I guess it may be in some measure the attitudes of the state genealogists. As a member, ex-Camp Cdr., etc., I have come to know that our state - TN - is not as exacting as you have mentioned. More power to your state organization, Le. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Le Bateman To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:56 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 -- 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

Forwarded by List Mom, Mr. Dean is not subscribed so please reply to him not the list, Derrell Oakley Teat -----Original Message----- From: fdean [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:52 PM To: [email protected]; VAROOTS-L Subject: {not a subscriber} John DEAN(E) Researching John DEAN(E), b. VA ca 1748? died Charles City Co., VA 1815.John's wife believed to be Elizabeth Jackson, died after 1834. Believe that John and Elizabeth were parents of Christopher P. (possibly Preston) DEAN(E) as Christopher administered John's (intestate) estate. Christopher P. DEAN(E), b, VA 1794, md Mary HOGG 2/23/1822 in Richmond, Henrico Co, VA Children: Robt Dean, Martha E. Dean, Wm H. Dean, Mary Ann Dean, Virginia Dean. All lived in Richmond (city), VA. Frank Dean Arnold, MD

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

The explanations of those "scraps of information" are what the Genealogical Proof Standard http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html is for, which consists of: 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 -- 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

"...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

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

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 > > > > >

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?

Dear Readers - I respond to this discussion ONLY because I had just this week been reading an article which mentions "hearsay" evidence (and other definitions). The article is "Evaluating Evidence" by Val. D. Greenwood (an Accredited Genealogist and a Fellow of the Utah Genealogical Association). It is found in the 1997 Genealogical Journal of the UGA, Vol. 25 No. 2, which I had picked up at the FGS convention in SLC last month. He defines evidence as "anything that pertains to or establishes the point or issue in question. It is the medium by which facts are proven." He talks about the types of evidence: direct, circumstantial primary, secondary collateral and hearsay. His definition of hearsay evidence is: any evidence that is outside of the personal knowledge of the witness providing it." He goes on to say that the term hearsay applies to that which is WRITTEN (my emphasis) as well as to that which is spoken. Therefore, he points out, "virtually all evidence we use in genealogical research is hearsay evidence..." Another point he brings up is one he says "not everyone agrees with me on this issue..." - "but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in terms of evidence rather than sources." He points out that sources may contain more than one type of evidence, secondary as well as primary, and uses a death certificate as an example. The primary evidence is the date and place of death, whereas any other data may be secondary - parents' names, place of birth, even the actual name of the decedent (my interpretation). You mention the gravestone - the date of death may have been given to the engraver from a primary source, but there might be errors in transcription of the date, or the name or anything else. But, by his definition, it is still hearsay. Which should not, in the instance of genealogy, count against it. Mr. Greenwood also suggests more reading on the subject of evidence and its relationship to genealogy: 1. His own book "The Researcher's Guide to American Genealogy, 2d ed. (Baltimore Genealogical Publishing Co.) 1990, chap. 4, "Evaluation of Evidence." 2. Noel C. Stevenson, Genealogical Evidence, rev. ed. (Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press) 1979. See especially chapter 21, "Rules of Evidence Applied to Genealogy," and chapter 22, "Hearsay Evidence." Then again, we have our own expert, Paul. Oh, by the way, I consider a "clue" as undocumented information I receive from others. Paul Drake wrote: > 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 > > > ==== VA-SOUTHSIDE Mailing List ==== > USGenWeb Archives 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. [email protected] > > ============================== > 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 > > >

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

thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: Derrell Oakley Teat To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 4:20 PM Subject: [VAROOTS] Scottish Wedding Customs I found this web site & want to share. Derrell oakley Teat http://www.lineages.co.uk/2005/10/03/old-scots-wedding-customs-revealed/ ============================== 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: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 10/3/2005

I found this web site & want to share. Derrell oakley Teat http://www.lineages.co.uk/2005/10/03/old-scots-wedding-customs-revealed/

Re-Post Subject: Re: whitehead's of prince edward co., or elsewhere in VA > Does anyone have a John D. WHITEHEAD that md an Amelia WRIGHT in VA prior > to 1880? They lived in Richmond (Henrico Co.) or perhaps, just in Richmond > city as not all of Richmond was in the county. JDW is deceased by 1900. > Frank Dean > Researching WRIGHT >

We've just learned that the Pittsylvania Co., VA Heritage Book Committee is still taking orders...but only until Oct. 29. For details, click on and print: http://www.myvirginiaheritage.com/heritage_books/Pitt2pg3.pdf Must be postmarked by Oct. 29 !!

Hey Vicky, AI need to get all the info I can on the DALTON'S in Pittsy6lvania Co., VA, can you help me with this! Happy Hunting doc ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: [VAROOTS] Last call; Pittsylvania Co., VA Heritage-Vol. 2 > > We've just learned that the Pittsylvania Co., VA Heritage Book Committee > is > still taking orders...but only until Oct. 29. For details, click on and > print: > http://www.myvirginiaheritage.com/heritage_books/Pitt2pg3.pdf > > Must be postmarked by Oct. 29 !! > > > ============================== > 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 > >

RE: The "kil by" message -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Re: [VAROOTS] "kil by"] Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 13:00:22 -0400 From: Steven L. Wright <[email protected]> Reply-To: Steven L. Wright <[email protected]> To: E. A. Kaspar <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> Bev and Elizabeth, I might have a different perspective if I saw the original. But perhaps not. However, the report I sent you gives a fair synopsis of the event. In researching to write my history of the 6th Kentucky Cavalry [Union] I have uncovered two additional rolls of descriptive lists that did not make it into the original Compiled Service Records. Among the additions is a bit more information on Alfred Wright. He was described as being 21 years of age, with florid complexion, dark hair and hazel eyes; farmer, born in Taylor County. His hair and eyes are the same as mine which made me feel kind of good. Unfortunately, there was nothing else on his brother-in-law, James Morris. Every little bit helps, though. Regards, Steve PS: Please forward to Bev -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [VAROOTS] "kil by" Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:24:57 Reply-To: [email protected] To: [email protected] Thanks Steve - That might resolve the issue. This is probably the worse page of all the copies I made - it's very dark and difficult to read. Bev

Thank you to everyone who took time to write with ideas & thoughts on the terminology "delivered to ....." that was written in the margin of an Indenture record in my possession. I have gained insights rather than made assumptions. <grin> Bette > In the time period of which you speak, intention, execution and "delivery" > of a deed or other instrument of land transfer to the buyer (or grantee) > in order that the transfer be complete. > > Said another way, you could write and sign deeds all day long, but if you > did not deliver - actually or constructively - those to the intended > grantees, the deeds were of NO legal effect.

Thanks anyway Bev. I may have to get this on my next trip to LVA. Best Regards, Tim In a message dated 9/30/2005 10:05:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: I checked but my published version stops in 1853. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: [VAROOTS] Lookup Date: 9/30/2005 9:50:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent from the Internet (Details) If someone has a Marriage Bond book for Albemarle Co., VA I am interested in the people (bondsman, etc.) present at the Marriage of Robert E. WINE to Mary E. SPRADLING on 2/4/1864. Thanks, Tim Spradling

I checked but my published version stops in 1853. Bev ========Original Message======== Subj: [VAROOTS] Lookup Date: 9/30/2005 9:50:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: [email protected] Reply-to: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent from the Internet (Details) If someone has a Marriage Bond book for Albemarle Co., VA I am interested in the people (bondsman, etc.) present at the Marriage of Robert E. WINE to Mary E. SPRADLING on 2/4/1864. Thanks, Tim Spradling ============================== 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

If someone has a Marriage Bond book for Albemarle Co., VA I am interested in the people (bondsman, etc.) present at the Marriage of Robert E. WINE to Mary E. SPRADLING on 2/4/1864. Thanks, Tim Spradling