"Open" State Vital Records: The Bad and the Ugly

One of Several Posts about Open Government Laws and Genealogy

Previously, we spotlighted several states that are particularly "genealogy-friendly" concerning access to state vital records. Now we wade into the swamp of vital records-access horribles.

At the edge of the swamp are states that have unreasonably long (100 years or more for birth records; more than fifty years for death records; or any period for ordinary marriages and divorces) confidentiality periods. These states include:

• Alabama: 125 years for birth records!

• Alaska: 100 years for birth records; fifty years for marriage records

• Arkansas: 100 years for birth records

• Delaware: 100 years for birth records

• Hawaii: 75 years for death and marriage records

• Idaho: 100 years for birth records; 50 years for marriage and divorce records

• Iowa: 75 years for death, marriage and divorce records; even then, records are simply open for inspection and copying; no copies issued by the state except to persons of a certain relationship.

• Louisiana: 100 years for birth records

• Michigan: 100 years for birth records (on the other hand, anyone can have access to Michigan death records).

• New Jersey: 50 years for marriage records

• New Mexico: 100 years for birth records, but not prior to individual's death (but see below).
  

• New York: 50 years for marriage records AND both husband and wife are known to be deceased.

• Oregon: 100 years for birth records

• Rhode Island: 100 years for birth records

• Wyoming: 50 years for marriages and divorces

Vital Records Access Hell

• Georgia: Birth certificates appear to be available only to (1) the person whose record of birth is registered; (2) either parent, guardian, or temporary guardian of the person whose record of birth or death is registered; (3) the living legal spouse or next of kin or the legal representative of the person whose record of birth or death is registered; (4) a court of competent jurisdiction upon its order or subpoena; or (5) any governmental agency, state or federal, provided that such certificate shall be needed for official purposes. This is my reading of Georgia Code section 31-10-26(a) & (e). The law appears to prohibit the issuance of informational or uncertified copies of birth certificates and even abstracts or indices of birth records. If I'm reading this incorrectly, will some Georgia genealogist or lawyer please set me straight.

• Indiana: Birth and death records are closed to the public and may be disclosed only (1) to an applicant having a direct interest in the matter recorded; (2) when the information is necessary for the determination of personal or property rights or for compliance with state or federal law; or (3) in any extraordinary case that the state registrar determines is a direct tangible and legitimate public interest. That's my interpretation of Indiana Code section 16-37-1-10. If I'm reading this incorrectly, will some Indiana genealogist or lawyer please set me straight.
  

• Kansas: One of the worst! "Currently, the Office of Vital Statistics does allow requests for genealogical research. Pre-1940 records may be requested by an individual related as at least a cousin. Post 1940 records must be requested by an immediate family member." Kansas Department of Health and Environment vital statistics website (viewed 3/27/2008)
  

• Mississippi: "Vital Records are not considered public access documents. Certified copies of records in the custody of the Department of Health may be obtained by persons having a legitimate and tangible interest in such records." Mississippi State Department of Health Vital Records Rules and Regulations (viewed 3/27/2008). The statute says:
• Records in the possession of the Mississippi Department of Health, bureau of vital statistics, which would be of no legitimate and tangible interest to a person making a request for access to such records, shall be exempt from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983; provided, however, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person with a legitimate and tangible interest in such records from having access thereto. Miss.Code 1972, 41-57-2 (1983).
  

• New Mexico: "New Mexico Vital Records are restricted access records and are only issued to immediate family members or individuals who demonstrate tangible legal interest," so says the New Mexico Department of Health's website. But, that seems to contradict the statute, which says that records may be disclosed 100 years after birth (but not before person's death) and 50 years after death. See N.M.Stat. 24-14-27. So the Land of Enchantment makes the hell list not only for being unreasonable, but for confusing people as well.

• Pennsylvania: Vital records are not open to the public. Eligible requestors are (1) person named on a birth record; (2) legal representative of decedent's estate; (3) immediate family members; (4) extended family members who indicate a direct relationship to the decedent. Pennsylvania Department of Health vital records website (viewed 3/27/2008).
  

• South Carolina: Entitled recipients: (1) the person named on a birth certificate (if eighteen (18) years of age); (2) the parent(s) named on the birth certificate; or the guardian, or a legal representative of one of these persons. On the other hand, any applicant may be provided a statement that a death occurred, including the date and county of death. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control vital records website (viewed 3/27/2008).

There are several states (some listed here, some not) that say that records are open to persons with "a direct and tangible interest," or a "legitimate interest," or words to that effect. Without some mitigating factors, this should be enough to consign a state to Vital Records Access Hell. These phrases frequently have no definition, leaving a requestor to the whims of a vital records clerk. It certainly seems to me that genealogical research is a "legitimate," "direct," or "tangible" interest!

Special Place in Hell for Online Records Sites

This series has not been focused on online records. A state can earn kudos without having online acess to its records. But if a jurisdiction is going to have on-line access, it should be convenient and affordable. Alas, such is not the case with the Caddo Parish (La.) Clerk of Court's office, so they are awarded this year's SPIHFORS. The Caddo clerk's online marriage records search function frequently doesn't work properly. And then there's the matter of fees for the other databases: a $100 "setup" fee and $30.00 a month to view images! Outrageous! Just about fifty miles west of Shreveport, the seat of Caddo Parish, in Gregg County, Texas (much smaller in population than Caddo Parish), the County Clerk provides free online access to some of the same types of documents for which Caddo wants exorbitant fees.

To Tell the Genealogical Truth

Some Lessons about Census Records Contestant #1: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Contestant #2: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Contestant #3: My name is Julia McDavid. I was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can you find me in the 1880 or 1900 census? Announcer: It's time for "To Tell The Genealogical Truth!" Only one of these ladies is telling the genealogical truth and is the "real" Julia McDavid, born in the nineteenth century and who later had a daughter named Helen! Join us today as she and her partners try to stump our expert panel! This is a lesson about census records. As you've guessed by now, our subject is one Julia McDavid. But the Julia McDavid we're looking for was born in the nineteenth century and had a daughter named Helen. Can we find her on the 1880 or 1900 censuses? Well, let's give it a try! Let's look first at all the available censuses to see if we can find a person who matches our parameters. Lesson #1: Even if you think you know where to look, don't ignore the other census records. There may be valuable information there. Our global perusal tells us that on each available census, there are several Julia McDavids (not too many to look at each individually) and that they are described in a variety of racial terms, a variety of ages, and a variety of places of birth. More on all that later. But only one seems to be linked to a little girl named Helen. In the 1910 census for Garland County, Arkansas, Hot Springs Ward 2, at page 285, at 330-332 Laurel Street, we find a Julia McDavid living in the Lee household. Her entry looks like this: McDavid, Julia Roomer F Mu 37 M 16 [?] 3 AR AR AR English Laundress Census Place: Hot Springs Ward 2, Garland County, Arkansas; Roll: T624_50; Page: 4B; Enumeration District: 62; Image: 1090. Decoding this, we can tell that Julia McDavid rents a room from the head of the household; is female; her race is described as "mulatto"; she's 37 years old; she's married and has been for 16 years; we can't read the entry for "number of children born; she has three children presently living; she, her father, and her mother were born in Arkansas; she speaks English; and she's a laundress. As we work down several lines, we notice that there are a number of other adult roomers here; all but one female. Lesson #2: Notice the demographics of the household. This may give good information about the nature of the household. And at the end of the Lee household enumeration, there are three children all surnamed McDavid: Sterling, 14; Clayton, 11; and Helen, 8. So this appears to be the Julia McDavid we're looking for. So now let's see if we can find this Julia McDavid on the 1900 census. Again, there are several Julia McDavids on the 1900 census. But there's only one in Arkansas. She's in Little Rock, which is not far from Hot Springs. Is this the same Julia McDavid? Lesson #3: Geographical proximity sometimes helps track a person through several censuses. The Julia McDavid in Little Rock in 1900 is enumerated like this: McDavid, Julia Boarder W F Jun 72 27 S AR SC MO Pros Census Place: Little Rock Ward 7, Pulaski County, Arkansas; Roll: T623_74; Page: 5B; Enumeration District: 89 Hmmm!? This Julia McDavid is white and single, and the part of the form for recording the number of children is blank. Our Hot Springs Julia was "mulatto," married for 16 years, with three children. And this Little Rock woman is a prostitute! Lesson #4: Dealing with racial discrepancies on the census: Racial categories on the census were not measured scientifically (because race is not a scientific concept!). Most often, the census taker made an eyeball assessment of race. A person may be described several different ways over the course of several censuses. You may have to use other clues to identity when the racial descriptions vary. Lesson #5; Dealing with marital status discrepancies on the census: This is not a frequently encountered problem. It's curious in this case, though. In 1910, Julia tells the census taker that she's been married for 16 years. In 1900, when she's working as a prostitute, she says she's single. Obviously, she had an incentive to misrepresent her marital status under the circumstances. Lesson #6: The nature of the living quarters: Note that our 1910 Hot Springs Julia lived in a boarding house of some sort. The fact that both she and our 1900 Julia lived in similar circumstances may suggest that they are the same person. Then there is the curious description of birthplaces. Lesson #7: Identity of birth places is some times some evidence of a person's identity over several censuses. In this case, our 1910 and our 1900 Julia's birth are said to have been born in Arkansas. But there are differences in the parents' birth places. This is not unusual, especially in the early twentieth century and in the nineteenth century. Many people did not know where their parents were born. Some times a relative gave this information and may have assumed that because a person previously lived a certain place ("came from"), that the person was born there. Consider this: everything you know about when and where you were born is hearsay. So much so about when and where your parents were born. So is the white, 27 year old single prostitute living in Little Rock the same person as the 37 year old "mulatto" married mother living in Hot Springs ten years later? We can't say for sure. Let's go to the 1880 census. There we find no Julia McDavid in Arkansas. But we do find a Julia McDavid in South Carolina and a Julia McDavid in Missouri. Look at these entries: Carroll County, Missouri McDavid, Julia Ann W F 10 . . . MO MD KY Census Place: Rea, Carroll County, Missouri, Roll: T9_679; Page: 533, Enumeration Dist.: 156 Anderson County, South Carolina McDavid, Julia A. B F 11 . . . SC SC SC Census Place: Honea Path, Anderson County, South Carolina; Roll: T9_1219; Page: 291.2000; Enumeration District: 31. The main difference here is that these two Julias are somewhat older than our Arkansas Julias. So is the white, 27 year old Arkansas prostitute whose parents were from South Carolina and Missouri the same person as the 10 year old Missouri girl whose parents were from Maryland and Kentucky? Or is the 37 year old Arkansas mulatto wife and mother whose parents wre from Arkansas the same person as the 11 year old black South Carolina girl who parents were from South Carolina? Or is the 27 year old white Arkansas prostitute the same person as the 11 year old black girl from South Carolina? Is the 37 year old mulatto wife and mother the same person as the 10 year old white Missouri girl? Now let's add another piece to the puzzle. The 1920 census for Caddo Parish, Louisiana, shows this: McDavid, Julia F B 42 widowed MO MO MO Census Place: Shreveport Precinct 7, Caddo, Louisiana; Roll: T625_608; Page: 17B; Enumeration District: 54. Remember "1910 Julia's" children in Hot Springs? The 1920 census for Caddo Parish, Louisiana has just above Julia McDavid, this entry: McDavid, Clayton M B 22 M[arried] AR AR AR "1910 Clayton" was listed as 11 years old. Also on the 1920 Caddo parish census just above Clayton is this: Cornelius, Helen F B 18 M AR AR AR "1910 Helen" was 8 years old. Coming Next: Will the Real Julia McDavid Please Stand Up?

Can DNA Solve "The Lumbee Problem"?

How does a group of people who have American Indian ancestry but no records of treaties, reservations, Native language, or peculiarly "Indian" customs come to be accepted--socially and legally--as Indians?

That question is asked on the jacket of the 2001 printing of The Lumbee Problem--The Making of an American Indian People by anthropologist Karen I. Blu (University of Nebraska Press, 2001; copyright 1980, Karen I. Blu). And that's just the surface of "the Lumbee problem."

Suppose Scots-Irish settlers in North Carolina in the early eighteenth century came upon a group of people who in some ways seemed to be indigenous, but spoke seventeenth century English and had English names. History or an episode of the Twilight Zone?

Indeed, this seems to be the history of the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina. But who are they really? Are they Indians? What is their origin?

A prominent theory is that the Lumbees are descendants of Native Americans and survivors of the Lost Colony of North Carolina.

In 1587, a group of colonists under Sir Walter Raleigh's charter landed in the Outer Banks of what is now North Carolina. This was the second or third group of colonists in the area. One group had returned to England with Sir Francis Drake. The latter group was headed by Governor John White. White returned to England to re-supply the colony; his voyage back to America was delayed by the complications of the English war with Spain and the winter weather. When White did return in 1590, the colonist were gone, but strange "clues" were found. The word "Croatan" was found carved in the wall of a structure that had been built by the colonists. The colonists were never found.

In the early 1700's, Scots-Irish settlers came upon English-speaking people in the interior of southeastern North Carolina. These people appeared to be of mixed race. It is said that in the early censuses, these people were enumerated as "mulattoes" or "free Negroes." The people themselves claimed to be Indians. They waged a legal and political struggle in t he nineteenth century for recognition as Indians.

The federal government never has recognized the Lumbee as tribal Indians. In the late 1800's, the state of North Carolina recognized them as the "Croatan Indians." This name was not fully satisfactory to the people so designated and in the 1950's, the name was changed to Lumbee.

The truth of the origins and identity of the Lumbee has been complicated by a number of political and sociological problems. Among these problems would be the fact that there were black people in the area where the Lumbees were found and it may be difficult to tease out which of the "mulattoes" or "free Negroes" were Indian and which were of African descent.

There are several distinct surnames that occur among the Lumbee. These include Oxendine, Chavis, Locklear, Dial, Lowry, and Brayboy, among others. Some of these surnames occur with high frequency among Africian-Americans. Brayboy, for instance, is one of the surnames in my family tree.

My Brayboy ancestors lived in Louisiana and South Carolina. They had been taken to Louisiana in bondage from South Carolina. The question, however, is whether they are related to the Lumbees. Perhaps DNA can solve my Lumbee problem.

I understand that DNA generally cannot pinpoint a specific Native American tribe. But the Lumbee are an especially insular people, thought to number about 40,000, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Under these circumstances, perhaps DNA can tell us about links to the Lumbee.

A Brayboy Challenge

One genealogical feature that I've come to enjoy recently is Chris Dunham's "Genealogical Challenge," which appears from time to time at The Genealogue. Chris challenges readers to find some interesting or obscure genealogical information about an historical or pop culture figure.

These challenges and their solutions serve to refine research skills and open up many sources that one might not ordinarily look into. [And the subjects of the challenges are always interesting!]

Since I'm a West Coast resident (and a late-rising one, at that!) I'm seldom among the first few to get the right answer. But I take the challenges on without looking at the solutions in the comments anyway!

It occurred to me that perhaps a "challenge" would be a way to have folks weigh in on a difficult actual research problem. Sooo, here we go . . . .

A few days ago, I heard from one of my New England Brayboy cousins. She was trying to figure out the paternal lineage of one Earley Brayboy, who was born in South Carolina on July 10, 1888, and died in July, 1956. He was born in Williamsburg County, South Carolina, and died in nearby Lake City in Florence County, South Carolina.

I've written about the Brayboys before. My Brayboy line originated in South Carolina on the Darlington plantation of Boykin Witherspoon. In 1854, Boykin Witherspoon re-located his family and slaves to De Soto Parish, Louisiana. In South Carolina there remain a large number of the Witherspoon family and the Brayboys. The descendants of some of the South Carolina Brayboys found their way to the Northeast.

Anyway, in the 1930 census of Williamsburg County, South Carolina, I found Earley "Braboy," age 43, with wife, 33 year-old Elma, living in the town of Sumter. Their children with them at that time were Vernell, 18; "Rolley," 16; Darby, 14; "Blanch," 12; Willie, 9; "Rush," 7; Harold, 5; "Cotell," 3; and "Earl," 2. [An issue researching the Brayboys is the shifting spelling of the surname].

The 1920 census of Williamsburg County shows "Early J. Braboy," age 31, with wife Elma, 22; and children, "Vernel," 8; "Raleigh," 6, "Darbie," 4; and "Blanche," 2.

Then I found the World War I draft card for Earley Brayboy. This document, dated June 5, 1917, indicates that Earley Brayboy had a wife and three children at that time. His occupation is listed as farmer.

After the draft card, records got tougher to find. I went to the SSDI and found death dates for six of Earley Brayboy's children. Then I went to a newspaper archive and found an obituary for Vernell Brayboy. The obit said that Vernell, the son of "Earl J." and Elma Montgomery Brayboy, was survived by six brothers, Harold, David, Willie, Darby, Earl, and Kotell; and two sisters, Blanche Burgess and Annie Laura Dupres. I found in the Connecticut marriage records that Annie Brayboy had married Dupres Branch. [Thus, the obit was in error as to her name.] Then I found in the SSDI death dates for Blanche Burgess and Annie Branch.

None of this was leading back to the main issue--the paternal lineage of Earley Brayboy. So I started going back through the census records. No Earley Brayboy turned up. But in the 1880 census, I found a Jacob Brayboy, age 39, in Williamsburg County, South Carolina. He was married to 23 year old Dora. The age of the children listed suggests that Dora was a second wife to Jacob. The children were: Jessie, 20; Ellis, 19; Billie, 18; George, 15; Margaret, 13; Betsy, 11; "Jennett," 8; "Lela," 7; "Sofronie," 6; and Martha, 1. There is also a step-daughter, Sarah Dinckins, age 7.

This Jacob Brayboy would be old enough to be the father of Earley Brayboy, born in 1888. A way to check if this is the right family is to go to the 1900 census, when Jacob would be 59 and Earley about 12 years old. Unfortunately, no Braboy or Brayboy on the 1900 census seems to match up with Jacob or Earley. And the disadvantage of not having an 1890 census becomes apparent right away.

Not only is Jacob old enough to be Earley's father; he's old enough to be Earley's grandfather. Additionally, in 1888, when Earley was born, Jessie would be 28, Ellis would be 27, Billie would be 26, and George would be 23. Thus any one of them might be Earley's father.

There is one potential hint: in the 1920 census of Williamsburg County, Earley's family lives next door to one James Braboy and family. James is either a year older or a year younger than Eraley. On the other side of Earley's house, Dora Braboy lives as a boarder. Then, in the 1930 census, Dora lives with a 32 year old Sam Braboy and is listed as his mother. In 1930, neither Earlery nor James is old enough to have a 32 year old son. So the suggestion here is that Dora is the mother of Sam, James, and Earley. This would make Jacob their father.

Now who is Jacob's father? The hint is that in the 1850 census, Jacob is listed as a seven year-old in a household headed by Mary Braboy, 52. Also in the household are Samuel Brayboy, 22; Martha Brayboy, 28; Margarett Brayboy, 9; William, 5; and Polly, 3. The 1870 census does not show relationships. There is a strong inference here that Mary is Sam's mother and that Sam and Martha are the parents of the children.

So with this information, one might surmise that Earley Brayboy's father was Jacob Brayboy and his grandfather was Samuel Brayboy.

Am I right? How would you bring this within the Genealogical Proof Standard?

UPDATE (10/06/07, 1:45 PM PDT): In the comments, Teresa says:

I think I've found your folks on the 1900 census in Williamsburg County, SC (HeritageQuest, Series: T623 Roll: 1544 Page: 286) - Jacob must have passed away by then, but Dora is listed as "Dora Braveboy", living with son Elliot. On the next page are: Lela Pendergrass, daughter; Samml B?boy, son; James B., son; Early, son; and Lila (or Lula?), daughter.

Thanks, Teresa! I have a couple of comments on the comment. First, I think Teresa is right. This appears to be the family of Early Brayboy. Second, let me eat some crow here. I certainly knew that "Braveboy" was an alternative name (some say it was the original name from which "Brayboy" and "Braboy" were derived). But I had gotten into the mindset of thinking that by about 1900, the spellings and names had somewhat stabilized and that it would be unusual for a family that had been "Brayboy" to go back to "Braveboy." So much for thinking how smart I am! Third, Ancestry.com does not index "Dora Braveboy" or any of her children on the 1900 census, although as Teresa says, HeritageQuest does!

A "Relatively" New Blog of Interest

Karen Burney, who's one of my Brayboy cousins, has a new blog up called Louisiana Lineage Legacies. Karen shares the stories of her 15 years of genealogical research. Although it is focused on Louisiana, she has a wealth of information about her research in other states, like South Carolina. The surnames she's studied include Brayboy, Morris, Jefferson, Chestnut, Hines, and Pressley, Smith, Green, Greene, and Brittentine, among others. (Brayboy, Jefferson, and Pressley occur in my family tree, too). She's got a lot of very interesting historical materials from Louisiana and South Carolina on the site, too. And check out so me of her research resources, as well!

I ran into Karen a few nights ago at the Family History Center in Arden Arcade, California, not far from my home in Carmichael. She told me a bit about the family reunion she went to in Kansas City a few weeks after I had been there. And she mentioned this new site. If you have any connections to Louisiana, you'll find something worthwhile there.