>> From the little I know about the subject (most of which I do know >> is from having read it here), it seems to me that the terms >> "removed" or "separated" are far better descriptors (than >> "disowned") to use today in describing the act and spirit of gently >> persuasive disengagement of an individuel from his or her >> judgmental Friends. > Based on my own limited studies of personnel records of troops > serving in the Union Army during the Civil War, I've learned that > clerks for many units often entered the term "deserted" in many > cases for troops who were not present for given roll calls...whereas > they were actually just "on furlough" or "out sick" or "on leave" or > "in the hospital" at the time. > It seems to me that in terms of definition of a given condition > regarding a person, that 18th and 19th Century terms were often far > less sensitive to or less accurate than terms that are used > typically today. So much for "political correctness.". > Agree! > What IS apparently regrettable and lacking in the old records is any > follow-up for anyone who, once removed, has later been reaccepted > and welcomed back without incident. > It most cases if you can go back to the original records, they will tell in detail what the reason(s) was.were but we rely on the extraction with Hinshaw's EQG or Heiss' work. The extractors read a passage and wrote down in their shorthand what they thought it said. They may not have read all of the minute records relating to the issue or some of the passage(s) may have been dim. My grandmother still used the word disowned (mid 1900s) to remove a membership even though a letter had been written to the family and they had replied they wanted their names removed. The old Heiss extraction for Indiana has a relative of mine disowned a second time in Indiana over an issue of having a child out of wedlock. Last night I discovered that the new extractions being done and published by Indiana Historical Society show something different. The new extractions show it was discussed that she had been accepted at her request at Cedar Creek MM in Iowa and therefore was reinstated into membership. The family had moved to Iowa and then back to Indiana to their old meeting. She had not been disowned a second time. For ten or more years I had accepted she had been disowned a second time and thought the meeting was being very petty in bringing up that old issue and disowning her again. Jean Leeper