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