I guess we must differ ever so slightly. I feel that acceptable genealogical research, and surely family writings, demand that everything we have uncovered (minutia usually excepted) should be included for consideration by others.

Then too, in my view careful writers assign and include the measure of evidentiary weight that he/she may accord each bit of material set out from which his/her conclusions have been drawn.  Again in order that I, the reader, may agree, disagree, differentiate, or otherwise find great value, find no worth whatever, or something in between, in such gatherings of evidence.

I can not count the times that folks even on this fine list have differed as to the validity or interpretation of this or that uncovered fact.  So it is that I do not want some unknown researcher - no matter his/her credentials - to grade evidence for me. Whether a scrap of information is labeled primary, hearsay, conclusive, a "clue", legalese, or any other of those highly subjective, indefinable and nearly useless terms, I want to make my own decisions as to the weight all evidence deserves.

With but a simple sentence, a writer may set forth very powerful evidence, and in the next breath and sentence reveal other theories and evidence of lesser value and weight that some other researchers have thought important and reliable.  In fact, I think those who write other than "trial balloon" material have a duty to so reveal other theories and interpretations.

I know nothing of and have less than a passing interest in the Jefferson/Hemings debate. However, should I gain an interest therein, I want to read all the evidence available, no matter how miniscule such evidence may be or in what direction that material may lead me.

Notice, I did not say that I particularly want to be told of the conclusions of others as to the interpretation to be given that evidence. Still though, I likely will read and consider such hypotheses as have been stated, all the while separating all theories from the facts.

So, set out all the evidence known and all other theories of what should be drawn from those facts. Permit me to measure, draw conclusions, and feel free to reveal ideas different from your own.  Intellectual integrity is what it is all about. Anything less than that only leaves me to re-research what you have rejected.


Genealogy without documentation is nothing.
                     Paul Drake JD
                Genealogist & Author
            <www.DrakesBooks.com>


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Henry Wiencek
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:20 PM
  Subject: [VA-ROOTS] Marrying deceased wife's sibling


  I too do not wish to be contentious, but I think there's a very important
  point lurking here.  Legal marriage and actual kinship were/are two
  different things, as we all know.  Genealogy concerns itself largely with
  the legal, documented relationships.  The problem arises when we allow
  ourselves to think that the documents define reality.  I would suggest that
  if a person suddenly had a life-and-death need to locate blood relatives,
  that person would be extremely interested in identifying and finding the
  "side family" his grandfather had.  So then, in that case, what is the
  genealogical "reality"--the documented family or the undocumented family?

  Historians and biographers are interested in kinships that may have been
  extra-legal or illegal, because these kinships illuminate our understanding
  of the past.  It is fascinating to find evidence of 18th-century people
  being aware of their extra-legal kin and acting on that knowledge.  Thus,
  did so-and-so bequeath land to so-and-so because they were secretly father
  and son, or uncle and nephew, or cousins, or nothing at all to each other?
   Some folks--and I do not mean to include Ms. Holland here--have tried to
  shut down research along such lines by saying "there's no documentation for
  that; you have no basis for saying that."  In some cases, the people of the
  18th century had a more flexible definition of "family" than the definitions
  established by law.  The laws enable us to deny the existence of family
  connections which the people of the past may have honored and acted upon; so
  by adhering strictly to the rules we risk misunderstanding the past.

  HW

  To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
  http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html


  --
  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006



----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1076 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html