searching for info on clem c. watts born 16 apr 1880,franklin Co,Al. he was married to georgia Adelelena Williams. clem died in talpan Tx,4 oct 1956. Any info would be a great help Thanks toni

Gone for a few weeks

Greetings All. I have heard from Dr. Pamela White regarding the report of the census Focus Group summary. While Dr. White suggested I might want to wait until the final report was released to the public, she did not restrict me from posting this report now. She stated: "The final report brings together the results of the focus groups with the public opinion results. This interim report provides the results of a limited number of focus groups involving about 10 - 12 people at each session." This indicates that in the six focus groups held there were a total of 60 to 72 people involved. Not a lot of people to generate the headlines that accompanied Mr. Bronskill's National Post article of 20 June 2000. In reading the report copied below, I would not have come to the conclusions indicated by those headlines. The public opinion survey, yet to be released to the public, could have completely different results. I look forward to seeing that report which should be posted to Statistics Canada's website near the end of June or early in July (according to Dr. White.) My apologies for the length of this posting. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This message has been posted to Alberta-L, British Columbia, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Roots-L, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted. --------------------------------------------- Focus Group Research Regarding Options for Release of Census Records Summary of Findings PN4588 Prepared for: Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records Prepared by: Environics Research Group Limited February 2000 Introduction In November 1999, Environics Research Group Limited was retained by Statistics Canada and the Expert Panel on Access to Historical Census Records to conduct a series of six focus groups to test public opinion regarding options to amend the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act. The purpose of the focus groups was to test versions of a draft questionnaire and to probe opinion about the release of individual-level census data for future censuses and for past censuses. Participants were asked about their awareness of the topic of the release of individual-level census data, about how they would respond if individual data from the next census or other future censuses were released after a time delay of about 100 years, and about how they would respond if legislation were changed to allow the release of individual-level data from past censuses, particularly the 1911 census. Six focus group sessions were conducted. The pilot phase of the research consisted of two focus groups conducted held in Ottawa on December 7, 1999. The second phase of the research consisted of four focus groups, including two in Toronto and two in Montreal. The two groups in Toronto were held on January 27, 2000 and the two in Montreal were held on January 31. In each city, one focus group included those with high education (a university degree) and the other those with mid-level education. All sessions included participants from a mix of age groups (18 years of age and over), occupations and genders and also included some representation of foreign-born. This report summarizes the results of the research on the substantive topics. General Awareness of Topic Almost no participants had heard about the topic of releasing individual-level census data for future or past censuses. A total of one or two participants in the Ottawa groups said they had heard of the topic. Future Release Most participants thought it acceptable that their personal census information might be released after a time delay of about 100 years. However, a few participants strongly objected to the release of this information. A variety of issues emerged in the focus groups: * Many questioned the usefulness of such data - why would anyone be interested in personal answers after 100 years? * A number of participants could not understand why anyone would need to know individual names. Among the few who were opposed to the release of these data, the most common concerns were: * Would this lead to more government control of individuals? * Would the information be used against them at some point in the future? * Would there be long-term consequences of disclosure for future family members in areas such as ethnicity, race, and health? Many participants said that they were not aware of the content of the questions in the census. When, in some of the sessions, the moderator described to them the questions contained in the 1996 census, the description raised several reactions: * Most felt it would be non-problematic for them if this type of information were released 100 years after a census was taken. * Some participants felt that the type of questions asked were basic ones and would be of little value for future historians or genealogists. * Some said that there are other richer data sources for individuals available in both the public and private sectors. * A few voiced a concern that in future censuses, once the principle of disclosing information is accepted, a series of new questions, more personal or intrusive, would progressively be added. Participants were presented with a number of arguments supporting the release of the individual-level data from future censuses after a time delay of about 100 years. When participants were presented with the argument that historians would find the information extremely valuable, most participants reaffirmed their scepticism concerning the validity or usefulness of the information for historians. Participants were more receptive to the argument that their information might be useful for their descendants. However, some felt that their own personal interest in knowing about their family origins was low and this would probably be the same for their descendants. Although many were fairly open to releasing this information for "medical" purposes, some were sceptical as to whether the kind of information available in the census would be of any value. They felt that hospital or doctor's records would be much more useful as a source of medical information. Most participants were open to the idea of changing the existing law to allow future census data on individuals to be released after 100 years. However, some felt that people participating in future censuses should be given an option, such as a check-off box, to indicate consent. Others felt there should be conditions placed on the release of this information. A few participants expressed concern about this issue. They felt that if the government is ready to rescind an existing law, what would stop the government from modifying a future one and reducing the 100 year prescription for future censuses? They were also fearful of who would have access to the data in the future and that it might be used against them in some undefined way, or against their descendants. Release of Historical Data The vast majority of participants responded negatively to the prospect of allowing the release of individual answers from earlier censuses including the 1911 census, after a time delay of about 100 years. The response was negative toward the principle of release as well as to changing legislation to allow the release. Most participants felt that the government made a promise of confidentiality and that this should be respected. People who answered those censuses believed their answers would be confidential, and thus it would be a breach to release the information. In some of the focus group sessions, as soon as the notion of "breaking a promise" emerged, the idea was seized upon by other participants who then expressed their opposition to release. Keeping these data as confidential came to be seen as the "right" or moral thing to do. Historical and genealogical reasons for releasing historical data were not powerful or even helpful in changing opinion, and participants reiterated many of the same doubts expressed earlier. When informed that historical census data were a unique data source for historians, some participants stated that there are other sources, such as local churches and schools, for historical information, so these data are not so critical. Some also felt that the information contained in the 1911 census would really be of little interest to historians. But even among those who accepted the idea that the data may be valuable for these purposes, this was not enough justification, in their opinion, to warrant the release of the data. However, a number of participants suggested that the information could be made available to specialists (historians, genealogists) under special request and/or that the access to an individual record should be limited to the close family or descendants of that person. Some participants were moved by the argument that this kind of data release has already occurred in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, but others felt this was not relevant and that Canada should develop its own approach to the issue. Impact of Change Most participants said that a change in the law to allow the release of future census data at the individual level would not affect their participation in the next census or the truthfulness of their answers on that census or other future censuses. However, some people expressed the view that others would be more inclined to be untruthful. Only a very small number said that they themselves might be more inclined to give untruthful answers. The vast majority of participants said that this change would not affect their opinion of Statistics Canada.

The roster for "D" Company, Clay County, GA, Fort Gaines Guards, formed 11 June, 1861, lists Walter P. Watts Jr. and Walter P. Watts Sr. I have a partial Certificate of Disability for Discharge issued by the Army of the Confederate States for Walter P. Watts Sr. Physical description and date of birth given: born in Athens, Clarke County, GA, thirty-three years of age, five foot eight, dark complexion, dark eyes and dark hair and by occupation, farmer. This certificate is dated the third of April, 1862. There is a Walter P. Watts of "D" Company buried in the Little Rock, AR National Cemetery, Confederate Section. Date of death is listed as 16 Aug. 1905. The cemetery office had no other information. This man is supposed to be a brother to my great-grandfather, George Washington Watts, born around 1836 in GA. I cannot find him before the 1880 census of Arkansas and then on the 1900 census of Louisiana. I think the records of the two Walters are mixed up. If anyone has these men in their families I would appreciate any information. Thanks, Maybelle Watts James ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

Looking for information on Drury Watts. He settled in KY early 1800's. Would love to know where he came from and who his parents and siblings were. Two known sons.......Moses and Aaron m. sisters.

Greetings All. The MP's Scoreboard and Correspondence Logs on the Post 1901 Census Project website have been updated. In the past week and a half there has been more than 100 changes. Several update files were sent tonight and I expect they will be loaded some time Monday morning. Access the website at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census Check how your MP feels about allowing access to Canada's Post 1901 Census records after 92 years, as allowed under Regulations attached to the Privacy Act. If your MP still has a blue question mark on the Scoreboard it is because he/she has not responded to letters or email asking how they would vote on a Bill to allow access to Post 1901 Census records, or constituents receiving answers have not forwarded them to us. If you have had a response from your MP, stating a position on this question that differs from that shown on the Scoreboard, please forward a copy of that response to me at [email protected] Changes to the Scoreboard include a dated list of totals at the top of the page. With the work done in the past two weeks I have reached the point where I should be able to keep the Scoreboard current with those responses sent to us. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This message has been posted to the Albert-L, British Columbia, Canada-Census-Campaign-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Roots-L, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted.

Can anyone help me with Watts line from east Texas. My father was Carl Watts, My grandfather was Ed Watts. His relatives came from Alabama by covered wagon to east Texas. Sincerely, Dony Watts

searching for info on Buck Watts. I have no idea where and when he was born,poss in ALA. He married Mary CRABTREE,3 mar 1870,Madison,Ala.They had 5 childern,including,Clem C born 1880,Franklin Co,ALA and JoAnn/Joan born 1885,Huntsville,ALA. Buck died 19 jun 1917,Hunt Co,TX. any info would be a great help..Thanks Toni Boise

Does anyone recognize this Watts line? My line comes from Capt. John Watts who settled in the 1600s in Accomack County, Virginia, through his son William and grandson William who we thought had moved to Anson County around 1700. Unfortunately we found no land records for that period (on a very quick search) for a William. So there is much work to be done. Look forward to learning from the group. Ann [email protected]

Hope this helps someone, found it on the Chatham Co NC site Orphan Indentures Nov. 1777 James Watts orphan of Thomas Watts Decd, bound to Benjamin Watts I allso have found quite a few Watts in The Iredell Co deed books. 1800-1860 Will do lookups if anyone interested. Barbara

Greetings all. The MP Scoreboard and Correspondence Logs on the Post 1901 Census Project Page was updated with many new files this morning so I encourage you to access these at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census Thanks to Julia Roberts (Rick Roberts' daughter, and University student) who has taken over the job of looking after the server on which the website resides (at least until August), further updates should be loaded as soon as I send her the files. I am continuing to work on these and hope shortly to have the Scoreboard as up to date as information you send me allows. I depend upon you, the reader, to keep me informed of any responses you have received from your MP on the question of how they would vote on a Bill to access Historic Census records. In the past couple of days I have received information that will change two red crosses on the Scoreboard to gold ticks. It is possible to change the positions of our elected officials if we keep after them. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This posting has been sent to the Alberta-L, British-Columbia, Canada-Census-Campaign-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted.

Greetings all. Further to my previous posting regarding debate of M-160 continuing on 6 June 2000. Other business of the House took longer than anticipated (Bill C-11 re: dissolution of Devco) and bumped the scheduled time for the final hour of debate on M-160. Mr. Kenney's office will advise me when this debate is rescheduled however when considering the number of sittings left before the House recesses for the summer it is unlikely this will occur before next fall. When I am notified as to what is happening I will let you know. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This message has been posted to the Alberta-L, Canada-Census-Campaign-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon A. WATTS <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 06 June, 2000 9:33 AM Subject: [CCC-L] Debate on Motion M-160 Greetings All. Jason Kenney's Motion M-160 will receive the third and final hour of debate in the House of Commons at 5:30 PM Ottawa time today, 6 June 2000. While the motion has been deemed votable I am advised by Mr. Kenney's office that the vote will be deferred to a future date because of other pressing business in the House. Motion M-160 calls for the release of the 1911 Census as soon as possible after being brought under the control of the National Archives. While there is no compulsion for the government to act on a positive vote on a Motion, it serves to bring the issue before the House for discussion and provides an indication of how the House feels about a given subject. The debate will be viewable on CPAC. Happy Hunting. ______________________________

Greetings All. Jason Kenney's Motion M-160 will received the third and final hour of debate in the House of Commons at 5:30 PM Ottawa time today, 6 June 2000. While the motion has been deemed votable I am advised by Mr. Kenney's office that the vote will be deferred to a future date because of other pressing business in the House. Motion M-160 calls for the release of the 1911 Census as soon as possible after being brought under the control of the National Archives. While there is no compulsion for the government to act on a positive vote on a Motion, it serves to bring the issue before the House for discussion and provides an indication of how the House feels about a given subject. The debate will be viewable on CPAC. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This message has been posted to the Alberta-L, Canada-Census-Campaign-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted.

Greetings All. In response to an email I sent to Mary Ledoux at Statistics Canada Sunday night I received the following: --------------------------------- Further to your query about the report of the Expert Panel, the Chair of the Expert Panel, Dr. Richard J. Van Loon, wrote to Minister Manley on May 31, 2000, indicating that "the Panel has essentially completed its work and is conducting the final preparations of the report. However, given the requirements for formatting, translation and the like we will not able to submit the report to you by May 31 as we had originally hoped. We will be able to submit by the end of June and we hope and trust that this delay will not create problems for you and the Government." -------------------------------- Ms. Ledoux further advised me that a copy of Dr. Van Loon's letter will be posted on the Statistics Canada web-site very shortly, likely later today or early tomorrow. It is somewhat disappointing that this delay has occurred as the contents of the report is of vital interest to a great many Canadians, and others. This delay virtually ensures that little or no action will be taken before the House recesses for the summer, other than possibly some discussion in second reading of the Private Member's Bill presented last week by MP Murray Calder. It is to be hoped that we do not find ourselves in the middle of an election before the report of the Expert Panel has been received and some action taken re: our concerns. Happy Hunting. Gordon A. WATTS [email protected] Port Coquitlam, BC ICQ # 9183352 Keep up to date on Post 1901 Census information at http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census and http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/7843/poll.html Download and circulate Post 1901 Census Petitions now from http://www.globalgenealogy.com/census/petition.htm This Posting has been sent to the Albert-L, Census-Chat-L, Colchester, Lunen-Links-L, Nova-Scotia-L, Ontario-L, PictouRoots, Watts-L, and Wiltshire-EMI-L mail lists. Permission to forward without notification is granted.

sorry it went out before i finished grandson hit button will finish it later. sorry deb

--part1_73.3d570bd.266aba5c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mary i dont have any of the you ment --part1_73.3d570bd.266aba5c_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <[email protected]> Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v74.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:57:22 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f172.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.172]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v74.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:57:04 -0400 Received: (qmail 51981 invoked by uid 0); 3 Jun 2000 02:57:03 -0000 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Received: from 162.42.10.75 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:57:03 PDT X-Originating-IP: [162.42.10.75] From: "Mary Page" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fw: [WATTS-L] new to list Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 19:57:03 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Mailer: Unknown Hi Debra. I don't know if we connect or not but I only see family living in OH., GA., OR., PA., and CA. That is way back with the famili originating in Ohio with my great grandparents, Joseph Watts and Mary Agnes nee Gelhaus. They had 4 boys and 5 girls. My granfather was one of the boys, Harry Watts whom married my grandmother, Lona nee Schwartz. Does this help? My great granparents died in Ohio in 1914 & 1928. Thank you. Mary Page ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --part1_73.3d570bd.266aba5c_boundary--

hi my name is debra watts smith iam trying to find inf for watts in robeson countync & dillion countysc deb

Looking through some old family pictures, I ran across to school pictures dated 1938-1939. One is a dark haired girl names Ruth Watts, looks abt 13, the other is Afton Watts appears to be abt 10 yrs old. Can anyone identify these children? I am sure they are from my family, but can't place them in any family group. I also have a picture of Josie Watts with her baby, this is probably from the same time period. Barbara

Hi Diane, I don't know if this helps you or not, but I have an Annie E. Watts, b 1839 in my database. I know the date isn't the same, but it is close, and I don't have anything to verify my date. Her parents were James Durette Watts and Elizabeth J. Hamilton. James was born and died in Bedford Co., VA and Elizabeth was born in Lynchburg, VA. I have more information on this line, if you think it might help. Mike

Searching for Annie Eliza WATTS, b. 1844, d. 1910; married Austin Herman PEET in 1863. They had 8 children born in Calhoun County, MI. Who were Annie's parents? Where were they from? Were they from Cherry Valley, NY? Does anyone have information on this line? All information and leads appreciated. I have some descendant information which I would be glad to share. Diane [email protected]