The Family Tree Problem Solver: Tried-And-True Tactics for Tracing Elusive Ancestors (37 page)

Follow these steps:

1.
Determine the source's potential for accuracy. Is it the original document, or a copy? Does it fit with other records you have found? Does it fit with things that people do at this age? Is it possible that this record might have been distorted somehow?

2.
Determine whether the record provides enough evidence to support your hypothesis.

3.
Compare the record with others you have located. Does it agree with them, or does it contradict other claims and raise doubts?

When you follow these steps, you are analyzing evidence. You pull from that record as much information as you can possibly glean, and then you look at it both as an independent source and as one of a number of related sources. When examining the record itself, ask whether the internal facts are consistent with one another, whether the chronology is correct (did that mother
really
give birth at age nine, or did you forget to do the math?), and whether any information within the document might have been falsified, misunderstood, or copied incorrectly.

Carefully look at the document itself, then compare and contrast its contents with what you have found in other records. This is called
correlation of evidence
. Much as you would place pieces in a jigsaw puzzle to correctly form a picture, you must fit your pieces of evidence together to correctly show your ancestor's life. The pieces must fit exactly, or your picture will be distorted.

Another Quiz

How much value would you place on the reliability of each of these records?

1.
The word-for-word transcription of a will published in a compiled genealogy

2.
A Civil War diary describing the battle of Pittsburgh Landing

3.
A microfilmed copy of a deed of gift from a father to his “beloved son”

4.
The certified copy of a typed will made in South Carolina in 1798

5.
A newspaper obituary published two days after the stated death

6.
A tombstone inscribed with the death date

What were your answers? Following are my opinions.

1.
As a rule, I would give more value to a transcribed will than an abstracted one. Not only is the complete document likely to include more than just the names of the wife and children, but we could expect that someone preparing a book on his own family for publication would bemore careful than someone abstracting two hundred wills for a general-use publication. The reputation of the compiler and abstractor must also be considered.

2.
A diary is always accepted as a good source because we assume that the individual made the entries soon after the events occurred. If the individual feels that these events are significant enough to record, he is likely to make an accurate record. In this case, the reference to the “battle of Pittsburg Landing” provides a clue to Civil War experts that the diary was a contemporary one. The battle is more commonly called “Shiloh,” but the Confederates forces referred to it as “Pittsburg Landing.”

3.
As long as I am sure I have the right man of that name, phrases such as this are the jewels I love to find! As long as the microfilm is legible and I read it correctly, this is as good as the original deed in the courthouse.

4.
I almost fell for this one until I realized that there were no typewriters in 1798. Moreover, a certified copy is only as good as the clerk who copies it. Many clerks could not care less about old records. I once watched a clerk incorrectly copy a marriage date and then stamp it certified! Needless to say, I asked her to do it again correctly.

5.
Newspaper obituaries usually give accurate dates, places, and circumstances for the deaths they report. Just watch out for the assertions that “she never whispered a word about pain or despair,” that “she was the best mother any child could have,” or that “he never said a word of disparagement against any of his neighbors.” Flowery death notices and obituaries are fun to read, but their validity must be questioned.

6.
Death dates on tombstones must always be questioned. When was the stone made? How accurate was the information the stonecutter received? Did he write it down properly? Did he carve the stone with the same information he received? Can the stone be read accurately? Are you reading the actual stone, or a cemetery transcription? Despite their likelihood for errors, inscribed markers certainly are better than the disappointing, bare fieldstone that probably marks the grave of your long-sought ancestor.

Let's consider three different examples of evidence for a death date. Say that you are compiling a family group sheet on the William Cawlfield family. You find a tombstone transcription from the Ozarks Genealogical Society that gives William's dates as 1803–1916 (see
Figure 11-1
). Is the source reliable enough so that you could enter the death date on the family group sheet? Most people would think so. Would they cite the source? Probably not.

The second example of evidence for a death date is a photograph of William Cawlfield's actual tombstone (see
Figure 11-2
).

The dates shown on Cawlfield's tombstone are 1803–1853. Have you changed your mind about the reliability of the previous record? (This example isn't really fair to the Ozarks Genealogical Society, which is very careful in its compilations and has an excellent reputation for accuracy. But its compilers are all human, and occasionally an error does creep in. When we reexamine the compilation, it is easy to see how this mistake was made. The death year for James H. Cawlfield, 1916, was simply copied again.)

Figure 11-1
Transcription from the Hamilton Cemetery, Greene County, Missouri.

A visit to the cemetery might yield additional information. Most compiled cemetery transcriptions do not indicate whether the tombstone appears to be contemporary with the death. Too often, memorial stones erected by later generations show the wrong dates; but you usually can't tell when a tombstone was made unless you go to the cemetery. Assuming that you are familiar with the types of memorial stones used during various eras, you can usually determine whether the stone is old or modern. What about this one? Was the stone carved in 1854 at Levica's death? Probably not. It probably was set at the same time as the identical one behind it — that of James H. Cawlfield, who died in 1916. Nevertheless, we can supplement the tombstone inscription with additional information. The letters of administration for William Cawlfield's Therefore, the inscription on the tombstone is surely correct, estate were issued on 5 December 1853. Therefore, the inscription on the tombstone is surely correct, even if the carving was not done at the time of the event.

Figure 11-2
Tombstone of William and Levica Cawlfield, Hamilton Cemetery, Greene County, Missouri.

To get an idea of the kinds of stones that are appropriate or not yet available in certain time periods, see Sharon DeBartolo Carmack's
Your Guide to Cemetery Research
, p. 97-102 (Cincinnati: Betterway Books, 2002).

The third example is Joseph Porter's tombstone, which reads: Born May 13 1782; Died Dec 18 1852. Is this tombstone a reliable source for the death of Joseph Porter? Does the tombstone appear contemporary with the death date? What other records could we seek to corroborate this date? Joseph Porter left a number of documents that we can examine. His will was probated 22 December 1852. Even better, the probate packet contained a bill from the physician. Thos. G. White charged the estate for medication and visits, the last dated 18 December 1852.

To summarize, for each record you find, ask:

• Who made the record?
  

• For what purpose?
  

• How could errors have crept in?
  

• Is there any reason to believe this record is wrong?
  

• Is this record supported by other documents?
  

• Does the information make sense in light of data you have already gathered?
  

Genealogical researchers quickly discover that no matter what record we analyze, there is a chance that it might be wrong.
We have learned that there is no record on which we can rely absolutely. Once you acknowledge that no record can be counted upon 100 percent, you see why expert genealogists tell you that you cannot prove a relationship by one record alone. If you have three reliable sources that independently support one another, your case of proof is much stronger. When I say that the records must be
independent
of one another, I mean that they should have been created by different individuals for different reasons, and they should come from different sources.

The birth date on a death certificate, on a tombstone, and in a newspaper obituary might have been supplied by a single individual, one who was close to the person when he died. Thus these three records are not independent sources and should not be used to corroborate one another. If you're looking for a birth date, it would be ideal to find the same date (or close) in a church record, in a census taken when the individual was thirty years of age, and in a pension application made when his widow was sixty years of age.

Once you recognize that no one document can absolutely prove a relationship, you find yourself always searching for more evidence. As you do this, contradictions will arise. Genealogical lectures are full of examples where primary records — reliable, original sources — give incorrect information. So, good researchers learn to question every record they examine. Experience will help you develop a “feel” for the records that are likely to be accurate and those that are likely to be in error.

My ancestress Wayty Parks Couse Woodworth applied for a widow's pension for the Revolutionary War service of her deceased husband, Joseph Woodworth. She gave her marriage date as 8 February 1799. Because New York did not keep civil marriage records for that period, I accepted the date as accurate. Then I found a published church record that gave her marriage as 9 February 1800. I wondered which to accept until I learned about one of the government's requirements for receiving a widow's pension: the marriage had to have taken place before 1800. I had caught my ancestress in a lie! My guess is that she knew her husband had been a soldier; he was the father of her ten children, and she felt that she deserved the pension. She probably thought that silly rule about being married before 1800 was just government red tape! Besides, who would ever know? The point is that when you're working with a record produced by someone likely to gain from the information given, it is important to look for possible intentional errors.

To summarize, we genealogists gather evidence and analyze it. We ask questions about its reliability. We ask whether the record is contemporary with the event. We then seek other records. After we find a group of related records, we ask whether they support or contradict the information we already have. We almost always find conflicting information, so then we have to decide which record is more likely to be correct.

I mentioned earlier that genealogists place great value on Bible records. But Bible records, too, must be critically evaluated. Figure 11-3 is an entry from Cornelia Croak's Bible records. The compiler of this genealogy was kind enough to provide us with an actual copy of the entry. The genealogist should recognize two very important factors in this entry. First, all of the entries appear to be in the same hand. Second, notice the entry for “grandfather.” No one calls a child “grandfather” at birth! The entries in this Bible cannot possibly be contemporary with the events they describe.