The problem with these labels brings the single question that looms throughout all of these comments and explanations, and to which there has been no answer offered by anyone as of yet.   That question is simple:  As an examiner of evidence for a society  with exacting requirements, how may I (and all others like me) use the many labels that have been or may be applied to this or that record, writing or memento?

The sole interest of those who judge evidence for memberships in societies or to be used to back up writings that someone seeks to publish may be simply stated; of what value or worth is this bit of evidence in proving the lineage asserted????  Thus, unless your labels aid me in making such judgment calls, those are of virtually no value and remain but a waste of my time in the judging and of your time in the writing.

Ask yourself a simple question:  if I write to you a one sentence letter that stated that you should not believe my cousin because what he said about our family is circumstantial since it came from a county history, would you therefore and without more decide that the cousin was wrong?   If I told you that you should ignore Joe's evidence because it is a clerk's copy of a court order, and thus is derivative, would you dismiss that information out of hand ???

Of course not; in the former case you would ask him to explain in detail what his circumstantial evidence was,  following which you would measure the value of whatever he revealed as to the exact nature of those circumstances, and in the latter case you would direct that I provide some evidence that the copy was a true one that had not been altered in some way since originally written.  In neither case would you dismiss those bits of evidence simply because someone labeled such as "circumstantial" and "derivative" .   Does anyone really think the D.A.R. would refuse evidence of lineage simply because it appeared to be "secondary"?

So, again, someone tell me of what value those labels in my work as an examiner to make a final decision as to the lineage stated.   Failing that, would someone please give me a definition of "primary" that will be usable by my students in ALL cases?  Or of "circumstantial"? Or of "hearsay"?

You see the real nitty-gritty of the whole problem of labels is that virtually all scraps of evidence are of more than one category.  A Civil War discharge in my collection is what some call primary evidence that the man named served in some fashion for some period in that war.  It is likely what is called secondary as to whether or not he participated in the battles in which that regiment was involved.  It is circumstantial that he was present on the date of that discharge, and the whole of the document, like a tombstone, is PURE hearsay in its most apparent form.  So, considering all of that, shall I ignore everything the discharge states???  You might; I will not. It contains much information, the value of which is to be determined, not from any labels anyone may cook up, but by further research in other sources of whatever color and stripe.

In closing, and then to different business, please spare me all of your labels.  Tell me what you think that document, writing, record or memento proves, not what you call it.

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



--
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1911 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