[email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > proves a lack of evidence. > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > estate inventory did not mention land. > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > land. You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very real one. > Also if your ancestor was born before the War Between the > States but you find no evidence that mentions his death, I > think most people would be willing to assume his demise. We can assume his demise, but we can't assume that he died in the War between the States. The best we can do is say "died after 1850", the last time I find a record of him - until I find more information. We cannot assume when he really died, or how he died, or even WHERE. For all I know next year I'll find him across the country with a new wife in the 1860 census. > Your rule of thumb may be a bit too constrictive. No, it's not. It's simply The Way It Should Be Done if you're responsible about separating facts from fiction. Here's an example: my ggg-grandfather was born and raised on farm in Camden, NJ. His wife was born and raised across the river in Philadelphia. In 1860, they were married - in Portsmouth, VA. A month prior to their wedding, the 1860 census has her living in a boardinghouse in Portsmouth, working as a seamstress. Their families are all back in their respective hometowns. He doesn't show up anywhere. 1870 has them both on a farm back in Camden. What were they doing in Portsmouth? Now, the family bible had a folded up deck plan of The Great Eastern stuck in its pages - the largest steamship of its time. Was my GGG-Granpa working at the Naval Yard? Right place, right time - NO EVIDENCE. No record of him in the Navy, he's not on the census, he's not in any military roll, he collected no military pension. Using your very loose form of logic, I would simply assume that he was in the Navy, or a civilian engineer. BUT since I have NO evidence, I simply make note of the facts - where they married, where she was, and the fact that I can't think of any reason he'd be in Portsmouth unless he was somehow involved in the Navy Yard there. But I don't conclude that he was - I note the possiblity, but draw no conclusions. And that's "my rule of thumb" about the lack of evidence: a lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything but a lack of evidence. It doesn't prove that he WASN'T in the navy, it doesn't prove he was. It's merely inconclusive. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html Let him who takes the Plunge remember to return it by Tuesday. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>