (NE), Tipton (NE), Wade (OH), Willey (WV), Williams (OR), Wilson (MA), Yates (IL).7

     • To acquit: Bayard (DE), Buckalew (PA), Davis (KY), Dixon (CT), Doolittle (WI), Fessenden (ME), Fowler (TN), Grimes (IA), Henderson (MO), Hendricks (IN), Johnson (MD), McCreery (KY), Norton (MN), Patterson (TN), Ross (KS), Saulsbury (DE), Trumbull (IL), Van Winkle (WV), Vickers (MD).8

Add to those Chief Justice Salmon Chase, and all of the members of the House of Representatives who had voted for — or against — the articles of impeachment on which Johnson was tried.

Then add the managers from the House who presented the case against Johnson in the Senate, including John A. Bingham of Ohio, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, and Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. And the Presidebntial defense team, including “former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis; William Evarts, a prominent Republican lawyer; and Henry Stanbery, a former Attorney General in Johnson’s cabinet.”9

Add all the people who worked for the Congress or at the White House, the pages, the clerks. Add those who came to Washington to watch part of the trial. Add those who followed the events in the newspapers. Add, in fact, everyone alive and paying attention to national news — or even affected by it — in 1868.

History and events like these add so much to what we know, and hope to understand, about our ancestors.

 
SOURCES

  1. See generally Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “Impeachment of Andrew Johnson,” rev. 14 May 2013. ↩
  2. “ROSS, Edmund Gibson, (1826 – 1907),” Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (http://bioguide.congress.gov/ : accessed 15 May 2013). ↩
  3. Ibid. ↩
  4. Ibid. ↩
  5. David Miller Dewitt, The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson, Seventeenth President of the United States (New York : MacMillan, 1903), 552-553; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 15 May 2013). ↩
  6. Board for Certification of Genealogists®, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Washington, D.C. : BCG, 2000), Standard 23 at 10. ↩
  7. The Congressional Globe, Special Supplement: The Proceedings of the Senate Sitting for the Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States (Washington D.C. : Rives & Bailey, Printers, 1868), 411; digital images, “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875,” Library of Congress, American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html : accessed 15 May 2013). ↩
  8. Ibid. ↩
  9. “Research Guide on Impeachment,” “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875,” Library of Congress, American Memory (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html : accessed 15 May 2013). ↩
Posted in General, Methodology, Resources | 12 Comments

They also served

Posted on May 15, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

Women in the Army

They had names like Lon and Ray and Tennison and Dollins. They came from New York and Texas and Oklahoma and Nevada. They were single or divorced, educated or not so much, and they all had one thing in common.

They wanted to serve their country in time of war.

And they did. Officially. Starting 71 years ago today.

They were among the first enlistees of the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC), given official military status as of 15 May 1942, when President Roosevelt signed into law the first federal statute enabling women to serve officially in noncombat positions.

The bill enabling creation of the WAAC was first introduced in 1941 by Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts.1 She was the daughter of a United States Senator and wife of a Congressman who ran to fill her husband’s unexpired seat when he died in 1925 in the middle of his term of office. She became the first female member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts.2

The bill creating the WAAC passed the Congress on 14 May 1942 and was signed the next day.3 It provided

That the President is hereby authorized to establish and organize in such units as he may from time to time determine to be necessary a Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps for noncombatant service with the Army of the United States for the purpose of making available to the national defense when needed the knowledge, skill, and special training of the women of this Nation. The total number of women enrolled or appointed in the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps shall not exceed the number authorized from time to time by the President, and in no event shall exceed one hundred fifty thousand.4

An electronic database of Army enlistments — including WAAC enlistments — is in the National Archives.5 It’s also available on Ancestry.com. While many of the original military records perished in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, most of the enlistment data is readily available.

And there you will find them.

Women like Mary W. Lon, born in 1911, a resident of Kings County (Brooklyn), New York, single, shown as a stenographer or typist in civilian life with four years of college, who enlisted at New York City on 18 May 1942.6

Like Pearl E. Ray, born in 1909, a resident of Washoe County, Nevada, divorced, a clerk with three years of high school, who signed up in San Francisco on 25 May 1942.7

Like Clara H. Tennison, born in 1915, a resident of Payne County, Oklahoma, single, a teacher with four years of college, who enlisted 30 May 1942 in San Antonio, Texas.8

Like Dorothy D. Dollins, born in 1918, a resident of Okmulgee County, Oklahoma, single, three years of high school, who signed up at Oklahoma City on 30 May 1942.9

You can even find the enlistment record of Oveta C. Hobby, born in 1899, a lawyer from Washington D.C., who enlisted the very first day the WAAC bill was law10 — and who was the very first commanding officer of the new WAAC, sworn in on 16 May 1942.11

The first training center for the WAAC began operating in July 1942 at Fort Des Moines, Iowa, with 125 enlisted women and 440 officer candidates as trainees. African-American women served in both the enlisted and officer ranks, in segregated units. From all walks of life, women aged 21 to 45 volunteered in numbers exceeding all expectations. 12

Initially, the WAAC wasn’t formally part of the Army: “The corps shall not be a part of the Army, but it shall be the only women’s organization authorized to serve with the Army, exclusive of the Army Nurse Corps.”13 If WAACs were sent overseas, they didn’t get the overseas pay the men got, and if they were killed, there was no death benefit to their parents, spouses or children.14

But in 1943, Rep. Rogers introduced more legislation to integrate what then was designated the Women’s Army Corps into the Army itself. Signed into law on 1 July 1943, the law provided “That there is hereby established in the Army of the United States, for the period of the present war and for six months thereafter or for such shorter period as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President by proclamation shall prescribe, a component to be known as the ‘Women’s Army Corps’.”15 Oveta Hobby became its first director as well, sworn in with the rank of Colonel on 5 July 1943.16

Women in the military.17 Officially. And it began 71 years ago today.

 
SOURCES

  1. “WAAC/WAC: Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC),” Women in the U.S. Army, Army.mil (http://www.army.mil/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  2. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “Edith Nourse Rogers,” rev. 25 Apr 2013. ↩
  3. “WAAC/WAC: Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC),” Women in the U.S. Army, Army.mil (http://www.army.mil/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  4. § 1, “AN ACT To establish a Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps for service with the Army of the United States,” 56 Stat. 278 (1942). ↩
  5. See “World War II Army Enlistment Records, ca. 1938-1946,” Record Group 64: Records of the National Archives and Records Administration; Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  6. Ibid., enlistment record of Mary W. Lon; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  7. Ibid., enlistment record of Pearl E. Ray; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  8. Ibid., enlistment record of Clara H. Tennison; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  9. Ibid., enlistment record of Dorothy D. Dollins; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  10. Ibid., enlistment record of Oveta C. Hobby; database, Archives.gov (http://www.archives.gov : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  11. “WAAC/WAC: Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC),” Women in the U.S. Army, Army.mil (http://www.army.mil/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  12. Ibid. ↩
  13. § 12, “AN ACT To establish a Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps for service with the Army of the United States,” 56 Stat. 278 (1942). ↩
  14. “WAAC/WAC: Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC),” Women in the U.S. Army, Army.mil (http://www.army.mil/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  15. “AN ACT To establish a Women’s Army Corps for service in the Army of the United States,” 57 Stat. 371 (1943). ↩
  16. “WAAC/WAC: Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC),” Women in the U.S. Army, Army.mil (http://www.army.mil/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
  17. For more information generally about women in the U.S. Army, including the unofficial service of women as far back as 1775, see Women in the U.S. Army (http://www.army.mil/women/ : accessed 14 May 2013). ↩
Posted in Resources, Statutes | 10 Comments

Curious language in a deed

Posted on May 14, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

“An Act donating Public Lands”

There is curious language in a deed The Legal Genealogist stumbled across doing the usual late-night-poke-around-in-the-records that has become almost a routine.

The grantee in the deed was one James K. P. Newman. On the 14th of March 1882, he acquired 60 acres of land in Scioto County, Ohio, for $90. It’s a perfectly ordinary deed in many respects — with the usual metes and bounds description of the land and the grant to “have and to hold said premises with the appurtenances unto the said James K. P. Newman his heirs and assigns forever” that’s the usual legal boilerplate.1

What’s curious about it is the language at the beginning of the deed: “in pursuance of an act of the Congress of the United States approved February 18 AD 1871. Entitled an act to cede to the State of Ohio the unsold lands in the Virginia Military District … and also in pursuance of an act of the general assembly of the State of Ohio. which was passed and which took effect on April Third AD 1873. …”2

And, of course, the identity of the grantor — shown in the deed as “the board of Trustees of the Ohio State University.”3

So what’s this all about? Turns out you can find language like that, referencing different federal acts and different state statutes, from many different colleges, all over the United States. And it’s all because of something called the Morrill Acts.

In the dark days of the Civil War, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont continued to look forward to a time when the light of education could shine throughout the land.

Morrill had been the sponsor of a bill in 1857 to give federal land to the states, from the sale of which public colleges teaching industrial and agricultural subjects could be funded. The bill had passed in 1859 but was vetoed by President Buchanan.4

This concept of education suited to the working class — differing from the scientific and liberal arts focus of the private colleges and religious emphasis of sectarian colleges — was surprisingly radical. One of its proponents, Professor Jonathan Baldwin Turner of Illinois, had had his home burned to the ground in the controversy.5

Morrill didn’t accept the defeat of 1859, and reintroduced his bill in the Congress facing the reality of the Civil War with one critical change that secured its passage: in addition to teaching agricultural and industrial subjects, the colleges funded by the law would have to teach military tactics.6

The act became law on 2 July 1862.7 It gave the states 30,000 acres for each Senator and representative in Congress, so the more populated states at the time benefited more from the law.8 And it provided:

That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands … shall be invested …; and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, … to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, … in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life.9

And so began what are known as the land-grant colleges — and the deeds those grants caused. In Ohio, the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College was established in 1870 under the 1862 federal act. It had just 24 students when it opened its doors in the fall of 1873, and graduated its first six students in 1878 — the same year that it changed its name to The Ohio State University.10

The 1871 federal act referenced in the Newman deed of 1882 gave Ohio all the unsold lands in what had been the Virginia military district11 — some 4.2 million acres of land in Ohio that Virginia had reserved in order to give bounty land to Revolutionary War veterans.12 The state law then provided that the title to said lands is hereby vested in the trustees of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College, for the benefit of said college.13

So the land being sold by the University by way of that deed was Virginia Military District land, ceded to Ohio by the federal government, titled to the University by the state, and the proceeds were then put into the endowment fund that, even today, supports OSU and its educational mission.

And whenever you see language like that — and a grantor that’s an educational institution — take a look at the Land-Grant Act for the explanation of how that transaction came to be … and why.

By the way, as you can imagine, the 1862 act did exclude the Confederate States — “No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act.”14 But they were brought into the land grant fold by the act of 1890, which required admission of students without regard to race but permitted the establishment of separate institutions “for white and colored students.”15

That law led to the founding of many of today’s historically black colleges and universities. But that’s a post for another day…

 
SOURCES

  1. Scioto County, Ohio, Deed Book 63: 270, Ohio State University to James K. P. Newman, 14 March 1882; County Recorder, Portsmouth; digital images, “Ohio, Scioto County Recorder, 1885-1887, Land and property records,” FamilySearch.org (https://familysearch.org/ : accessed 13 May 2013). ↩
  2. Ibid. ↩
  3. Ibid. ↩
  4. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “Morrill Land-Grant Acts,” rev. 10 Mar 2013. ↩
  5. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “Jonathan Baldwin Turner,” rev. 13 Jan 2013. ↩
  6. Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.com), “Morrill Land-Grant Acts,” rev. 10 Mar 2013. ↩
  7. “An Act donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and the Mechanic Arts,” 12 Stat. 503 (2 Jul 1862), 7 U.S.C. §301 et seq. ↩
  8. Ibid., §1. ↩
  9. Ibid., §4. ↩
  10. “Ohio State History and Traditions,” Ohio State University (http://www.osu.edu/ : accessed 13 May 2013). ↩
  11. “An Act to cede to the State of Ohio the unsold Lands in the Virginia military District in said State,” 16 Stat. 416 (18 Feb 1871). ↩
  12. “Historical Information,” A Guide to the Virginia Military District Land Surveys, 1787-1823, Library of Virginia (http://lib.virginia.edu/ : accessed 13 May 2013). ↩
  13. “An Act accepting the act of Congress of the United States, … ceding to the state of Ohio certain lands in the Virginia Military District…,” Revised Statutes of the State of Ohio … in Force January 1, 1883, vol. III (Cincinnati : Wrightson Printing Co., 1887), 762; digital images, Google Books (http://books.google.com : accessed 13 May 2013). ↩
  14. “An Act donating Public Lands…,” 12 Stat. 503, §5, paragraph Sixth. ↩
  15. “An act to apply a portion of the proceeds of the public lands to the more complete endowment and support of the colleges …,” 26 Stat. 417 (30 Aug 1890), 7 U.S.C. § 321 et seq. ↩
Posted in Resources, Statutes | 8 Comments

FamilySearch: sharing is forever

Posted on May 13, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

FamilySearch terms of use

It used to be, just a few short weeks ago, that the major emphasis at FamilySearch.org was the records it digitizes and makes available to its users.

You would navigate to the website, and the very first thing you’d see would be the search box to take you into the millions and millions of images available to the genealogist there.

No longer.

Now the emphasis is on sharing. There are six rotating images at the landing page for the website and the first three, in order, are for making connections with an online fan chart, sharing memories by uploading and sharing photographs, and connecting generations by creating an online family tree.

Oh, the records are still there — thank heavens! — but the focus has shifted to the user and sharing of information among users.

And that means it’s time for a very careful look at the website’s terms of use. Terms of use, remember, are “the limits somebody who owns something you want to see or copy or use puts on whether or not he’ll let you see or copy or use it.”1

And when it comes to a site where sharing is involved, terms of use are also those pesky little sometimes-written-in-legal-jargon provisions saying what the website can do with anything you choose to upload.

For the most part, FamilySearch‘s terms of use are typical and ordinary and, for the most part, written in plain English.2 But there are a couple of provisions that should make us all stop and think.

The big one affects anything you choose to upload to the site:

In exchange for your use of this site and/or our storage of any data you submit, you hereby grant us an unrestricted, fully paid-up, royalty-free, worldwide, and perpetual license to use any and all information, content, and other materials (collectively, “Contributed Data”) that you submit or otherwise provide to this site (including, without limitation, genealogical data and discussions and data relating to deceased persons) for any and all purposes, in any and all manners, and in any and all forms of media that we, in our sole discretion, deem appropriate for the furtherance of our mission to promote family history and genealogical research. As part of this license, you give us permission to copy, publicly display, transmit, broadcast, and otherwise distribute your Contributed Data throughout the world, by any means we deem appropriate (electronic or otherwise, including the Internet). You also understand and agree that as part of this license, we have the right to create derivative works from your Contributed Data by combining all or a portion of it with that of other contributors or by otherwise modifying your Contributed Data.3

In plain English, by using the website and uploading anything — a photo, a story, any comments you share about an ancestor or about your research — you are giving FamilySearch an unlimited right to use what you’ve uploaded. It’s a license, meaning you do keep your own copyright in your own work, but it’s a license that allows FamilySearch to do just about everything that copyright law says you’re the only one who can do: copy it, display it, create derivative works from it, and modify it.

If you choose to upload something, you must understand that you are agreeing to allow it to be downloaded and used by everyone else who uses the website for their own personal noncommercial research, to be revised and included in the FamilySearch Wiki, to be used in training materials and similar purposes.

Your grant of permission is perpetual — meaning forever — and it’s unrestricted. You can’t come back later and say you didn’t mean it; you can’t object when someone else starts using that particular picture you uploaded of Great Aunt Tizzy; and you’re never going to be paid for anything you wrote and uploaded that ends up being the featured section of the FamilySearch Wiki.

Let’s be clear about this: there’s absolutely nothing wrong or underhanded about what FamilySearch is doing and it’s not hiding a thing. FamilySearch makes no bones about its purpose here — it wants people to collaborate and share:

You acknowledge that a primary purpose of this site is to enable collaboration between users of this site and other sites that wish to expand their genealogical databases and knowledge. You acknowledge that we may utilize Contributed Data that you submit, for the purpose of collaborating with other individuals and organizations (including commercial genealogical organizations), for example, in order to create a global common pedigree for the purposes of increasing participation in family history and preserving records throughout the world. You acknowledge that collaboration between multiple individuals and organizations allows us to obtain additional data that we may provide to users of this site—thus allowing users to extend their own ancestral lines.4

If that purpose doesn’t sit well with you — if you have qualms about seeing your words used by others or about other people downloading your family photos — don’t upload to FamilySearch. It’s as simple as that.

And, by the way, because you’re the one granting the license, if you do choose to upload, make sure you only upload things you have the right to share. The terms of use clearly say that you’re the one on the hook if you upload something that violates someone else’s legal rights:

You represent and warrant that you will not submit anything to this site that violates any third party’s rights (including, but not limited to, copyrights, privacy rights, publicity rights, contract rights, or other proprietary rights). Whenever you submit data to this site, you are affirming that you have the legal right to contribute that data to us and to grant us the rights and licenses set out in this Agreement. You accept legal responsibility for our use of your Contributed Data based on your affirmation. You are solely responsible for all Contributed Data that you post or otherwise contribute to this and any other FamilySearch affiliated site.5

Beyond the sharing issues, the other stop-and-think provision is right at the top: the site restricts its use to non-commercial purposes:

You may view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use unless otherwise indicated. … You may not use this site or information found at this site (including the names and addresses of those who have submitted information) to sell or promote products or services, to solicit clients, or for any other commercial purpose.6

Uh-oh. What about professional genealogists, bloggers and genealogy speakers? Are we all violating the terms of use when we use images from FamilySearch in client reports, or as illustrations in a lecture or a blog post?

Not to worry. I posed those questions directly to FamilySearch and the answer is that these are permitted uses:

     • “Specifically, yes you may use the materials in client reports.”7

     • “Yes, you may use the materials as instructional illustrations (but not for promotional illustrations) in lectures.”8

And as to blog posts, I specifically clarified that some bloggers “have affiliate programs (if someone clicks through on a link on the website and buys a book, the blogger will get a small fee); sometimes the blogger sells his or her own works somewhere on the website; some bloggers take clients or do lectures for a fee and have information about those activities somewhere on the website.” Even on a blog like that, using images from FamilySearch to illustrate a point in a blog post is considered “limited illustrative use” and “is acceptable.”9

Bottom line: share with care, and if you’re a professional you can use the images for client reports and illustrations in blogs and lectures.

 
SOURCES

  1. Judy G. Russell, “A terms of use intro,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 27 Apr 2012 (http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 12 May 2013). ↩
  2. “Terms of Use,” dated 4 June 2012, FamilySearch.org (https://www.familysearch.org/ : accessed 12 May 2013). ↩
  3. Ibid., “Licenses and Rights Granted to Us,” emphasis added. ↩
  4. Ibid., “Collaboration with Others.” ↩
  5. Ibid., “Right to Submit.” ↩
  6. Ibid., “Licenses and Restrictions.” ↩
  7. Email, Merlyn Doney, FamilySearch International, to the author, 3 May 2013. ↩
  8. Ibid. ↩
  9. Ibid. ↩
Posted in Terms of use | 31 Comments

The whiz kids

Posted on May 11, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

Congratulations to the nieces!

Speaking at the National Genealogical Society conference today in Las Vegas has relieved The Legal Genealogist from a terrible dilemma: how to be in two places at one time this afternoon.

Because, later today, in two different auditoriums on two different college campuses almost a continent apart, two exceedingly bright and exceedingly dear-to-my-heart young women will be walking across stages and reaching out for those sheepskins that will set them free to go on and try their wings as they fly off to pursue their dreams.

On the east coast, at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, my niece Rose St. Clair will receive her bachelor’s degree summa cum laude. Youngest of the four children of my sister Kacy, Rose is on a path that should take her through graduate school to a career in cognitive psychology.

And some 2,000 or so miles to the west, at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, Arizona, my niece Katya Geissler will receive her bachelor’s degree summa cum laude. Youngest of the four children of my brother Paul, Katya is on a path that should take her through graduate school to a career in medicine and/or biochemistry.

I look back through the pictures in my mind to two very little girls, one dark haired and one blonde, but both with impish smiles and a well-developed sense of the absurd, who learned in about a nanosecond to wrap parents and older siblings (and various assorted relatives like aunts) around their little fingers.

Who stand today proud and tall… and making us so very proud.

Congratulations, Rose and Katya!

The world is waiting, and we can’t wait to see what you do with it.

Posted in My family | 4 Comments

NGS Report

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Judy G. Russell

NGS tidbits

The whirlwind that is the National Genealogical Society conference is blowing strong in Las Vegas this week and it’s left many of us — The Legal Genealogist included — breathless.

The sheer number of sessions, the variety of speakers, the excitement of the vendor hall, the opportunity to spend time with old friends and meet new ones is exhilarating but wow… no time to even think!!!

Marian L. Smith

I had the chance on Wednesday to hear the keynote address from the very entertaining and very knowledgeable Marian L. Smith.

Marian is Chief of the USCIS Historical Research Branch and directs the agency’s History Office, Historical Reference Library, and Genealogy Program. She’s been the nation’s immigration historian for nearly 25 years and if there’s anything about U.S. immigration and naturalization that she doesn’t know, it probably isn’t knowable.

She is also one of the best speakers out there on genealogical topics.

Using the mystery behind the authorship of the Morton Allan Directory of European Passenger Steamship Arrivals as the story, she wove for the hundreds and hundreds of attendees a story with these lessons:

    • “Some questions take time — much more than you might have expected.”

    • “No time is ever wasted doing research: we all need that background, that historical understanding of the time and place.”

    • “You are never going to understand your ancestors if you don’t understand the world they lived in — it was a different place from our world today.”

    • “Be prepared to be surprised by what you find.”

    • “Question your sources: don’t believe what you read.”

She also emphasized that every researcher will find things that weren’t expected along the research path. Her advice: “when you find a piece that may not fit into your puzzle, pick it up and put it in your pocket because you may not come back this way again.”

And what may have been her most cogent point: “Your ancestors didn’t create the records for you. Documents have their own stories.”

I’ve had a blast so far telling some of those stories in my own presentations Wednesday on The Treasure Trove in Legislative Petitions and yesterday in Blackguards and Black Sheep: The Lighter Side of the Law. One more to go on Saturday, with How Knowing the Law Makes Us Better Genealogists.

And oh… it is such fun to be here with all these folks whose eyes don’t glaze over when we start talking about a tough genealogical problem…

Posted in General | 1 Comment