By Trish Melander, AG®
In the research process, it often happens that we reach a fork in the road where we are clear we either have the right ancestor, with the right birth date, married to the right person, with the right headstone in the right cemetery – or we simply don’t. Perhaps the surnames of the wife are muddled or more than one is given in different records. The ancestor appears in the federal census twice in the same enumeration – or is it someone else? He’s selling 40 acres of land to his son – or is that really his brother? During the research, we may find conflicting evidence that needs to be sorted out before we are ready to move forward. Let’s explore how we can resolve some of these conflicts found in the records and be more sure of the conclusions we draw.
Recently, I have been working on documenting a family in 18th century New York and Ohio and trying to establish the names of their children, who appear as hashmarks on the early federal census. Are there marriage records during this time? Mostly not until the 1840s, and then still sparse. Are there probate records (wills and estates) that can help? Yes, and these documents generally provide relationship information, but may contain only indirect evidence about those relationships. How about land records? There is a complete set of digitized deed records, showing land purchases and sales between people.
Examples of both direct and indirect evidence can be found in this deed for a land transaction. The first sentence identifies George Bice and Leah Bice as the grantors and Samuel Chapin as the grantee. George and Leah share a surname, so it suggests there is a relationship of some kind, but does not state it – indirect evidence of a relationship. The affidavit below the transaction record identifies “George Bice… and Leah Bice his wife“ – a direct statement, evidence of the relationship between George and Leah Bice. Whether one document resolves the indirect evidence with a direct statement, or we need to correlate it with information from other sources will vary in each circumstance. It is up to us, as genealogists, to carefully analyze each piece of information and draw appropriate conclusions.
In the book Genealogical Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case written by Christine Rose, CG®, CGL®, FASG, Emeritus, we learn some key techniques in using the Genealogical Proof Standard to make conclusions about ancestors we can stand behind. Let’s review some of these steps together using early New York research.
Conduct reasonably exhaustive search among a variety of records.
In early New York research, I need to be sure that I’ve touched on specific record types that may not completely answer the question, but will add value to the research process. Tax records, mapping out neighbors named in the grantee and grantor deed records, using age ranges from the early federal censuses, headstone transcriptions and photos, and compiled genealogies from earlier researchers may all help. Alone, these sources will not have enough direct evidence to draw a solid conclusion, but woven together they help to outline the when, where and with whom of the ancestor’s life.
Classify each piece of information within the record: direct or indirect evidence; original or derivative source; primary or secondary information.
County deeds will provide primary information about land ownership in that county at the time of the deed transfer, just like the example above. The early U.S. federal censuses provide primary information about residence, but indirect evidence about an individual’s actual identity. A child who is listed as “male age 5-10” on the 1830 census is not direct evidence of the couple’s son Andrew born 1823, but rather indirect evidence, a piece to the puzzle, as long as there is no conflicting data about who the “male age 5-10” in the household may be.
Weigh each piece of data, keeping in mind WHO furnished the information and WHY.
The county recorder for a land transaction had reason to record it properly for tax purposes and for a clear and uncomplicated sale. The landowner wanted to get the right price, to make sure that the property was in line for the probate process and/or their heirs at the appropriate time, and more. Often a land description in the eastern United States (state-land states) will identify and locate the neighbors surrounding the property. Both grantor and grantee had reason to accurately place the neighbors so that the land description wouldn’t create any complications or confusion to a transfer.
Write up and document conclusions, including an explanation of opposing evidence and how it was resolved.
Remember, all evidence must point in the same direction, and all sources must have complete, accurate citations. The relevance of any opposing or conflicting evidence must be resolved, never ignored. For example, an early federal census records a pair of 40-50 year olds, and 4 males in different age ranges under 20. The family Bible has birth dates for three sons and one daughter within those ranges. Research must resolve the conflict. What about a last will and testament from an ancestor that doesn’t name all the purported children? Pursue resolutions by documenting everything about the children; the resolution may be in the sources you’ve already examined. Oftentimes in my research process, documenting the record sources into a timeline then writing a quick family narrative can expose conflicts that the research must resolve before proceeding. In some of these areas where the records are sparse like the New York example, it may not be possible to find a research case without conflicts to be resolved.
For example, research for the statement “Andrew Bice was the son of George Bice and Leah Richards enumerated on the 1830 census, age 5-10” needs to show that Andrew was the only possibility for the 5- to 10-year-old in the George Bice household. If another brother may have been born in the same range, consider what record sources could better clarify both birth years. The will of George Bice may state that Andrew is one of his sons, but there may be another Andrew Bice in the same county, near the same age, making land transactions in the 1850s and 1860s. Thus, we cannot draw a conclusion from only one record. Use a properly interpreted series of records to identify the Andrew son of George, and build a separate identity for any other Andrew living nearby. When did he arrive in the county? Who is he living with and when does he die?
If all evidence points in the same direction, no other reasonable conclusion can be reached, all conflicts have been resolved, and you have written your conclusion, then the case has passed the Genealogical Proof Standard and is considered solid.
Applying this process of exploration in your research can help you feel confident in your conclusions. When multiple sources indicate the relationship between two people, you have consulted all relevant records for the research question, and have carefully resolved any conflicts, you are on your way to knowing you have the right person. We draw conclusions based on the records we find, understanding that some questions may only be partially answered. In time, a new document may come to light that may add information relevant to your conclusion. Work now to be sure you have searched all that is available, in any format: indexes, digitized images, manuscripts, and so forth.
*The topic of building a solid case around a conclusion is one of the central aspects of good genealogy research methodology. Many books, articles and presentations have been given on this topic. Learning and practicing solid methodology will enhance your research skills in your lifelong journey toward accurate and ethical genealogy.
ICAPGen℠ 