At the terrible risk of sounding contentious, which I am not trying to do, such discussions of Southern families do and then also do not naturally fall to reminders of what is more accurately referred to as "side" families.  But I was trying to steer back onto course what began to look like a lack of distinction between law and "non-law".  When on genealogy Lists, discussions of legal entities, documents, grants, institutions, have to stay cleanly within what they are, legal matters, or we muddy what we are trying to glean from the past.  That families were more than that is understood.  I appreciated the info you shared.  I just think it is dangerous to try to expand on the 18th century definition of Marriage, and then try to derive the genealogical info you need for your research.


In a message dated 2/6/2006 11:44:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, Henry Wiencek <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>I was simply responding to a direct question and I was not trying to inject any extraneous topics into the conversation.  But it's interesting that discussions of southern families and the law inevitably bring to mind the
second families that existed on many plantations, outside the law.  We don't need to go into that now.
>
>Henry Wiencek
>
>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