All Listers:
The adoption nomenclature which appears in quotation marks in many of the
recent email messages to VA-ROOTS illustrates a problem in genealogical
research which will only be partly addressed in the current DNA efforts by
some of us. Humans know how to procreate. The "legal" and "record"
keeping regarding it give archeologists,genealogists and historians
challenges at every turn.
Tracing ones "roots" through the twists and turns of human relationships
will probably not provide "definitive" proof of your "line" to a king or a
scoundrel. I do not wish to reopen the Jefferson/Hemmings issue per se,
but suggest that before we commit ourselves to a DNA black hole, we
consider the philisophical, historical and cultural meaning of "family."
May I suggest a look at the Christopher Columbus Via family whose "roots"
derive from the Ira Via and Amanda Shifflet "line" (if we are to believe
the record of marriage recorded in Staunton Virginia for C.C. and his bride
Malinda Angeline Marshall on 29th August 1872).
C.C. Via's declared parents - Ira and Amanda, were married later that same
year. In today's world, C.C. and his siblings are "presumptively" the
children of the prior Via/Sandridge marriage. Apparently C.C. and Malinda
accepted the "fact" that though C.C. was not "adopted" in the the sense of
the word required by prior email messages on this subject, he was in fact
the son of Ira and Amanda. This record infers a contradiction of the
"presumption of paternity" growing out of marriage.
But the fact that Christopher Columbus Via declared before a minister and
the legal authorities that his parents were not his "legal" parents has
meaning beyond DNA. I hope that the genealogists, historians and
archealogists among us look for the deeper meaning of family - not just a
pedigree to their king or scoundrel.
Rob Yingst
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Drake <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 10/19/05 7:39:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Adoptions
>
> Hi. There were no legal proceedings that we know as "adoption" until
1912. That said, there were any number of arrangements approved by courts
in order that a child be cared for and raised by another adult who was not
his/her parent.
>
> There were an equal if not greater number of arrangements made by
families as to which no court ever knew, nor cared. Especially was that
true of illegitimate births or where the father has left a young mother
with no means of support; the families and the churches took care of the
infants.
>
> So it is that, while it is my impression that more young folks kept their
birth name than not, I know of no statistics. Nor, in light of the state
of the law, can I see how such data now could be gathered by other than
guesses. The exceptions would be the many destitute or parentless children
mentioned in the parish vestry records. Problem there, of course, is that
we have so few records remaining, and next to NONE for the Anglicans after
the Revolution.
>
> If you learn more, please share with all of us.
> Paul
>
>
> om: Marvin Martin
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:11 PM
> Subject: Adoptions
>
>
> Question?
> In the1800 when a person was adopted did they take the adaptors last
name
> or keep their birth name? Also how do I enter the adoption in my
> family tree?
> Thank you for your time
> Marvin Martin
>
> 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 Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/134 - Release Date:
10/14/2005
>
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
