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