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