State or Territory

By Anonymous on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 18:56

Forums

I have before me a copy of an original record from a FHL microfilm (#1,013,958). The record comes from Volume B, Page 154 of Registration of Marriage, and is dated 2 May 1847. The marriage took place in Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Territory. Wisconsin became a state 29 May 1848. Since the register covers marriages when Wisconsin was a territory, as well as a state, should I begin the citation:

Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Registration of Marriage, b:154 - or

insert the word Territory?

I know, I know, picky...

Submitted byEEon Sun, 07/14/2013 - 08:53

Interesting question, Steve.  Let's think through this by posing a couple of related questions:

  • If we were to cite a 1774 document from Montgomery County, New York, would we feel the need to cite the creator of the record as Montgomery County, New York (Province)?
  • If we were to cite a 1732 document from Dorchester County, Maryland, would we feel the need to cite it as coming from Dorchester County, Maryland (Colony)?

On the other hand, if we were citing a 1772 document from what is now Cumberland County, Maine, we would need to clarify the point that it was then in the colony of Massachussetts. In that case, we would have considerable justification for citing it as coming from Cumberland County, Massachusetts (now Maine).

Submitted bybeirneon Sun, 07/14/2013 - 09:24

The message I got out of EE's answer is that the word "territory" is not needed anymore than province or colony are needed in the given examples.  I would suggest, though, that "territory" should be used.  Territories were not just pre-states, sometimes they covered larger land areas.  For example, at one point the Wisconsin territory included Iowa and other areas to the west, and included a chunk of Minnesota throughout its existence.  While there is a lot of overlap, Wisconsin Territory and Wisconsin the state were different entities.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 07/14/2013 - 13:41

Beirne, you are quite right that the bounds are different. Certainly, if the research focused in a county that is now in a different state, as with the Cumberland County, Massachusetts/Maine example that we gave, a parenthetical clarification would be in order. But, with regard to Steve's example, let's also consider a couple of other issues:

  • How does the geographic bounds of the whole of Wisconsin, in 1847 vs. 1848 or 1832, affect the identification of a Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, record book or document?
  • In 1847, the date of Steve's document, Milwaukee County included what is now Jefferson, Racine, Rock, Walworth, and Waukesha counties, as well as parts of Dane, Dodge, and Washington counties. Given the considerations that you pose, we might ask: Should our citation to an 1847 Milwaukee County document include, after the words "Milwaukee County," a parenthetical statement noting the fact that Milwaukee County also included a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h?

 

In the case of territory that ended up in the state of Wisconsin, I would just say "Wisconsin Territory".  For the parts that ended up in other states I would say something like "Wisconsin Territory (now Minnesota)".  It seems like a simple thing to add that might help someone later on, in case territorial records are somehow handled differently.  The same logic is used in Rootsmagic and it helps more clearly define the administrative situation at the time.