Chuck, I am a William descendant, and am for a National Organization. Linda Fitzmeyer Richard and "Other Bartlett's" Databank for the Society of Descendants of Robert Bartlett of Plymouth, MA http://www.cityhost.com/genealogy/

I've heard from a lot of people since I innocently asked in my post of June 25 "It's so wonderful to see how many Washburn cousins we are....and how intelligent, and probably good looking. Has anyone considered holding a National Washburn Reunion? Anyone have any thoughts on that?" Apparently, it struck a chord! Thank you all who asked, but I am sorry I presently have no time to devote to the proposed Washburn Family Organization, as I am in the process of selling my house and taking off to the woods for a few years to finish writing a long overdue book. Not even sure I'll be able to be on the List while I'm so far away from civilization. Among other things, people have mentioned that the most important points were snipped away from my previous post. At their suggestion I will reiterate - "A friendly, supportive, tolerant environment for those who are trying to establish, or willing to help others with, family ties would most appeal to me........................Mostly, I'd hope for sharing with one another in a gracious and amicable manner. And I do venture to suggest - the less politics the better." I join those who contacted me in hoping whoever may volunteer will determine and carry out the desires of the majority of the membership without an argumentative spirit. Respectfully, Barbara Washburn-Lienhard Woodside@bicnet.net

I agree with the "just do it" comment; I have been on 2 different organizations that became non-profit in MA as incorporator and the paper work was not all that difficult. I did the annual reporting for one of the organizations. I belong to 3 family groups that all have their annual reunions and the people who attend get a lot from the meetings/gatherings and those on the news letter mailing list receive information for a nominal fee to cover the costs of printing and mailing. Go ahead with the plans and set aside the criticisms. Jes

In a message dated 7/11/2000 7:58:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, woodside@bicnet.net writes: << Hmmmm - And just who will volunteer to do the scrutinizing? And just who would determine what sources would be considered acceptable? (I can see a serious issue brewing before this is off the drawing board.) And I'm not sure scrutiny and judgment should be the spirit of a family website. >> Barbara, I was not talking about individual lines that may be posted. Anyone can put whatever data they want in their lines! That is their right. BUT, if you want a site that is historically accurate, you have to admit that it be checked and rechecked. I don't plan on questioning your pedigree or anyone else's for that matter. I was talking about a data bank, you know, like Ancestry, Family Search, RootsWeb. You get the idea? In it would go the research information that we all find. As for what is considered acceptable, that's quite simple. Old records, of course, birth, death, probate, land, civil and (God forbid) criminal, Military, news articles, books of good historical repute, but not considered, would be, "Old Uncle Nate said" and "it circulated throughout the family" etc. (Hearsay) To not recheck and determine the accuracy of our facts would not be in the true sprit of Genealogy, and that is what we are about. I did not enter into this discussion to start an argument, but to offer a viable solution. A Washburn society is also viable, but, I fear, that no one would settle on a site to meet. The Organization could still exist and prosper well with the use of what we have become reliant on -- the computer and the Internet. I bid you all well and hope a solution that pleases the majority is forthcoming. Mac

Dear Chuck, Actually, I did not think that was such a bad idea. We may find out more info at these conferences that could be very helpful. Since there are so many Washburns, it will take a long time to get organized. This may be a great opportunity to exchange info. Peg Roberts

Dear Chuck, I have to say I am also interested. I am a cousin by marriage but I definitely would like to participate any way I can. Peg Roberts

I like that idea. Milwaukee, WI 2002, Good idea. I am only a cousin by marriage. Seth Washburn m. Orrey Warren (my grgrgr aunt) Peg Roberts

Mac wrote: "On this sight, every date, place, and fact would be carefully scrutinized for absolute accuracy." Hmmmm - And just who will volunteer to do the scrutinizing? And just who would determine what sources would be considered acceptable? (I can see a serious issue brewing before this is off the drawing board.) And I'm not sure scrutiny and judgement should be the spirit of a family website. I do like the idea of a Washburn website, however.... somewhat an expansion of what we are doing right now. It could certainly enhance our current communications and might be a valuable added venue for bringing family members together - All that and no flight delays, lost luggage, or dreadful room service. To say nothing of the expense! On a web site those who wish could scan in pictures of great Aunties and grampas - and even of ourselves, if we dare. But must a family web site be strictly genealogical? Of course, it could be a password protected site. We might also have diaries and family stories to share. Even our own. On a protected family site people might feel freer to share information about themselves. Then those who wished to do so might elect to meet informally in large or small groups anywhere they feel like gathering. Because of this list I've already met Washburn Cousins from all over new England and even from the opposite side of this country! How blessed we already are to be connected in this way. But there is even larger potential to come together in a group using the internet. But as for our genealogical links, I hope everyone would feel free to share whatever information they have. As family Genealogists differ widely in abilities should anyone be ousted for not having full documentation of their line? It could be considered a work in progress - with the proper caveats, of course. Names for whom records are known should have proper citations affixed. Others could be considered provisionary. We could make a point of that and have proving each name and relationship a collective goal. Like sharing a puzzle. As long as we are consistent and honest about it. Most people don't want to claim the wrong grandparents, anyway - especially those of us for whom the very purpose of family research is to understand our own makeup. And, frankly, I don't have much desire to belong to another organization in which one's pedigree must be proven. (Unless everyone agrees to DNA testing...<big grin>) No, a friendly, supportive, tolerant environment for those who are trying to establish, or willing to help others with, family ties would most appeal to me. (And my own line is fully documented back to John of Bengeworth, so I can attest my motive is not ulterior) But it is certain that any Washburn site would need a webmaster....to organize the site and keep it up to date. And that is a very specific skill. And it would be a significant effort. Quite time consuming. I would assume in such a big family, with so many on this Washburn list alone, there must be numbers with experience in web site development. Yes? Hellooooo - are you out there? Maybe a few people could work on it. Any volunteers? Mostly, I'd hope for sharing with one another in a gracious and amicable manner. And I do venture to suggest - the less politics the better. Barbara Dudley Washburn-Lienhard Woodside@bicnet.net

All this talk about where to put a Washburn site-- I am just about ready to turn on my Internet Server at the office. Do you want a place to host this site? You can use space on my machine for free. The server should be on line by the end of July. If you want to discuss this further feel free to contact me off list since this matter doesn't really fall within the bounds of the list. Bill Betts Center Cross, Virginia

Cousin Chuck, I believe in Nike's motto: Just do it! It would not be difficult to set up a nonprofit WASHBURN organization. (I've been the executive director of four nonprofits.) I'm sure we have an cousin attorney who could do the legal work. I, for one, support you idea. Bob Miller Coupeville, Washington > [Original Message] > From: Chuck Washburn <histwash@thegrid.net> > To: <WASHBURN-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: 7/11/00 1:47:08 PM > Subject: GRASS ROOTS: The WASHBURN Family Association > > Greetings Washburn Cousin, Tuesday 11 July 2000 > > I have responded to all those who have shown an interest in the > "possibility" of the establishment of a "Washburn Family (National) > Association." > > Currently I am compiling the comments..etc., and I will be shortly > (within the next week) providing some sort of guide lines we can move > forward on. I hope to see more comments...either positive or negative > on this subject. I realize there are those who are just too busy to contribute > to such a task or those who don't have the interest to organize the > Washburn Family. > > My "personal" belief is that we as a family have seen our "historic" ties > back to the colonial period. WE as a family have contributed in many ways > in the establishment of our great nation from the Revolutionary period thru > the Civil War to the present. The genealogical circles always "plug in" our > family name of Washburn in many articles and publications. But, never has > there been a "national" organization to say we belonged as an organized > group like our other colonial brother's and sister's have...i.e., > Fuller, Bradford, > Soule, Cooke..etc. > > I say, let's take hold of our "famed" heritage and make our forefather's proud > of us and make our family known.....Let's create some history for our > generations > to come!! > > From a Cousin who is deeply interested in the establishment of a > "WASHBURN Family Association." > > Thank you!...Cousin Chuck > > Chuck Washburn > Member, Mayflower Society > General No. 47,000 > ----------------------------------- > Son's of the American Revolution > National No. 120026 > ------------------------------------------ > > --- Robert S. Miller --- rmiller2450@earthlink.net

At 03:19 PM 7/11/2000 -0600, you wrote: >While the work / discussion of creating a Washburn Organization continues, >has anyone considered setting up a Washburn Cousins site on MyFamily.com? >I'm not aware of one in existance. If it doesn't exist, I heartily recommed >its creation. I administer 15 sites for other family groups and they have >proven to be very successful in bringing the group together, sharing info, >photos, files, etc. as well as using the voice and text chats to coordinate >research efforts. It is that it is free and username and password protected >but the best part is that you are able to easily chat with cousins you'd >probably never meet in your daily life regardless of where they / you live >in the world. > >Lee Drew >ldrew@xmission.com > > Yes, Dick Bucknum set one up a couple of years ago, called the Washburn Community Center, and it sort of fizzled out. John A. Maltby Redwood City, CA jamaltby@creative.net

In a message dated 7/11/2000 5:01:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fgrsk8r@proaxis.com writes: << There is already a Washburn site at myfamily.com. I don't have the link here at home. It's bookmarked on my home computer. dianna >> I was referring to an all inclusive website of our own, not a section on some other sight such as my family.com. Anything with "dot com" is going to have banners etc. Our own sight would be noncommercial and free of them, unless someone is ambitious enough to sell space. Could be possible to have Washburn.org etc. The sights that already exist only pertain to individual lines and some of them are pretty bad, others, downright inaccurate. On this sight, every date, place, and fact would be carefully scrutinized for absolute accuracy. Mac Mac

Greetings, Tuesday 11 July 2000 I wanted to wait a while before I responded to the whole Washburn-list. But, Cousin Barbara's message (below) constitutes a open answer to everyone on this list. I have taken the "personal" responsibility of pursuing such a venture as the establishment of our "Washburn Family Association" on line. I have been answering (privately) everyone's recent proposals...both supportive and those questioning whether or not it is necessary. First, I truly believe it IS necessary! Cousin Barbara you bring up some very interesting questions, aside from the normal politics that normally would be part of such an organization. I am not a politician to say the least, but there would have to be ground rules..etc., to follow. And, not everyone would agree I am sure on certain policies. But, I agree with you, Barbara, with what you stated (my line as well is documented back to John of Bengeworth): ..>>snip...snip<<< I hope everyone would feel free to share whatever information they have. As family Genealogists differ widely in abilities should anyone be ousted for not having full documentation of their line? It could be considered a work in progress - with the proper caveats, of course. Names for whom records are known should have proper citations affixed. Others could be considered provisionary. We could make a point of that and have proving each name and relationship a collective goal. Like sharing a puzzle. As long as we are consistent and honest about it. Most people don't want to claim the wrong grandparents, anyway - especially those of us for whom the very purpose of family research is to understand our own makeup. And, frankly, I don't have much desire to belong to another organization in which one's pedigree must be proven. (Unless everyone agrees to DNA testing...<big grin>) No, a friendly, supportive, tolerant environment for those who are! trying to establish, or willing to help others with, family ties would most appeal to me. (And my own line is fully documented back to John of Bengeworth, so I can attest my motive is not ulterior) ..>>snip...snip<<< We have ground rules to establish...and folks to bring on board who are willing to support some effort to maintain such a family web site. I am currently evaluating a few options that have been presented to launch our new Washburn Family Association from. I do have may years experience in computer programming, publishing as well as web site development. So, if there are any takers out there that would join me in this effort please respond. Thank you for all of your support!! Chuck Washburn e-mail: histwash@thegrid.net =========================================================================== >Barbara Dudley Washburn-Lienhard wrote: >Woodside@bicnet.net > >Hmmmm - And just who will volunteer to do the scrutinizing? And just >who would determine what sources would be considered acceptable? (I >can see a serious issue brewing before this is off the drawing >board.) And I'm not sure scrutiny and judgement should be the spirit >of a family website. > >I do like the idea of a Washburn website, however.... somewhat an >expansion of what we are doing right now. It could certainly >enhance our current communications and might be a valuable added >venue for bringing family members together - All that and no flight >delays, lost luggage, or dreadful room service. To say nothing of >the expense! > >On a web site those who wish could scan in pictures of great Aunties >and grampas - and even of ourselves, if we dare. But must a family >web site be strictly genealogical? Of course, it could be a password >protected site. We might also have diaries and family stories to >share. Even our own. On a protected family site people might feel >freer to share information about themselves. Then those who wished >to do so might elect to meet informally in large or small groups >anywhere they feel like gathering. Because of this list I've >already met Washburn Cousins from all over new England and even from >the opposite side of this country! How blessed we already are to be >connected in this way. But there is even larger potential to come >together in a group using the internet. > >But as for our genealogical links, I hope everyone would feel free >to share whatever information they have. As family Genealogists >differ widely in abilities should anyone be ousted for not having >full documentation of their line? It could be considered a work in >progress - with the proper caveats, of course. Names for whom >records are known should have proper citations affixed. Others >could be considered provisionary. We could make a point of that and >have proving each name and relationship a collective goal. Like >sharing a puzzle. As long as we are consistent and honest about it. >Most people don't want to claim the wrong grandparents, anyway - >especially those of us for whom the very purpose of family research >is to understand our own makeup. And, frankly, I don't have much >desire to belong to another organization in which one's pedigree >must be proven. (Unless everyone agrees to DNA testing...<big >grin>) No, a friendly, supportive, tolerant environment for those >who ar! >e trying to establish, or willing to help others with, family ties >would most appeal to me. (And my own line is fully documented back >to John of Bengeworth, so I can attest my motive is not ulterior) > >But it is certain that any Washburn site would need a >webmaster....to organize the site and keep it up to date. And that >is a very specific skill. And it would be a significant effort. >Quite time consuming. I would assume in such a big family, with so >many on this Washburn list alone, there must be numbers with >experience in web site development. Yes? Hellooooo - are you out >there? Maybe a few people could work on it. Any volunteers? > >Mostly, I'd hope for sharing with one another in a gracious and >amicable manner. And I do venture to suggest - the less politics >the better. > >Barbara Dudley Washburn-Lienhard >Woodside@bicnet.net

In a message dated 7/11/2000 2:09:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, histwash@thegrid.net writes: << I am sorry to say that your response to just meet for an afternoon at a genealogy conference as a "get together for an afternoon" just won't solve the problem.>>Snip<< >> Chuck, I wasn't aware that we had a problem. This site seems to be working fine for research. I fail to see how getting together is going to further that aspect. I belong to the Southern California Clan Mackenzie as well as the North American Chapter of the same and we have get togethers (called Highland Games), but they certainly don't pertain to research. It's Bagpipes, kilts, black and tans and a good time. In my line I have in excess of 1400 entries. Not all of them, of course are Washburn descendants. but enough of them are to tell me that there are far more people that could join the Mayflower Society, if they choose to, than they could handle. As soon as someone mentioned an initial fee of $5.00 and annual dues of $20.00, I lost interest. Why? I couldn't help but think of where the money would go! Charging a fee, and justifying it are two entirely different matters. My chapter of the SAR is $98.00 to join and $55.00 a year and that's only one organization. I belong to five and I'm pretty much "annual dues(ed) out." I don't know how everyone else feels, but as a Washburn descendant, I, for one, would like to keep this part of my heritage simple and inexpensive. If you set up a website, you could justify the maintenance of it with contributions, (or perhaps small fees), just as RootsWeb does and the site would be a Washburn site. You could include password access to limit the sight to Washburn descendants, but I don't think you should. This way, newsletters could be weekly (no postage) and Washburn descendants from all over the world could contribute. All the deeds, birth records, wills, etc., could be placed in a data bank for people to review, along with individual pedigrees. this way, no election of officers, etc. After all, we live all over the place and we really don't know each other, so it's pretty hard to "elect" anyone. I having a hard enough time with the elections in November! I think we all agree that this site is primarily the descendants of John Washburn and Margery Moore, so the research, as I have stated earlier, is really fine. Get togethers are fun, but most people seldom make the effort to travel very far to do so, regardless of what they may say. Even in some of my family reunions, we have had relatives living less than thirty miles from the reunion site that "couldn't make the trip." Mac

Along with agreeing with Chuck for a "formal" organization of a Washburn Family Association, I am also in agreement with Lee's following proposal. I belong to a MyFamily site that handles the ancestors of only one particular segment of a very large family organization and each day I have been amazed to look upon photos submitted of great-greats that I thought I'd never see in my lifetime, meet new cousins that only lived 20 miles away, never realizing it, and meeting for coffee, making plans for family reunions, you name it...it's a idea really worth looking into. It can give everyone on your listings a focal point. Lyn C. -----Original Message----- From: Lee Drew <ldrew@xmission.com> To: WASHBURN-L@rootsweb.com <WASHBURN-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 4:16 PM Subject: Washburn Organization >While the work / discussion of creating a Washburn Organization continues, >has anyone considered setting up a Washburn Cousins site on MyFamily.com? >I'm not aware of one in existance. If it doesn't exist, I heartily recommed >its creation. I administer 15 sites for other family groups and they have >proven to be very successful in bringing the group together, sharing info, >photos, files, etc. as well as using the voice and text chats to coordinate >research efforts. It is that it is free and username and password protected >but the best part is that you are able to easily chat with cousins you'd >probably never meet in your daily life regardless of where they / you live >in the world. > >Lee Drew >ldrew@xmission.com

There is already a Washburn site at myfamily.com. I don't have the link here at home. It's bookmarked on my home computer. dianna

Well, perhaps rather than a formal organization we can all decide to go to a genealogy conference and get together there for an afternoon. I vote for the 2002 NGS conference in Milwaukee, WI Susan Bingler

While the work / discussion of creating a Washburn Organization continues, has anyone considered setting up a Washburn Cousins site on MyFamily.com? I'm not aware of one in existance. If it doesn't exist, I heartily recommed its creation. I administer 15 sites for other family groups and they have proven to be very successful in bringing the group together, sharing info, photos, files, etc. as well as using the voice and text chats to coordinate research efforts. It is that it is free and username and password protected but the best part is that you are able to easily chat with cousins you'd probably never meet in your daily life regardless of where they / you live in the world. Lee Drew ldrew@xmission.com

Susan Bingler wrote: Resent-Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 13:15:57 -0700 Subject: Re: A PROPOSAL: The WASHBURN Family Association Well, perhaps rather than a formal organization we can all decide to go to a genealogy conference and get together there for an afternoon. I vote for the 2002 NGS conference in Milwaukee, WI Susan Bingler ======================================================== Greetings Cousin Susan, Tuesday 11 July 2000 I am sorry to say that your response to just meet for an afternoon at a genealogy conference as a "get together for an afternoon" just won't solve the problem. Wether or not you are aware, we have an "enormous" Washburn family out there who are continually trying to establish contacts, research..etc. Our family has been around in this great country of ours since the Colonial Period (1600's). We, as a family have much "historic" significance to share then just meeting for a afternoon at a conference. For those who think a afternoon get-together is sufficient...great, but I know there are those out there that are just as enthusiastic as I am in forming a national organization. And, by the year 2002, there just might be something out there by then....stay tuned... Cousin Chuck

Greetings Washburn Cousin, Tuesday 11 July 2000 I have responded to all those who have shown an interest in the "possibility" of the establishment of a "Washburn Family (National) Association." Currently I am compiling the comments..etc., and I will be shortly (within the next week) providing some sort of guide lines we can move forward on. I hope to see more comments...either positive or negative on this subject. I realize there are those who are just too busy to contribute to such a task or those who don't have the interest to organize the Washburn Family. My "personal" belief is that we as a family have seen our "historic" ties back to the colonial period. WE as a family have contributed in many ways in the establishment of our great nation from the Revolutionary period thru the Civil War to the present. The genealogical circles always "plug in" our family name of Washburn in many articles and publications. But, never has there been a "national" organization to say we belonged as an organized group like our other colonial brother's and sister's have...i.e., Fuller, Bradford, Soule, Cooke..etc. I say, let's take hold of our "famed" heritage and make our forefather's proud of us and make our family known.....Let's create some history for our generations to come!! From a Cousin who is deeply interested in the establishment of a "WASHBURN Family Association." Thank you!...Cousin Chuck Chuck Washburn Member, Mayflower Society General No. 47,000 ----------------------------------- Son's of the American Revolution National No. 120026 ------------------------------------------