> > > no > > > maybe your mother copied from the 1863 book (mistakes and all too) > > > > > > what you have to do is look very critically at the 1863 book and try > > > and find the original source of the data in the nineteenth century > > > > > > a PRIMARY source is a document created at the same time by the > > > people involved in the event. > > > > > > a will > > > a probate > > > some church books > > > > > > but NOT many census records > > > which are mostly SECONDARY sources > > > because they are a fair copy from original census returns or an oral > > > statement on a door step pencilled into a note book > > > > > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> > > > > Census records are pretty good indicators of where a person lived at > > a particular time. And a copy of the original record is probably > > pretty accurate. But (1) don't trust the indexes - lots of errors > > there (2) there is no guarantee that every member of a household, > > even if the last name is the same, is the blood kin of the adults. > > > > It's tough enough to find an essential fact but in my mind real > > proof exists when we find a corroborating fact or perhaps a timely > > succession of facts. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > I look for three independent items of evidence before regarding any > entry in my tree as "goldplated". > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> There is an old educational song that goes, "Three is the magic number...." Magic numbers work about as well in evaluating a body of genealogical evidence as they do in other areas of life. I will grant that three records that agree on important details may lend increasing probability to any interpretation that may be applied to any one alone. But by the same logic, there is no reason to STOP at three. It couldn't be very costly to search for four, or six, or however many you need to posit a definite identification in place of a probable one. The critierion overshoots as regularly as it undershoots, if perhaps not as frequently. I don't need more than one piece of paper to establish the date and place of my birth and the names of my parents, although people applying for a delayed or corrected birth certificate may need more. Finally, I'm with the other Hugh in holding that whatever its faults and difficulties of access, a census record may be treated as an accurate representation of some historical facts. Minor inconsistencies ("off by a year") are generally dismissable; one of the points of consulting a census is that it may lead to other records with more precise, more definite, more accurate information. Even a set of three census records is superior to a set of three unsupported claims in different genealogy books. And we certainly ought not to call off the search if it portends to lead us to a goal in more than three steps. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>