> I'm working some personal property tax lists. I can't find the > boiler-plate that tells me the tax rates. I've got the one for the > 1860s, but not the ones for the 1700s. :( > > I'm noticing something I think is VERY strange: from information on > the tax lists, I can deduce the tax rate for a white tithable, for > one horse, and for one "cattle". However, where the tithable owns > many horses and/or cattle, the rates multipled by the number of > animals don't work out to the amount of the tax. > > Opinions -- would these be math errors on the part of the assessor, > ceilings on the number of horses/cattle taxed, variable rates for > quality of animal, or what? > > Cheryl <singhals@erols.com> I am familiar with three modern day scenarios that might give you a clue to the strange tax behavior you reported. 1.) Inventories are often reduced or moved before "tax" day. 2.) If the taxpayer was responsible for the count, it was often under reported. It was never over reported. 3.) If the tax man came out to the farm to see for himself, he would often round down. But I doubt that any of this kind of thing happened during former times <g> Nah A. John Birkholz brotherjohn@imt.net Brother Shoots Brother .... He also had a habit of getting drunk on all possible occasions and his tragic ending has been freely predicted for a number of years. .... Friday September 1, 1899, West Point Republican -- West Point, Cuming Co., Nebr.
Bob, To put it more succinctly: Legal terms tend to persist in legal documents long after the word is no part of the common vocabulary AND long after the reason for using the term has lost its legal validity. Black's Legal Dictionary includes archaic terms such as intermarriage. I believe that Black's said, in 1951, that it was "sometimes used" because it was a term that was nearing the end of the following-out-of-usage process and was not "always used" or "often used". It was "often used" in the time period inquired about [1800-1860] and would have had a strict legal meaning, and therefore "always used" with a precise legal meaning probably 200 years before that. This is my [pretty well] educated guess, to answer another of your questions. And by the way, "inter" is Latin, a demonstration of one of the marvels of our language: we can easily combine words of entirely different origins and create new meanings, one of the great benefits, in the past, of studying Latin. Joan Best "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net>
Joan Best wrote: > Bob asked: > > > We didn't hear what Black's has to say about "marriage", but > > kindly note that the above says in regard to "intermarriage" that: > > "it is *sometimes* used" (emphasis added). Why only "sometimes"? > > and what occasioned the use of "intermarriage" or "marriage" in > > any give case? [quote from Black's 1951 edition.] > > > > I, for one, would appreciate a legal explanation of the above > > questions. > > Joan replies: > > Black's Law Dictionary has been around for several centuries and > relates to English law [US follows English law precedent except for > Louisiana] Which is French. > As most dictionaries, it changes over time. Does that statement "changes over time" suggest then that a 1951 Black's definition might not be applicable for the 1800-1860 timeframe? Do we need a Black's from 1851? For some strange reason, the context on these threads keeps getting lost, but the original question/context was and I quote: "Hi - In some of the early marriage records in Kentucky (1800-1860), it shows the word intermarriage between the two persons. Exactly what did that mean in that time period - does anyone know?" > Intermarry > is now rarely used. Two hundred years ago it was commonly used in > legal documents. Black's is used by lawyers to chose the right > modern term [and its spelling] and also to decipher older legal > terms no longer in common usage. Many legal terms, now infrequently > used, are from Latin, a language commonly taught in public schools > until the last half of the twentieth century, and the language > common to scholars in all countries for centuries. There was no mention of any Latin in the original question, only the definition of "intermarriage", an English word. > English now has > supplanted Latin in that regard. There has been a push, in the last > twenty-five years or so, in the profession, to use modern English > instead of legalese. Therefore, intermarriage is now rarely used. But the question refers to the 1800-1860 timeframe! > The definition indicates that its use may have distinguished between > those marriages in which both parties agreed to the marriage and > those in which the woman had no choice in the matter. Probably by > the time period [1700-1900] in which this term was commonly used > this distinction was commonly moot, i.e., of no effect. Is that your response to the question of why it was "sometimes" used? and is that your own speculation or can you cite a source? > A lawyer's secret: Most lawyers do not create each document that > they produce, from scratch. They use form books and other > documents, copying them, adapted to the case at hand. Thus legal > language and terms are perpetuated beyond common usage of the term. > [If the pleading, will, etc. worked before, why take a chance with > new language.] It's a "secret" though that is common knowledge.<g> > Hope this helps. > Joan B Thanks for trying. > "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> Bob
Since this subject seems not to want to go away, I want to return to the original question (and my answer to it): > In some of the early marriage records in Kentucky (1800-1860), > it shows the word intermarriage between the two persons. > Exactly what did that mean in that time period - does anyone > know? It means that the two persons either had or were about to marry each other. Try not to read anything more complicated than that into it. It is possible that within the context of a specific case it might mean something different, but in the ordinary "legal" usage of the time - what was written in the county records - it meant only that the two people were about to or had already married. Any genealogist who operates under the popular or social (modern) definition of intermarriage - marrying outside one's group - is going to be in a whole lot of trouble. For one thing, you then have to accept the premise that almost every marriage in some juridictions in the above-mentioned time period were between persons of different social / religious groups - for almost all marriages are described as intermarriages. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>
> > Can anyone tell us when U.S. Social Security came into being? > > > > Bunny Turner <bunnypat@eastlink.ca> > > Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada > > As this newsgroup is all about "methods" and because I believe in an > old saying, I would prefer to teach you how to fish rather than give > you a fish. Go to Google at: http://www.google.com/ > > <snip> > > Robert Heiling <robheil@attbi.com> Bob, You gave a good answer, but at the risk of sounding dumb, I signed up for this newsletter thinking it was "any answer to any info needed on genealogy". Until now I didn't know it was a "methods" newsletter. How would a person know this as I have not read that or any instructions anywhere? Thanks, Ruth [ Methods is about genealogical research methods, as the name implies. Because research *is* a big chunk of what genealogy is all about, this group covers most all of genealogy other than straight-up queries, informal chatting, and a few other specific areas. A formal charter for this group that was composed when Methods was created (about a decade ago), but times have changed and Methods is perhaps "kinder and gentler" now than it once was. Methods is unusual in that it is a *moderated* newsgroup/mailing list, which means every article is read and approved by the moderator before it is distributed to the group's participants. This means, among other things, that you don't have to worry about things like being on topic because, if you accidentally post something wrong, all that will happen is that you'll get a polite note from me suggesting that you repost your article to a more appropriate group. For whatever it's worth, the moderator isn't some strange three- headed creature. I'm Dr. Brian Leverich, one of the founders of RootsWeb and a ARPANET/USENET user for more than twenty years. Cheers, Mod. ] "Rh Domino" <rhdomino@hotmail.com>
> I started out putting each source in the "source" section of Legacy. > I soon was overwhelmed with one-time sources, with the information > separated [on the screen] from the person. Now I use the event > section and notes for most of this. In Legacy you can name any > "event" you want and if you have the deluxe edition you can override > the sentence structure. I put the census, social security, obits, > speculations, descriptions of how I came to the conclusion that so > and so was the daughter of whichamacallit in these fields, either > for the individual or the marriage. I now use "source" in the > program for a source that applies to many people, such as a printed > genealogy. > > "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net> I too use Legacy. As another way to avoid one-use sources, I have assembled Family Group Sheets into a document, actually a loose-leaf binder, to which I add each new FGS and number it sequentially by family name. (That is, in my book, DENE-001, DENE-002, KOHN-001, KOHN-002. Which leaves an ability to know pretty quickly where information is and an ability to add quite a number of new group sheets.) Then I use the page name-number as the "detail" in the source screen. I have done similar compilations of e-mails, photocopied pages of family bibles, and the mish-mash of notes made during a two-week research trip. It works pretty well for me. Thomas Kohn Tgkohn@aol.com
> Maria Kelley wrote: > > > > > You are correct in your thinking. When naming started one name was > > > all they had so to distingish it became NAME SON OF NAME or NAME AP > > > NAME or Johnson or Johnsdatter or Name Verch Name. Actually it was > > > a good way as you always knew the fathers name that way. > > > > > > Deana Smith "Dora Smith" <deanae@alltel.net> > > > > Boy, wouldn't that make our researching easier now??? > > > > Jane Hodges-Kuebler > > Uh, no, not really, according to several of my friends who are > researching in patronymic-usage countries. :( > > Karin is Jansdottar, but there are 8 Jans in the Parish. WHICH one > is her father? Of the 8, 4 are married to women named Maria, which > of the 4 sets are her parents? > > Patronymics change the shape of the problem, they don't change the > basic problem itself. > > "Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> luckily some of the Danish parishes are very small I am researching an 1823 born Jacob and he appears in multiple records for example the conscription books, lægd, with his fathers name too But in the parish register in the name column it just says Jacob every one knew who was his father and mother with only two or three births a year in the tiny community. he went on to be a staff sergeant in the 3rd Squadron of the 5th regiment of Dragoons Hugh W "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_watkins@net.dialog.dk>
Richard A. Pence wrote: >2. The Heritage Quest indexes do not have fewer errors than >Genealogy.com - the indexes at Genealogy.com ARE the Heritage Quest >indexes. <g> I heard that before. I suppose I've just been lucky enough neither to come across nor hear of errors regarding Heritage Quest; although there's been a number of times I've double-checked HQ and not found an error there, when someone has specifically reported one on Genealogy.com. Maybe they've just had more reported to them for correction in the past. The first error I ever actually found on HQ was found just today...Byron indexed when it was very clearly Myron in the image. Diane genmail@1st.net
"Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > HOWEVER -- if you're looking for someone who died after 1963 and > they're not there, that's reasonable too. For a fairly long > period, Railroad workers had a separate pension plan which didn't > report to SSA; so did the military, the Federal, state, and local > governments. My GF a retired Railroader died in 1964; his pension > checks said Railroad Retirement and his death isn't on the SSDI, > even though I personally filed the death-benefits papers on his > widow's behalf. I guess this can't be said too many times. The SSDI is extracted from a Social Security Administration datafile called the "Death Master Index," which SSA describes as "a list of deaths" that have been reported to it. You cannot make any assumptions as to why some names are there and others are not, for there are no such criteria. IOW, if a name is there, fine. If not, it's not. In either case, you can draw no conclusions. Only these four conditions must exist for a name to be on the list: 1. The person is dead. 2. The person had a SS number. 3. Someone reported the death to SSA. 4. The SSA entered the information in its database (correctly). Other than the post-1961 requirement, the only inference that can be drawn about those not on the list is that one of the four conditions above was not met. Above all, there is no requirement that a person listed was receiving or had received any SS benefit or that a death benefit was applied for or paid because of the death of that person. In short: Either a name is there or it is not and there is no real reasons for either condition! Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>
> Just ran across the article > http://www.ancestry.com/learn/start/famgroupsheets.htm?rc=locale%7E&us=0 in > LEGACY NEWS that describes the way I started keeping track > of sources 20 years ago. The problem I'm having is trying to find a > practical way of inputing this information into the source > documentation of Legacy or PAF. If all I had was one source for > each piece of information, I guess it wouldn't be overly difficult. > The problem is having perhaps a dozen or more group sheets for an > individual documenting census records, church records, > birth/death/marriage certificates, family interviews, etc., many > with differing dates, names, places, etc. How do you pull all this > information together using the source documentation features of > these programs to document how you arrived at your conclusions for > the names and dates used as well as documenting conflicting > information in case additional data shows that your original > conclusion was wrong? I'd like to have a complete set of electronic > information to make it easier to transmit in one package rather than > having various sets of binders and folders, but haven't been able to > see a practical way of doing that. Seems like I could spend the > next few years just entering data with no time left for further > research. Have the majority of users of the various genealogy > programs actually found it practical to use them for source > documentation? If someone offers an online course for use of these > programs to help me see an easier way, I'd sure appreciate the info. > > "Mark Granback" NoGranmarkSpam@yahoo.com I can't address all genealogy software; but I use the Master Genealogist by Wholly Genes software that allows you to enter unlimited sources for the specific piece of data, assigning sureties for each one of them............. In addition, if you so choose, you can enter multiple entries for the information itself such as alternate dates of births. There is unlimited flexibility in how you set up the data entry and source documentation. I choose what I believe is the most accurate of the information, document the reason for the choice, but add ALL of the sources to the event in the citation detail. My readers have all of the discrepant information, why I chose one, and they can choose another conclusion if they do not like my judgement. Yes, it does take time, but as familiarity and speed increase, less and less. The advantage is that I don't need to rely on my memory <which is getting dimmer by the minute> on WHY I have this date of birth or middle name. It is all there. I think that the amount of documentation that we do is certainly a very personal choice, and yes, it does involve time. I used two other genealogy programs before this one that did not provide the same flexibility............ Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net>
> The problem is having perhaps a dozen or more group sheets for an > individual documenting census records, church records, birth/death/marriage > certificates, family interviews, etc., many with differing dates, names, > places, etc. How do you pull all this information together using the source > documentation features of these programs to document how you arrived at your > conclusions for the names and dates used as well as documenting conflicting > information in case additional data shows that your original > conclusion was wrong? I'd like to have a complete set of electronic > information to make it easier to transmit in one package rather than having > various sets of binders and folders, but haven't been able to see a > practical way of doing that. Seems like I could spend the next few years > just entering data with no time left for further research. Have the > majority of users of the various genealogy programs actually found it > practical to use them for source documentation? Mark, I started out putting each source in the "source" section of Legacy. I soon was overwhelmed with one-time sources, with the information separated [on the screen] from the person. Now I use the event section and notes for most of this. In Legacy you can name any "event" you want and if you have the deluxe edition you can override the sentence structure. I put the census, social security, obits, speculations, descriptions of how I came to the conclusion that so and so was the daughter of whichamacallit in these fields, either for the individual or the marriage. I now use "source" in the program for a source that applies to many people, such as a printed genealogy. Joan B "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net>
> > I am looking at Texas Birth records published online and have found > > under father's name: Do not issue. Does anyone know what this > > actually means??? I assume there was not an associated marriage, > > but I don't want to make that assumption <g> > > > > Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net> > > One can easily apply the magic of Google to solve this question. > Entering "Do not issue" "birth certificate" for a Google search, one > finds a reference to a Texas GenWeb page: > http://www.rootsweb.com/~txwinkle/births.htm > with the information: > > IF THE BIRTH RECORD SAYS "DO NOT ISSUE" IN THE FATHER'S NAME FIELD > In the past, when a person died, the father's name field on the > electronic birth record was changed to "DO NOT ISSUE". This was a > method that was established as a flag to BVS personnel that they > should not issue a certified copy of this birth certificate to > anyone claiming to be the deceased. > > "Robert Shaw" anonymous@anonymous.com This information has certainly created some homework for me, for my database has the information that the person for whom 'do not issue father's name', subsequently was married and had a child !!!
Bob asked: > We didn't hear what Black's has to say about "marriage", but > kindly note that the above says in regard to "intermarriage" that: > "it is *sometimes* used" (emphasis added). Why only "sometimes"? > and what occasioned the use of "intermarriage" or "marriage" in > any give case? [quote from Black's 1951 edition.] > > I, for one, would appreciate a legal explanation of the above > questions. Joan replies: Black's Law Dictionary has been around for several centuries and relates to English law [US follows English law precedent except for Louisiana] As most dictionaries, it changes over time. Intermarry is now rarely used. Two hundred years ago it was commonly used in legal documents. Black's is used by lawyers to chose the right modern term [and its spelling] and also to decipher older legal terms no longer in common usage. Many legal terms, now infrequently used, are from Latin, a language commonly taught in public schools until the last half of the twentieth century, and the language common to scholars in all countries for centuries. English now has supplanted Latin in that regard. There has been a push, in the last twenty-five years or so, in the profession, to use modern English instead of legalese. Therefore, intermarriage is now rarely used. The definition indicates that its use may have distinguished between those marriages in which both parties agreed to the marriage and those in which the woman had no choice in the matter. Probably by the time period [1700-1900] in which this term was commonly used this distinction was commonly moot, i.e., of no effect. A lawyer's secret: Most lawyers do not create each document that they produce, from scratch. They use form books and other documents, copying them, adapted to the case at hand. Thus legal language and terms are perpetuated beyond common usage of the term. [If the pleading, will, etc. worked before, why take a chance with new language.] Hope this helps. Joan B "Joan Best" <joanbest@earthlink.net>
Hugh, You can also get death certificates for your parents if they have have passed away. You may also be able to get death certificates for your paternal grandparents. If you need help, www.familytreemaker.com has a wonderful how-to guide and genealogy lessons. You have to look around on the home page to find them, but they're worth it. Anita "buckeyegal" <buckeyegal@insight.rr.com>
It has been said that the various codes in the SSDI have no meaning to anyone using the SSDI and are internal SSA codes. In looking for someone I found two: XX953 (U.S.Consulate: CANADA) and VA. I wonder if XX953 may tell the location of the conusate that reported the death and if VA means Vetern's Administration and that the person died in a VA Hospital. bob gillis bob gillis <rpgillis@bellatlantic.net>
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/ If you haven't discovered this site, take a look. The searchable database includes images for official records of the U.S. Government War Department War of the Rebellion. "Glee" <gleemc@earthlink.net>
> I am looking at Texas Birth records published online and have found > under father's name: Do not issue. Does anyone know what this > actually means??? I assume there was not an associated marriage, > but I don't want to make that assumption <g> > > Glee <gleemc@earthlink.net> One can easily apply the magic of Google to solve this question. Entering "Do not issue" "birth certificate" for a Google search, one finds a reference to a Texas GenWeb page: http://www.rootsweb.com/~txwinkle/births.htm with the information: IF THE BIRTH RECORD SAYS "DO NOT ISSUE" IN THE FATHER'S NAME FIELD In the past, when a person died, the father's name field on the electronic birth record was changed to "DO NOT ISSUE". This was a method that was established as a flag to BVS personnel that they should not issue a certified copy of this birth certificate to anyone claiming to be the deceased. "Robert Shaw" <anonymous@anonymous.com>
Thanks for all of the definitions on "Intermarriage." I have an interesting tidbit from my family. I have two cousins (same parents) who have albinism. They are beautiful girls, married, with children who do not have Albinism. When they were born, both grandparents declared that it must have come "from the other side of the family." I found this is a gene that has to be carried by both parents, so, it came from "both sides of the family." At the time, some family members insisted it came from "intermarriage," they meant that somewhere back along the lines cousins married cousins. Lorraine Landmoffat@aol.com
> > Can anyone tell us when U.S. Social Security came into being? > > > > Bunny Turner > > Halifax, Nova Scotia > > Canada <bunnypat@eastlink.ca> > > Social Security Act of 1935 is its beginning according to the SSA > website. They have a brief history online at: > > http://www.ssa.gov/history/brief.html > > "Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn@worldnet.att.net> Actually the concept of Social Security, as we know it, originated with Bismarck, who set up such a plan for Prussia. Lenny
> > I am 22 years young and I have been told that my last name isn't > > what it is. I haven't got much information cause nobody seems to > > know or willing to talk, but is there a way that I can work back > > from the name I have now to find what it was originally? I think it > > is kind of a stretch, but shouldn't it be registered with the > > government when it was changed? I have no idea what I am talking > > about, so any help on researching and what not would be greatly > > appreciated. > > > > "Stinger" <tsting321@yahoo.com> > > historically last names are a new invention > > in Iceland everybody is someone's son or daughter > > no new family names allowed since 1911 > > > get your birth certificate > > find out if your parents were married > > "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_watkins@net.dialog.dk> I see that Hugh is still having difficulty with his caps key. I was so in hopes he would be able to get it fixed. While it is true that "in Iceland everyone is someone's son or daughter, I think you will find this is true in most other places in the world <g>. The difference is that the records in the other places aren't as well kept. I am going to take a guess and suppose that the original post was not from Iceland and offer some links that may help. Others have suggested some good approaches to the original poster in order for her to solve her problem. At this page on RootsWeb, there are some good articles that seem tailor-made for this question: http://rwguide.rootsweb.com/ Look in the upper left corner for these links: o Where to Begin? o What is the Question? o Why You Can't Find Them o What's in a Name? The first two are a good starting place for beginners. The other two deal with the significance of surnames. One of the things you can learn from them is that a great many persons now have surnames that are different from what they once were. They also will tell you that the changes largely came about by chance and thus are not recorded. A great many of them are simply phonetic renderings of the previous surname. For instance, my surname is now PENCE. When my paternal ancestor came to America the name was BENTZ. Pence is how the Germans pronounced the name and how the English-speaking clerks wrote it. Regards, Richard "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>