Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 6 May 2008 13:42:20 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The "misstatement" made by Wetmore/Madison about his naming is just one
of several doubtful remarks made in this article. If this one statement
is wrong....how are we to be expected to believe any of it?
Herb
Herb,
I would like to read all those articles you cite, but I'm not sure where
to
find them. I will not guarantee that my reading them will lead me to the
conclusions you came from. I do not feel the statement on who was there
at
his birth and named him is material enough to negate anything else in
the
article.
From the picture in Lanier's book, it seems that the entry was made in
the
same handwriting as the list of names. Certainly scientific tests can
confirm that both the handwriting and the ink were there on the original
signed by the official at the top of the page. Census records are
valuable
evidence of when and where people lived and what offspring they had. If
they
were typically subject to changes made by unauthorized persons, I would
imagine they could not be useful in typical geneological research, yet
they
are, in the absence of family bibles or actual birth and death
certificates.
Well, I'm a gonna hit the hay, and we'll pick this up some more
tomorrow.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|