Authentic Appalachian Storyteller, This is the first time ever that I have seen an explanation of settlement of early Virginia that made sense. I hope you'll continue to share. I would like to know more about Draper's Meadow. I have a suspicion that was where my 5th g-grandfather was killed. Thanks, Jemima G. Lee Hearl" <glh@naxs.com> wrote June 29, 2000 Subject: General Locations of Settlements 1755-1774 > Jemima, > As Patton and Walker explored the grants they had obtained on Woods (New) > River and the three branches of the Holston 1749-50 a few settlers also went > along looking for land and some tracts were surveyed along New River for > them.. The first settlement were made near present-day Blacksburg and > Pulaski along New River.. > The Dunkards appear to have been the first group to settle along that river > about 1749.. By 1755 many families had settled there.. The Indians attacked > all of the settlements from 1750 to 1760 and many of the settlers had to > leave for their safety.. Some retreated back to the James River basin while > others crossed the Blue Ridge and into Carolina, some never returned to to > the lands on New River.. > By 1769 the Indians were generally peaceful toward the whites and many moved > to the three branches of the Holston river, further southwest.. By 1770 many > were living in present-day Tennessee, it was NC in 1770.. Settlements had > been established near present Kingsport, Tn., Johnson City and Elizabethton > (Watauga Settlement). > In Virginia, settlements were established at Wolf Hills (Abingdon), Sapling > Grove (Bristol) and Castles' Woods (On the Clinch River).. In 1773-74 the > Indians became a menace to the settlements in that area as well as the New > River area and many settlers on the Clinch and Powell Rivers retreated. Many > returned to North Carolina, including several from the group led by Daniel > Boone in 1773.. James Harrod and a few others had established settlements > in Kentucky in 1774 but there was little migration to that area until 1775 > when the purchase by Henderson spurred settlement there.. Many people went > there but found the situation to hostle and returned to the east of > Cumberland Gap.. > Lead and other minerals were discovered near Wytheville, Va. and mining > employed many in that area between 1770 and 1800.. This accounts for many > who lived in that area but owned little or no land because they were not > engaged in farming and just needed enough land for a cow and a garden.. At > least half the people who migrated into Ky and Tenn.. probably passed down > the valley of Va. across New River and down the branches of the Holston... > Hope this explains some things about early settlement of the west.. > G. Lee Hearl > Authentic Appalachian Storyteller > Abingdon, Virginia >

I was hoping someone else might enter the recent conversation on courtesy in our exchanges, upholding the importance of accuracy. But, a bit of time has passed, and I suspect I should do so. This is not to belittle the virtue of courtesy, but there is also virtue (perhaps even more virtue) in "getting it right." I understand there are some working in family history for whom quantity is the key � the more relatives the better. But ultimately, we should be equally concerned for the quality of our work. If I may, permit me to list a few objectives: � Identify the faith you have in claims and information you provide. Is a "fact" documented? a hunch? a theory? an inference?, possible? probable? most likely? Such words communicate real information that is an essential part of using that information. � Respect the faith of others. You can disagree and have more faith than others have in the same information, but if you associate their name with the material, respect the faith that they have. I bristle when I see my "theories" reported as "facts" with my name attached. When you identify a source for your information you show respect for someone else's work. Extend that respect to their judgement about the accuracy of what they report. � Don't believe everything you read in books. We all appreciate Maud Clements and what she left us. It is invaluable and important. We do not disrespect her when we point out she has erred. In fact, we express respect for her desire to get it right. We have information available to us she did not. We ought to find errs in claims made with the information she had available, or what's the benefit of more information. We disrespect her far more when we repeat her material without recognizing the error. � Explain the evidence you have for your claims. Does it come from county records? From family? From a Bible? This respects the right of others to draw their own conclusions about information. Especially today, there is a very real cost to simply repeating misinformation. I will list two: First, as any of us who are using the internet know, a search engine attempt results in a blizzard of hits that are totally unhelpful because they repeat wrong information. We have to sort through the blizzard to find the morsel of information that we did not have. The same thing can be said for the gedcoms now available from free and commercial houses. They may provide us clues, but finding the wheat in the unweeded is often difficult. The more misinformation is repeated, the less efficient our research becomes. Second, people who do respect the truth become more reluctant to share as they discover themselves misrepresented with supposition repeated as fact. Together we make progress as we turn hunches into suppositions into theories into probabilities into documented facts. That process is easier to advance together. So as we become afraid to send information, our progress is impaired. I repeat that I recognize the virtue of courtesy toward our fellow researchers, but a charge of being wrong is not an insult. We have all been wrong. I thank my correspondent who points out my errors. S/he respects my interest in accuracy. I have named no names here, and no one need take personal offense. None intended. I simply want to make certain that our reminder of the virtue of courtesy is matched by a reminder of the virtue of respecting truth. Sorry to be preachy, but it seems a necessary sermon. In the best of all possible worlds, we would not hesitate to send forth things that we have found, but would be sensitive to whether they are right or wrong. ---------------------- James F. Klumpp jk44@umail.umd.edu Voice: 301-405-6520 FAX: 301-314-9471 HomePage: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm

Thanks, Mr. Klumpp. I couldn't have said it better myself. Richard K.

Mr. Klumpp has done all of us on the list a great service by his discussion of courtesy and accuracy. This is from his message: I repeat that I recognize the virtue of courtesy toward our fellow researchers, but a charge of being wrong is not an insult. We have all been wrong. I thank my correspondent who points out my errors. S/he respects my interest in accuracy. I agree wholeheartedly with these statements. When he says that we have all been wrong, I believe that he means to say that we all make errors. Who doesn't? I would point out, however, that opining that one or more items of evidence contain errors is not the same thing as saying that the conclusions drawn from "the preponderance of the evidence" is "wrong". No one can argue reasonably that the will of Benjamin Clement naming a wife Susannah and a granddaughter Susannah Hill Butterworth is not a primary source document nor that the statements made in the that will are not "accurate". Some of the other items of evidence that I cited from my supplemental application to the Jamestowne Society may be of questionable accuracy. Because some of the items are questionable does not prove that all of the items are questionable. Each item must be judged on its own merits. And because some of the items of evidence are judged to be of questionable accuracy does not prove that the conlusions reached are "wrong". I will be delighted if evidence can be presented pointing to persons other than Isaac Hill and Margaret Jenings as the parents of Susannah, wife of Benjamin Clement. I am always delighted when someone presents documentation proving that a relationship that I thought that I had establised is "wrong". I always want to "get it right". I earnestly solicit from you all any scraps of evidence that you may have that tend either to approve or to disapprove that Susannah, wife of Benjamin Clement, was Susannah Hill. Richard K. Richard K.