I have a real problem with trying to 'correct' transcriptions, as I've mentioned many times before.. When we do this, anyone can decide that any name on a list or any bit of info is 'incorrect' and wish it to be changed to something the person believes is correct. We really can't do this. Transcriptions of original documents 'are what they are', so to speak...warts and, perhaps, errors and all!. When we begin changing spellings or whathaveyou, they then become nothing but the idea of what others feels they should be, and rendering them useless as documentation. So, if folks feel a name is incorrect, etc, they could present actual documentation that this could not possible be correct, which could be appended to the record...but, the mere belief that something is incorrect isn't enough. This is the only way we can all know that something is being presented as it originally was, and not altered and changed by others. Changing , or correcting original document contents is a very slippery slope. Sandra --- For those who don't know, following the victories of 1775, Washington had too many militia volunteers to productively use. He sent many of the units 25-50 miles outside of New York City so as to spread out the forage consumption of the greater army. These reserves were to be ready to march upon a moment's notice, hence the name "Flying Camp" Since these are going into the archives - I'll offer my corrections to the original transcription to facilitate folks searching by the more common spellings of their ancestors. Based on Pennsylvania Archives and family records: * I believe the John McDowell was James McDowell, husband of Elizabeth Loughead - he was known to have been captain of the 4th batallion under Montgomery during the Fall/Winter campaigns of 1776 - reports of his unit's service during the campaign suggests that he was part of the Flying Camp during the battles on Long Island and Manhattan. * Joseph Strasbridge is actually Joseph Strawbridge. James McDowell bought a farm in Upper Oxford from Dr. Thos. Ruston in 1798 next to Strawbridge's residence - McDowell and Strawbridge children both married into the Boyd family and were neighbors through the late 1800's. * Allen Cunningham is actually Allen or Alan Cuningham with one 'n' - in 1894 a descendant, Alan Cuningham, would marry Ethel Pusey, sister-in-law to Thomas Rankin McDowell, son of James Boyd McDowell and gr-gr-grandson of James McDowell. * Lasarus Rinney is likely the 25 year old single Lazarus Finney, son of Robert Finney and Diana Spencer - he later served as First Lieutenant in Evan Evans' Second Batallion of Chester County Militia. His aunt, Catherine Simonton Finney, was married to James McDowell's brother-in-law, James Loughead, Infantry Colonel in 1776 and a dispatch-bearer for Washington to frontier Pennsylvania forces, Philadelphia City Paymaster in 1777 and Assistant Paymaster-General of the Pennsylvania militia in 1778. When the British occupied Philadelphia in late 1777, Col. Loughead sent his family to live with his brother-in-law, James McDowell in what is now Lincoln Station, outside of Oxford. The McDowells, Finneys, and Cuninghams were all members of the New London Presbyterian Church where McDowell and Cuningham were buried. I believe Lazarus is buried up in Northumberland county where he and his wife, Elizabeth (Fulton?) settled some time in the mid/late 1780's - also where some of James Loughead's children settled about the same time. Not sure about the Strawbridges...

Sandra, You bring up a good point.  I agree it's important to never 'correct' the original transcription but to report it faithfully.  However, I believe in today's Google world, it's more critical than ever to provide interpretations, additional information and context including alternate spellings to facilitiate search engines.  The whole point of this newslist is to help people find their folk isn't it? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Ferguson" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "cyndie eckman" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:47:07 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: correcting existing records......... appt. officers batallion of  Chester Co Flying Camp.  I have a real problem with trying to 'correct' transcriptions, as I've mentioned many times before..   When we do this, anyone can decide that any name on a list  or any bit of info is 'incorrect' and wish it to be changed to something the person believes is correct.   We really can't do this.  Transcriptions of original documents 'are what they are', so to speak...warts and, perhaps, errors and all!.  When we begin changing spellings or whathaveyou, they then become nothing but the idea of what others feels they should be, and rendering them useless as documentation.    So, if folks feel a name is incorrect, etc, they could present actual documentation that this could not possible be correct, which could be appended to the record...but, the mere belief that something is incorrect isn't enough.   This is the only way we can all know that something is being presented as it originally was, and not altered and changed by others.   Changing , or correcting original document contents is a very slippery slope.                                                                                                                  Sandra

To all~ Both John and Sandra raise very good points. I think Sandra is right on the subject of "corrections" in that a published "transcription" is a historical document in and of itself. We should NOT change it. However, John's thought that we should provide additional known information and reasonable alternatives for research is also well taken. So, what we have here is not really a disagreement on the particular act, but rather on what to call it. I believe that what John offered is not a "correction", but an "annotation". Looked at this way, I think we would all agree that the both the original "transcription" and any "annotations" made thereafter would be available to researchers. Those researchers could then decide what/which to believe (and use). Or they can try to locate the original documents and make their own transcription. One would hope that said researcher would then include a summary of the available information (with sources) in their documentation along with their own analysis of the evidence collected. At any rate, I think that Sandra is correct in that we should not go about changing published transcriptions for the reasons she stated. I also think that John is correct that we should all offer reasoned, documented supplemental information and annotations to those same lists. This gives all of us more information/leads to follow up with our own research. Sandra and John, I wish to thank both of you for your contributions to our knowledge. Ginni Morgan Sacramento, CA (searching for Paxton, Keepers, Jordan, & Hayes in Chester Co) >>> <[email protected]> 9/5/09 8:05 PM >>> Sandra, You bring up a good point. I agree it's important to never 'correct' the original transcription but to report it faithfully. However, I believe in today's Google world, it's more critical than ever to provide interpretations, additional information and context including alternate spellings to facilitiate search engines. The whole point of this newslist is to help people find their folk isn't it? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Ferguson" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], "cyndie eckman" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:47:07 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: correcting existing records......... appt. officers batallion of Chester Co Flying Camp.  I have a real problem with trying to 'correct' transcriptions, as I've mentioned many times before.. When we do this, anyone can decide that any name on a list or any bit of info is 'incorrect' and wish it to be changed to something the person believes is correct. We really can't do this. Transcriptions of original documents 'are what they are', so to speak...warts and, perhaps, errors and all!. When we begin changing spellings or whathaveyou, they then become nothing but the idea of what others feels they should be, and rendering them useless as documentation. So, if folks feel a name is incorrect, etc, they could present actual documentation that this could not possible be correct, which could be appended to the record...but, the mere belief that something is incorrect isn't enough. This is the only way we can all know that something is being presented as it originally was, and not altered and changed by others. Changing , or correcting original document contents is a very slippery slope. Sandra ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is s olely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

As I said, earlier, to John.... I would agree that notations could well be included, which contain the documentation for saying so and so... However, I don't think personal opinions, without proof, are necessarily a 'good thing'....far too many people see something.....anything..... and simply 'take' it as truth, thereby perhaps perpetuating the millions of errors already circulating on the internet. Without requiring documentation, it also would allow anyone who disagrees with a spelling, a fact or anything..... to offer an opinion that presents itself as fact, and wish to add their 2 cents worth to the document. We've all met real dingbats in this hobby, who KNOW something completely ridiculous is true, totally sans proof.....and, when you allow one person to 'amend' a document, you have to then allow ALL to do the same, including the dingbats...as I said....a slippery slope. Care to try to explain to a dingbat that others can add, but you say they can't? Not something I want to take on! I think these genealogical lists are not quite the same as the genweb archives, the Chester list, or others of that ilk.....I believe those need to present factual info, not theory. These gen. lists are where you can loosen up a bit and speculate, discuss, give opinions. Sandra