In a message dated 98-11-05 13:21:35 EST, you write: << Hi Steve, I have one Sigler, so far, in my family. Margaret SIGLER b 1773 in Loudin Co, VA m John HOLEMAN. I do not have her parents names. Also in the 1880 Census of Henderson County, Ky there is a SIGLER family listed. >> Thanks so much for the information. As of right now I'll have to just hang onto this information. I have backed up far enough to think I need to research an Isaac Sigler that was in Henderson Co.,KY about 1800. He and his wife Jane may have had five children: John, Emanuel (my GGG Grandfather b. 1812) Mary Margaret, Elizabeth and Sally. That is about all I have to go on for the moment. Isaac Sigler may very well have died in Henderson Co. and his children, most of them I think, moved on to Hamilton Co.,IL. Thanks again for the census info. Steve Rieke SRieke@aol.com

My sincere thanks to all that restated the URL for the 1799 Henderson Co.,KY taxlist. Steve Rieke

Becky, these are also my ancestors. Take a look at my homepage. Brenda Stewart-Reeder Date forwarded: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:14:27 -0800 (PST) From: CleoKt11@aol.com Date sent: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:16:24 EST Subject: Re: taxlist To: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com Forwarded by: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com Send reply to: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com > Hi Steve, > > I have one Sigler, so far, in my family. Margaret SIGLER b 1773 in Loudin > Co, VA m John HOLEMAN. I do not have her parents names. > > Also in the 1880 Census of Henderson County, Ky there is a SIGLER family > listed. > > #226 Clayton Richard 35 Farmer Ky NC NC > Mealia 35 wife KY KY KY > Sigler Alva 12 step-son KY KY KY > Fredrick 11 Step-son KY KY KY > Edger 9 Step-son > William A 7 Stepson > Clayton Alice 11 daughter KY NC NC > > Becky > > Brenda Stewart-Reeder <http://www.wasatch.com/~seeker/> Searching: Aldin, Banks, Barker, Berry, Buford, Bishop, Bowlby, Bracken, Bruce, Canada/Canaday, Crispin, Croskey, Dill, Dills, Dye, Forrey, Green, Guess, Hardy, Hill, Holeman, Holloway, Hughes, Kilgore, Larcome, Manners, Matthews, Morehead, Mozingo, Nall, Oldham, Palmer, Parrack, Pleasants, Posey, Pullam, Ross, Sanburne, Shelton, Sigler, Sims, Sisk, Skinner, Smith, Spence, Stewart, Strange, Suttles/Settles, Swift, Tarleton, Taylor, Todd, Tucker, Turner, Vaughn, Williams, Willis, Winfrey, Wintson, Woodson, and Yates

Hi Brenda, So nice to hear from a new cousin. I went to your homepage. Wonderful job. And lots of info that I did not have. Mostly the Holeman and Sigler names. Thank you so much for writing. Keep in touch. Becky in TN

http://members.aol.com/patander73/h1799tax.html ---------- > From: SRieke218@aol.com > To: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: taxlist > Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 11:41 PM > > My computer decided to go to sleep just as I open the e-mail about the > Henderson County, KY taxlist of 18? > Would anyone still have the URL for it? > > Thanks > I am also interested in any Siglers, (other spelling also) that may have been > in Henderson County. > > Steve Rieke

Hi Steve, I have one Sigler, so far, in my family. Margaret SIGLER b 1773 in Loudin Co, VA m John HOLEMAN. I do not have her parents names. Also in the 1880 Census of Henderson County, Ky there is a SIGLER family listed. #226 Clayton Richard 35 Farmer Ky NC NC Mealia 35 wife KY KY KY Sigler Alva 12 step-son KY KY KY Fredrick 11 Step-son KY KY KY Edger 9 Step-son William A 7 Stepson Clayton Alice 11 daughter KY NC NC Becky

HI! The URL for Henderson County Tax Roll for 1799 is: http:/members.aol.com/patander73/h1799tax.html PAUL BEST REGARDS

My apologies....the taxlist URL for 1799 of Henderson County is what I am interested in rather than 18?? Steve Rieke

My computer decided to go to sleep just as I open the e-mail about the Henderson County, KY taxlist of 18? Would anyone still have the URL for it? Thanks I am also interested in any Siglers, (other spelling also) that may have been in Henderson County. Steve Rieke

Mary, How did you get in? I tried and failed?? Thanks, Bob Wallace -----Original Message----- From: Mary Claunch Lane <marylane@1starnet.com> To: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com <KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:59 PM Subject: 1799 Tax List >I got into the 1799 Henderson Co., KY Tax List just fine. I appreciate your >time spent so very much. >Mary Claunch Lane >

To all who responded, thanks for your help. I got in fine and bookmarked it for future reference. I guess when I tried it this morning, I had one eye working and no brain--my coffee hadn't kicked in yet. Helen Keusch

I got into the 1799 Henderson Co., KY Tax List just fine. I appreciate your time spent so very much. Mary Claunch Lane

http://members.aol.com/patander73/h1799tax.html -----Original Message----- From: SRieke218@aol.com <SRieke218@aol.com> To: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com <KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 1:46 AM Subject: Re: 1799 Tax List >My apologies....the taxlist URL for 1799 of Henderson County is what I am >interested in rather than 18?? > >Steve Rieke > >

unsubscribed

unsubscribe

There are also links to Patrick's Tax list on the Henderson Co. Page. Jim Jim and Debbie Powell Family History Surname Connections Kentucky..POWELL..MADISON..CLAYTON..WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..HIBBS UTLEY..EARLE..BUNTIN..MOORE..WILLIAMS..TAPP..WICKLIFFE North Carolina/South Carolina..WATKINS..GADDY..NORWOOD..CROUCH REYNOLDS..BOYD..McGEE..WHITTLE..MADISON..CLAYTON WINSTEAD..BOURLAND..TAPP..FOWLER Virginia..OWEN New York/New Jersey..McCLELLAN..LaPAGE Georgia/Florida..HARRIS..HODGE..FOWLER Email: Jpowelljr@worldnet.att.net Family Homepage: Http://www.afn.org/~afn03098/ For slower connections: Http://www.afn.org/~afn04266/ Coordinator of Henderson County KyGenweb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~kyhender/ Coordinator of Gilchrist County FLGenWeb Page Http://www.rootsweb.com/~flgilchr/ Assistant State Coordinator FLGenWeb

Hi, I tried to get into the tax list and it wouldn't open for me. Is that the exact address? Can you send me a link to it by e-mail? Thanks. Helen Keusch -----Original Message----- From: PatAnder73@aol.com <PatAnder73@aol.com> To: KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com <KYHENDER-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 7:01 PM Subject: mother county HENDERSON tax list 1799 >I put the 1799 tax list for Henderson county on a web page. > <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/patander73/h1799tax.html">HENDERSON COUNTY >TAX ROLL 1799</A> >remember Unoin was formed from Henderson in 1811. The tax list tells on what >waterway the person settled and in that way you can tell who was in Union >County area and who Was in Henderson. > >Somebody just posted a message about smiths and there are two smiths on the >tax list. take a look. > >Patrick > >

I put the 1799 tax list for Henderson county on a web page. <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/patander73/h1799tax.html">HENDERSON COUNTY TAX ROLL 1799</A> remember Unoin was formed from Henderson in 1811. The tax list tells on what waterway the person settled and in that way you can tell who was in Union County area and who Was in Henderson. Somebody just posted a message about smiths and there are two smiths on the tax list. take a look. Patrick

Good God! What is going on with this group. I thought the USGenWeb project was a run by a group of people with a degree of professionalism. I'm also concerned about the status of Rootsweb. I just became a sponsor and signed up for webspace and now I see this message indicating that the management of Rootsweb and USGenWeb are in a state of disarray and subject to petty powerplays over issues of control. What gives? I've heard only good things about Nancy Trice, but don't know her personally. Anyone on the board want to give an opinion on the issues? Please be aware that personal attacks aren't going to cut with me, or I suspect many of the members of RootsWeb or USGenWeb. Nancy expressed ire at several people in her note, but her feelings were supported by specific issues. Patty Gibson

-----Original Message----- From: Nancy Trice <trice@vci.net> To: friends@cresswells.com <friends@cresswells.com> Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: friends oh well... >>Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:01:07 -0600 >>To: Board-L@rootsweb.com >>From: Nancy Trice <trice@vci.net> >>Subject: oh well... >>Cc: USGWSC >>In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19981101114245.00a442c0@1starnet.com> >> >>I started to send this privately to the members of the board but after >thinking about it for several hours have decided to post it publicly. I ask >that all state coordinators forward it to their state lists, but I'm sure >that some of you won't. For the benefit of those CCs whose SCs doesn't >forward it as requested, it will also be posted at: >>http://www.nlt.net/usgenweb/11-2-98.html >> >>I'll start by reminding all of you that I have been part of this project >for longer than any of you, discussing the concept with Jeff Murphy in late >Feb and early March 1996 before KyGenWeb even started... before it was ever >announced on the KYROOTS list. I have loved it and worked my butt off for >over 2 1/2 years to help make it what it is today. I have been SC and >archivist, or file manager, for 3 states, handled several hundred orphan >counties, put up numerous pages to help the new CCs, and have personally >helped many of you. I have attempted to do what I think is best for >USGenWeb, as I was elected to do... as I have done for over 2 1/2 years... >and have been villafied and maligned for doing so. >> >>Whether any of you realize it or not, I was put in a very awkward position >when the CCs elected me... I was against the bylaws as written... >campaigned against them... and am now in a position of having to work >within them because the consensus of opinion appeared to be that they are >better than no bylaws... vote them in and fix them later. Well, you've all >seen now how really bad they are and how they are open to different >interpretations. It doesn't matter what the intent was when they were >written. They are very poorly written, period! >> >>The bylaws say that the National Coordinator is the chair of the Advisory >Board but gives no direction for the NC to follow except 'these Bylaws and >by accepted parliamentary procedure'. What is considered 'day-to-day >administration'? What is 'accepted parliamentary procedure'? Who is to >decide? This should have all been spelled out in the bylaws instead of >leaving it so ambiquous. Since it wasn't I have done my best to try to >abide by them anyway as best I could and have been shot down at every step. >> >> >>The bylaws say that the Advisory Board '...shall address any problem >issues as they arise'... 'advising and mediating, if necessary, any >grievances or appeals...'. >> >>Websters dictionary gives the definition of Advisory as: >> adj. 1. Having power to adivse. 2. Containing or given as advice; >> not mandatory. >> >>To me, and to many other CCs, this says that the board are advisors to the >NC and the project volunteers... not the project 'leaders'. >> >>Article VI, Section 2 of the bylaws says that 'the National Coordinator >shall preside at all meetings of the Advisory Board'. Article VIII, >Section 1 of the bylaws says that 'Nine (9) voting members of the Advisory >Board shall constitute a quorum'. >> >>Nowhere in the bylaws does it say anything about how those meetings are to >be held, including that they may be held on a general board discussion list >and the quorum established because the board members are subbed to that list. >> >>I felt strongly (and still do) that board meetings should be held in real >time in order to properly establish a quorum according to the bylaws. I >also feel that the people who elected the board members expected you to >attend those meetings. As a nominee, I would also have thought that you >would expect there to be meetings that you would need to attend. It's >obvious that the majority of the board doesn't feel the way I do. >> >>It was discussed on the board list that you needed a secretary to keep up >with motions, votes, etc. I placed it on the Oct. 4 agenda where it was >promptly tabled. >> >>Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws states: The Advisory Board shall also >be responsible for administering the domains, usgenweb.com, usgenweb.net >and usgenweb.org, over which The USGenWeb Project membership has control >and for which the members are the official lessees. >> >>As the NC I wrote to Dale Schneider shortly after taking office to inquire >as to his intentions with the usgenweb.com domain. To this date I have >not received a response from him, even tho I sent a 2nd email a few weeks >later. I placed this item on the agenda for the board to discuss where it >was promptly tabled with a comment that he has said he won't turn it over >to the Advisory Board at this time. Because I wrote to him I have now been >accused of 'being obsessed with obtaining control of usgenweb.com' by Linda >Lewis and Don Spidell, both of whom are positive I plan on getting my >grubby little hands on it so I can turn it over to Jerry and Lucy Dill. If >anyone on the board that had 'spoken' with Dale had bothered to inform me >that they had corresponded or chatted with him and what he had said, I >wouldn't have placed it on the agenda. Even after placing it on the >agenda, I could have been informed so it could be removed, but in my >opinion you deliberately chose not to. Today, the bylaws still say that >the board controls that domain, and of course you do not... and further >you have not indicated in any way how you intend to reconcile the bylaws to >the reality. >> >>The board needs to begin working on election procedures for next year. I >placed this on the agenda for Oct. 4 and a committee chair was elected. If >anything has been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at >this time (4 weeks later). >> >>It's obvious that the bylaws need to be amended in many places. I put this >on the Oct. 4 agenda and a committee chair was elected. If anything has >been done about setting up the committee I am unaware of it at this time (4 >weeks later). >> >>Numerous project members have written me requesting that the board address >the question of whether or not a member of Rootsweb staff [namely Karen] >should even be on the board-l mail list, suggesting that if the board >needed her input on something she could be asked. I put it on the agenda >where it was quickly tabled, and has not been addressed yet. I, and >others, do not feel that Karen should be on the board list since she was >not elected by anyone [no offense meant to Karen]. >> >>On 11-1-98 Betsy wrote: >>>And, Nancy, I am at a loss as to why you were offended that Trey and I >decided to seek input into who our constituents would like to see as their >next representative. It concerns me that you automatically assume that we >wouldn't even consider your suggestion. Certainly it is one of the >suggestions that we were considering along with suggestions from our >constituents. >> >> >>One of the suggestions you were considering? Who was considering? and >where? Certainly not on the board list. I was not necessarily offended by >the fact that you took it to the CCs, and might even have agreed with you >had there been any real discussion on it. What does offend me however is >that I made a suggestion, 2 or 3 of you immediately shot it down and with >no further discussion it's on the SC list... no discussion at all as to how >we should proceed or whether we should take it to the CCs, try to have >another election, or whatever... it was just done. When I then commented on >it on the SC list, Holly immediately asked why I was discussing it there >instead of here. Funny... that's where the discussion was... not here! I >think that we should have decided how to proceed as a group and not just by >1 or 2 of you. Isn't this what you have all been saying to me for the past >2 months? Whether right or wrong, I saw this action as just one more slap >in the face to the NC by the Advisory Board. >> >>Almost every one of you have shot me down in the past 2 months because I >tried to lead us, as I was elected to do by the CCs, and the majority of >you have all said, in actions if not by words, that you [the AB] are the >project leader, and have effectively relegated the position of NC to a >motion numberer and vote counter. >> >>[snip] >> >>Betsy continued: >>>At this point, everything is so public that we can't even discuss >anything without being ripped to shreds on other lists. You don't know the >reasons I have voted as I have on ANY of the issues as you have not asked. >I would LOVE to discuss things with everyone (especially you), hear their >views, express my views, maybe even change my views after hearing the >discussion, etc. >> >>Have you one time asked me why I feel as I do? Have you tried to open a >dialogue? No... the board members just stated they were against something >or for something and immediately pushed for a vote. Maureen questioned the >board about this numerous times. >> >>>But this can not happen as it now stands. >> >>Not pointing any fingers here, but who did that? I said in Sept. that I >did not think the board list should be opened. I said we should have our >discussions on the list, in private, then hold a meeting to vote. Most of >you shot that down. I offered a very workable compromise which all but 1 >or 2 of you immediately shot down as not workable, and I believe every one >of you voted to open the list archives and hold a continuous meeting. I >don't know how any of you feel about it now, but I think that was a >terrible decision. I think the board has tied it's own hands, and unless >you close the board list archives I don't think you'll ever get anything >done. >> >>I also know that as both a CC and a SC I would never bring any problem I >might have to the board because there is no privacy anymore. I think by >opening the list archives you have done a great injustice to any SC or CC >that might want to seek your advise. I believe the board discussions >should be private, board meetings either open to the public or at least a >log or minutes of the meeting posted. >> >>[snip] >> >>>Personally, I would like for us to back up and slow down on this >replacement issue. I don't understand the reason behind the rush to >immediately appoint someone. The only persons I have heard from in support >of Kathy are all from KS which is only one of the states represented in >this region. Everyone else I have heard from wishes that we could poll the >constituents of our region. The answer might still be to appoint Kathy, >but it might not. But at least we would know the wishes of the CC's or our >region. Is there anything wrong with this??? >> >> >>What have I said that indicated I was in a rush to fill the position >Betsy? Again, had there been discussion about it I might have changed my >original position on the matter, but I wasn't given that opportunity. I >just think the board should have decided as a body how to proceed instead >of some of you taking it upon yourselves without a vote, in effect doing >what you have all accused me of doing. >> >>It's quite obvious to me that the AB does not interpret any of the bylaws >the same way I do. It's also obvious that none of you have the same >concerns that I do. I have stated over and over that I am for a bottom up >structure. That means the CCs should control the project. There are 50 >states, which means 100 people if none of them were SC in more than 1 state >and each state has an ASC, and there are 4 SC reps for them, and only 8 to >represent in the neighborhood of 2000 CCs. To me that is top down, not >bottom up. I am also completely against the special projects all having a >voting board member. I think that is an open invitation for more and more >special projects to be set up in order to get a board seat and eventually >the special projects will control the USGW board. 4 of the 15 board members >were elected by less than 100 people, all of whom are SCs, and 3 were >supposedly voted on, [but might have been appointed], by special projects, >many of whom are not CCs. As a CC I don't like the numbers, and many >others I've talked with don't either. >> >>I'm also concerned by the statements I see now that a CC that received >votes in the last election should not be appointed because their views >'might not be the best for USGW' or words to that effect. Frankly, I think >the board should be comprised of people with differing view points and >different ideas, not by a group of people all with the same philosophy or >agenda. I think for USGW to continue to grow all ideas must be considered. > From what I have seen on the lists however, it appears that a certain >group of people want only people with their views on the board, and anyone >that doesn't share their views is labeled a troublemaker and quickly run >off the list. >> >>I also feel that a process needs to be set up to insure that a 'fired' >volunteer gets a fair shake if they file an appeal. Yes, I'm talking about >Kenny Thomas. That's over and done with now but it still leaves a very >bitter taste in the mouths of many of the CCs, especially those in Ks. This >board did nothing to mediate the problem or even try to find out what >really happened, automatically assuming that everything that Linda Lewis >said was gospel and everything that Kenny Thomas, and Maureen Reed, said >was a lie. I think that the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I >tried to set up a board list where it could be discussed by all interested >parties but that didn't work either did it? Seems that the board [and >RootsWeb staff] apparently thought I wouldn't allow the right people to be >subbed or something. >> >>I've heard from numerous CCs that Linda refused to let them sub to the >Archives-L list because they were CCs and not state level. I asked to be >subbed to that list when it looked like the Ks situation would be discussed >there. Linda subbed me then immediately unsubbed me when I asked everyone >to wait until the new list was obtained. Because of some of the >accusations I had heard I asked her to resub me. She did so, very >grudgingly, then immediately set up a new list for the archive CCs, subbed >me to it and unsubbed me from the archives-l without so much as a note. >That goes a long way toward giving credence to some of the problems I have >heard about, to say nothing about giving the distinct impression that she >feels that what goes on in the Archives is of no concern to the NC, or the >USGenWeb project. At the very least it was very disrespectful to the NC, >regardless of who the NC might be. >> >>After re-reading this several times, and considering how the board feels, >and how I feel about the bylaws, I think it's best if I just go ahead and >resign. Maybe you can get someone as NC that holds your views. >> >>You may consider this my resignation as National Coordinator. >> >>nt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >