That's a wonderful story, John. Thanks for sharing! Virginia Mylius [descendant of Silas Pace of Abbeville, SC] ----- Original Message ----- From: "John" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:31 PM Subject: [PACE] Virgil Pace & the rooster > My father, Virgil Pace was born in 1925 in the mountains of Eastern, KY. > He has told me the following story many times and it is too good a story > not to share. He swears to it's truthfulness. His family was very poor and > when my dad was about 10 yrs old, his father died, making times even more > difficult. After my grandfather's death, the livestock was eventually all > used up, being either sold or eaten. My grandmother and her family of 7 > boys and 1 girl lived in an old log house with cracks everywhere, > especially between the floor boards. My father, not knowing where their > next meal was going to come from, spotted one of the neighbor's roosters > under their house one day. Being quite inventive, as all our Paces are, > he and his brother Ernest hatched out a plan to capture the old bird. They > dropped a kernel of corn threaded upon a fishhook and line down between > the boards of the old house. The old rooster spotted the corn, gulped it > in, and shortly thereafter was a hooked bir! > d. While Ernest held the line, my father crawled under the house and > captured the fowl-hooked bird, intending to make some dumplings out of him > for supper. He was quite proud of his resourcefulness when a different > idea popped into his head which might increase his good fortune. He and > Ernest put the rooster into a crate and headed off for town. After > arriving in town, they immediately made their way over to the local tavern > where a bunch of loafers were hanging around outside just shooting the > breeze and whittling. Dad and his brother trudged halfway up the mountain > behind the tavern to a bare spot in the side of the hill and tied one of > the rooster's legs to a small bush. Everyone in that part of Kentucky > carried a gun at that time, no matter where they went, so finding armed > participants for the plan was easy. The young boys began to sell shots at > the rooster to the tipsy loafers. The rooster was tied several hundred > yards off and could barely be seen from where they w! > ere, so an extremely hard shot it was; but increasingly difficult bec > ause of the alcohol consumption of the men. As the shooting match > advanced, the crowd outside the tavern became larger and larger, while the > crowd inside the tavern disappeared. However, no one could manage a kill > shot to the tough old bird which would not have made a good meal anyway. > The tavern owner, after a time of watching his own prosperity disappear, > became quite irritated at the increasing prosperity of the Pace boys. He > suddenly appeared outside the tavern with a Tommy sub-machine gun which > were quite popular at the time, and without paying for his shots, sprayed > a volley of bullets at the rooster, while the crowd of onlookers were very > quickly sobered up. However, as the luck of the Paces would have it that > day, the rooster managed to survive the rage of the tavern owner. He then > offered the boys $10 to remove the rooster from the hillside so he could > regain the business he had lost. They were happy to do so, since they had > made an amazing $40 profit by that time! > , and they still had their rooster. The boys immediately returned home > with the $40 fortune to give to their mother, also returning the nervous > rooster to the neighbor's barnyard. Dad says the neighbor's chicken > production showed a noticeable population decrease, for a time, after that > day. > > John Pace > > ------------------------------- > 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

Jack, I attended my first PSA annual meeting in Chattanooga in 1998. I am sure I met you there for the first time. Since then I have come to know you as an outstanding researcher into the history of the Pace family overall, and especially the John of Middlesex line. I am confident that one day you will discover the unrecorded event that led you to the name Pace, and that you will discover that your answering to that name has been justified. In the meantime, you are as much a Pace as the rest of us, and I am glad you are a member of the family. Happy New Year to you and Ginny. Bob Pace On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Jack Pace wrote: > Kaarin: I have pretty well documented my line back to John of > Middlesex, > what a surprise when my DNA (one of the first submitted, and > retested) came > back indicating no connections to any Pace line, Some where along > the line > something occured that was not recorded. There are several possible > answers > but in the meanwhile we answer to the name of PACE, JackPace, > Williamsburg, > Va. > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about >> the >> documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as >> they are >> attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything >> together from a >> variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to >> participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her >> line as >> well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA >> study. >> >> Kaarin >> >> ************ >> >> >> phone: 703-912-5845 >> cell: 703-402-5694 >> fax: 760-203-0037 >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > JackPace,Williamsburg, Virginia > > ------------------------------- > 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

Kaarin: I have pretty well documented my line back to John of Middlesex, what a surprise when my DNA (one of the first submitted, and retested) came back indicating no connections to any Pace line, Some where along the line something occured that was not recorded. There are several possible answers but in the meanwhile we answer to the name of PACE, JackPace, Williamsburg, Va. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Kaarin Engelmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it possible to obtain a document that provides information about the > documented, "factual" Pace lines (as well as any others; as long as they are > attributed properly)? Or is it necessary to piece everything together from a > variety of sources? My mom was a Pace, and her brother has agreed to > participate in the DNA test for me, but I need to put together her line as > well as possible in order to submit the application for the DNA study. > > Kaarin > > ************ > > > phone: 703-912-5845 > cell: 703-402-5694 > fax: 760-203-0037 > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- JackPace,Williamsburg, Virginia

There's a story that I told some time ago that illustrates how the most reliable "facts" could be incorrect. Since there are a lot of new people on the list, I will tell it again. The inspiration came from a Daniel Boone story. After a two year absence, he came home to find his wife nursing a baby. "Whose baby is that?" he asked. "It's your brother's" she answered. "We thought you were dead." To the great credit of Daniel and the Boones, they did not try to cover up the fact and raised the female child as their own. Now let's suppose: Suppose the child had been a male. Suppose the Boones, to avoid shame, recorded the birth as Daniel's own child (primary evidence). Daniel named the child as his own in his will (primary evidence) and all of the census records showed the child as Daniel's. There are letters and other evidence, and the papers of the child assert clearly that Daniel is his father--honestly stated, as he was never told otherwise, again primary evidence. Fast forward to the present. Joe Boone, a descendent of that child, has gathered all of these records and is trying to join the prestigious Society of the Descendents of Daniel Boone (I just made that up). As additional evidence he has his DNA tested. Viola! A perfect match with the descendents of the other male Boones. He is easily accepted into the society. After all, the evidence is impeccable, irrefutable.... And wrong. Just a heads up--we all need to be humble about our data and open to challenge. There is really no such thing as 100% certainty. Roy Johnson

I was thinking of bringing this up. However, on the basis of logic, I would consider a good clear photocopy as having the basic characteristic of the original. It bypasses the problem of human error creeping in, as when someone copies an original by hand. It would depend on how clear the copy was. Paper documents tend to deteriorate, and if a photocopy is made while the original is in good shape, it may be better evidence at a later date than a deteriorated original. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kim Stracener Zapalac Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q     It looks like Family Tree Maker has finally started implementing the evidence standards in their software.  It's about time.      There have been several excellent publications and articles about evaluating evidence.  The concepts John mentioned have been explained in more detail in the following resources, among others.  _Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, 87 (September 1999).   (No longer available for purchase but you may find it in a larger genealogical library.) Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997. Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence Explained!_.  Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007.   (Also available as a downloadable digital version from Footnote.com) There is also a laminated  _Evidence Analysis, A Research Process Map_ that can be purchased from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.   It is a two-sided page with information from _Evidence Explained!_ _The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual_. Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000.   Also see their website at www.bcgcertification.org Mills, Elizabeth Shown, ed. _Professional Genealogy:A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers and Librarians._ Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2001. The "Clarity" term used by Family Tree Maker appears to be one they created as it is not part of the evidence standards. The evidence standards as discussed in the publications I listed above are: Sources:  Original vs. Derivative Information: Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Direct vs. Indirect While many people still use the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" those terms were abandoned when the evidence standards were created over a decade ago.    The problem with those terms is a *source* can have both primary information and secondary information.  For example, a death certificate has *primary information* - generally, the name of the deceased and the date of death and location and may have *secondary information* - the birthdate and birth location of the person and possibly his parents.   The death information is usually first hand information - reported at the time of the event by someone with firsthand knowledge while the birth information may be reported years after the birth event many times by those who were not present at the birth.   On the other hand, the death certificate of an infant who died shortly after birth might include primary information about both the birth and the death.  Classifying the *information* in the source as primary and secondary rather than the source as a whole is much clearer and easier than trying to classify a source one way or the other when there is both primary (first-hand) and secondary (second-hand) information together in the source. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jon Pace <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 2:31 PM This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009 6:05 PM

There is also a difference between evidence and inference, although inference sometimes becomes accepted as fact. For example, it seems universally accepted by genealogists and historians that Richard Pace and Isabella Smythe of Wapping Wall, London, are Richard and Isabella Pace of Jamestown. However, this is an INFERENCE. The EVIDENCE that it is based on consists of the marriage record of Richard and Isabella in the St. Dunstan parish book, and the appearance of a Ruchard and Isabella Pace in Jamestown shortly thereafter, with ages that seem right for the Wapping couple. There is NO evidence in any of the English sources that the Wapping couple left for America, and NO evidence in the American records or the London Company records as to the English origins of Richard and Isabella of Jamestown. However, this connection has come to be accepted as fact based on circumstantial evidence, although it is an INFERENCE drawn from the available evidence. This doesn't mean that there is no possibility it could be wrong; the "facts" of history sometimes do change with new evidence. It just means that genealogists and historians believe that there is a near 100% likelihood that it is correct. We have to remember: History is not the past--history is what we THINK the past was like, and it changes with new perspectives, new evidence, and yes, with the frame of reference of the person writing it. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Jon,    Taking #4 first, the death date in the Social Security Death Index is direct evidence - the Social Security Death Index plainly states a date, although it is incorrect in your father's case.  Direct evidence may be wrong.  It is not the correctness of the information that makes it direct evidence or indirect evidence.  Direct evidence is evidence that appears to answer a question without needing any other document.   A death certificate usually provides direct evidence of a person's death date.    Indirect evidence is evidence that is not stated plainly but needs additional information to be able to come to a conclusion.   For example, many times we use indirect evidence to determine a time period of a person's death by using the date of a person's will (the person is still living) and the date of the first probate record created after the person died or the date a will was proved in court (the person has since died).   By using these two documents, the time of death can be stated to be between the two dates.  These two documents provide indirect evidence as to the person's date of death. Now to #3:    A census record is an interesting document to analyze as to whether information is primary information or secondary information.       In most cases, primary information in a census document would include the date the census taker enumerated a household and the location of the household.  This information is usually first hand information.   Usually, the names of those in the household at the time of the census would be considered primary information - supposedly the person giving the information to the enumerator for a household would have first-hand information of who lived in the household when the enumerator showed up at the door.      But we all know the problems with census enumerations.  If we knew who provided the information to the census taker, it would help us in our analysis of how to classify the rest of the information on the census as being primary (first-hand) information or secondary (second-hand) information.    For example, in my own family, if my mother were to provide the information to the census taker, I would probably say any information she gave to the census taker about the ages and birth locations of her children is primary information.   She would be giving firsthand knowledge of our birth dates and locations (and be accurate).   Even if it were my father, the information would be roughly accurate and would probably be considered primary (first-hand) knowledge although it wouldn't surprise me if the ages and dates were wrong.   But, say the census taker approached a blended family created by two families becoming one larger family or the family included laborers or servants as many of our ancestors' households did.   Then some of the information may very well be secondary information - information given by someone without firsthand knowledge of an event.         Again, the rightness or wrongness of the information is not what determines whether it is primary information or secondary information.  Primary information may be wrong and secondary information may be right.   What makes information primary is that it is information given by someone with first hand knowledge and/or the information is provided close in time to the event.   Secondary information is second-hand or third-hand, etc., information given by someone who learned it somewhere else or can be information provided long after the event when the memory of the details of the event may be fading.    A death date on a gravestone would probably be considered primary information if the stone was created near the time of the death - although it could be incorrect.  Sometimes new gravestones are created to replace deteriorated stones or to mark graves that were previously unmarked.  In this case, the death date on a grave stone might be considered secondary information as the source of the information is often second-hand information rather than information from an eyewitness to the death.     The analysis of evidence needs to take into account all of these considerations - is the source an original source (still in its original form) or a derivative source (one that has been copied or manipulated), is the information primary (firsthand knowledge) or secondary (second-hand knowledge), and is the evidence direct (answers the question by itself) or indirect (needs additional information to answer the question).     Hope this helps. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon ------------------------------- 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009 6:05 PM

My father, Virgil Pace was born in 1925 in the mountains of Eastern, KY. He has told me the following story many times and it is too good a story not to share. He swears to it's truthfulness. His family was very poor and when my dad was about 10 yrs old, his father died, making times even more difficult. After my grandfather's death, the livestock was eventually all used up, being either sold or eaten. My grandmother and her family of 7 boys and 1 girl lived in an old log house with cracks everywhere, especially between the floor boards. My father, not knowing where their next meal was going to come from, spotted one of the neighbor's roosters under their house one day. Being quite inventive, as all our Paces are, he and his brother Ernest hatched out a plan to capture the old bird. They dropped a kernel of corn threaded upon a fishhook and line down between the boards of the old house. The old rooster spotted the corn, gulped it in, and shortly thereafter was a hooked bird. While Ernest held the line, my father crawled under the house and captured the fowl-hooked bird, intending to make some dumplings out of him for supper. He was quite proud of his resourcefulness when a different idea popped into his head which might increase his good fortune. He and Ernest put the rooster into a crate and headed off for town. After arriving in town, they immediately made their way over to the local tavern where a bunch of loafers were hanging around outside just shooting the breeze and whittling. Dad and his brother trudged halfway up the mountain behind the tavern to a bare spot in the side of the hill and tied one of the rooster's legs to a small bush. Everyone in that part of Kentucky carried a gun at that time, no matter where they went, so finding armed participants for the plan was easy. The young boys began to sell shots at the rooster to the tipsy loafers. The rooster was tied several hundred yards off and could barely be seen from where they were, so an extremely hard shot it was; but increasingly difficult because of the alcohol consumption of the men. As the shooting match advanced, the crowd outside the tavern became larger and larger, while the crowd inside the tavern disappeared. However, no one could manage a kill shot to the tough old bird which would not have made a good meal anyway. The tavern owner, after a time of watching his own prosperity disappear, became quite irritated at the increasing prosperity of the Pace boys. He suddenly appeared outside the tavern with a Tommy sub-machine gun which were quite popular at the time, and without paying for his shots, sprayed a volley of bullets at the rooster, while the crowd of onlookers were very quickly sobered up. However, as the luck of the Paces would have it that day, the rooster managed to survive the rage of the tavern owner. He then offered the boys $10 to remove the rooster from the hillside so he could regain the business he had lost. They were happy to do so, since they had made an amazing $40 profit by that time, and they still had their rooster. The boys immediately returned home with the $40 fortune to give to their mother, also returning the nervous rooster to the neighbor's barnyard. Dad says the neighbor's chicken production showed a noticeable population decrease, for a time, after that day. John Pace

Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q     It looks like Family Tree Maker has finally started implementing the evidence standards in their software.  It's about time.      There have been several excellent publications and articles about evaluating evidence.  The concepts John mentioned have been explained in more detail in the following resources, among others.  _Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, 87 (September 1999).   (No longer available for purchase but you may find it in a larger genealogical library.) Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997. Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence Explained!_.  Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007.   (Also available as a downloadable digital version from Footnote.com) There is also a laminated  _Evidence Analysis, A Research Process Map_ that can be purchased from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.   It is a two-sided page with information from _Evidence Explained!_ _The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual_. Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000.   Also see their website at www.bcgcertification.org Mills, Elizabeth Shown, ed. _Professional Genealogy:A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers and Librarians._ Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2001. The "Clarity" term used by Family Tree Maker appears to be one they created as it is not part of the evidence standards. The evidence standards as discussed in the publications I listed above are: Sources:  Original vs. Derivative Information: Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Direct vs. Indirect While many people still use the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" those terms were abandoned when the evidence standards were created over a decade ago.    The problem with those terms is a *source* can have both primary information and secondary information.  For example, a death certificate has *primary information* - generally, the name of the deceased and the date of death and location and may have *secondary information* - the birthdate and birth location of the person and possibly his parents.   The death information is usually first hand information - reported at the time of the event by someone with firsthand knowledge while the birth information may be reported years after the birth event many times by those who were not present at the birth.   On the other hand, the death certificate of an infant who died shortly after birth might include primary information about both the birth and the death.  Classifying the *information* in the source as primary and secondary rather than the source as a whole is much clearer and easier than trying to classify a source one way or the other when there is both primary (first-hand) and secondary (second-hand) information together in the source. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jon Pace <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 2:31 PM This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon ------------------------------- 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

Kim makes a good point that what we mostly see on microfilmed censuses is the *copy* of the census that was created to be sent to Washington DC.  The originals were often kept on the local level and in some instances can still be found locally.    When the original copy of the census is available, it is good practice to search it as well.  Errors are known to have crept into the federal copy that are not in the state (or county) copy.   Have you ever bemoaned the fact that a particular census taker just used initials to identify family members?   Well, the original state copy probably had the names spelled out and when the handwritten copy was made to send to Washington DC, only the initials were copied rather than full names.  It is the federal copies that were microfilmed rather than the census taker's originals. Roy also brought up a good point about image copies. Generally, image copies (microfilm or digital) are treated as originals rather than derivatives.  But we should identify that we are looking at an image copy rather than the original document. >From Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence Explained!_, p. 30: "Theoretically, they [photographically reproduced image copies] are the equivalent of an original.  However, they may or may not be of equal merit.  ... an image copy can present problems. Imagers may have missed a page ... They may have had difficulty filming text in a crack... Lighting conditions may have produced inferior copies. Moreover, the black-and-white medium long used for image copies can mask content problems that are visible on the original, such as erasures in a record or alterations or additions in a different color or type.  Photocopies made by other researchers also may have been altered to provide evidence for one purpose or another." "As history researchers, we are justified in treating image copies as originals so long as (a) the images are legible; and (b) their information does not conflict with other evidence.  In case of conflicts or poor legibility, we should treat the image copy as a derivative and seek access to the material from which the images were made." Hope this helps. Rebecca --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 3:39 PM I was thinking of bringing this up. However, on the basis of logic, I would consider a good clear photocopy as having the basic characteristic of the original. It bypasses the problem of human error creeping in, as when someone copies an original by hand. It would depend on how clear the copy was. Paper documents tend to deteriorate, and if a photocopy is made while the original is in good shape, it may be better evidence at a later date than a deteriorated original. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kim Stracener Zapalac Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac

Very well put.  However, you can also see why there would be a dispute when someone is sure they have the evidence and someone else is telling Aunt Doe's tell a different way.  Anyway, the research and new evidence is what makes finding out about your family interesting and fun.  Thanks Roy for all you good input. --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 4:00 PM There's a story that I told some time ago that illustrates how the most reliable "facts" could be incorrect. Since there are a lot of new people on the list, I will tell it again. The inspiration came from a Daniel Boone story. After a two year absence, he came home to find his wife nursing a baby. "Whose baby is that?" he asked. "It's your brother's" she answered. "We thought you were dead." To the great credit of Daniel and the Boones, they did not try to cover up the fact and raised the female child as their own. Now let's suppose: Suppose the child had been a male. Suppose the Boones, to avoid shame, recorded the birth as Daniel's own child (primary evidence). Daniel named the child as his own in his will (primary evidence) and all of the census records showed the child as Daniel's. There are letters and other evidence, and the papers of the child assert clearly that Daniel is his father--honestly stated, as he was never told otherwise, again primary evidence. Fast forward to the present. Joe Boone, a descendent of that child, has gathered all of these records and is trying to join the prestigious Society of the Descendents of Daniel Boone (I just made that up). As additional evidence he has his DNA tested. Viola! A perfect match with the descendents of the other male Boones. He is easily accepted into the society. After all, the evidence is impeccable, irrefutable.... And wrong. Just a heads up--we all need to be humble about our data and open to challenge. There is really no such thing as 100% certainty. Roy Johnson ------------------------------- 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

This may not be relevant but it seems interesting. While looking for information about Henning Pace, I came across Henning Tembte, who I had not heard of before. I found an article about Dr Henning Tembte of Nansemond Co VA, by Mary Dean Clement, in the Virginia Mag. of History and Biography, Jan 1957. (The writer does not know Tembte's origins but the surname, at least, doesn't seem to be English; "Henning" is a German name, I believe.) The article describes Tembte's move from Maryland to Nansemond Co. VA, then by 1765 to Halifax Co. VA, where he bought land on Fishing Creek. Tembte's daughter Elizabeth married first Malachi Murden, and then Edmond Daniel. Tembte's daughter Mary married Richard Webb and, yes, named a son Henning. No reason so far to suppose that "Henning Pace" had anything to do with "Henning Tembte", but an interesting series of deed extracts was posted to this list by Betty A. Pace on 8 May 2001, tracing land which was sold by Edmond Daniel and Elizabeth his wife (that would be Malachi Murden's widow) to John Bradford, and subsequently tracing this land (I think -- my error if not) through several transactions to the deed of 1779 in which Major Walker and Stephen Pace sell 160 acres to Jesse Bryant -- signed by both Stephen Pace and Ann Pace, and Ann Pace relinquishes dower. James

Still trying to catch up on what evidence has been found to identify William Pace of Robertson Co TN (will dated 6 Nov 1829) as being the same person as the William Pace who married Sisley Walker. I understand that Henning Pace (son of William Pace of Robertson County whose will is dated 6 Nov 1829) named a daughter Sisley Walker Pace. That would be pretty persusave evidence in support of the theory that the child's grandmother was Sisley Walker, IF there is proof that this particular Henning Pace (son of Wm Pace of Robertson Co) really did give a daughter that particular name. Anyone know of such proof? Unfortunately, middle names are so often "gifted" to infants not by their parents but by family historians anxious to clarify what they believe to be the child's lineage, that they are not much use as evidence (in my admittedly amateur opinion) unless there is solid proof that it really was the parents' idea to give them that name. James --- On Sun, 1/11/09, James Blair <[email protected]> wrote: > I am trying to phrase my question carefully, because from > what I have seen so far, it does not seem to be certain that > "William Pace of Robertson County" was the same > person as the William Pace who had a wife Sisley. But I may > be missing something. Further explanation would be welcome. > I am not trying to prove anything, only trying to figure > things out. > > James >

This was in my notes but I am not sure of its accuracy. "In reference to the name CAIN and whether or not Cain was used as a middle name for William Pace Sr's. son Hardy C. Pace: Edna Zornes Cabler (professional Genealogist) had a War of 1812 Bounty Land file that gave the full middle name as Cain. Hardy Cain Pace [National Archives file designation BLT #44123-120-55 War 1812]" This does not prove (if this is valid) that this Hardy Cain Pace is the son of William Pace and Sicely Walker. But it might be where the Cain is coming from. Ricky ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents >I would be interested to know more about the name "Hardy Cain Pace". > > I understand from earlier posts to this list that the will of William Pace > which appears in the 1845 Montgomery Co TN will book mentions a son "Hardy > C. Pace". Is there another document which shows that the middle name of > the son was "Cain", or is it only surmised? > > I am trying to phrase my question carefully, because from what I have seen > so far, it does not seem to be certain that "William Pace of Robertson > County" was the same person as the William Pace who had a wife Sisley. > But I may be missing something. Further explanation would be welcome. I > am not trying to prove anything, only trying to figure things out. > > James > > > --- On Sat, 1/10/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:38 PM >> Our Pace group has been discussing attempts to keep our >> information accurate >> as possible and trying to correct old research errors. >> >> The Ann Cain marriage to William Pace who married Sicely >> Walker was an >> assumption on someone's part years ago, and the key >> point is that there was no >> documentation then nor is there any now: >> The name was assumed because Cains lived in the >> vicinity of the Paces in >> Edgecombe County NC and had a lot of known daughters with >> unknown marriages. >> In addition William and Sicely had a son named Hardy Cain >> Pace, so why >> not??? >> >> (Yes, I was around back then and know what happened.) >> >> Now, we have Ann Cain surfacing again, still without >> documentation. This >> time the date is 1789, William Pace is living in Franklin >> County NC without >> any known Edgecombe County Cain associated with him. I >> believe we need to drop >> the Ann Cain name from the record of this group. >> >> Shirley Pace Graham >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Thanks very much for the information. James --- On Sun, 1/11/09, Ricky Pace <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ricky Pace <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 11:33 AM > This was in my notes but I am not sure of its accuracy. > > "In reference to the name CAIN and whether or not Cain > was used as a middle name for William Pace Sr's. son > Hardy C. Pace: Edna Zornes Cabler (professional > Genealogist) had a War of 1812 Bounty Land file that gave > the full middle name as Cain. Hardy Cain Pace [National > Archives file designation BLT #44123-120-55 War 1812]" > > This does not prove (if this is valid) that this Hardy Cain > Pace is the son of William Pace and Sicely Walker. But it > might be where the Cain is coming from. > > Ricky > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:30 AM > Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents > > > > I would be interested to know more about the name > "Hardy Cain Pace". > > > > I understand from earlier posts to this list that the > will of William Pace which appears in the 1845 Montgomery Co > TN will book mentions a son "Hardy C. Pace". Is > there another document which shows that the middle name of > the son was "Cain", or is it only surmised? > > > > I am trying to phrase my question carefully, because > from what I have seen so far, it does not seem to be certain > that "William Pace of Robertson County" was the > same person as the William Pace who had a wife Sisley. But I > may be missing something. Further explanation would be > welcome. I am not trying to prove anything, only trying to > figure things out. > > > > James > > > > > > --- On Sat, 1/10/09, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker > descendents > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:38 PM > >> Our Pace group has been discussing attempts to > keep our > >> information accurate > >> as possible and trying to correct old research > errors. > >> > >> The Ann Cain marriage to William Pace who married > Sicely > >> Walker was an > >> assumption on someone's part years ago, and > the key > >> point is that there was no > >> documentation then nor is there any now: > >> The name was assumed because Cains lived in > the > >> vicinity of the Paces in > >> Edgecombe County NC and had a lot of known > daughters with > >> unknown marriages. > >> In addition William and Sicely had a son named > Hardy Cain > >> Pace, so why > >> not??? > >> > >> (Yes, I was around back then and know what > happened.) > >> > >> Now, we have Ann Cain surfacing again, still > without > >> documentation. This > >> time the date is 1789, William Pace is living in > Franklin > >> County NC without > >> any known Edgecombe County Cain associated with > him. I > >> believe we need to drop > >> the Ann Cain name from the record of this group. > >> > >> Shirley Pace Graham > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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

Trying to get the William Brownes straight, and glean some clues if possible as to their relationship with Paces and Pace associates. As previously discussed on this list (11 Aug 2005 and others), a Richard Pace appears on the tithable list of William Browne in 1668, 1669, 1670 -- each time with Francis Sowersby. The identity of this Richard Pace has not been established. William Browne would presumably have been Col. William Browne who (from Boddie, SVF p110) "served as a Justice of the County of Surry for nearly 40 years -- from 1668 to 1705." His will was proved 3 July 1705 so I guess he died with his boots on. He married twice, second wife identified as Elizabeth, widow of Major Nicholas Meriwether. Also from Boddie, William Browne (m. Eliz Meriwether, will proved 1705) was father of, among others: William Browne (married his stepsister Jane Meriwether and died by 1746); and Jane Browne (married (1) Robert Spencer and (2) Thomas Jordan). Mary Jordan (daughter of Jane Browne Spencer and Thomas Jordan) married Francis Sowersby; the 1705 will of Col. William Browne mentions his granddaughter "Mary Sowerby, the wife of Francis Sowerby". William Browne (m. Jane Meriwether, will proved 1747) was the one who had land on Roses Creek in what became Brunswick Co.; he was father of William Browne (will proved 1744) who married Mary Clements, daughter of Francis and Lydia Clements. William Browne (m. Mary Clements, will proved 1744 -- he predeceased his father) was father of, among others, William Browne "of Four Mile Tree" and Mary Browne, who married William Eaton. This William Browne is the one who inherited the land on Roses Creek. The 1744 will of William Browne (m. Mary Clements) mentions "Lidderdale's accounts". I thought that was interesting, because there is this entry in the Brunswick Co Court Orders p143: "02 Dec 1736: Attachment obtained by JOHN LIDDERDALE agst JAMES PACE. LIDDERDALE not prosecuting case dismissed."

No, sorry, I don't remember hearing of such a record. James --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Ricky Pace <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Ricky Pace <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Rebecca Poythress > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 8:59 PM > James, > Do you know of any records of the younger Richard Pace (who > married Sarah Woodlief) selling 400 acres of VA land to > Rebecca Poythress around 1718? > > I am aware of the land transactions betwen this Richard and > Francis Poythress in 1718. > > Ricky >

I would be interested to know more about the name "Hardy Cain Pace". I understand from earlier posts to this list that the will of William Pace which appears in the 1845 Montgomery Co TN will book mentions a son "Hardy C. Pace". Is there another document which shows that the middle name of the son was "Cain", or is it only surmised? I am trying to phrase my question carefully, because from what I have seen so far, it does not seem to be certain that "William Pace of Robertson County" was the same person as the William Pace who had a wife Sisley. But I may be missing something. Further explanation would be welcome. I am not trying to prove anything, only trying to figure things out. James --- On Sat, 1/10/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PACE] William Pace-Sicely Walker descendents > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:38 PM > Our Pace group has been discussing attempts to keep our > information accurate > as possible and trying to correct old research errors. > > The Ann Cain marriage to William Pace who married Sicely > Walker was an > assumption on someone's part years ago, and the key > point is that there was no > documentation then nor is there any now: > The name was assumed because Cains lived in the > vicinity of the Paces in > Edgecombe County NC and had a lot of known daughters with > unknown marriages. > In addition William and Sicely had a son named Hardy Cain > Pace, so why > not??? > > (Yes, I was around back then and know what happened.) > > Now, we have Ann Cain surfacing again, still without > documentation. This > time the date is 1789, William Pace is living in Franklin > County NC without > any known Edgecombe County Cain associated with him. I > believe we need to drop > the Ann Cain name from the record of this group. > > Shirley Pace Graham > >

James, Do you know of any records of the younger Richard Pace (who married Sarah Woodlief) selling 400 acres of VA land to Rebecca Poythress around 1718? I am aware of the land transactions betwen this Richard and Francis Poythress in 1718. Ricky ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Blair" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:03 AM Subject: [PACE] Rebecca Poythress > Rebecca (probably Coggan) married Francis Poythress. They had a son, > Francis, and a daughter Rebecca. > > By 1692, when Mrs Rebecca Poythress patented the escheat land, her husband > Francis was dead. So Rebecca Poythress the daughter must have been born > by 1692 (give or take a few months). But just WHEN she was born is not > known, at least not by me. > > Mrs Rebecca Poythress then remarried, to Charles Bartholomew. She and her > new husband had a daughter, Ann. > > In 1711, Mrs Rebecca Poythress Bartholomew and her husband Charles > Bartholomew gave land to their two UNMARRIED daughters, Rebecca Poythress > and Ann Bartholomew. > > We know that Rebecca Poythress the daughter was not married in 1711, > because if she had been married, the land would have been given to her > husband, probably using some phrase such as "in right of his wife". But > it wasn't. It was given to her, in her own right and in her own name. > Therefore, she was unmarried in 1711. > > Meanwhile, in 1711, Mr and Mrs Richard and Rebecca Pace had been married > to each other since at least 1698. We know this because their oldest son, > Richard, patented land in NC in 1720. He had to be 21 to patent land, so > he was born by 1699. So by 1698, Richard and Rebecca must have been > married. They probably met and married in Prince George Co. (please note > the word "probably"), but by 1711 they were probably living in the part of > Surry Co. which later became Brunswick Co. (Probably.) > > Back in Prince George, there was another, younger, Richard Pace, who in > 1718 had land deals with Francis Poythress, the son of Mrs Rebecca Coggan > Poythress Bartholomew and her first husband. The earlier researchers > didn't realize that there were TWO Richard Paces around. The records > which prove this, had not yet been unearthed. Consequently, the earlier > researchers assumed that the Richard Pace who was selling land with > Francis Poythress in 1718, was the same Richard Pace who was married to a > Rebecca. Some (not all) therefore concluded that the Rebecca who was > married to a Richard Pace in NC was Rebecca, the sister of Francis > Poythress who had land deals with Richard Pace in Prince George. An easy > mistake to make, but it IS a mistake. It shows the dangers of confusing > two different people with the same name. > > Now we know that there WERE two Richard Paces. The Richard Pace who had > the land deals with Francis Poythress married Sarah Woodlief. There are > records which prove this. > > The younger Richard Pace, who married Sarah Woodlief, was probably a > nephew of the Richard Pace who married Rebecca [maiden name unknown]. > > As for the young Rebecca Poythress, we have no records which reveal what > happened to her. > > I hope this helps to clarify. Quite useful to get all this put down, if > I've explained it clearly enough. I will try to find time to post it to > the rootsweb and genforum Pace forums also, with the record citations. I > hope that may help future family researchers to untangle the background to > this Poythress mistake. > > James > > > --- On Wed, 1/7/09, debbie pace <[email protected]> wrote: > >> it looks like from what i can see, rebecca coggin(cogan) >> married a francis >> poythress and one of their children was rebecca poythress >> who married >> richard iii >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "debbie pace" >> <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:49 PM >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> > dont think ANYONE knows for sure. if so, there >> wouldnt be this >> > controversy >> > about birthdates, marriages, etc. thanks >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Roy Johnson" <[email protected]> >> > To: <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:39 PM >> > Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >> Behalf >> >> Of debbie pace >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:58 PM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> >> my older family records show rebecca poythress and >> there is marriage >> >> records >> >> >> >> to show this. i have that francis poythress >> wife's name was rebecca >> >> coggan(maiden name) richard pace ii was married >> to mary baker or mary >> >> knowles??? >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================================ >> >> ===================================== >> >> >> >> Where are those marriage records? The most >> diligent research by the best >> >> Pace genealogists have not found any such records. >> >> >> >> In fact, research has found the opposite: Richard >> and Rebecca Pace were >> >> married and had children 14 years before Rebecca >> Poythress was born. So >> >> how >> >> could she be his wife" >> >> >> >> Here is the info from Mrs. Maude McClure Kelly, >> one of the best Pace >> >> researchers: >> >> >> >> A letter written to MRS. ELEANOR PACE TERRELL 20 >> MAY 1971 by MISS MAUD >> >> KELLY, Attorney, who devoted over forty years >> accumulating Pace family >> >> records, states on p. 5 of the letter that RICHARD >> PACE (4) DID NOT MARRY >> >> A >> >> POYTHRESS and, "FURTHERMORE, THE REBECCA >> POYTHRESS WHOM SOME CLAIM AS HIS >> >> WIFE WAS BORN ABOUT 1714, WHEREAS RICHARD AND >> REBECCA PACE HAD GIRLS BORN >> >> IN >> >> THE 1690'S AND A SON, RICHARD, BORN 1699-1700, >> WHICH IS 14 YEARS AT LEAST >> >> BEFORE HIS SO CALLED [alleged] MOTHER WAS >> BORN." >> >> >> >> . To prove marriage records, they need to be cited >> specifically and >> >> quoted >> >> exactly. Like this: >> >> >> >> The 1608 Marriage Reg. of St. Dunstan's, >> Stepney, County of Middlesex, >> >> England. Specific wording of the marriage >> register, from Pace Society >> >> Bulletin No. 13, September, 1970: >> >> >> >> " Richard Pace of Wapping Wall Carpenter and >> Isabell Smyth of the same >> >> marryed the 5th day October 1608" >> >> >> >> It would be even better if the specific page in >> the St. Dunstan's record >> >> were cited. >> >> >> >> Thanks to all who have contributed to this >> discussion. Controversy is >> >> good >> >> if it leads to improved understanding. It is a >> struggle getting the >> >> inaccurate records out of the various gedcoms. >> >> >> >> Roy Johnson >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "val & jeff tice" >> <[email protected]> >> >> To: <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:46 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- correction >> >> >> >> >> >>> After re-reading it, it is because Richard >> Pace paid him for it. I'd >> >>> always >> >>> read that it was a Deed of Gift. I should >> have paid closer attention >> >>> earlier. It is actually just a Deed that >> doesn't mention what the >> >>> consideration was. >> >>> >> >>> Val >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> >>> Behalf >> >>> Of James Blair >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 4:40 PM >> >>> To: [email protected] >> >>> Subject: Re: [PACE] Richard m. Mary -- >> correction >> >>> >> >>> It's been explained to me that this >> scenario wouldn't have applied -- I >> >>> was >> >>> misunderstanding the inheritance laws. So my >> suggestion below can't >> >>> explain >> >>> why Richard Baker deeded the 140 acres to >> Richard Pace. It's a mystery >> >>> to >> >>> me. >> >>> >> >>> James >> >>> >> >>> --- On Tue, 1/6/09, James Blair >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Richard Baker's wife Ann mentions (in >> her petition to >> >>>> the Westover vestry, see >> >>>> >> http://searches2.rootsweb.com/th/read/PACE/2002-09/1032643426, >> >>>> also posted by James Pace), having >> "the charge of two >> >>>> children to maintaine". If these >> were children of >> >>>> Richard Baker's, and if one was a boy, >> by law that child >> >>>> would inherit all Richard Baker's >> property. So if Mary >> >>>> Pace really was Baker's daughter, and >> he realized he was >> >>>> soon going to die, that might be why he >> would give her >> >>>> husband a deathbed gift of land -- because >> he couldn't >> >>>> leave it as a legacy. >> >>>> >> >>>> Wholly theoretical, however. The maiden >> name of Mary Pace >> >>>> remains unproven. >> >>>> >> >>>> James >> >>>> >> >>>> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Roy Johnson >> <[email protected]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> > From: Roy Johnson >> <[email protected]> >> >>>> > Subject: RE: [PACE] The PG land sold >> by John and >> >>>> Richard Pace 1759 >> >>>> > To: [email protected], >> [email protected] >> >>>> > Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 10:27 >> PM >> >>>> > Debbie and others, >> >>>> > >> >>>> > We have to be very careful to >> distinguish between >> >>>> theory >> >>>> > and fact in citing >> >>>> > these early Pace records. On the Pace >> Network I have a >> >>>> > section called >> >>>> > Problems and Controversies in Pace >> research, in which >> >>>> > several competent Pace >> >>>> > authorities state that (1) there is >> absolutely no firm >> >>>> > evidence that Richard >> >>>> > Pace married a Knowles or a Baker, >> although some >> >>>> > genealogies cite one and >> >>>> > some the other. (2) the >> Pace-Poythress marriage is >> >>>> also >> >>>> > quite questionable. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/poythres.htm#boykin >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The above is a discussion of the >> Pace-Poythress >> >>>> > controversy. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > This URL discusses the Baker-Knowles >> controversy: >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pace/bkr_knwl.htm >> >>>> > >> >>>> > If there are no sources verifying an >> assertion, it >> >>>> cannot >> >>>> > be cited as a >> >>>> > fact. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Roy Johnson >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ------------------------------- >> >>>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------- >> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >> >> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1881 - >> Release Date: 1/7/2009 >> >> 5:59 PM >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Are census records primary or secondary? As I see it....from my training in historical sources in graduate seminar: A census taker goes to a household and queries a member of the family about the family and writes down what he THINKS he hears. So a census record is essentially secondary information since the census taker wrote it down, not the family member. Your example of a lazy census taker is evidence of this. And of course two primary sources can disagree on an issue. Ask any lawyer about eyewitness descriptions of a crime. You can get all kinds of differences about a person's appearance, the exact sequence of events, the color and make of the car, etc. People's memories play tricks. However, it can be close to primary evidence, depending on who provided the information. Sometimes an older child might give the info if the head of the household is not available. So it's hard to pin down exactly where the info came from. Sometimes a source can be both depending on which information is at question. To get away from genealogy for an example--if a soldier describes a battle in which he participated, he is primary for the part he actually saw but may add details told him by others, so that part would be secondary. But secondary evidence might in some occasions be more accurate than primary. If a reporter arrived on a battle scene and questioned a number of participants on both sides, he might get a more accurate picture than any one of his primary sources. An artifact can also be primary evidence. I have an IOOF pin from my great grandfather giving his birth date. It is primary in two ways: The pin is evidence he was in the IOOF; the inscription was given directly by him so he would be primary for his birth date. But remember--in former times less attention was paid to birthdays, and there were occasions of people not being certain about their exact age. One rule we learned about primary and secondary evidence: With primary evidence the closer to the event the memory is recorded, the more accurate it is likely to be, as obviously memories get fuzzy over time. With secondary evidence, time can actually make it more accurate, as more sources may be found, and there is less chance of bias. Our Pace research is an example of that--as we find more sources and more evidence, old stories are disproven and new evidence is added to lineages. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Pace Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon ------------------------------- 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009 6:05 PM

This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon