No, DAR policies are not designed to appear exclusive. Those types of comments are based on quite antiquated views of the organization. It is a lineage society by charter and so membership is based on lineage, and not just on interest. That is a fundamental purpose of the organization - to document lineages to Rev War soldiers and patriots. That does not translate to exclusivity in the 21st century; it simply is what it is - lineage research supported by documentation and based on the society's original charter.
DAR has tried for many, many years to continue to expand acceptable sources for patriotic service. Supply taxes in any state are acceptable; the research done by the Genealogy staff was completed on VA a while ago, and they determined that 1783 was a supply tax and 1782 was not directed specifically toward the war effort. Questions about this may be directed to them at DAR headquarters.
Expansion of acceptable service has nothing to do with exclusivity; quite the opposite. After nearly 31 years as director of the DAR Library, I have never heard of any policy of the DAR designed to promote an exclusive membership. That's just not their focus!
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 5, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Thomas Katheder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Wow. Apart from the oddity of conferring patriot status on hapless citizenry who were compelled to pay a tax, the war was effectively over in 1781 and officially so in 1783. So I'm having trouble understanding the debate about 1782 vs. 1783.
>
> This reminds me of credit union membership expansion in the 1990s, where credit unions went to ridiculous lengths to bolster their deposits while pretending to adhere to their original charters. ("Oh, you're the second cousin thrice removed of an existing member? You're in!")
>
> What this suggests to me is that DAR membership is drying up, like the Moose Lodge, and that DAR leadership is worried. So rather than just open it up and let ANYBODY in who's interested, the organization has to appear to continue to be selective.
>
> Thomas Katheder
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- Craig Kilby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Greg,
>>
>> I don't write the rules, and according to Eric Grundstet apparently 1783 taxes are accepted--I'm waiting to hear about that. Frankly, I have a problem their stating Lord Dunmore's War was the first battle of the American Revolution and that is acceptable service, publick service claims for impressed property that people were later reimbursed for, and being on the Culpeper Classes list when militia service was compulsory and most of them had a substitute anyway all qualify. But as I said, I don' t write the guidelines.*
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> * I could have gone into SAR on a very simple route using either Culpeper Classes or Public Service Claims. But I didn't use a Kilby. I went a very indirect route through Paul Hatch--who had never been entered on the rolls of SAR--because he at least had provable service from Massachussets and "IT IS SAID" was a member of the Boston Tea Party and an apprentice of Paul Revere. I'll never be able to prove the latter, but I do know he was a goldsmith.
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Greg Carter wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig as a long time member and Past President of the Richmond Chapter SAR, I really have a problem with new members being excepted into the SAR just because their ancestor paid taxes in 1782/1783.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Greg Carter
>>>
>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Craig Kilby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am informed by credible sources that both DAR and SAR now accept as proof
>>>> of service during the Revolution anyone who paid land or personal property
>>>> taxes in 1782 and 1783 as it is said, part of that tax went to pay war
>>>> debts and is therefore considered one of the "supply taxes" for that
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> I can not find any reference in the Nov 1781 enabling act for a "permanent
>>>> source of revenue" stating any such thing. If DAR now accepts this, who am
>>>> I to argue but I am wondering if anyone on this list has ever heard of such
>>>> a thing, or knows anything more about this relatively new ruling.
>>>>
>>>> It will certainly greatly enlarge the pool of prospective members if paying
>>>> ones taxes in those two years now constitutes eligible patriotic service.
>>>>
>>>> Craig Kilby
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> 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
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
