In a message dated 4/14/01 2:54:57 PM, rkilham@home.com writes: << Ron: I can not disagree with you a bit in your desire to expand ones informational data bases. I too have listed a string of names in order to achieve some sense of direction within a particular line, and I have shared these speculations with others. In all cases though, I have clearly described the statements for what they are, and how they were derived. >> ============= Thanks for your note, Rick, as I have been saving back a good many possible name associations similar to the made-up ones that I had mentioned as an example of why I thought that poorly documented material could be of value. However, I have hesitated to post this material for the very reason that we have had our discussions about sources for the name of Molly/Polly Parker, which are really the same names. Real cases are always better than hypothetical ones, though, so let me select one just as an example to gain some guidance on how specific information should be to seem acceptable for discussion by our list membership. We have been discussing Smith Kellam recently, and I have seen it previously reported that in 1793 he was found in records of Chatham Co, NC. Therefore, it was of interest to me in looking at the 1790 census of Chatham Co. to see the name of Daniel Kellum (1-0-0) listed adjacent to that of Frances Smith (0-0-3). Because the census had not been put in alphabetical order, this would ordinarily have meant that Daniel Kellum (a single male over 16) lived very nearby (if not next door) to Frances Smith, who was probably a widow with two daughters in her family. I do not have a single thing to cite here in the way of a connection between Daniel Kellum and his neighbor Frances Smith in 1790 Chatham Co. or of a possible relationship of either or both of them with Smith Kellam found there in 1793, but it does seem like a possibility. The possible connection at the time that I found this seemed a little too vague to me to merit presentation for discussion on the list, and from recent comments that I have seen I would still judge this to be the case. That is fine, as we simply need to make it known how much speculation seems appropriate for the list, as this type of non-specific information does drive some people up the wall. As for myself, I do not mind having to discard nine bad possibilities to find one good one. Best regards, Ron

PARKER, Molly married KELLAM, Smith on 18 Sep 1787 in Accomack County, VA * PARKER, Peggy, md. HICKMAN, Edward,on 25 Aug 1787,Accomack Co. VA I FOUND THE ABOVE RECORDS IN SOME PAPERS I HAD TUCKED AWAY M. gLGIBSON

Ron: I can not disagree with you a bit in your desire to expand ones informational data bases. I too have listed a string of names in order to achieve some sense of direction within a particular line, and I have shared these speculations with others. In all cases though, I have clearly described the statements for what they are, and how they were derived. The point in having citation of proof is not to be exclusive but to determine what is to be inclusive and at what value. Low be it for me to ever stifle thought, speculation, theorizing, hypothesizing or whatever, it is a necessity to the advancement of learning. The issue is to classify information. If it is fact, then support it with citations of proof that all can use. If it speculative, state so, cite your sources behind your thinking so that we can make that declaration if we so choose to use the information.. What I do not like is unsupported information, which can, or sometimes does, or has the possibility of becoming gospel. We are in a world of instant gratification, where the quick fix or answer will suffice for some, but to me that does not cut the mustard. No one is going to object to a theory being declared as theory which is based on some supportive information. The challenge to a writer is to tell us where or how one derived what. As I pointed out in my earlier mailing, it is fine to attach a disclaimer that what one is presenting belongs in the category of speculation, theory, or hypothesis based on the following reasons, sources, or hearsay. Is it to hard for anyone to lets know the origin(s) to what they are stating? I , for one, do not think so. Your point is well taken, which I thought it had been addressed in my original communiqué, but apparently I missed the target. On the larger scale, it appears that you too support the need for all of us to take our reporting efforts to a higher level of excellence. Whenever we provide a piece of information for public perusal, I feel it is our obligation as genealogists,armature or otherwise, to classify it, and provide our source(s) of proof. I am not in the practice of collecting fantasy or falsehoods. Tongue in cheek; no, I will not lecture the site on proper footnote format today, that is of coarse just for today. Rick Kilham ----- Original Message ----- From: <RBul1865@aol.com> To: <KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: [KELLAM] Re: Cite Your Sources! > > In a message dated 4/14/01 10:11:15 AM, donstout@ovnet.com writes: > > << Dear Listers, > > I totally agree with Rick Kilham. Unless you can cite your sources, > what's the > sense of it all? >> > ================= > Gee, I hate to be the odd man out here, as almost everyone agrees with Rick > and the near-unanimous supporting opinion above. I also agree to a point, > and that point is: if there is a source to cite, please do so. However, it is > much more possible today to learn new information that has not previously > been known through the ability of a computer to quickly search through large > files looking for common names. For example a deed might be found from > 1715 Accomack Co, VA, in which a land sale was made by Thomas Kellum > and witnessed by John Graham and Henry Pitt. Now, maybe the same two > people witnessed a deed for William Kellum in 1745 Oslow Co, NC. I think > that it would be fine to write to the list and say that I have a theory that > William Kellum of NC was related to Thomas of Accomack, can anyone > prove or disprove that theory? If the theory gains support from other > sources, then at some point in time all of the circumstantial evidence > supporting such a theory should be cited, but I would not think that this > would always be required during the initial posing of a question. > > My concern is that if we limit ourselves on the list to information that > is strictly provable from cited sources, then at the time we might become > hampered in learning more than we now know. Just a minor difference of > opinion that will not prevent all of us Kellam/Kellum cousins from wishing > one another a happy Easter season, I would hope. > My best regards to all, Ron Bullock > > > ==== KELLAM Mailing List ==== > Accidentally unsubscribed from the Kellam list? Simply resubscribe. A > full mailbox, computer error, or spam may cause you to be unsubscribed. > mailto: Kellam-l-request@rootsweb.com > >

From: Roy <rreagan@premier.net> To: <KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [KELLAM] Henry Kellum > JK, Is that Polly Parker? I have her as Molly Parker, but I don't know > where I got that from... Roy ====================== Roy, I had a look on the Internet at marriages in Virginia, and found the following (no sources cited): 18 Sept. 1787 - Smith Kellam married Molly Parker Of course, Polly Parker is also correct, because Polly and Molly are both diminutive names for Mary, according to my 1949 Webster's Dictionary. Now here is my question for the list. How did the 5-letter names of Molly and Polly become diminutive for the perfectly fine and lovely 4-letter name of Mary? Sources cited please, just kidding you will understand, Ron

Hi All, Years ago when I lived inSanta Cruz, CA our Gen Society sponsored spring & fall genealogy seminars. I taught beginning colass with examples of my own work, how to gather materilas, importance of copies of records for: birth, death, marriage, land military cemetery, etc. and support each fact from 2-3 sources. Like birth: baptism, birth certificate, headstone, military etc. Always had at least one person who said "Oh, ours is all done, by my great-aunt...." Then I would ask did she quote records, Vols, page, courthouse, etc for facts or supply actual copy & invariably person would get Any thing valuablepoofed at me!. I know every patriotic society requires proof of gen-gen thru records in order to be accepted as member. Some are hard to complete & they give you 6 month to year to complete an application. I had to prove back for 10 generations when I joined the Jamestowne Society. But it is another way to have your records there for anyone to see. Andything worth while is worth working for. take care, Meredith G.

Polly Ann "Mary" Kellum was born: 9 April, 1821 Sources: (1) Book of births and deaths kept by her son-in-law,Thomas Edwin Stribling (1850-1939) (2) 1880 US Census, Coryell County, TX (3) Tombstone, Osage Cemetery, Coryell County, TX Died: 21 June, 1893, Coryell County, TX Sources: (1)Book of births and deaths kept by her son-in-law,Thomas Edwin Stribling (1850-1939) (2)Tombstone, Osage Cemetery, Coryell County, TX Polly Ann Kellum was a daughter of Edward Kellum and Karen Happy (Karenhappuck) Tabor Sources (1) "History of McLennan, Falls, Bell, and Coryell Counties, TX," Vol. I, p. 449 (2) SAR and Sons of War of 1812 applications for membership from some of Polly Ann's descendants] Polly Ann Kellum was married to William Wilson Kirkland 14 Sept., 1837, by Benj. Prestridge, JP, in Winston County, MS. Source: (1) Marriage Record #39, Winston Co., MS Marriage Record Book 1, p. 74. William Wilson Kirkland, son of Archibald Kirkland and Mary Chaney was born 2 January, 1820 Sources: (1) Book of births and deaths kept by her son-in-law,Thomas Edwin Stribling (1850-1939) (2) Tombstone, Osage Cemetery, Coryell County, TX (3) Handwritten manuscript, "Dr. William Wilson Kirkland and Related Families" written by Edward Pickens Kirkland prior to 1929. Edward Pickens was the oldest son of William Wilson and Polly Ann. (4) Book of births and deaths kept by her son-in-law,Thomas Edwin Stribling (1850-1939) William Wilson Kirkland died 23 Dec., 1905, Coryell County, TX Sources: (1) Certified Death Certificate, Vol. I, P. 19, Certificate #374, Coryell County, Texas (2) Tombstone, Osage Cemetery, Coryell County, TX (3) Handwritten manuscript, "Dr. William Wilson Kirkland and Related Families" written by Edward Pickens Kirkland prior to 1929. Edward Pickens was the oldest son of William Wilson and Polly Ann. (4) Book of births and deaths kept by her son-in-law,Thomas Edwin Stribling (1850-1939) Elreeta Weathers

In a message dated 4/14/01 10:11:15 AM, donstout@ovnet.com writes: << Dear Listers, I totally agree with Rick Kilham. Unless you can cite your sources, what's the sense of it all? >> ================= Gee, I hate to be the odd man out here, as almost everyone agrees with Rick and the near-unanimous supporting opinion above. I also agree to a point, and that point is: if there is a source to cite, please do so. However, it is much more possible today to learn new information that has not previously been known through the ability of a computer to quickly search through large files looking for common names. For example a deed might be found from 1715 Accomack Co, VA, in which a land sale was made by Thomas Kellum and witnessed by John Graham and Henry Pitt. Now, maybe the same two people witnessed a deed for William Kellum in 1745 Oslow Co, NC. I think that it would be fine to write to the list and say that I have a theory that William Kellum of NC was related to Thomas of Accomack, can anyone prove or disprove that theory? If the theory gains support from other sources, then at some point in time all of the circumstantial evidence supporting such a theory should be cited, but I would not think that this would always be required during the initial posing of a question. My concern is that if we limit ourselves on the list to information that is strictly provable from cited sources, then at the time we might become hampered in learning more than we now know. Just a minor difference of opinion that will not prevent all of us Kellam/Kellum cousins from wishing one another a happy Easter season, I would hope. My best regards to all, Ron Bullock

In a message dated 4/14/01 1:11:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, donstout@ovnet.com writes: > > > > > > Dear Listers, > > I totally agree with Rick Kilham. Unless you can cite your sources, > what's the > sense of it all? > > Just my 1 cents wroth--running out of change today--- ~{}:-) if you have eact sources, cite. If you used specific sources not avialable totohers, (bible,s letters, etc) cite, with some way to contact the owner. if you are quoting someone's family/oral hsitory, then say so "Aunt Tillie said, "blah, blah". If a case has been built on common sense, preponderance, fine -- just say so. if it's a case of "I think" or it hasn't been proven,---- per Cuzzin Herbaceous who always said but never gave anyone some back up evidence----say so. we never know what someone else knows, can prove, or help disprove--either way, we win. Sometimes a one liner makes it all "drop into place". have a great weekend with your favorite folks--dead or alive. LOL Sheila // Firehair

Dear Listers, I totally agree with Rick Kilham. Unless you can cite your sources, what's the sense of it all? Linda Goddard Stout

Thank you David Kellam Visit me at http://www.geocities.com/olivershagnasty1/_index.html

Dear List: The attached mailing is a classic example of something that has bothered me immensely about the use of the web for genealogical pursuits. If anyone is going to provide or purport a factual statement or data regarding an individual(s) then it is incumbent upon the writer to use the proper genealogical standards of proof that mandate an accompanying citation. Citations assure information is documented, has been verified, and can be duplicated or proved by others researchers. Not to use citations with facts makes any information worthless. Please see this months article regarding genealogy on the web, in the Newsmagazine of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, "New England Ancestors", Spring 2001, vol.2, no.2, pages 10, 20-22, which concurs with my point. There are exceptions to not using citations such as queries, stated speculation, or a possible hypothesis for research guidelines, but even then the writer should clarify the input with a qualified disclaimer. Our work is only as good as the factual foundation we build it on. If it spurious results you seek, bully for you, but for those who are serious as to the quality if their content, then please use citations! I hope others will support me in trying to elevate the level of the Kilham, et al spellings, to the highest levels of recognized genealogical standards of proof. It only befits this fantastic family's heritage. The web is a wonderful tool but let us keep the standards high. Rick Kilham ----- Original Message ----- From: Roy <rreagan@premier.net> To: <KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [KELLAM] Henry Kellum > JK, Is that Polly Parker? I have her as Molly Parker, but I don't know > where I got that from... Roy > > > ==== KELLAM Mailing List ==== > Accidentally unsubscribed from the Kellam list? Simply resubscribe. A > full mailbox, computer error, or spam may cause you to be unsubscribed. > mailto: Kellam-l-request@rootsweb.com > >

Woody I have seen the post on this James and Samuel. For any one who don't catch on to what Woody is talking about, this post has Samuel's birth in 1775 and his children birthdate as pre 1770. All before Samuel was born. It is because of mistakes like this (of course this is a very obvious mistake) that I use these as posibilties until I see the documentation. This is one reason I am reluctant about posting all that I have. It is not all documented. So, Please, If you post it, be able to back it up or let us know otherwise. Woody, I have emailed Rhoads ???ed him on this Thanks David Kellam Visit me at http://www.geocities.com/olivershagnasty1/_index.html

Thank you!

JK, Is that Polly Parker? I have her as Molly Parker, but I don't know where I got that from... Roy

Meridith; The Smith Kellum that was the brother to Henry Kellum was my 4th great grandfather and he was married to Polly PARKER Kellum. Do you have any proof that Henry and Smith Kellum were brothers and do you know Henry's Parents. JK =========================================================== Hi, No I do not have any proof other than Henry named his youngest son Smith, supposedly after brother. They were both in Wake co NC I cannot find reference but in 1795 (not sure date) Smith was handling estae sale of a slave in either Wake or Chatham Co. NC. Also he later moved to Davidson co Tn. My 3rd ggf, John Douglass married Sally (Sarah Bell) Kellum, Henry's dau in Davidson co Tn in 1806 and then in 1819 John & Sally & family, her sister MaryAnn (Polly) Kellum & husband Joselyn & John's older parents and young Smith Kellukm (21 then) all moved by keelboat to Pulaski Co. Arkansas. I have Henry's will mentions children, Mary, Nancy, Lovey, John & Smith. wife Martha & eldest son William in charge of will. Written 7 May 1799 A report says he was mauled by bear & died as result. It is a short and simple will and probably written just before his death. That is it, Meredith Gibson

Meridith; The Smith Kellum that was the brother to Henry Kellum was my 4th great grandfather and he was married to Polly PARKER Kellum. Do you have any proof that Henry and Smith Kellum were brothers and do you know Henry's Parents. JK

David - I just found a James and Samuel, GRANDsons of John and Sarah Outten on World Connect - contributor claims Samuel married Mary ? His b. date is "abt 1775", which would make him younger than his own children as shown there. Contributor is rhoads@rhoads.net. Is Mr. Rhoads on this list? The change date on his record is March 16, 2001. Has any one else seen these? - Woody Kellum -----Original Message----- From: Woody Kellum [mailto:lwk@engin.umich.edu] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:02 AM To: KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [KELLAM] RE: Samuel Kellam Brick Wall David - My particular brick is James Kellam. I found the following birth record in the "Coventry Parish Records 1736 to 1828 (Somerset County, MD) copied by Mrs. Helen Bowie Clary, Published by Mrs. Mary Turpin Layton - Kellam, James son of Samual & Mary b. Aug. 22, 1763 The dates are wrong, but it may be a useful data point. - Woody -----Original Message----- From: oliver shagnasty [mailto:OLIVERSHAGNASTY1@email.msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:11 PM To: KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Samuel Kellam Brick Wall I am having problems finding documentation on my Samuel. What I have was passed on to me from the Kellam reunion held in Guildford County, NC each year. The research was done I think by Mark Stewart who passed away a few years ago. Samuel Kellam b. abt 1770-1771 s/o John Kellam b 1743 d 1805 m Sarah Outtens on Feb 24 1762 b May 7 1743 Samuel m ??? Children ---- James Elizabeth Charles b 1797 John b 1802 Nelson b Jun 21 1807 d Oct 9 1882 bur. in Holt's Chapel Cem. Greensboro, NC m Sept 6 1827 to Rosina May b June 11 1806 d May 1 1882. She was the daughter of John May and Sarah Hunter. I have doc. on Nelson but still nothing connecting him to Samuel. As I said before, this was passed on to me from Mark Stewart. There are some ?? as to if Samuel was born in Guildford County NC or Somerset County MD. Also where he may have died. I have seen it posted that he may ??? have returned to Md from NC and bought land there. Nothing at all on who he married. The only real documentation I have on Samuel is John's will. Any Help??? David Kellam Visit me at http://www.geocities.com/olivershagnasty1/_index.html ==== KELLAM Mailing List ==== To Unsubscribe send email to: Kellam-L-request@rootsweb.com with the message: Unsubscribe List Admin -Robbintina Kellum Harrison redbird@interaccess.com ============================== Visit Ancestry's Library - The best collection of family history learning and how-to articles on the Internet. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library ==== KELLAM Mailing List ==== Posting back to the list helps the whole group, not just one person. If we work as a team, we'll succeed as a team.

"Families of Southern Tier NY/Southeastern PA, Some of their Indian Connections--Vol. 1" Kellam, Parsons, Lord, Adams, Tyler, Jenson,Mitchel, Hopkins, indexed, sourced, referenced--contacts email addies where ever possible. Quite a bit of text, bio info,health items. page count, including photos and maps, close to 700---it grew!!!!!! $40 incl mailings--this price holds til day I go to printer--which is close at hand--I'm proofing--adding some text--arranging photo pages---rather minor, comparatively speaking--(she says, in retrospect--LOL) Printer saw a sample of what I'm bringing in--to raledigh---they said--"We can do this in less time than we quoted--- 4-5 days max---turn around. This is great--camera ready---sharp, blah, blah. Understood, finally--why I said--"NO not from disk from hard copy---one slip/glitch/hitch--- the index is WRONG, the photo pages don't match right." Your cuz on the tree---be it a leaf or a twig-- Sheila // Firehair Address: Box #99 Bunn, NC 27508 919-496-1604

Hi, cuzzin, That's MY book they are talking abt---it grew to nearly 700 pages, or so the auto count tells me--i'm proofing--new glasses came yesterday--the real deal--not Wal Mart special--the dr said--good grief, a book on computer, no wonder you are haivng headaches--it's not a brain tumor, or strokes (which the Clinic dr said) you need glasses for that work. anyway, the Hinch K. line is in it. I'm NOT dealing with the NC Kellams in this volume--it is big enuf. They are on a disk of their own. Hope you are feelling better. hugs,. Sheila// Firehair