Leslie, Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's area of expertise. Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems overly limiting. Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. Toodles, Agnes Cloninger > > Elizabeth, > > I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is > accurate > as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical > circles, but > it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with > whom I > usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make > is that > the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with > calling > the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness > Cloniger's > statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you > are > writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the > appropriate one to take. > > I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please > excuse me, > while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie >

I also bow out. You understood exactly what I was saying. It was appropriate and on the mark. I also checked with a friend who is a lawyer and he understood. I don't understand what the problem is or was, but I'm happy you understood from a genealogical stand point. But if you just run the word on the internet you would see that there are a lot of professionals who use it just as we did. I understand what an indenture is....and all I was saying was that the use of that word does not necessarily constitute the term "indentured servant" as is often seen. As far as I'm concerned its the end of the subject for me too. But thanks for letting me know you knew what I meant. Elizabeth Agnes Cloninger <agnesec@cableone.net> wrote: Leslie, Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's area of expertise. Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems overly limiting. Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. Toodles, Agnes Cloninger > > Elizabeth, > > I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is > accurate > as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical > circles, but > it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with > whom I > usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make > is that > the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with > calling > the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness > Cloniger's > statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you > are > writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the > appropriate one to take. > > I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please > excuse me, > while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. > > Sincerely, > > Leslie > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Agnes, I have encountered confusion about "Indentures" among both historians and genealogists. Since I have never met a genealogist who did not need to read a deed or a mortgage from time to time, I felt that trying to explain the whole situation was in order and appropriate. It occurs to me that the problem originates from the fact that the legal instruments that are written in the indenture format start out with the wording "This Indenture". Over time this has lead to these various instruments being called "Indentures" as though they were a specific kind of thing with identical subject matter and properties, which they are not. I feel that it is fair to say that language can be complicated and difficult at times. I also feel that the use of the word "indenture", as it applies to various legal documents and contractual relationships, a prime example to this phenomenon. Thank you but I prefer to err on the side of precision. So I shall to agree to disagree with you. Leslie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Agnes Cloninger" <agnesec@cableone.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] indenture dust-up > Leslie, > Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - > since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more > appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the > particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose > of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's > area of expertise. > > Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, > so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems > overly limiting. > > Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. > > Toodles, > > Agnes Cloninger > >> >> Elizabeth, >> >> I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is >> accurate >> as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical >> circles, but >> it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with >> whom I >> usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make >> is that >> the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with >> calling >> the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness >> Cloniger's >> statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you >> are >> writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the >> appropriate one to take. >> >> I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please >> excuse me, >> while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Leslie >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Agnes, and others, I do object to people thinking of this as only a genealogical research board. This is a board for all aspects of colonial Dutch history. We actually discuss such other historical topics as land title, coinage, slavery, travel routes, ethnic groups, and so on. We really ought to hiss and boo when people drag in such non-Dutch-colonial topics as Palatine Germans (they have their own very useful .com), New England ancestors, and nineteenth century forebears. I am not picking on Agnes here, who is a knowledeable researcher and has made many useful contributions here. But I see someone else also calling this a genealogical site, and some people treat it as though any genealogical topic is fair game here. Let's try to keep this site to colonial era settlers within the bounds of New Netherland (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware and whose roots are in that area prior to 1674). That should be quite enough to keep us occupied! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Agnes Cloninger" <agnesec@cableone.net> To: <dutch-colonies@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:32 PM Subject: [DUTCH-COLONIES] indenture dust-up > Leslie, > Yup, I have confined my response to genealogical circumstances only - > since this is a genealogical research board, it seemed more > appropriate to do so. Edifying as it might be, debating the > particulars of every circumstance does not strike me as the purpose > of this forum, and I am not equipped to do so, that was my husband's > area of expertise. > > Should historians and lawyers choose to feel my take is too narrow, > so be it, narrow was my intent, and I do apologize if that seems > overly limiting. > > Here's where I bow out of any further debate on this subject. > > Toodles, > > Agnes Cloninger > >> >> Elizabeth, >> >> I disagree with Agness Cloniger's statement. Maybe her statement is >> accurate >> as it pertains to standard operating procedure in genealogical >> circles, but >> it is not accurate for the community of historians and lawyers with >> whom I >> usually hang out. I guess that the point that I am trying to make >> is that >> the root word is used in so many other applications, starting with >> calling >> the instrument itself an "Indenture", that I feel that Agness >> Cloniger's >> statement is confusing because of its narrow focus. However, if you >> are >> writing just for genealogists maybe Agness Cloniger's approach is the >> appropriate one to take. >> >> I am retooling as an historian, not as a genealogist. So please >> excuse me, >> while I continue to disagree with Agness Cloniger. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Leslie >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DUTCH-COLONIES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >