Dear All, Does anyone have any inkling when NIGR will open registration? I am signed up on their website which says applications will be mailed in early February. Sara Scribner

Bethany, I like that. "...who was in possession of a housekeeper*...."* Quick Carl, run up to Canada and buy a wife. Rondina On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Bethany Waterbury < bethanywaterbury@gmail.com> wrote: > <Thank you to Elizabeth, Judy and Angela for pointing me in the correct > direction for defining pre-emption in 1839 in Michigan. It appears as > though the law in 1838 that Elizabeth referred to was a two year extension > of the law from 1830 which stated that the person purchasing the land had > to provide "proof of settlement or improvement," which was not further > defined in the 1830 act.> > > > > Bethany Waterbury > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Good work, Bethany! Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bethany Waterbury Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:38 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Preemptive Land Patent Thank you to Elizabeth, Judy and Angela for pointing me in the correct direction for defining pre-emption in 1839 in Michigan. It appears as though the law in 1838 that Elizabeth referred to was a two year extension of the law from 1830 which stated that the person purchasing the land had to provide "proof of settlement or improvement," which was not further defined in the 1830 act. However, in the 1838 act, settlers of public lands were further defined as being "the head of a family, or over twenty-one years of age, who was in possession of a housekeeper, by personal residence theron, at the time of the passage of this act, and for four months next preceding, shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of an act entitled 'An act to grant pre-emption rights to settles on the public lands.'" I am attempting to sort out a "one name, two men" situation in a county in which the courthouse burned in 1860 (not just a problem in the south, unfortunately!). I have been unable to find any documents that have both men named, whom I believe were father and son. If I assume that it would take someone at least a year to settle or improve land, I think I have good evidence in this land patent that there were two men, as the younger of the two men was only 11 years old in 1839 (give or take a year as an exact birthdate has not been proved). It seems highly improbable that a 10 year old was settling and improving land in the wilds of Michigan in 1838. There is also the age restriction of needing to be 21, as stated in the 1838 statute. Even if he looked old for his age, or the birthdate is off by a few years, I don't think anyone would mistake him for a 21 year old. However, the younger man sold this same piece of land in 1849, presumably after the death of the older man/his father (his wife is mentioned in the sale deed, so I know which man is selling the land). I am attempting to prove that the land was purchased by the older man/father and sold by the younger man/son, and this is very helpful. Thank you again! Bethany Waterbury The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you to Elizabeth, Judy and Angela for pointing me in the correct direction for defining pre-emption in 1839 in Michigan. It appears as though the law in 1838 that Elizabeth referred to was a two year extension of the law from 1830 which stated that the person purchasing the land had to provide "proof of settlement or improvement," which was not further defined in the 1830 act. However, in the 1838 act, settlers of public lands were further defined as being "the head of a family, or over twenty-one years of age, who was in possession of a housekeeper, by personal residence theron, at the time of the passage of this act, and for four months next preceding, shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of an act entitled 'An act to grant pre-emption rights to settles on the public lands.'" I am attempting to sort out a "one name, two men" situation in a county in which the courthouse burned in 1860 (not just a problem in the south, unfortunately!). I have been unable to find any documents that have both men named, whom I believe were father and son. If I assume that it would take someone at least a year to settle or improve land, I think I have good evidence in this land patent that there were two men, as the younger of the two men was only 11 years old in 1839 (give or take a year as an exact birthdate has not been proved). It seems highly improbable that a 10 year old was settling and improving land in the wilds of Michigan in 1838. There is also the age restriction of needing to be 21, as stated in the 1838 statute. Even if he looked old for his age, or the birthdate is off by a few years, I don't think anyone would mistake him for a 21 year old. However, the younger man sold this same piece of land in 1849, presumably after the death of the older man/his father (his wife is mentioned in the sale deed, so I know which man is selling the land). I am attempting to prove that the land was purchased by the older man/father and sold by the younger man/son, and this is very helpful. Thank you again! Bethany Waterbury

> This is another good lesson in Questioning Authority, not to mention digging deeply enough (my second lesson on this point in a week!). Judy, we're all continually re-learning THOSE lessons! Elizabeth ------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for daily tips on records and record usage: www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

http://kierancraigconsulting.com/wp-content/themes/alabastroswp/images/bingbongpiu.php?cnxafyfeswtl 5ejtvnwa6 Kim Ostermyer

Wow! I am floored by the overwhelming response I have received and just want to thank everyone who has said that they will take part in my survey about Gen X & Gen Y's interest in genealogy. I am still looking for people interested ( I have a goal to hit 100 participants) so keep those emails coming if you are game! Thanks again, Kassie Nelson Cedar Tree Genealogy www.cedartreegenealogy.com

Many thanks, Elizabeth, for pointing out my erroneous **assumption** that the BLM (indeed, any agency) would always hand us the legislative detail underlying what was actually done. I guess I have just been lucky with respect to the Federal Land patents, and should not have assumed. This is another good lesson in Questioning Authority, not to mention digging deeply enough (my second lesson on this point in a week!). Good hunting to all, Judy **************************************** Elizabeth wrote: ". . . . One problem here: The preemption act of 22 June 1838, which would apply to Bethany's 1839 purchase, is not one of the broader acts that BLM uses as its general authority. BLM uses that 1820 act as the "authority" for many land purchases that also involved other acts--and any preemption terms addressed in, say, that 1820 act would be superseded by the 1838 act . . ."

Judy wrote: >In Virginia, the Preemption Warrants were issued up to the quantity of 1000 acres to persons who were already going to be granted land "in right of settlement." There the preemption land was supposed to be adjacent to the settlement tract, but in practice the Preemption Warrants were most often sold to speculators who re-sold them for use to claim land elsewhere in what was then Virginia (such as in Kentucky). By the time the settlement tracts were allocated, there just was not sufficient nearby land available for many of the preemption claims. Judy makes a valuable reminder to all: State-land states such as Virginia and Kentucky, have different land laws than the public-land states such as Michigan, which Bethany inquired about. Judy also wrote: >The answer to the question would be in the underlying legislation. The authorizing Act should be identified in the patent document, or in the BLM summary in a form such as this: "Authority: April 24, 1820: Sale-Cash Entry (3 Stat. 566)" One problem here: The preemption act of 22 June 1838, which would apply to Bethany's 1839 purchase, is not one of the broader acts that BLM uses as its general authority. BLM uses that 1820 act as the "authority" for many land purchases that also involved other acts--and any preemption terms addressed in, say, that 1820 act would be superseded by the 1838 act (which, of course, was altered by the 1841 act that Angela mentioned--although the 1841 terms would be too late for Bethany's need). Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for daily tips on records and record usage: www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

Bethany asked: Does anyone know approximately how long someone would have to be living on the land to have a preemption certificate issued? Bethany, There is a copy of the Preemption Act of 1841 online at http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Preemption%20Act%20of%201841.pdf Section 10 of the act outlines the requirements for a person claiming preemption, and as far as residence it states that the individual must "make a settlement in person on the public lands" and "who shall inhabit and improve the same, and who has or shall erect a dwelling thereon." This act does not state a length of time for the residence. Other preemption acts may state a required length of residency, but I did not find it in a quick check of the land books I have at home. The individual applying for a preemption had to be 1) the head of a family, a widow, or single man, 2) over the age of twenty-one years, and 3) a citizen of the United States, or have filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen. I hope this helps. Angela McGhie

In Virginia, the Preemption Warrants were issued up to the quantity of 1000 acres to persons who were already going to be granted land "in right of settlement." There the preemption land was supposed to be adjacent to the settlement tract, but in practice the Preemption Warrants were most often sold to speculators who re-sold them for use to claim land elsewhere in what was then Virginia (such as in Kentucky). By the time the settlement tracts were allocated, there just was not sufficient nearby land available for many of the preemption claims. The answer to the question would be in the underlying legislation. The authorizing Act should be identified in the patent document, or in the BLM summary in a form such as this: "Authority: April 24, 1820: Sale-Cash Entry (3 Stat. 566)" If you do an internet search for its abbreviated citation (3 Stat. 566) for this Act of Congress you should be able to find it, either transcribed on the web somewhere, in the Library of Congress website. You will also find it in the nearest University law library, which is worth investigating in any event -- they all house reports of court cases from State and Federal Court systems as well as legislation. You never know when your target person might have been involved in a complicated civil or criminal matter that was decided in a Court of Appeals or State Supreme Court with an opinion that was published in one of the myriad Reporters. Another treasure-house to explore! Good hunting, Judy ************************** Bethany writes: I am working with a land patent through the BLM that is labeled both on the original patent and in the county deed books as a "Preemption Certificate." I did a bit of research and it looks as though a preemption certificate was issued to someone who was already living on the land they wished to purchase (or a "squatter"). Does anyone know approximately how long someone would have to be living on the land to have a preemption certificate issued?

Dear All, Thanks to all of you who responded with great suggestions about my friend who wants to self-publish his autobiography. He's happily contacting them now. This list is so generous with its expertise and also the time it takes to stop and send a reply. Many, many thanks to you all. Sara Scribner

>Does anyone know approximately how long someone would have to be living on the land to have a preemption certificate issued? The land patent I am working with is in Kent County, Michigan with the purchase date of 1839 and the patent issuance date of 1841. Bethany, you are wise to consider legal parameters when evaluating your ancestor's records and situation. However, there was no one, blanket, set of rules that applied to all eras and locales. The basic approach to determining the federal law in effect for a particular subject in a historical period would be this: - Go to the Library of Congress website, "A CENTURY OF LAWMAKING FOR A NEW NATION: U. S. CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS & DEBATES, 1774-1875 (memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html). - Run a search of U.S. STATUTES AT LARGE for the relevant term (in this case, spell the word with a hyphen: "pre-emption") - From the hits, select the one that is the most-immediately prior to the date of your need, and read that law. - If it does not pertain to your specific area/condition/whatever, then work your way backward until you find the law that was relevant. You state that your person-of-interest paid for the land in 1839. A new pre-emption law went into effect on 22 June 1838. Your process of "working backward" should be fairly easy! Elizabeth --------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for daily tips on records and record sources; www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained -----Original Message----- From: transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:transitional-genealogists-forum-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bethany Waterbury Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 8:30 AM To: transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com Subject: [TGF] Preemptive Land Patent I am working with a land patent through the BLM that is labeled both on the original patent and in the county deed books as a "Preemption Certificate." I did a bit of research and it looks as though a preemption certificate was issued to someone who was already living on the land they wished to purchase (or a "squatter"). Does anyone know approximately how long someone would have to be living on the land to have a preemption certificate issued? The land patent I am working with is in Kent County, Michigan with the purchase date of 1839 and the patent issuance date of 1841. Thank you! Bethany Waterbury The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks so much, Michael. The conversations you pointed to spoke to my exact question about citing county changes :) Michele -----Original Message----- From: Michael Hait [mailto:michael.hait@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:19 AM To: Michele Lewis; TGF Mailing List Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation question I have seen different levels of this. I have seen articles citing, for example, *Ancestry Red Book* for the county formation dates, and I have seen articles that did not document the county formation date at all. I believe that, if county boundaries and formation dates are vital to your argument, you should try to track down the original session law forming the counties in question. These laws would give the precise boundaries at the time of formation, as opposed to current boundaries. You would also want to check later session laws if any boundary adjustments were made later on. When we discussed the BCG Standards Manual extensively in 2010, there was a good debate about this very subject. Read through the following threads: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORU M/2010-05/1272805959 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORU M/2010-05/1272984571 Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Michele Lewis Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:49 AM To: TGF Mailing List Subject: [TGF] Citation question I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page 44). This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In previous reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is overkill. Michele The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you to everyone who responded to my question concerning the Civil War Service Record! Maggie

To me the litmus test for "general/common knowledge" is not whether or not one has to look it up. Quick test: What was Abraham Lincoln's wife's name? Whether or not you had to look it up, this fact would be considered general knowledge. You wouldn't have to track down and cite the marriage record. I don't know the exact date of the Battle of Gettysburg, but it is general knowledge. How about the Battle of the Crater (another CW battle)? Certainly less known than the Battle of Gettysburg I used a good example in the 2010 discussion of BCG Standard 53 which introduces the term "general knowledge" in regard to citations. (Please note that all of my opinions on this subject have not necessarily stayed the same in the past two years.) I have copied it here for reference: "In your research report you mention that Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as President of the United States in 1861. Insert the footnote, and what do you use to cite this fact? An encyclopedia? A newspaper? If a newspaper, which one? The actual federal document naming him President? The official election results? Or a combination of several of these? Is this really a fact that needs to be proved? After all, this is at least part of the reason for citing your sources." For county formation dates, there are similar considerations. You could easily cite the Red Book, or Everton's HandyBook, or the FamilySearch Wiki for the county formation date. Or you could cite the specific law. Or you could cite the fact of the sudden appearance of records created under the jurisdiction. Or you could cite the first entry in the county court records, or the first deed where someone is "of Such and such County." Or a 19th century county history. Or a contemporary newspaper reporting the creation of the county. On the other hand, as I stated in my earlier response, if the specific location of the county boundaries are vital to your proof argument, then you should cite not only the original session law creating the county (and its proscribed boundaries) but also any subsequent laws that may have adjusted these boundaries. Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Rondina Muncy Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:02 AM To: Michele Lewis Cc: TGF Mailing List Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation question Michele, I do not consider county creation dates as common knowledge. I live in Tarrant County, Texas, but I would have to look up the date is was formed. You state that the dates are easily found, however, when I cite the information I reference the actual statute the state/parish/commonwealth created it---not a derivative source of that information. Rondina _______________________ Rondina P. Muncy Ancestral Analysis 4008 Linden Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76107 682.224.6584 rondina.muncy@gmail.com www.ancestralanalysis.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Michele Lewis <ancestoring@gmail.com> wrote: > I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the > succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the > county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily > looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page > 44). > This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably > considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed > but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In > previous > reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is > overkill. > > > > Michele > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to > professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

As with much related documentation, the better question is not "What is right?" Instead, we should ask "What information communicates most clearly to my readers the basis for my statements and conclusions?" That answer will vary with context. With that in mind, in at least a scholarly genealogical publication context I would document the date a county was formed (ideally by citing the law establishing the county), especially if that date had some bearing on a conclusion in my proof summary or proof argument. I also think it's generally wiser in most genealogical contexts to err in the direction of too much documentation than too little. --- Tom On 2/6/2013 9:49 AM, Michele Lewis wrote: > I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the > succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the > county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily > looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page 44). > This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably > considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed > but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In previous > reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is > overkill. > > > > Michele > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have seen different levels of this. I have seen articles citing, for example, *Ancestry Red Book* for the county formation dates, and I have seen articles that did not document the county formation date at all. I believe that, if county boundaries and formation dates are vital to your argument, you should try to track down the original session law forming the counties in question. These laws would give the precise boundaries at the time of formation, as opposed to current boundaries. You would also want to check later session laws if any boundary adjustments were made later on. When we discussed the BCG Standards Manual extensively in 2010, there was a good debate about this very subject. Read through the following threads: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM/2010-05/1272805959 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM/2010-05/1272984571 Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Michele Lewis Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:49 AM To: TGF Mailing List Subject: [TGF] Citation question I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page 44). This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In previous reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is overkill. Michele The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That is what I was thinking when I originally cited them BUT with ESMs example of the Battle of the Bulge I didn’t know when that even occurred. I would have had to look that up (I did know that it happened in WWII so I am not a total history dweeb ☺ ☺ ☺) Michele From: Rondina Muncy [mailto:rondina.muncy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:03 AM To: Michele Lewis Cc: TGF Mailing List Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation question Michele, I do not consider county creation dates as common knowledge. I live in Tarrant County, Texas, but I would have to look up the date is was formed. You state that the dates are easily found, however, when I cite the information I reference the actual statute the state/parish/commonwealth created it---not a derivative source of that information. Rondina _______________________ Rondina P. Muncy Ancestral Analysis 4008 Linden Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76107 682.224.6584 rondina.muncy@gmail.com www.ancestralanalysis.com On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Michele Lewis <ancestoring@gmail.com> wrote: I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page 44). This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In previous reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is overkill. Michele The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I need to make reference to when a particular county was formed (the succession of counties is important in this case). Would the dates of the county formations be considered "common knowledge" since they are easily looked up? In EE, the example given is the Battle of the Bulge (page 44). This information is easily verified. The Battle of the Bulge is probably considered a more prominent event in history than when a county was formed but I am thinking that this would fall into the same category. In previous reports I have cited my source for the date but I am wondering if this is overkill. Michele