Archive for October 31, 2009

Halloween Census Whacking

October 31, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy, Oklahoma, United Kingdom

With the crisis of my father’s recent illness and the minor drama of my own, I feel like I’ve been way out of touch the last two weeks.  It’s time get back into the flow of things.   I thought  little census whacking for Halloween would ease my way back into writing.  So I went hunting for Vampires, Zombies, Ghosts, Ghouls, Goblins, Witches and Pumpkins.

Vampires

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the incidence of Vampires is extremely low in the United States.  In 1880,  four Vampires: Otto; Jean; Julianne; and Mary, all in their twenties, were living in Cheyenne,  Wyoming.  They claimed to be actors. In 1870,  there was just one Vampire in the United States, 26 year-old machinist George Vampire.  Of course he lived in New York City.   What happened to these five Vampires  in the 20th century?  Were they forced to leave or did they on their own just pull out up stakes and leave?

According to the World Names Profiler (WNP), Germany and the United States have the greatest incidence of Vampires in the world.  Germany’s statistic is 0.04 per million, while in the U.S., the figure is 0.01 Vampires per million people.  Regionally, the American Vampires are located in Oklahoma, according to the WNP.  The Sooner state has a Vampire index of 1.04 per million.  With a 2008 estimated population of 3,640,000 or so,  there would be about four Vampires in Oklahoma.   I found in public records three listings in Lawton, Oklahoma, for Madonna Vampire.  Unfortunately for her, there are at least thirty people named Buffy in Oklahoma presently.

Zombies

Nearly all the Zombies in the census records turned out to be mis-transcriptions of other names.  The WNP reports no Zombies in the United States.  Public records reviews show about 14 Zombies in various places around the country.

Ghosts

Kraft Ghost of Fayette County, Pennsylvania, and Leonard Ghost of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, both listed on the 1790 federal census appear to be the first two Ghosts in America.  But in the 1900 census, the number of Ghosts expands exponentially.  Most of these “new” Ghosts are Native Americans in the upper Midwest.  The WNP indicates a Ghost index of 18.29 per million in South Dakota and 3.37 per million in Nebraska.  South Dakota’s estimated 2008 population was 804,000, which would yield about 15 Ghosts. Public records reveal about 17 Ghosts in South Dakota (when obvious duplicates are eliminated).

Nebraska’s estimated population is about 1.8 million, suggesting something a bit more than six Ghosts.  I was able to find only one Ghost in Nebraska in public records. The rest seem to have vanished.

And how about Pennsylvania where it seems to have begun for Ghosts in America?   WNP’s Pennsylvania Ghost index is 2.58 per million.   That would mean about 32 Ghosts presently among Pennsylvania’s estimated 12.45 million folks.  I was able to identify 25 Ghosts in Pennsylvania public records after eliminating duplicates and two entries which appeared to refer to religious organizations.

Ghouls

Apparently, the first Ghoul in America was 66 year-old Christian Ghoul of Maryland, a German immigrant.  He appears on the 1870 census.  Few other Ghouls seem to have been counted until the 1900 census, where like the Ghosts, the Ghouls grew rapidly in number.  And like the Ghosts, most of the “new” Ghouls were Indians, living primarily in Tehama County, California.

When it comes to Ghouls, the United States doesn’t even register in the WNP top ten. (Number one is France, with a Ghoul incidence of 4.59 per million; Switzerland is a distant second at 1.92 per million, supporting evidence that the Gauls may be the most Ghoulish people on Earth). (Hey, I just report the facts!)

Within in the U.S., however, Ghouls seem to be concentrated around Las Vegas and Chicago, at least according to the WNP.  Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, and Will County, Illinois, adjacent to Chicago, were the only two counties in which the WNP found any Ghouls at all. Curiously, public records show no Ghouls in Nevada and six in the Chicago area.  Overall, public records indicate something more than 100 Ghouls in America presently, with perhaps as many as 10% of those in California.   This is the biggest disparity I’ve ever seen between WNP data and public records. [The WNP's FAQs state: "All our names and location data are derived from publicly available telephone directories or national electoral registers, sourced for the period 2000-2005."]

Goblins

A man named Goblin was first in recorded in New York City in the 1850 census.  In 1860 there was still just one Goblin on the census and that was 14-year-old Lucinda Goblin who lived with the Davenport household in Columbia, Missouri.  But just 10 years later, the 1870 census showed that three fourths of the (four) Goblins in the USA lived in North Carolina.  By 1900 however, the number of Goblins in America had increased nearly eight-fold to a total of 33, to be found in every region of the country.

Globally, the number of Goblins in the U.S. doesn’t make the slightest statistical ripple, using WNP data.  Number one is France, again, with  0.2 Goblins per million.  The United Kingdom is far, far, behind with 0.02 per million.

Witches

We all know the history of Witch hunts in America. Surprisingly enough however only one Witch appears on the 1790 census and that would be Peter Witch of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (just what is it with Pennsylvania and Lancaster in particular?).  There was also a Witch in Rutledge County, Alabama, in 1790.  By 1900, Witches were routinely enumerated in the census all over the country.  Sadly, two of them were little boys: Jacob Witch, 10 years old, and his brother, Henry Witch five years old, who were apparently in an orphanage in Las Galinas, Marin County, California.

Turns out that there are far more Witches in the U.K. and Canada than in the USA (the only countries reporting any Witches at all).  The British Witch population (0.5 per million) is concentrated in Newport (Casnewydd), Wales, and the southwest jurisdictions of North Somerset, Bath and Northeast Somerset, as well as the City of Bristol.  There are also a few Witches in Surrey.

According to WNP, Manitoba’s  Witch frequency of 2.93 per million accounts for the whole of Canada’s 0.23 per million Witch index. Manitoba has an estimated population of 1.2 million; all of Canada consists of 31.6 million people. Mathematically, that does not work out.  Unfortunately the WNP provincial map of Manitoba gives no further details.

The U.S. Witch frequency is a comparatively minuscule 0.04 per million.  WNP finds Witches concentrated in Dickinson County, Kansas, and Howard County, Maryland.  A public records search reveals about twelve Witches in  the USA (eliminating commercial enterprises like plumbing and construction ["Ditch Witch"] and fast food restaurants [Fish Witch"]).  None of the Witches were found in Kansas and of the two in Maryland, neither was in Howard County.

Pumpkins

John Pumpkin appears as the only one of his surname on the 1820 census.  He lived in Fayette Count, Kentucky.  Virtually no other Pumpkins are found in the census until 1880.  In that year, Pumpkins were concentrated in two areas of the country: Fresno County, California, and Greene County, Georgia.  The latter jurisdiction included a young lady, 15 years old, named  Etta Pumpkin.  Following a pattern that we’ve seen before, the 1900 census showed a huge increase in the number of Pumpkins in America. Again this had to do with the number of Native Americans enumerated on the census in that year.  The Indian Pumpkins were primarily on reservations in the upper Midwest.  By 1910, however, they were concentrated in Madera County, California, and Cherokee County, Oklahoma.  The Oklahoma Pumpkins included one Mary Pumpkin Gritts.

The WNP data shows the expected distribution of Pumpkins in the USA based on historical data.  South Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma are leading Pumpkin states, based presumably on the frequency of the name among Indians.

Other “Important” News

While I was whacking away on Halloween themes, I started wondering about some other things. Not only did I find unexpected discrepancies with the usually reliable World Names Profiler, but I also now have reason to question the competence of the Census Bureau, whose data report not a single Fool, Clown, or Jackass has ever been enumerated in Washington, D.C.

4 comments , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BREAKING NEWS: Entire Census Going on Footnote.com

October 29, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

At this hour, Footnote.com is releasing details of its venture with the National Archives to digitize and make a searchable database of the entire set of available U.S. census population schedules from 1780 to 1930.  Footnote.com presently has the complete 1860 census and about 97% of the 1930 census available on its site.  In a press release from its Lindon, Utah, headquarters, Footnote.com says that the entire census collection will be “interactive,”  as its 1930 and 1860 versions are already.   Here’s the entire press release:

Lindon, UT – October 29, 2009 – Today Footnote.com (http://www.footnote.com) announced it will digitize and create a searchable database for all publicly available U.S. Federal Censuses ranging from the first U.S. Census taken in 1790 to the most current public census from 1930.

Through its partnership with The National Archives, Footnote.com will add more than 9.5 million images featuring over a half a billion names to its extensive online record collection.

“The census is the most heavily used body of records from the National Archives,” explains Cynthia Fox, Deputy Director at the National Archives. “In addition to names and ages, they are used to obtain dates for naturalizations and the year of immigration. This information can then be used to locate additional records.”

With over 60 million historical records already online, Footnote.com will use the U.S. Census records to tie content together, creating a pathway to discover additional records that previously have been difficult to find.

“We see the census as a highway leading back to the 18th century,” explains Russ Wilding, CEO of Footnote.com. “This Census Highway provides off-ramps leading to additional records on the site such as naturalization records, historical newspapers, military records and more. Going forward, Footnote.com will continue to add valuable and unique collections that will enhance the census collection.”

To date, Footnote.com has already completed census collections from two key decades: 1930 and 1860. As more census decades are added to the site, visitors to Footnote.com can view the status for each decade and sign up for an email notification when more records are added to the site for a particular year.

View the Census Progress Page on Footnote.com.

In addition to making these records more accessible, Footnote.com is advancing the way people use the census by creating an interactive experience. Footnote Members can enrich the census records by adding their own contributions. For any person found in the census, users can:

  • Add comments and insights about that person
  • Upload and attach scanned photos or documents related to that person
  • Generate a Footnote Page for any individual that features stories, a photo gallery, timeline and map
  • Identify relatives found in the census by clicking the I’m Related button

See the 1930 Interactive Census record for Jimmy Stewart.

“The most popular feature of our Interactive Census is the I’m Related button,” states Roger Bell, Senior Vice President of Product Development at Footnote.com. “This provides an easy way for people to show relations and actually use the census records to make connections with others that may be related to the same person.”

Footnote.com works with the National Archives and other organizations to add at least a million new documents and photos a month to the site. Since launching the site in January 2007, Footnote.com has digitized and added over 60 million original source records to the site, including records pertaining to the Holocaust, American Wars, Historical Newspapers and more.

“We will continue to move aggressively to add records to the site, specifically those that are requested by our members and others that are not otherwise available on the Internet,” said Wilding.

Visit http://www.footnote.com/census/ to see how the census on Footnote.com can truly be an interactive experience.

Footnote.com is a subscription website that features searchable original documents, providing users with an unaltered view of the events, places and people that shaped the American nation and the world. At Footnote.com, all are invited to come share, discuss, and collaborate on their discoveries with friends, family, and colleagues. For more information, visit http://www.footnote.com.

Footnote.com Contact:
Justin Schroepfer
Marketing Director
(801) 494-6517
Justin@footnote.com

GeneaBlogie Commentary: Footnote.com is managing to become a sort of hybrid research/social network site, in the process, no doubt will see its usage grow among several sectors of the relevant market. The site has some of the most desirable features of a resource for scholars as well as a way to have people connect.  This became apparent to me sometime ago and when it came time to make some decisions about where to spend time and money, I chose Footnote.com over World Vital Records.  And no, they haven’t given me any $$ to say that.

2 comments , , ,

When Life Gets in the Way

October 23, 2009 Craig Uncategorized

We’ve been running silent here for a few days while I help attend to my father who is seriously ill.  My hope is that he will be stabilized soon and I’ll get back to work here and elsewhere by early in the coming week,

10 comments

California Genealogical Society Meeting Today

October 10, 2009 Craig Uncategorized

1:00 pm

2201 Broadway, Suite LL2, Oakland

Speakers:  Thomas MacEntee, Craig Manson

The place to be this afternoon if you’re in Northern California!

No comments

Confidential Marriage in the United States

October 6, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Even If There Is No Record, There Still Might Be A Marriage

Another issue for genealogists to consider is that of “confidential marriage.”  In California, a couple who have lived together may obtain a so-called “confidential” marriage.  They need only apply at the county clerk’s office or before a notary specially trained in confidential marriage procedures and claim that they have lived together prior to being married.  The California Family  Code has no time provisions for the cohabitation.  The couple then will receive a confidential marriage license.  Once the marriage is solemnized, the couple may apply for a copy of their confidential marriage certificate.

Confidential marriage records are not open to tje public.  Only the parties to the marriage may obtain these records, except by order of a court.

The question has been asked why, in this era where many, perhaps most, couples have cohabited prior to marriage, would someone want a “confidential marriage”?  The answers vary.   Some say certain people just want the privacy.  Others say that in some cases where pregnancy has resulted before marriage, the couple can keep that fact away from their children later on.  On a California notaries website, I found the story of a couple who had been married in another country in a manner that California did not recognize (this would be  a very rare and unusual situation since California law provides that ” A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.”) So this couple needing to be legally married some time later, opted for a confidential marriage.

There was a time in California and many other states that a “waiting period”  was required between the issuance of a marriage license and the marriage ceremony.   California and many of the other such states also required blood tests of one or both of the parties, most usually for rubella, or in some states, venereal diseases.   These tests generally are no longer required, but in the day, the confidential marriage was a way around them. (The District of Columbia and Mississippi still require blood test for both partners; Montana requires a test for the bride only; New York requires sickle-cell test of all African-American and Hispanic couples).

A California notary opined on the above-mentioned notaries chat forum that confidential marriages seem to occur most frequently in resort areas that have wedding chapels used by people who elope.  I think that’s probably correct.  My first encounter with the concept came when  I (as a former judge) performed a marriage ceremony at Lake Tahoe, California.

There’s another reason for a confidential marriage–not indulged in by the vast majority of people, but it occurred to one particular woman.   According to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento, Janet Manser-LaMont purchased a confidential marriage license in 1991 and for the next fifteen years, fraudulently received more than $130,000 in Social Security benefits by claiming she was unmarried.

California is the only state that presently permits confidential marriage.  Other states may have authorized it in the past, but I don’t know specifically.   Readers may recall having seen reference in this earlier post to a marriage license of a certain well-known individual who got married in Missouri; the handwritten words “Please do not publish” appear on the face of the document. Below, presented for what I believe is the first time publicly, is that marriage license.

aurandt marr

Marriage License issued to Paul Harvey Aurandt (aka “Paul Harvey”) and Evelyn Betts (aka Lyn “Angel” Cooper)

Ste Genevieve County, Missouri, August 1940

(click to enlarge)

13 comments , , , ,

Common Law Marriage: Scotland & Quebec

October 6, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy, Scotland

As I had hoped,  some of our international correspondents checked in on this issue.  Kirsty says:

In Scotland, the situation was a bit different from England, or at least less clear. There seems to have been contradictory legislation and, I think, the more I read on the topic of Scottish Marriage Law the more confused I get!

In practice there were two main forms of marriage: “regular” (i.e. marriage by clergyman following the proclamation of banns) and “irregular”. The most common form of irregular marriage was a declaration of marriage in front of witnesses. I have relatives who were married this way in the 1930s.

Of particular relevance to this discussion though was marriage “by habit and repute” – where a co-habiting couple were regarded as husband and wife. This was abolished in Scotland as recently as 2006 by which time it had become very rare, probably because proving legally that such a marriage existed was a lot more trouble than simply going through a Civil Marriage Ceremony!

My original post mentioned the Marriage Act 1753.  Those who recall their history classes will take notice that the Act did not apply to Scotland, which after the Act of Union 1707, retained its own legislative authority

Thanks, Kirsty! By the way, Kirsty’s excellent blog is also one of the nominees (in the Heritage category) in the Family Tree Magazine Top 40 Best Blogs poll. Check it out at The Professional Descendant. She’s recently had a post on Scottish Catholic Registers and an interesting one about An Irregular Catholic Marriage.

I also received an email from Gilles Cayouette of Quebec, who referred me to  a post on his blog, Le chercheur nomade – The Nomadic Researcher.   The French reads:

La bénédiction d’un mariage déjà contracté à Natashquan

Les registres de la paroisse Notre-Dame de Natashquan font état pour le 28 juillet 1862 de l’acte de mariage suivant :

«M. 3 Antoine Marcoux et Elisabeth Hawkins

Le vingt huit juillet mil huit cent soixante te deux, vû le mariage déjà contracté le quatre juin de cette année, en présence de Edward Sheehyn, Michel Kanty et Guillaume Kanty, entre Antoine Marcoux, veuf de Angèle Célina Kenty de la Tête a la Baleine, d’une part; et Elisabeth Hawkins, fille mineure de Alexandre Hawkins et de défunte Archange Guilmet de la Baie des Moutons d’autre part, ne s’étant déclaré aucun empêchement au dit mariage, nous Prêtre, missionnaire soussigné, avons béni leur union en présence de Guillaume Kenty, Michel Kenty, père et Edward Sheehyn soussignés avec l’époux. L’épouse n’a su signer.
Benjamin Read Antoine Marcoux Edward Sheehyn William Canty Michel Canty F.M. Fournier Ptre».

À l’évidence, cette union faisait l’objet d’un consensus social et en particulier de la part des proches de l’ancienne épouse. Dans les circonstances, le missionnaire en bénissant cette union a fait preuve de gros bon sens et a pris acte du contexte.

Using my flawless altar-boy Latin and legal French, I translated it thusly:

The blessing of a marriage already contracted  at Natashquan

The records of the parish of Notre-Dame de Natashquan report on July 28, 1862 of the following marriage :

3 Antoine Marcoux and Elizabeth Hawkins

The twenty-eight July, one thousand eight hundred and sixty. Concerning the marriage already contracted on June fourth of this year, in the presence of Edward Sheehyn, Michael Kanty and William Kanty, between Antoine Marcoux, widower of Angela Celina Kanty of Whaleshead on the one hand, and Elizabeth Hawkins, minor daughter of Alexander Hawkins and the late Archangel Guilmet of Sheeps Bay on the other hand, no impediment to the said marriage having been reported, we, the missionary Priest undersigned, have blessed their union in the presence of William Kanty, Michael Kanty, father, and Edward Sheehyn undersigned with the husband. The wife has been able to sign.

/s/ Benjamin Read
Antoine Marcoux
Edward Sheehyn
William Kanty
Michel Kanty
FM Fournier, Priest

Clearly, this union was the subject of a social consensus, in particular on the part of the relatives of the deceased wife. In the circumstances, the missionary took note of the context, and showed common sense in blessing this union.

[How's my translation?]

Gilles added in his email:

You must note that, in Québec, the church records were historically (in fact until January 1st, 1994) kept by Catholic priests and they were recognised as legal by the civil authorities; a situation which arouses some some interesting legal questions…

Merci, M. Cayouette!

No comments , , , , , , ,

Breaking News: Feds Require Bloggers to Disclose Product Endorsement Connections

October 5, 2009 Craig Uncategorized

Genea-bloggers who say anything positive about genealogical products from now on may required to disclose any “material connection” between themselves and the distributor of the product.

The Federal Trade Commission today adopted what it refers to as  new “Guides” on endorsements and testimonials in advertising.   The Commission’s 81-page document represents the first time in nearly 30 years that the Guides have been revised.

One of the most important aspects of the new Guides affects product endorsements in blogging and social media.  The Guides contain a section titled “Consumer Endorsements,” and a section called “Disclosure of Material Connections.”  The “material connections”‘ provision states:

When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that
might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not
reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.

The FTC gives the following example:

Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert
maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming
experiences.  Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game
hardware and software.  As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released
video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write
about it on his blog.  He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review.
Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his
relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that
he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the
product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially
affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement.  Accordingly, the blogger should
clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge.

While I’m certainly sensitive about the ethical problems that may arise in these situations, I must say that I was generally not impressed on first take at the final Guides issued today.  Overall, they seem to proceed on the notion that consumers are easily duped and are generally rubes at the mercy of advertisers.  The Guides seem especially insulting to users of “new media” who are in fact are not unsophisticated babes-in-the-woods.  But as I said, that’s just my first take on the document which I just received.

I and my administrative law students will study it over the next few days, and I’ll report back.  By the way, if I “endorse” the Guides, will I have to disclose that I got a copy free of charge from the FTC itself?

6 comments , , , , , ,

And The Nominees Are . . .

October 5, 2009 Craig Uncategorized

Voting Opens in Family Tree Magazine’s 40 Best Genealogy Blogs–We’re on the Ballot!

Family Tree Magazine’s “40 Best Genealogy Blogs”  feature opened its polls today at the Genealogy Insider blog. About 130 blogs are nominated in 10 categories:

  • All-around
  • Personal/Family
  • Local/Regional
  • Cemetery
  • Photos/Heirlooms
  • Heritage
  • News/Resources
  • \How-to
  • Genealogy Companies
  • Genetic Genealogy

GeneaBlogie was nominated in the All-Around category. Many Thanks to all those who helped make this happen!

The ballot includes most of my very favorite writers.   There are some very obvious choices in some categories, but all are top quality.  I won’t be expressing any preferences (except GeneaBlogie, Shades of the Departed, and the California Genealogical Society blog–they’re all in different categories) until the next round.

Voting is open at FamilyTreeMagazine.com, from today through November 5.   You are allowed to vote for more than one blog in each category.   You may vote more than once. As they say in Chicago: Vote early and often!   The top 80 blogs will go through a final round and the top 40 will be announced in the May 2010 issue of Family Tree Magazine.

3 comments , , , , ,

Common Law Marriage In the United States of America

October 4, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

When I discovered that my maternal grandparents likely had no marriage certificate, someone suggested that that meant they had a “common law” marriage.   Maybe, maybe not.

The term “common law marriage” is frequently misunderstood.  Many believe if a couple co-habits for a certain fixed period of time, they have a common law marriage.  Some believe that if a couple produces children together, they have a common law marriage.  In fact both of these conceptions are incorrect in the United States.

Sop what exactly is “common law marriage?”

“Common law marriage” is also referred to as “informal marriage.”   Thar means that the couple became married without the usual formalities such as a licence, banns, and a ceremony.  In Rome and in the early Christian church, all marriages were informal.  A couple desiring to be married could simply co-habit and declare their mutual consent that they were married.  This informality, allege some, led to “clandestine” marriages or even sham marriages.   At the very least it would seem to have created some confusion as to the requisite elements of a valid marriage.

The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1563 for the first time imposed formal requirements on marriage.   These include that the marriage be witnessed by a priest and two other individuals.  The Church also began to require “banns of marriage”: a formal announce of the intent of tow parties to be married, which was required to be read at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days for three consecutive weeks before the ceremony.  The purpose was to allow any knowledgeable person to raise objections to the proposed union, such as lack of age, lack of consent, a prior unannulled marriage, or sanguinity issues. (The Catholic Church abandoned the publication of banns in 1983).

In England, informal marriage continued, in part because of the conflicts between the Church of England and the Roman Church.  However,  in 1753, Parliament passed the Marriage Act, which abolished informal marriages and instituted Roman Catholic-like requirements for the solemnization of marriage.

The Marriage Act 1753 did not apply to the North American colonies.   Thus, informal marriage (or “common law” in the sense non-statutory marriage) continued to be practiced in many of the colonies, although many of the colonies had adopted statutes similar to the Marriage Act.

In 1877, the United States Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of  common law marriage (or as the court put it, “informal marriage by contract per verba de praesenti.”)  The issue arose in a dispute between two men claiming the same real property.  Miester v. Moore, 96 U.S> 76 (1877).   Meister claimed that he had purchased certain lands in Michigan from the wife and daughter of William Mowry, deceased.  Moore claimed that he had purchased the same lands from the mother of the deceased Mowry.  If Mowry had died unmarried and without children, then Moore’s claim would be valid.  But if Mowry indeed had been married with “issue” (a child), then Meister’s claim would be valid.

Meister claimed that Mowry had married a woman in 1845 with whom he thereafter cohabited and had a child.   Moore claimed that Mowry’s marriage di not comply with the formalities of the Michigan marriage statute, and thus was invalid.  The U.S. Supreme Court, relying in part on a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, held that the evidence atg leats showed an informal contract of marriage between Mowry and the woman involved.  The Court said: “That such a contract constitutes a marriage at common law there can be no doubt, in view of the adjudications made in this country, from its earliest settlement to the present day.”   Concenrin g the statute, the Court decieded, “No doubt, a statute may take away a common-law right; but there is always a presumption that the legislature has no such intention, unless it be plainly expressed.”  The Michigan statute had no plain disapproval of informal marriage. Citing the eminent jurist Simon Greenleaf, the Court concluded

‘Though in most, if not all, the United States there are statutes regulating the celebration of marriage rites, and inflicting penalties on all who disobey the regulations, yet it is generally considered, that, in the absence of any positive statute declaring that all marriages not celebrated in the prescribed manner shall be void, or that none but certain magistrates or ministers shall solemnize a marriage, any marriage, regularly made according to the common law, without observing the statute regulations, would still be a valid marriage.’

As a result of the Meister case, most states adopting marriage statutes made specific decisions as to whether common law or informal marriage would be allowed. Only a handful states today permit “common law marriage.” These are:

  • Alabama
  • Colorado
  • District of Columbia
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Montana
  • Oklahoma
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • Texas
  • Utah

There are a few states that recognize informal marriages which were contracted for up to the time they were statutorily abolished in those states:

  • Georgia (until January 1, 1997)
  • Idaho (January 1, 1996)
  • Ohio (October 10, 1991)
  • Pennsylvania (January 1, 2005)

Colorado’s statute is a fairly typical one in the states where common law marriage is still permitted.  Both spouses must (1) be legally free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, (2) hold themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consent to the marriage; (4) cohabitate; and (5) have the reputation in the community as being married. See Colo.Rev.Stat. section 14-2-104; In re J.M.H., 143 P.3d 1116 (Colo. App. 2006).  Most states that allow informal marriage have similar requirements.  Notice there is no time element specified, nor is there any requirement that there be children  of the marriage.

Spouses in common law marriages have the same rights and obligations as spouses who have entered into formal marriages.  There is no such thing in any of the United States as “common law divorce.”  A common law marriage must be dissolved in the same manner as any other marriage, i.e., by annulment, divorce or death.

Parties to an informal marriage don’t have to file any documents in most states, until they come up against a specific need to prove their marriage.  An affidavit or notarized declaration may work in many states.

Things can become complicated when a common-law couple moves to a non-common-law state.   The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United Sates Constitution theoretically protects such couples:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

That’s part of Article IV, section of the Constitution. On its face, it would seem to require as a constitutional matter recognition that a marriage valid in the state where it was contracted is valid in every other state.   But the Supreme Couurt has applied a “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Thus, a state may determine whether recognition of an act under  another’s law “would contravene [its own] policies or interests,” giving “due regard to the duties, obligations, rights and convenience of [its own] citizens.”  Conceivably there may be circumstances where a common law marriage in one state is not recognized in another state.

Implications for Genealogists

Genealogical researchers cannot assume that the absence of any record of a marriage points for or against a common law marriage. The facts of the situation must be known as well as the law of the particular jurisdiction at the time of the marriage.  As Miester v. Moore illustrated, determining whether or not there was a valid marriage may become important  in tracing property and may be a factor in certain social contexts.   It’s another good reason not to just gather names, but to also understand the stories behind the names.

I have given an overview here of “common law” marriage in the United States. I hope our friends in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK can enlighten us about formal/informal marriage in their countries.

2 comments , ,

A Vivid Childhood Memory: My Mother is Mugged for a Picture of Elvis

October 4, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Randy Seaver’s “Saturday Night Genealogical Fun” calls for a vivid childhood memory.

Two weeks before my birthday in 1958, we sailed out of New York harbor aboard the venerable USS General George M. Randall, headed for Bremerhaven, West Germany. Every bit of the trip was a new adventure. Leaving New York, an escort of fire boats sprayed a misty salute to the Randall as she passed the Statue of Liberty. It would be more than forty years until I saw the Statue again.

Neither of my parents had ever been on a ship before. For us, me and my siblings (including one in utero), it was the ultimate adventure.

Oh, there had been some hubbub that morning around Brooklyn Army Depot from whence we had departed. For some reason, the press was paying particular attention to one of the soldiers who was also travelling to Germany aboard the Randall; a recent draftee from Mississippi whose name was Elvis Aron Presley. The significance of this was mostly, but entirely lost on me. I was more interested in the ship itself and our new home in Germany than anything else. But throughout the voyage, there throngs of other passengers constantly surrounding Pvt. Presley. And, I’m told, he played the piano during the ship’s variety show one night.  (I recall the show, but not Elvis specifically).

We arrived at Bremerhaven on schedule–on my birthday. If the significance of the presence of our fellow passenger the young from Mississippi had not impressed me before, it certainly as the sm the ship docked at Bremerhaven. This video captures the moment pretty much as I recall it, watching from the deck before we disembarked.   I recall the crowd chanting, “Elvis! Elvis! Elvis!” as the ship was being moored.

After we finally left the ship, most of the commotion was still going on. My dad had taken me by the hand and we found ourselves in a small U.S. post exchange (PX). Dad said, “We haven’t forgotten that today’s your birthday, son. But under the circumstances, we really couldn’t celebrate it. So look around the store and pick out any thing you’d like.” I chose a a big package of Oreo cookies. I have no idea why. But it felt good; it felt right.

We boarded a train later that day to take us to my father’s new duty station at Frankfurt am Main.
Elvis, too, got on a train headed for a place called Friedberg. The last we saw of him at the port was as his train departed.

Although as an impressionable child, I was mainly pre-occupied with thoughts about the [very real possibility of] the Soviet Army attacking Germany while we were there, it became apparent that a major portion of the population of West Germany was pre-occupied with and idolized Elvis Presley and believed that all Americans did too. These Germans were always asking about all things Elvis and wanting buy records or Elvis memorabilia. Some would go door to door, practically begging for something Elvis.

By 1960, we had moved to Karlsruhe and Elvis was about to depart from Germany. We lived in an U.S. built housing area called Paul Revere Village. I walked everyday from our apartment on Tennessee street to Karlsruhe American Elementary School with my classmates Benny Broadwater and Delores Nelson, who both lived in our building.

One day when I was home and Dad was not, there came knock the door of our ground floor apartment. It was a generally safe neighborhood. My mother, then just 28 years old, opened the door to a young German man in a blue shirt and white pants. He was perhaps in his late teens or early twenties. His hair was oily and stringy and for those days, long.

“Ja; kann ich ihnen helfen?” my mother said in her pidgin Deustch.

“Do you have any photographs of Elvis?” the young man said in excellent English.

“Nein. No, we don’t,” Mom replied. It was a lie; I knew that we had at least one portrait-type photo of Elvis somewhere in the apartment.

I was standing directly behind my mother as she began to close the door. But the young didn’t make a move to leave and Mom hesitated for a moment.

I don’t know if I or she saw the switchblade first. The man had put his foot into the doorway. Reacting almost as if in slow motion, my mother shoved the door as hard she could against his foot. The door popped back open; the man stood there brandishing the knife. But he had moved his foot back. He said menacingly, “Give me a picture of Elvis! All Americans have pictures of Elvis!”

My mother shoved on the door again and this time, it closed completely. She hastily secured the several inside locks. Then she took a moment there in the entryway to breathe deeply and regain her composure. She went to the telephone and called the U.S. military police. No one had been hurt, and the man, who I later heard was nineteen years old was apprehended by the local polizei.

That’s a childhood memory I’ll never forget!

One comment ,
« Older Entries