Note this man trained as a lawyer, folks. Can you tell? <<grin>> But I trained as a composition teacher who drills "examples, examples, examples," so here are some examples to fill out his discussion. I have just finished explaining to a woman that while I only have a few pieces of "hard" evidence, there is enough other evidence to declare parents for her ggf, but not enough to decide who her gggf belonged to. I have a death certificate that states Elijah's father was Cash. I have hearsay evidence that says Elijah was the son of a Sarah Jane. I have the 1870 census that says this Sarah Jane was called "Janey." I have a marriage license for Cash and "Jannie" in 1882, at a time appropriate to his birth. And in 1900 I have Elijah in the same household with Sarah Jane's mother--but he's labeled as "brother" to her son, not nephew. Nevertheless...I'm ready to declare that one "solved." Determining the gggf, Cash, is a little shakier. I have a Cash of the right age and location in the 1870, 1880,1900, 1910, 1920 and 1930 census. 1900-1930 he was married to another Sarah, but she went by Sallie. She was 10 years younger than he was. In 1870 he was listed last in Lewis' household--looks like he's not one of Lewis' children. 1880 says flat out he was Lewis' grandson. In 1910 he said he'd been married twice. In 1930 he said he was 20 when he was first married; Sarah says she was 19 when she first married, but remember, she's 10 years younger than he was--at least on all censuses except 1930--which has them the same age. If I look at only that census, I've missed it all! Several of the census records put their marriage at 1889. I also have hearsay evidence that a Sarah Brown married a Cash Moon of Walton Co. GA, no date given. Taking ALL of this evidence--and note it took several census records to do it--I have pretty good evidence that Cash was married first in 1881-1882, so certainly looks like this is the Cash who married Janie in 1882--and the Cash who is named as father to Elijah. I'll buy it. My next problem is Cash's father. All I have at the moment is Grandfather Lewis' oldest son, age 17 on the 1850-1860 census--the only one old enough (barely!) to be Cash's father. Then we jump to 9 year old Cash in Lewis' household 1870. NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO DECLARE ANYTHING! Oh wait, one more piece of "evidence"--I know this family so well that I am not at all surprised at the thought of an early marriage--a 17 year old male in this family (and in this farming community) was by no means an usual groom. It's certainly plausible. I also know history--so I suspect that Cash's father marched down to the enlistment office in April 1861 (Cash was born May 1861), signed up for the CSA, and never returned. Even that "suspicion" is evidence. What do I need to declare Cash's parents? A marriage record, of course--but it's a burned county. A Civil War record would help explain what happened to the oldest son who MIGHT be his father. Someone else's probate or other records that refer to a grandson Cash would give me a mother. But again, we're talking a burned county. Probably not going to find those things. None of the hearsay evidence I have (two books on the family) says anything--except that Lewis had a SON named Cash--true, but he appears to have died before age 10, and I have evidence that Cash was a grandson. So where from here? No telling--we just keep waiting for ANY pieces of evidence (pieces of the puzzle!) that might fill in the gaps and assure me I've found Cash's parents. It's taken us two years to determine Elijah's! Bits and pieces. Odds and ends. And at some point, maybe I'll have enough "weight" to say, yes, this son of Lewis' is Cash's father. But the mother is going to be a REAL challenge! Karen Dale ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Drake<mailto:pauldrake@charter.net> To: VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:VA-SOUTHSIDE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 12:17 PM Subject: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE Thanks to Marketta, who asks what we mean by "genealogical clues". My answer will likely start a fire-storm, but so be it. In short, there ain't no such animal as a "clue". There is only evidence. Every single scrap, word, document, memento, citation, entry in a courthouse or archive, and every recollection and anecdote of every family member or acquaintance that in ANY way tends to establish some certain lineage IS evidence, and each bit of that evidence varies, not in kind, but only in reliability and the weight to be accorded that material. We gather all those pieces of evidence that we can find; some very powerful and convincing and other bits very weak or perhaps even valueless. Still, it all is evidence, and when our little pile of evidence is big and weighty enough, we say we have "proved" the hypothesis (relationship). UNLESS we are teaching, that is all there is to the whole matter of evidence and proof. To waste time, thought, and e-mail space hunting for appropriate labels or deciding whether this or that scrap of evidence is primary, secondary, direct, indirect, hearsay, circumstantial, or any other of those labels some folks attach, is simply silly. In research - ours and all other - reliability and weight are the sole determining factors as to what we should heed and what we should ignore or set aside. That is true, no matter who provides that evidence, where it was found, or what it may have been called by some abstractor or family history writer. Finally, as you consider the above, be aware of a most fundamental and basic tenet evidence. We label some bits of evidence as hearsay (or circumstantial, or etc.) because those are unreliable; we do NOT say those are unreliable because such are hearsay. Paul ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== USGenWeb Archives http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb<http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb> Do Not Flame other Members on List. If you have problems or concerns with list posts, contact the List Administrator. glh@naxs.com<mailto:glh@naxs.com> ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx<http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx>

Hi, Karen. You have done much searching and analyzing; good for you!! You have a substantial little pile of evidence. If you don't mind my saying so, you explained what you had clearly, but why did you tell us you had "hearsay" sources? Can you see, Nice and Dear Lady, that after you say those words, we know not one whit more about those bits of evidence; the label helped us not atall? Finally near the end, you say that your "secondary sources" were books. Why not just tell us that "Books were my sources as to facts X and Y", rather than force us to guess what those bits of evidence really were ? Then too, you say "hard evidence"; would a headstone so qualify? If you think not, then tell us why, please. If you think it would, I would suggest that headstones are hearsay in its most classical and purest form, yet we do not call those by any label, do we? And for good reason; that goofy label tells us ZIP about the headstone, yet we surely put headstones in our little piles of evidence for whatever truth there may be there, huh? Oh yeh, did I mention that a headstone also is "circumstantial" in its purest form? Hey too, headstones are surely "secondary", don't you guess? But wait, those stones are certainly also "primary" (even if in error) that someone is buried there, huh? All these faults and different labels, yet we still keep the headstone info in our files. Again, good job of collecting and ordering your bits and scraps of evidentiary material. Paul