Why FamilySearch's "United States, Public Record Index (FamilySearch Historical Records)" Is Not Included in Announcements

I regularly include in this blog notices of databases and image sets on FamilySearch that have been newly released or updated.

I choose not to include any notices on this blog about "United States, Public Record Index (FamilySearch Historical Records)."

I realize this database can help researchers find relatively current people as it contains information from 1970 through 2010. I realize that it comes from publicly available information. I'm not opposed to public records--far from it.  The concern I have about it is that when an entry is located in this database, there is no way the researcher can tell from where the original reference was obtained. There is no way to know where to "get more."

If I were working as a private investigator or a bill collector, etc. that would be great.

But I'm not.

I'm a genealogist and sound genealogy methodology indicates (at least to me) that I use sources whose validity I can adjudicate to the best of my ability. It is difficult for me to do that when FamilySearch does not tell me where they obtained the information. The only information regarding "source" on the FamilySearch site are the following statements (current as of this posting):

• These records were generated from telephone directories, driver licenses, property tax assessments, credit applications, voter registration lists and other records available to the public. 
• These records have been gathered from multiple sources.

That's too generic and there's no reason why the source of "publicly available information" can't be made to researchers. Saying the original sources are "unavailable" seems highly unusual to me. 

FamilySearch-NOLA Passenger lists, Mass Town Records, NC Passenger Lists

The following are showing as updated on FamilySearch since our last update:

Louisiana, New Orleans Passenger Lists, 1820-1945

Massachusetts, Town Clerk, Vital and Towns Records, 1627-2001

North Carolina, Wilmington and Morehead City Passenger and Crew Lists, 1908-1958

Ancestry.com's Corporate View on #RipFacebook--Do Genealogists Care?

The above tweet flew from Ancestry.com's corporate account at 9:00 am. on 21 October (today).

Do genealogists following Ancestry.com on Twitter even care what Ancestry.com thinks of the use of various hashtags?

Personally if I were managing Ancestry.com's social media I would avoid posting opinions such as these on corporate social media. Unless, of course, they were hoping to "ride the #ripfacebook" wave. It's ironic that while they thought the hashtag was "premature," they used it themselves.

The Spammers Are Out

A suggestion to spammers: do not send the same message to each of my email addresses at the same time. One email may smell a little like spam, but when I get three at two different addresses within thirty seconds, the intent is perfectly clear.

I've removed the person's name and their website.

Whether they are a student or not, I don't know and frankly I don't very much care. Another website added to the list of those I do not mention nor promote--whether directly or indirectly.

[message follows]

Hello,

My name is [removed] and I am a student doing some research on a genealogy paper I have due and came across your site. Anyways, I found your site among a few others, most useful and just wanted to extend my thanks and appreciation. I am fairly new to the world of genealogy and have a new found interest in it now.

Anyways, with all the research I did, I stumbled across so many articles and there was a really fun list I found that had a bunch of interesting facts on DNA. You can find it here [url removed] I thought you or your other readers might find it entertaining.

Thanks . :)

Samantha

A D is a D is a D

Names can be spelled differently in a document. Letters can be written differently as well.

This image is part of a deed from Bedford County, Virginia, where Thomas and Sally Sledd are selling property.

The letter "d" appears numerous times in the record. It appears that the clerk wrote a small "d" one way when writing it in the name of Sledd and another when writing it in other words.

One more thing to be aware of when making transcriptions.

My Blogs and Newsletter

For those of you who did not know, this is not my only genealogy blog. Here's list with the links. Enjoy!

• Daily Genealogy Transcriber
• Genealogy Tip of the Day
• Rootdig
• Genealogy Search Tip
• Webinar announcements, discount offers, and blog summaries

You can subscribe to any of the above blogs for free.

My how-to newsletter Casefile Clues is also available by subscription, but there is a charge.

When the Male Line Fails-Where Did the Chain Break?

If a male line DNA test indicates two researchers are not related, does it mean that their supposed direct line male ancestors are not related? It seems to me that is not necessarily the case. I'd be interested in thoughts on this little scenario.

The Oldmans

Kevin Oldman has researched his ancestry back seven generations to Henry Oldman, who appeared in Kentucky in 1820 from nowhere.

Bubba Oldmann has researched his ancestry back seven generations to Thomas Oldman, who also appeared in Kentucky from nowhere in 1820.

Thomas and Henry Oldman lived in the same Kentucky county in 1820 and 1830, but their listing on those two population census schedules are the only documents on which they appear together. Their farms are in the same township, but not adjacent. After 1830, Henry leaves Kentucky for Indiana. Thomas dies in Kentucky. No record ties them together other than the census. There's no hint they were related other than their enumerations in the same census district in 1820 and 1830.

Kevin and Bubba learn of each other through the internet and discover that they are potentially related through a common Oldman ancestor. They speculate that Henry and Thomas are most likely brothers or first cousins.

Kevin and Bubba decide to have a y-DNA test performed to determine if they share a common male ancestor. The test indicates that Kevin and Bubba do not have a common strict paternal line ancestor. Kevin and Bubba conclude that Henry and Thomas are not related based upon the test results. They continue to compare research notes, but are left convinced they are researching different Oldman lines. After all, if Henry and Thomas were related through a paternal ancestor, it would have showed up on the y-DNA test Kevin and Bubba took wouldn't it?

Well.....maybe. 

There's something Kevin does not know.

Kevin's ancestor, Clueless Oldman (son of Henry), thinks he was the father of all the children his wife had. Clueless is not aware of the fact that during his marriage his wife had an ongoing relationship with an unmarried neighbor. During her lifetime, the wife was relatively certain that the neighbor was actually the father of two of her children and not Clueless. One of those children Clueless' wife had with the neighbor is Kevin's Oldman ancestor.

So "technically" Kevin's not really and Oldman at all--that's what the paper trail says, but it's not the biological reality. Kevin is not actually a descendant of Henry Oldman.

And it turns out that Henry and Thomas Oldman were indeed brothers.

Bubba Oldman and Kevin Oldman are not related--because Clueless Oldman didn't father all his supposed children. And that has nothing to do with whether or not Henry Oldman and Thomas Oldman were brothers.

The Inverse

Readers with a mathematical or logical bent, may notice that there's a logical fallacy at work here. The original statement is:

• If Kevin and Bubba share a common ancestor, then Thomas and Henry are related. 

This is a valid statement based upon DNA theory. If Kevin and Bubba share a common male ancestor, then Thomas and Henry share a common male ancestor. But the statement:

• If Kevin and Bubba share a common ancestor, then Thomas and Henry are not related.

is not true and cannot be derived from the original statement. It is the inverse of the original statement and the believing the that the inverse is true is referred to as the "fallacy of the inverse."

Junior Is Not Always the Son and Probably Why There is No Probate

In the absence of other information, genealogists are usually advised to conclude that "junior" and "senior" does not immediately indicate a son/father relationship. Usually what is safe to conclude from a junior and senior notation is that senior was in the area first or is older than junior.

Of course, one may find proof of the relationship in virtually any record.

This 1802 assignment of an interest in a piece of real estate confirms that John Demoss Junr. of Harford County, Maryland, was the son of John Demoss. Unfortunately John Demoss the father is not referenced as "senior" in this document, but it would be reasonable to conclude that he is the senior, unless records indicate to the contrary.

John Demoss' assignment of this property in 1802 indicates that he was alive on the date of the assignment. In fact, it is the last document on which his name appears. His transfer of his property rights may also indicate why no probate or estate settlement can be found for him. It may be that after this interest was transferred there was no real property in which he still had an interest.

Tax records for Harford County, Maryland, would confirm or deny this. I'll have to add those records to my research list.


Source:

Sledding Down Sledd's Hill

The above image is survey plat that was done for 85 acres owned by Thomas Sledd in Amherst County, Virginia. This plat was made in 1802 and recorded in a series of books for this specific purpose. Such plats were necessary in areas where property was surveyed in metes and bounds. County Recorder's offices in federal land states also have plats of this type, but it is easy to see why surveys were needed in states where metes and bounds were used.

Transcribing the text on the right is not so much of a problem, it's pretty much standard material.

It is transcribing the plat itself that will be more problematic and something I'm working on for an upcoming issue of Casefile Clues. It's not linear like the text, but there is information on the plat that I want to retain.

A little looking indicates the name of at least one neighbor is mentioned. William Ware's name appears in the bottom left hand portion of the plat.

There's also "New...." that appears on the top and seems to work over to the right and wind down. The problem with this text is that it is sideways and in places it is difficult to tell where sideways letters are and where numbers are.

If you have landowning ancestors in metes and bounds states, determine if survey maps were retained. These images were made from microfilmed copies of the records while I was at the Family History Libary in Salt Lake.

[I don't know if there was a "Sledd's Hill," but I couldn't resist using that as part of the title of this blog post.]

Webinar Download Issues

If you had any issues with recent webinar purchases during my $5 sale, please email me at mjnrootdig@gmail.com so that I can take care of concerns before my contract with the hosting service expires. Please create a new email when bringing these to my attention as replies to other messages sometimes do not get noticed.

We've moved our final order page here if there's anything you missed the first time around.

It's a Rich Document--Transcribing Creatively

I know the name of the person in the box is not "Bitchard" Lake, although it certainly looks like it. It's also not how I'm going to transcribe it.

When transcribing a document, a certain amount of license is taken. Reasonable license that is.One has to be true to the original and it's intent. That's why I'm going to transcribe the first name of the first signer as "Ritchard" and not as "Bitchard." One could easily make the case that the first letter is an "R" and that the writer simply connected the bottom "tail" a little more than usual. The fact that's there is no such name as "Bitchard" also is consistent with this conclusion.

I usually transcribe the "his" and "mark" in a line above and  below where I type the actual signature and include the "x" in between "Richard" and "Lake." 

The name of "Lake" is spelled in two ways in the document, "Lak" and "Lake." It's probably oversight on the part of the person writing out the document. Richard didn't write out the document given that he made his mark on it. From the handwriting of the witnesses, it seems reasonable that Julius Jenkins probably wrote the letter for Lake and Beesly to sign.

Transcription, like document analysis, is not always an exact science and there's a certain amount of "creative" element to it. One must be careful how one interprets the use of  "creative" in this sense. Creative in this case is thinking outside the box, not in the sense of making things up. The ability to judiciously use the "creative" element cf transcription comes from practice and from reading document after document.

Who Wrote this Document?

I'm not certain, but the signature of Julius Jenkins is similar to the handwriting of the document, making it appear he was the actual writer.

Jenkins was the maiden name of Lake's wife and is a probable relative. However, that's not even vaguely indicated by this document (there's no law that relatives have to write things). The fact that Jenkins probably made out the document only indicates that he was trusted to make it out correctly. He may have been one of the "nearby" kin who was familiar enough with how such letters should be written and so he "got the job." He could just as easily have been more closely related to Beesly than to the Lakes or not "related" to anyone else on the document at all.

And it goes without saying that all these individuals were associates of one another in some way.

Whether they were related is another matter entirely.

Genealogical Software-Some Thoughts

In the early days of my research I used genealogical database software regularly, entering in names, dates, and locations (and sources). My research was about how many names I could accurately accumulate. I was always concerned about accuracy of information and entering in reliable information, which was fortunate. But I wanted to get as much information into my database as I could. There was no mistake about that.

Then I genealogically grew up.I'll be honest, I haven't used a genealogical software package regularly in fifteen years. Seriously. It is fine with me if people have a software program that they swear by. I don't and that's just fine with me.

My research has progressed and hopefully has become more sophisticated than it was in 1986 when I first used a computer for information storage. The more I research, the less need I find for using a genealogical database to actually "help" me with that research. In fact, I generally find a database limiting and constraining for my analysis. Most software requires me to make information fit forms or patterns into which the information or the analysis of that information does not fit. For me the migration away from software really started when I began researching families before the American Revolution in the South--where there are not really vital records and most dates are "estimations" obtained from analyzing a variety of sources. I also became frustrated with deciding what name to use for ancestors that had multiple last names at different parts of their lives.

I was spending too much time trying to "trick" software to do what I wanted and not enough time on research.

I have another approach that helps me to organize what I find and assist me in drawing conclusions and deciding where to progress.

I write.

I write a lot.

I create my own charts and tables as a part of that writing process to organize data relevant to a specific problem or family. I use software regularly, just not genealogical software. I find that writing is the best way to strengthen my research, to analyze information I have located, and to make conclusions from the evidence I've discovered. Writing in many ways is free form (even citations can have slight variations from one author to another). When writing, I'm not spending my time trying to pigeonhole information into fields in a database and make it" fit" someone else's ideal. To me all that time "making it fit" is time wasted.

There are times where sources do not allow me to reach solid conclusions--or at least ones that I think are reliable enough to enter into any database. And the analysis, logic, and methodology simply does not often  fit into someone's preconceived ideas of database entries. There are gray areas in the interpretation of records and documents--how to I assign reliability of a piece of information on a scale from 1 to 5? And if I'm going to assign that level of perceived reliability, I need to give some justification. I shouldn't simply "click" a checkbox and call it classified.

I do understand using software to manage large projects and relationships involving large numbers of individuals. And I understand how software relieves the individual from the need to constantly re-enter in repetitive information. And creating a database or spreadsheet of sources used is an excellent idea. I use a computer for my genealogical research on a regular basis.

But the only thing I use a genealogical software program for on a regular basis is to print a pretty chart.

Half of John Sledd's Black Cow

This is part of the inventory of John Sledd which was presented to an Amherst County, Virginia, court in December of 1811.

A truly literal rendering of the handwriting underlined in red might indicate it says "1 Black Cow Half."

That really doesn't make sense--one cannot have half a cow.

There's also the word "Hoes" in the line underneath. That clearly starts with an "H," making the "1 Black Cow Half" seem not quite correct--although some writers do not make letters consistently.

What is probably meant by the underlined item is "1 Black Cow & Calf." Although the uppercase "C" in "Cow" and "Calf" are not made the same.

But that's what makes more sense.

And that apparent "Pi??d" Cow two lines above?

We're working on that. Stay tuned.

Salt Lake Family History Library Research Trip 2014

We've set the dates for our 2014 Family History Research Trip to the Family History Library in Salt Lake City in 2014--28 May through 4 June.

Join us for a week of genealogical research in the world's largest genealogical library between 28 May and 4 June.  We are in the library from open to close--with an optional hour long presentation at 8 am. every morning. Otherwise there's no distractions, with time for research all day and time for questions when you have them. The library is not busy with hundreds of conference attendees using the facilities the same time as you.

Our group is informal, with the focus on helping you with your research as much (or as little) as you need. We have people who join us simply because they like to be a part of a group--which is fine. A few of us even take the California Zephyr from the Chicago (or points in between) to Salt Lake. If you've wanted to take the train but didn't want to arrive in Salt Lake late  or leave early by yourself--consider joining us as Michael takes the train too if you'd like that option.

Don't wait --- pre-register today for only $50. Balance of registration is due 1 April 2014. It is not too early to start planning for 2014. 

The complete registration price is $175--that's a bargain compared to other trips. This fee includes pre-trip planning assistance, morning presentations at 8:00 every day the library is open during our trip, onsite consultations, assistance in learning to use the equipment at the library if necessary, quick on the fly questions, and follow-up assistance as needed or requested. 

Travel arrangements are on your own as are all personal expenses. We stay at the Salt Lake Plaza where we have  group pre-tax rate of $85 a night (single or double occupancy). The Plaza is next door to the library--very convenient. 

The official group activity starts on 28 May at 6:30 pm with a short meeting in the hotel for a quick orientation. Full daily activities start the next day, with group presentations on:

• 29 May
• 30 May
• 31 May
• 2 June
• 3 June

Sunday the library is closed. We usually meet for an optional brunch in the hotel and I have consultations on Sunday with those who would like to discuss how their research is progressing. 

Our registration price is $175 when not paid in full by 31 December 2013---with a deposit of $50. Deadline for registration is 15 April 2014 (refund if you cancel by 15 March 2014). We'll be posting additional details later this fall, but that's pretty much the essence of the trip. 

Travel arrangements are not included.  Our group size has traditionally been small and we plan on keeping it that way.

Lucinda and Lucy Ann In One Document

This letter from Mercer County, Kentucky, and there are two different names for the bride--Lucinda Brown and Lucy Ann Brown.

The reason in this case is fairly simply--or at least that's how it appears. The bride signed the letter, but someone else wrote it based upon the handwriting of Lucy Ann's signature and the rest of the document. John L. James (the witness) may have written it as his "L"s are similar to the ones in the document. They are not exactly the same, but the "J" in "John" and "James" aren't really the same either.

At any rate, who wrote the letter may have known Lucy Ann by Lucinda and so that's how the letter was written. Lucy may not even have been able to read, or if she was literate she might not have been concerned that she was referenced as Lucinda in the text of the letter.

Names that are reasonably consistent are not problems. If she had been referred to as Elizabeth, then there would have been a problem.

New at Ancestry.com-HOW?

The Ancestry.com home page is indicating that the "1870 United States Federal Census" is "new."

Now I know the 1870 census is not a "new" at Ancestry.com. It's been on their site for years. The question is: "how is it new?"

• Has the index been updated?
• Has the interface been changed?
• Has the image viewer been changed?
• Have the images been enhanced?
• Have incorrect locations been fixed?

I cannot tell from reading the search page for the 1870 census. There is NO list of changes or updates there.

It would be nice if the search page included a history of "changes" to the 1870 census that made it "new."

Then I could know if those changes mean that I should try and search for my missing Ira Sargent and John Ufkes again. Changes to the index mean that I should search again. Other changes mean I probably do not have to search again.

And that would really, really be nice to know. That would enhance my user experience. And I don't need another Iphone/Ipad App. I need to know what changes have been made to databases that are "new." 

But that's just me. 

And I really doubt that Ancestry.com is listening. And sometimes I wonder how much genealogical research the decision makers actually do.

It Can't Be a Marriage Debt-Transcribing an 1780 Marriage Entry from New Jersey.

My work on these marriages from the Zion Lutheran Church in Oldwick, New Jersey, brought home the importance of copying more than just the item of interest.

The temptation sometimes is to copy or scan "only what I need" instead of a larger portion of the record. That's a mistake.

This image comes from two facing pages in the marriage register of the Zion Lutheran Church in the 1780s and was made from the Family History Library's microfilm copy of these records. My goal was not to transfer the enter set of records, but rather to focus on just one. Copying multiple entries lets me see how the entry of interest is the same as other entries and how it is different. That's useful information in performing any analysis of the information.

But there's one abbreviation that I do not understand. It looks like "debt," but I don't think that's it.

My thoughts on the notations after the names of the couple:

• most of these marriage references use an abbreviation for "published," which I'm taking to mean that the banns were published or announced in church.
• A few entries (with blue rectangles) reference an indemnification bond--which I'm taking to be a marriage bond like those used in more Southern locales.
• A few (underlined in red) reference a marriage license.
• The green boxes--I'm not so certain.

Of course, the marriage of interest is one with the word I cannot quite determine and is shown in the green box in the larger image above.

It is the marriage on 12 April 1784 between Elam Blain and Catharine Reid. Apparently the banns were published for this marriage and there is that word after it--the one that looks like "debt."

Catharine Blain could not remember when or where she was married when she applied for Revolutionary War widow's pension in Ohio in the 1840s. But that's another story.

I'm hoping that the "debt" is not some obvious word that I'm going to kick myself for not immediately knowing.

Spelling Augusta Without the "u"

As a person who has his own definite preference for his first name, I try and be cognizant of my ancestor's preferences as well--at least when it can be determined.

That's why I'm revisiting my ancestor, a Mr. Newman who died in White County, Indiana in 1861. I'll be honest, my use of a certain first name for him came from what I found years ago in printed county histories and other records, as well as from other researchers. Local records did mention this specific ancestor, but any renderings of his name in those records were made by clerks and others--not by him. Even transcribed deed records do not contain his actual signature. It's always possible that a hurried clerk or one who could not read his signature wrote it in the deed record the way they "thought" it should be spelled.

In working on issues of Casefile Clues, I've been looking at copies of original documents signed by this ancestor and it looks like in some cases he signed his name "Agusta" and not "Augusta."

I'm going to revisit some other original signatures I have on this ancestor--in particular the military bounty land applications and the surrendered warrant. Based upon the signatures on those records, I'll decide how I should spell this ancestor's name in my database. I'm leaning towards Agusta based upon signatures in marriage bonds from Nicholas County.

Lesson: we don't always have actual signatures of our ancestors, but original records (not record copies) are excellent places to obtain those signatures. In our research, Agusta, Augusta, Auguste, Gust all are reasonable variants of the same first name and should be included and should be transcribed as written. But in how I refer to this ancestor in my database, various charts and reports, I will use how he signed his name the majority of the time.

Did Agusta Write This Certification?

One of the reasons it is suggested that genealogical documents be transcribed is that things get noticed when materials are transcribed.

In transcribing this item for the next issue of Casefile Clues, I realized that there's a chance it was written by the man who witnessed it--Agusta Newman.

I'm not entirely convinced yet. One difficulty is that the black and white nature of the image hides some clues.

Why do I care?

Agusta Newman is my 4th great-grandfather and having a copy of something written in his hand would be a really neat find.

The Sun, Signatures, and Records that Aren't "Mine"

These two signatures come from marriage bonds in Nicholas County, Kentucky. The person of interest, Agusta Newman, whose signature is underlined, is not the groom in either of the documents. He serves a purpose in each record, but any specific familial relationship between Newman and the individuals getting married or the other individuals listed in the records is not stated.

The signature underlined in red comes from an 1829 marriage permission that Agusta witnesses for Sophia Thomas to her "Sun William A. Thomas." The signature underlined in green comes from an 1830 marriage bond that Agusta and Richard Harding sign for the impending marriage of Richard Harding and Mrs. Sophia Thomas.

Agusta's relationship to the individuals is not stated.

One could speculate that Sophia is widowed in 1830 and Agusta is signing the marriage bond and apparently vouching for Sophia's eligibility to be married. The widowhood of Sophia at the time of the marriage is speculation--there's nothing to indicate she was widowed. What's clear is that she was single before the marriage. Since Harding (the groom) signs the bond with Agusta, it would be reasonable to conclude that Agusta had knowledge of Sophia's ability to marry.

Agusta also witnessed Sophia's consent given in 1829 for her "Sun" to marry.

What's clear is that Agusta had a relationship to Sophia. Just what that relationship is is not stated in the documents.

If I had been uncertain that this Agusta Newman of Nicholas County, Kentucky, was the same one who later lived in White County, Indiana, a comparison of signatures of both men would have been in order.

Agusta's signatures in Kentucky were obtained in records that are not even "technically" about him--he's not getting married. Agusta apppears in land and property tax records in the Nicholas County, area, but those records do not include his signature.

Agusta's signatures when he lived in White County, Indiana, were obtained from his bounty land application and his surrendered military warrant. Both of those files are at the National Archives.

Records we need are not always in the immediate area where we are researching and they are not always "about" the actual person of interest.

Webinar Closeout Extended

I had quite a few loyal readers, followers, etc. request that I give them a little more time to participate in the $5 webinar closeout--which I've done. It's been extended until 7 October.

My contract with the download service is up shortly after that, so there won't be any additional extensions. Problems with downloads can be addressed to me at mjnrootdig@gmail.com.

Thanks!

Need A Genealogy Speaker for 2014 or 2015?

I'm currently booking speaking engagements for 2014 and 2015. If you're looking for a speaker for your seminar or conference who focuses on sound methodology while being engaging and reasonably entertaining, please contact me. My presentation style is informal and relaxed, yet professional.

My goal is to help attendees improve their research--not sell something or convince you of "how much I know."

I can be emailed at mjnrootdig@gmail.com for additional information.

My ability to present for evening meetings is usually limited to events in reasonable proximity to my home in western Illinois due to travel costs.

Alphabetizations that are not Alphabetical

Microfilmed card indexes are a great finding aid for genealogists. It's worth remembering that when thousands of cards are sorted by humans, errors are bound to occur.

When using microfilmed card indexes, I always "browse" in the vicinity of the name for which I am looking. The reason is this set of cards from the Illinois, "Northern District Naturalization Index, 1926-1979" on FamilySearch.

The cards were filmed in the order in which they were microfilmed. The composite image below shows cards that were digitized as image 440, 441 and 442 respectively. I was looking for Peter Verikios. In browsing, I navigated my way to image 440-George Verikios. When image 441 was a different last name, I almost quit.

Good thing I didn't.

There after Frederick Harold Verinder's card was the card for Peter Verikios. Clearly Peter's card was out of order.

Always browse the region of indexes of this type. Often these sets of digital images are not high on the index priority as they are already indexed.

A little browsing may go along way to helping you find your missing person.

Northern District of Illinois Naturalization Index 1926-1979

Showing as updated since our last update:

Illinois, Northern District (Eastern Division), Naturalization Index, 1926-1979

Updated on FamilySearch: Ohio County Marriages

This is showing as updated on FamilySearch since our last update:

Ohio, County Marriages, 1789-1994