UNSUBSCRIBE ----- Original Message ----- From: "cristy" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:32 AM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] application for pension question > I checked with NC and they want $20.00 per inquiry (per category and per > name researched), ouch for me. > > christy > > > > ============================== > 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

Hi, I am looking for information on the Carey family of Bedford, VA. All the information that I have is listed below. Any additional information on this family would be greatly appreciated. STEPHEN CAREY was born May 1840 in Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. Stephen was listed in the 1900 census as living in Liberty, Bedford, VA. He married ANN. She was born Jun 1862 in Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. Children of STEPHEN CAREY and ANN are: RASMIUS CAREY, b. Oct 1889, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia; m. KATE J CAREY. If this is the right RASMIUS during the 1930 census he may have lived in Lisbon, Bedford Co. VA. ANNA CAREY, b. May 1892, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. ANNA CAREY was in the 1900 census in Liberty, Bedford Co., VA JOSHUA CAREY, b. Feb 1893, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. JOSHUA CAREY was in the 1900 census, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia NELLIE CAREY, b. 1895, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. NELLIE CAREY was in the 1900 census, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia GEORGANNA CAREY, b. Apr 1897, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia. GEORGANNA CAREY was in the 1900 census, Liberty, Bedford, Virginia JORDAN CAREY, b. Nov 1888, Liberty, Bedford, VA. He was listed in the 1900 census at Liberty, Bedford, VA. He married Matilda Jordan who was born somewhere in VA. Children of JORDAN CAREY and MATILDA JORDAN are: VIRGIE C. CAREY, b. 08 Oct 1910; d. 27 Jun 2000, Bedford, VA; m ? Williams. HENRY HARTWELL CAREY, b. 30 Jun 1922, Bedford, Virginia; d. 06 Dec 1996, Bedford, Virginia. He married Cameria C. Perry who was born 5 January 1922 in Portsmouth, VA and died 26 January 2003 in Havelock, Craven, NC. Henry was buried 11 Dec 1996. He was elected president of the NAACP for 20 years. He belonged to the lion's club. He had 30 years of military service in the army which ended 1978. Between 1988 and 1996 he was a builder. He worked for Rubatex for 10 years Thanks, Anna

Hi Donna, Thank you for the offer. Are there any Lambert's or Swinks in your book? Thank you, Glenda

Hi, Pat. I had an old genius professor a long time ago who often said that letters after one's name is rather like belonging to the book-of-the-month Club. The question is not how many books (or diplomas or degrees or certifications) one has, it is what that person has done with his/her books (or training). The NGS has come as close as one can to setting forth an explanation of some methods of testing information. In spite of their cogent rules and plan, I believe that most folks simply wallow along gathering evidence and rereading their own and the words of others until one morning they shout to themselves "EUREKA, in what world have I been?????!!!! G-GPaw's mom had to be Sadie Smith" Even with no knowledge of or rules of evidence or organization at hand, if such folks preserve their notes and references to sources and share those with others, our genealogical community will advance, no matter the form in which the information is preserved. Both NGS and LDS have furthered understanding and research far more than any other single group or author and years ago published the very arguments we often here have. KUDOS to them and their efforts. So keep your sources, tell others of your discoveries, write of those if you have the time and inclination, and NEVER decide that NGS, you or your favorite author, group or society have the only keys to it all; none of us do - NONE!!! In short, there ain't no Delphian Oracle !!!

Though still most subjective (since everything on Earth derives from something previous in time), "derivative source" is surely far more descriptive than is the expression "secondary source".

Thanks for that extra tidbit' of info! One of the things I like is how it shows what things originally were called and then what they are as of 1966. Like.... Gaymont - Estate of Gays, Pritchards. Now Potomac Conference of Seventh Day Adventists. Bessie Weller School on part of this estate. Have a good day! Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: "DOC HURT" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Shirley's Guidebook To Augusta County, Staunton & Waynesboro > Hey Donna, > Gen. Jubal Early was from Franklin Co., VA. and is buried in Spring Hill > Cemetery in Lynchburg, Campbell Co., VA. > > > Happy Hunting > doc > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donna Rousseau" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:37 AM > Subject: [VAROOTS] Shirley's Guidebook To Augusta County, Staunton & > Waynesboro > > >>I was going through a box of old family papers that my mother gave me >>yesterday, and stumbled across this book by Paul C. Shirley dated 1966. >>It gives interesting tidbits about the area. I'd be happy to do lookups >>if anyone is interested. Here's a couple examples: >> >> Aspen Hill - (1816). Built by John Trimble. Off Rt. 250 south, (Hanger, >> Hamilton, Waller). Rt. 612. >> >> Bosang's Tavern - On site of Central M. E. Church educational building. >> The notorious gambler, Robert Bailey, married the widow Bosang. Waddell >> pg 377. >> >> Early, Gen. Jubal. - Southern Civil War officer had his headquarters, >> December 1894, in the building now occupied by Schmid's Printery. >> >> Interesting little book to stumble upon ;) >> >> Donna Rousseau >> "Do not go where there is a path.... >> Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail..." >> >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> >> > > > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >

>>>It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones between "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of what is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" to "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. <<<< Paul and all, I agree with what you are saying, but a couple of additions. First, let me say that I do not hold any genealogical certifications, but hope to some day, and try to do credible research now. I should say, that I didn't get the original "forward" from VA-Southside, and this may have already been covered, If so, please excuse the repetition. My research today shows: Even though the term may still be used, and abused by various "judges," "Preponderance of evidence" is no longer the accepted standard by, at least, the National Genealogical Society, nor by any society with which I am familiar. Of course, that leaves a bunch I am not familiar with <G>. The current standards are, in a few words: As quoted from http://genealogy.about.com/cs/citing/a/proof.htm which is quoting from: the "BCG [Board for Certification of Genealogists] Genealogical Standards Manual" "The Genealogical Proof Standard consists of five elements: A reasonably exhaustive search for all pertinent information A complete and accurate citation to the source of each item used Analysis of the collected information's quality as evidence Resolution of any conflicting or contradictory evidence Arrive at a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion A genealogical conclusion that meets these standards can be considered proved. It may still not be 100% accurate, but it is as close to accurate as we can attain given the information and sources available to us." Now, the soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion should, in my view, include not only the "end" but the "journey" -- it would help others know what your reasoning is. Not that they have to agree, but at least they have a place to "jump" from. Further, what "clues, evidence, or information"? from the National Genealogical Society: "Genealogical Standards & Guidelines Standards For Sound Genealogical Research Recommended by the National Genealogical Society Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently- record the source for each item of information they collect. test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence. seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions. use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them. state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others. limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible. avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information. state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work. recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment. consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached. C 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice." Now, in my view, the critical items there are "reasonably exhaustive search" and the setting up of an hypothesis and testing the evidence, coupled with a coherent explanation, using the appropriate terminology. Where I see huge errors in genealogies, published in books, or on the internet now, is that sometimes the researcher has apparently stopped at the first "John Jones" who even vaguely meets the criteria (clue: family tradition says John left Kentucky and moved to Missouri with his wife Mary). The fact that there were 40 "John Jones" who had wives "Mary" in the 1850 Missouri census, who were born in Kentucky, escapes notice. So, always ask, "could there be another explanation for . . . " and do the research. And, instead of saying "John and Mary Jones moved to Jackson County, Missouri" you might say, "Based on the ages, names of children, and other families on nearby farms, the John and Mary Jones living in Jackson County, Missouri, are likely (probably) the family that moved from Kentucky in 1845. No other Jones family in Missouri on the census had a son "Philbert", a common name for this Jones family." (Oh, and that's an easy one, you could have one with all the cousins named the same thing. <G>) FURTHER, all evidence/clues should be kept, (i.e., identify your sources and why you did/did not use the evidence "as is"), and maybe shared, by the researcher. Otherwise, your conclusions just become, in fifty years, another of the infamous "family traditions" right up there with the "Aunt Mabel said". . . "three brothers who left _______ for America in _____ to escape the ________. (Didn't four or two brothers ever leave? And what about the sisters?......hmmm, now there's a clue <G>) Now, my confession is that I have done and occasionally do, some piece of research, say a census search, and, in my head, do the above testing. But, having found the person who meets the total criteria, I cite the source, and move on without noting the other "candidates" and why they were not acceptable. Big problem with this is that in six months, (or in two days, sometimes) something else comes up and I have to go back and "prove" it all over again. Big waste of time, and if I have published it in the interim, the potential of a big embarrassment, if I don't have all my ducks in a row. All in all, semantics aside -- isn't this a great way to spend a day, week, . . . .lifetime? Regards, Pat (in Tucson) Nosco vestri atavi est ingredior intellego vestri ego (To become acquainted with your ancestors is to begin to comprehend your self)

I was going through a box of old family papers that my mother gave me yesterday, and stumbled across this book by Paul C. Shirley dated 1966. It gives interesting tidbits about the area. I'd be happy to do lookups if anyone is interested. Here's a couple examples: Aspen Hill - (1816). Built by John Trimble. Off Rt. 250 south, (Hanger, Hamilton, Waller). Rt. 612. Bosang's Tavern - On site of Central M. E. Church educational building. The notorious gambler, Robert Bailey, married the widow Bosang. Waddell pg 377. Early, Gen. Jubal. - Southern Civil War officer had his headquarters, December 1894, in the building now occupied by Schmid's Printery. Interesting little book to stumble upon ;) Donna Rousseau "Do not go where there is a path.... Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail..."

This was SO true of my grandfathers death certificate which had been completed by one of my distraught Aunts .... and the info was what she knew. She gave the wrong parents names .... had his dad listed as James instead of Frank, had is mother at "Pet" which was a nickname. I have the "proof of death" but the information is just not accurate other than the death information. I can only IMAGINE how confused future researchers will be when they happen upon it. Angelee > >Even death records may or may not have correct information. Certainly the >information is only as good as the reporter can make it. The same is often true >of census records - they may contain information from neighbors who don't >know the correct names, ages or kinship. > > > > > >

Hey Donna, Gen. Jubal Early was from Franklin Co., VA. and is buried in Spring Hill Cemetery in Lynchburg, Campbell Co., VA. Happy Hunting doc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donna Rousseau" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 6:37 AM Subject: [VAROOTS] Shirley's Guidebook To Augusta County, Staunton & Waynesboro >I was going through a box of old family papers that my mother gave me >yesterday, and stumbled across this book by Paul C. Shirley dated 1966. It >gives interesting tidbits about the area. I'd be happy to do lookups if >anyone is interested. Here's a couple examples: > > Aspen Hill - (1816). Built by John Trimble. Off Rt. 250 south, (Hanger, > Hamilton, Waller). Rt. 612. > > Bosang's Tavern - On site of Central M. E. Church educational building. > The notorious gambler, Robert Bailey, married the widow Bosang. Waddell > pg 377. > > Early, Gen. Jubal. - Southern Civil War officer had his headquarters, > December 1894, in the building now occupied by Schmid's Printery. > > Interesting little book to stumble upon ;) > > Donna Rousseau > "Do not go where there is a path.... > Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail..." > > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > >

In 55 years, I have never found any substantial group of records, public or private, that did not contain occasional errors. Mistakes are a part of the recording of history, and we must expect and compensate for such with further research.

Go to the library in Smithfield, county seat of Isle of Wight Co., VA. They have all that right there for your convenience and also lots of old records of that county. Good luck. Dorothy C. White [email protected] 804.795.4296 > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 12:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [VAROOTS] VA cemeteries in IoW ? > > > I am going to be visiting southern VA the whole second week > of November :) and have a couple of items that I am searching > for before hand ... > > looking for a listing of cemeteries in Isle of Wight Co. and > if possible any accessible transcription for any of those > cemeteries that "might" be on the internet ... it's ok to > refresh my memory of the usual places / links as I might have > forgotten one or more of them :/ besides who knows who else > is on this List that might be wondering about the same thing :) > > also any advise for libraries, genealogical societies etc. > for researching at :) > > Ken Hedgpeth ~ Altadena -> Pasadena, CA ~ USA > searching for all H*D*P*TH variants World Wide ! > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hedgpeth/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn > more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >

I am going to be visiting southern VA the whole second week of November :) and have a couple of items that I am searching for before hand ... looking for a listing of cemeteries in Isle of Wight Co. and if possible any accessible transcription for any of those cemeteries that "might" be on the internet ... it's ok to refresh my memory of the usual places / links as I might have forgotten one or more of them :/ besides who knows who else is on this List that might be wondering about the same thing :) also any advise for libraries, genealogical societies etc. for researching at :) Ken Hedgpeth ~ Altadena -> Pasadena, CA ~ USA searching for all H*D*P*TH variants World Wide ! http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hedgpeth/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

this wasn't going to be my first posting here ... but here goes anyhow :) Bev wrote: "Even death records may or may not have correct information. Certainly the information is only as good as the reporter can make it ... " << snip >> this touches on a death certificate I received for my great grandfather [my dad's mother's father] he was divorced in 1911 before my grandmother was a year old, and died in 1923 ... after nearly TEN year search and finally getting hooked-up with the internet in Dec. 1999 ... I located a half brother of my grandma's ... that she had only hear about, but never got to meet him :( turns out the lady listed as my great grandfather's mother on his death record, WAS actually his fathers mother :/ the father was the informant on the record ... so we can only guess that the person filling out the form asked poor "old" Samuel Hall for his name, and then might have said, "and the mother" ... and Samuel gave his own mothers name by mistake :( Ken Hedgpeth ~ Altadena -> Pasadean, CA ~ USA searching for all H*D*P*TH variants World Wide ! http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hedgpeth/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .

Concerning hearsay and evidence, one must always remember the old adage: Every written (or spoken) word is somebody's opinion. It may be written but it isn't necessarily so. Marj in NC -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. Then too you have made my point with his very words: "but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in terms of evidence rather than sources." What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact as having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all who are interested in that particular group of facts. I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the centuries have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have succeeded in doing so in a couple of sentences. Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value to a genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, None. !! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many angels could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? ______________________________

Just a hint. When you reply to a message don't retain all of the older messages beneath it. It wastes bandwith, make digests much longer for those who get their messages in digests, and wastes hard drive space in the archives where all messages are stored permanently. All you should have included was: *sorry. I know better than that. Just very tired. Excuse me for not trimming the post. christy

Le I think that's interesting. When my parents were born, Va was not requiring birth records (1906 & 1907), so neither of them had a birth certificte until they wanted to travel to South America. I filed the paperwork and proved they were 'born' with 2 census records and my sister's birth certificate - none of which showed their parents names. However their birth certificates are now 'proof' that they are the children of their parents. A birth certificate does not necessarily mean that the information is correct. Yet several organizations would require them as proof that "you are who you say you are" and I would have to supply them to join. Even death records may or may not have correct information. Certainly the information is only as good as the reporter can make it. The same is often true of census records - they may contain information from neighbors who don't know the correct names, ages or kinship. We all have to be very careful. The supposed parents of my gggg grandfather have never been proven by any legal document, but they are stated in numerous printed and internet copies of the Anderson genealogies. In my own work, I've stated what I know and let the reader decide for themselves. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE Date: 10/6/2005 9:57:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent from the Internet (Details) To Whom it may Concern When I joined the SCV in 1983, I only mailed in a page that had my ancestor's service in the 15th Alabama, I did not have to provide birth certificate, marriage records for my parents, death certificates for my grandparents, and census records showing head of household the enumeration of children, and Confederate Service records that are required now. I have recruited at least five people for the Military Order of the Stars & Bars. They had to provide birth certificates for themselves, and their parents, their parents marriage records, also the marriage records or death certificates for their grandparents documents going back to their Confederate ancestor. A person, even had to provide his ancestor's parole paper in 1865. One person had to go back more than three generations. So things have changed you have to prove to them you are who you say you are. Le ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Drake" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE I think that acceptability of genealogical evidence is purely a question of whom one must satisfy with the presentation. The standards of Jamestown Society, DAR and SAR are VERY high, while proof sufficient in the eyes of SUV or SCV is considerably less stringent. As to the reasoning - deductive, inductive or whatever - that is used to determine what is adequate evidence and what is not sufficient is quite another matter. I know of no organization that looks beyond what facts are presented in view of what those people find adequate. It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones between "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of what is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" to "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. I hope I have contributed something to your question, however I am not atall convinced that I have done much more than babble. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Grace Upshaw To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE Hi Paul: Speaking of genealogical evidence is deductive reasoning acceptable as evidence? Example: George Somers gives land to his son, James. John Somers names his brother, James Somers, as executor of his will. Therefore George Somers is the father of John Somers. Is this example acceptable as proof of John's parentage?.Also, George had a grandson named John Landman ( from a deed from George), which means his daughter was the mother of the gr.son. Her name was Sythia Blake Landman. There was a John Somers whose wife was named Sythia Blake...now is that proof that George was the son of Sythia Blake and her husband John Somers? This from my family. Others have told me I need more tangible proof.But it just doesn't exist. I hope my reasoning is sufficient. Paul Drake wrote: >I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his >statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. > >Then too you have made my point with his very words: >"but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in >terms of evidence rather than sources." > >What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact as >having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and >weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, >untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all who >are interested in that particular group of facts. > >I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the centuries >have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have succeeded >in doing so in a couple of sentences. > >Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is >hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value to a >genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, None. >!! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many angels >could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? > > > >============================== >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > > > > ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005 ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599& targetid=5429 ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 -

What is the SCV please?' Thanks, christy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Le Bateman" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE > To Whom it may Concern > When I joined the SCV in 1983, I only mailed in a page that had my > ancestor's service in the 15th Alabama, I did not have to provide birth > certificate, marriage records for my parents, death certificates for my > grandparents, and census records showing head of household the > enumeration > of children, and Confederate Service records that are required now. I > have > recruited at least five people for the Military Order of the Stars & Bars. > They had to provide birth certificates for themselves, and their parents, > their parents marriage records, also the marriage records or death > certificates for their grandparents documents going back to their > Confederate ancestor. A person, even had to provide his ancestor's parole > paper in 1865. One person had to go back more than three generations. So > things have changed you have to prove to them you are who you say you are. > Le > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Drake" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:31 PM > Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE > > > I think that acceptability of genealogical evidence is purely a question > of > whom one must satisfy with the presentation. The standards of Jamestown > Society, DAR and SAR are VERY high, while proof sufficient in the eyes of > SUV or SCV is considerably less stringent. > > As to the reasoning - deductive, inductive or whatever - that is used to > determine what is adequate evidence and what is not sufficient is quite > another matter. I know of no organization that looks beyond what facts are > presented in view of what those people find adequate. > > It would seem that those judges wander to and fro in the gray zones > between > "inescapable" and "maybe", and have no rules by which we may predict what > will be required of us. Is that bad? I think not; the whole question of > what > is adequate to justify the intellectual leap from "looks like it may be" > to > "of course it must be" may not be stated with any semblance of reality. > > I have seen a number of such questions, the reasoning behind most of which > are so subjective as to be almost irrelevant in the eyes of the judges. > > I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications > still > mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of > evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion. I hope I have > contributed something to your question, however I am not atall convinced > that I have done much more than babble. > > Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grace Upshaw > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE > > > Hi Paul: Speaking of genealogical evidence is deductive reasoning > acceptable as evidence? Example: George Somers gives land to his son, > James. John Somers names his brother, James Somers, as executor of his > will. Therefore George Somers is the father of John Somers. Is this > example acceptable as proof of John's parentage?.Also, George had a > grandson named John Landman ( from a deed from George), which means his > daughter was the mother of the gr.son. Her name was Sythia Blake > Landman. There was a John Somers whose wife was named Sythia > Blake...now is that proof that George was the son of Sythia Blake and > her husband John Somers? This from my family. Others have told me I need > more tangible proof.But it just doesn't exist. I hope my reasoning is > sufficient. > > Paul Drake wrote: > > >I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his > >statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. > > > >Then too you have made my point with his very words: > >"but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in > >terms of evidence rather than sources." > > > >What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact > as > >having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and > >weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, > >untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all > who > >are interested in that particular group of facts. > > > >I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the > centuries > >have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have > succeeded > >in doing so in a couple of sentences. > > > >Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is > >hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value > to > a > >genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, > None. > >!! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many > angels > >could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? > > > > > > > >============================== > >Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > >areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > >Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: > 10/6/2005 > > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > > > ============================== > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors > at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: > http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 > >

I well know of those standards, and I admire the effort and draftsmanship by the many that resulted in those "rules". Ah, but the devil is in the details, isn't he???? e.g., the tenuous definition of the terms "resolution of any conflicting" evidence", and also the very subjective expression, "soundly reasoned", in #5. ???? Whatever; all of us (or almost all) are attempting, as well we should, to establish readily understandable and reasonable approaches to some very difficult research problems. Paul ----- Original Message ----- 1. a reasonably exhaustive search; 2. complete and accurate source citations; 3. analysis and correlation of the collected information; 4. resolution of any conflicting evidence; and 5. a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. Rick Saunders http://genealogypro.com/fsaunders.html

I enjoyed your comments, Rick, thoroughly agree, yet would still ask what more I know about any scrap of evidence from the labels with which it comes with no further explanation. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Fredric Z. Saunders To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [VAROOTS] Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE "...that to describe a genealogical fact as having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and weight..." That is why the genealogical community has for several years been trying to reeducate people not to use the terms "primary source" and "secondary source." They do not exist. A source is either original or derivative, of which there are various degrees. A will recorded in a will book is a first-generation derivative from the original will. A microfilm of the will book is second-generation. A published abstract made from the microfilm is third-generation. Someone's notes of that abstract are fourth-generation. The information in either an original source or a derivative source can be either primary information, secondary information, and is often a combination of both. The evidence in the information is either direct or indirect (which is what Grace had in her examples). "I would add that so long as anyone in positions to judge applications still mouths the words "preponderance of evidence" when measuring quantities of evidence, there will be no standards worth the discussion." Preponderance of evidence (a term borrowed from law) is also a term that should no longer be used in genealogy. This is another step in reeducating people that learned this term when it was "acceptable" in genealogy. Rick Saunders http://genealogypro.com/fsaunders.html -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005 ============================== New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more: http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.11/121 - Release Date: 10/6/2005