Public and private records (was Re: African Roots lost at NC - Help?)
Austin W. Spencer
> "Singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > > Linda Scheimann says...
> > >
> > > > Also consider plantation records, which require you to gain
> > > > permission from the family currently, and you might want to be
> > > > diplomatic in this request.
> > >
> > > Linda, records of "plantations" (which were, after all, just big
> > > farms) are in state archives and county courthouses everywhere. No
> > > permission is needed to view these records. There are also
> > > so-called "private collections" housed in most archives that are
> > > open to whomever requests them. (Even these "private collections"
> > > became public record just as soon as the donor gave them to the
> > > repository.)
> > >
> > > Rho...@newsguy.com
> >
> > But, until someone DOES give these records to the depository, they
> > are private financial records and therefore not public property;
> > this means you need the formal permission of the OWNER of the farm
> > and its records before you can see them. I venture to guess there
> > are far fewer of these records in depositories than there were
> > created.
>
> I would venture to guess that the ones NOT in repositories have not
> survived. All state archives are RICH with these materials. There
> is no hocus pocus to it. Ever hear of a single case of a researcher
> tracking down a family that lived on a perhaps-extant, perhaps not
> farm or "plantation" and gained access to genuine archival
> documents? I sure haven't.
In fact, where transfers of property are concerned, the archival copy of a
document is often not the original, but an official transcript. The original deed
would be signed, witnessed, and then taken to a clerk for recording and
acknowledgment.
The clerk's office arose from the government's need to establish title and
property rights. To accomplish this the government did not need the original
document; all it needed was a suitable copy. After recording, original deeds were
usually released to the grantees, and in possession of their heirs such documents
could last, in principle, for centuries. I have read of one deed, executed 9 June
1704, recorded and acknowledged the same day. The official copy was destroyed in
1827, but the deed was rerecorded from the original in 1909. The original was
still in sufficiently good condition in 1971 to allow for photostatic
reproduction. (Maclean W. McLean, "Mercy-2 Nye and Mercy, Wife of Lt. Matthias
Ellis," _New England Historical and genealogical Register_ 125 [1971]: 140-1 at
140)
The archival record may be uncommonly rich, but certain kinds of archives contain
little more than an uncommonly full collection of transcripts. If almost every
document in an archive is a transcript, one necessarily assumes a certain risk of
error when using the archive. This is why original records are preferable
whenever (and wherever) recoverable.
>
> > Then too, in either case, you need to know the place referred to in
> > a 1769 document as Ashley's Regret, is the same place referred to in
> > a 1798 document at Wayne's Retreat, and in an 1843 document as Quiet
> > Pines, and the one in an 1875 document as Big Spring.
>
> That's what old maps are for. Crossreferenced with deeds, tax
> records, estate records, wills, and census records, there can be no
> doubt.
>
>
> > I've never been sure it's fair to the questioner to make things
> > sound simple/easy. I get annoyed when something I thought was
> > simple (turning in a prescription? Cancelling a service call?
> > making a Dr's appt?) turns out to be time-consuming and complex.
>
> To each his own. I get annoyed when researchers who are ignorant of
> the public records available make the process of accessing them seem
> more difficult. The FIRST place to go for records pertaining to
> "plantations" is to the county courthouse or state archives to check
> for both public documents and private collections, both of which,
> regardless of nomenclature, are open to the public.
I would argue that such archives are *only* the first place to look. Just because
the researcher is likely to find a great deal of relevant material there does not
mean that they should be taken as the be-all and end-all of the documentary
record relating to plantation ownership, for instance. If the documentary record
includes information that is known to exist but is not maintained in a public-
access archive, no thorough researcher would be put off by any restrictions the
private archive may throw in his path.
>
> If you then want to fool around trying to find descendants who
> might' have 200-year-old papers that most people would throw away,
> then have at it.
>
> "Mary" <ros...@email.com>
Austin W. Spencer
Linda Scheimann
Austin W. Spencer <AustinW...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a2afd708.03102...@posting.google.com...
One thing yiou might want to consider, though, is that plantation records
are owned by the land owner's depository, and so courtesy is of the essence.
--
Cordially,
Linda Scheimann
http://www.rootsweb.com/wiwashin/
Mary
"Linda Scheimann" <geb...@niia.net> wrote in message
news:bnf037$10f52t$1...@ID-131262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> One thing yiou might want to consider, though, is that plantation
records
> are owned by the land owner's depository, and so courtesy is of the
essence.
Can you please give us JUST ONE example of such a "land owner's
depository?"
Just one.
This is utter nonsense.
Rho...@newsguy.com
says...
>
>"Mary" <ros...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> I would venture to guess that the ones NOT in repositories have not
>> survived. All state archives are RICH with these materials. There
>> is no hocus pocus to it. Ever hear of a single case of a researcher
>> tracking down a family that lived on a perhaps-extant, perhaps not
>> farm or "plantation" and gained access to genuine archival
>> documents? I sure haven't.
>
>In fact, where transfers of property are concerned, the archival copy of a
>document is often not the original, but an official transcript. The original
>deed would be signed, witnessed, and then taken to a clerk for recording and
>acknowledgment.
Of course. In most US states after independence there were at least three copies
made--meaning of course hand made copies, done by the clerk--one for the private
party involved, one for the county courthouse and one to be sent in to the
state.
>
>The clerk's office arose from the government's need to establish title and
>property rights. To accomplish this the government did not need the original
>document; all it needed was a suitable copy.
"Suitable" meaning identical except for the actual signatures, marks, and seals.
>After recording, original deeds were usually released to the grantees, and in
>possession of their heirs such documents could last, in principle, for
>centuries.
In principle, yes. But in fact, not very often.
>I have read of one deed, executed 9 June
>1704, recorded and acknowledged the same day. The official copy was destroyed in
>1827, but the deed was rerecorded from the original in 1909. The original was
>still in sufficiently good condition in 1971 to allow for photostatic
reproduction. (Maclean W. McLean, "Mercy-2 Nye and Mercy, Wife of Lt. Matthias
>Ellis," _New England Historical and genealogical Register_ 125 [1971]: 140-1 at
>140)
There are many, many documents--original documents--dating this early and
earlier in archives all over the world. When I say "archives" I mean
repositories of original documents. In the PA, MD, and NC archives the copies
made by the clerks (again, hand written in pen, and contemporary with the
original) are generally in bound volumes. Then there are loose fibredex boxes
full of originals that families have given to the archives for safe keeping.
These collections are enormous. Many of the originals have been microfilmed and
that is what patrons are asked to make copies from, to save the originals.
>
>The archival record may be uncommonly rich, but certain kinds of archives
>contain little more than an uncommonly full collection of transcripts.
I call these libraries. They are not archives in the sense of housing original
documents in carefully climate-controlled conditions, between sheets of
acid-free paper, laminated, or encapsulated.
If almost every
>document in an archive is a transcript, one necessarily assumes a certain risk
>of
>error when using the archive. This is why original records are preferable
>whenever (and wherever) recoverable.
It just amazes me that people have no idea what is in their state archives.
Enormous stores of original documents. Preserved, protected, and reproduced on
microfilm when there is budget for it. This is where real research is done--and
in the county courthouses, where, sadly, the documents are crumbling from lack
of proper storage.
>
>I would argue that such archives are *only* the first place to look. Just
>because the researcher is likely to find a great deal of relevant material
>there does not mean that they should be taken as the be-all and end-all of the
>documentary record relating to plantation ownership, for instance. If the
>documentary record includes information that is known to exist but is not
>maintained in a public-access archive, no thorough researcher would be put off
>by any restrictions the private archive may throw in his path.
I am intrigued by the idea of these phantom "private archives." I hope someone
will furnish an example. As it is, it would take a lifetime to read all the
plantation records housed in, say, the NC archives. Estates records naming
slavesand detailing every possession, beautiful plats and maps of private
property, letters describing gala pre-1850 functions, letters back and forth
between plantation owners and their children, and depositions from people
discussing all manner of details of life 1680--1920 or so. I think the "private
archives" is another little romantic hocus pocus element that nice (but
inexperienced) researchers toss in the mix to add excitement.
>>
>> If you then want to fool around trying to find descendants who
>> might' have 200-year-old papers that most people would throw away,
>> then have at it.
>>
>
>Austin W. Spencer
Linda Scheimann
Not really. A good example would be the Thomas Jefferson estate papers.
Sally might or might not have been his mistress, but who might know?
Linda
Mary <ros...@email.com> wrote in message
news:BvDmb.7213$IA2.4...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Genjunkie
> Mary,
>
> Not really. A good example would be the Thomas Jefferson estate
papers.
> Sally might or might not have been his mistress, but who might know?
>
> Linda
The Jefferson papers are public records.
It is as though you imagine that "the family" of the slaveholders is
still intact and around, and has kept the old papers. In this day and
age, most people still living in the same county their grandparents
were in do not even know who their ancestors are two generations back,
let alone 200 years back. Most do not care. And fully MOST of the
papers that have survived are in public archives such as state
archives and privately owned (but still open to the public)
repostories of original documents such as the Virgnia Historical
Society, or colleges and Universities.
No researcher need feel they must tiptoe around the imaginary feelings
of these imaginary families.
The most intimate surviving details of plantation life are found in
state archives and university archives repositories. Which slaves were
"mulatto" (and so probably descendants of the slaveowner), which
slaves were sold off after a "master's" death (many times his black
mistresses and their children), which slaves the master manumits
posthumously, many times his own children (and when the family refused
to honor the wish), even cases of owners killing slaves and slave
killing owners may be found in the civil action papers.
The bastardy bonds begin in the late 1600s and give the name of the
father and the mother when the mother would tell. When she would not
one can often tell by who puts up the bond for her. Free white women
had mulatto children in the 1800s by named slaves of named owners.
Never underestimate what is housed in your state archives. The
ignorance on this topic astounds me. It is no wonder few state
legislatures adequately fund state archives.
Austin W. Spencer
> In article <a2afd708.03102...@posting.google.com>, Austin W. Spencer
> says...
[snip]
> >I have read of one deed, executed 9 June 1704,
> >recorded and acknowledged the same day. The official copy was destroyed in
> >1827, but the deed was rerecorded from the original in 1909. The original was
> >still in sufficiently good condition in 1971 to allow for photostatic
> >reproduction. (Maclean W. McLean, "Mercy-2 Nye and Mercy, Wife of Lt. Matthias
> >Ellis," _New England Historical and genealogical Register_ 125 [1971]: 140-1
> >at 140)
>
> There are many, many documents--original documents--dating this early and
> earlier in archives all over the world. When I say "archives" I mean
> repositories of original documents.
The point is that *this* original document never did reside in what you would
call archives. The archive was not actually a repository of original documents;
it was a repository of official transcripts. Even though archives may receive
original holographic manuscripts long after their creation, an archive of deeds
normally consists of just such an assemblage of transcripts, each of which has
an inherent error risk. We normally accept this risk only for those official
documents that had to be duplicated for recording purposes, and only because
originals are so hard to come by. In this category we find probate records and
most census schedules, as well as deeds; but only in the case of deeds are
originals at all likely to have survived in private custody.
> In the PA, MD, and NC archives the copies
> made by the clerks (again, hand written in pen, and contemporary with the
> original) are generally in bound volumes. Then there are loose fibredex boxes
> full of originals that families have given to the archives for safe keeping.
> These collections are enormous. Many of the originals have been microfilmed and
> that is what patrons are asked to make copies from, to save the originals.
>
> >The archival record may be uncommonly rich, but certain kinds of archives
> >contain little more than an uncommonly full collection of transcripts.
>
> I call these libraries. They are not archives in the sense of housing original
> documents in carefully climate-controlled conditions, between sheets of
> acid-free paper, laminated, or encapsulated.
The distinction is in fact not that hard and fast. Some libraries double as
archives. Some archives maintain adjunct libraries. I would designate a library
as primarily a collection of secondary literature. It may certainly contain
transcripts of original source material, or even collections of original
holographs. These, however, are not what libraries mainly offer to the public.
[snip]
> I am intrigued by the idea of these phantom "private archives." I hope someone
> will furnish an example.
How about a society library that receives bible records, printed biography
collections, donors' working notes (including any originals they might have
acquired during their research), microfilmed originals, and the like?
Societies usually either charge non-members a fee for each use or restrict
their manuscript collections to members.
It seems to me that you so associate "archives" with state-level management as
to make it unnecessarily difficult to conceive of any other institution
managing an archive. Therefore, all "archives" are "public." I suspect that any
member of your local historical society, or perhaps even the librarian at your
nearest university, would beg to differ.
> As it is, it would take a lifetime to read all the
> plantation records housed in, say, the NC archives. Estates records naming
> slavesand detailing every possession, beautiful plats and maps of private
> property, letters describing gala pre-1850 functions, letters back and forth
> between plantation owners and their children, and depositions from people
> discussing all manner of details of life 1680--1920 or so. I think the "private
> archives" is another little romantic hocus pocus element that nice (but
> inexperienced) researchers toss in the mix to add excitement.
If this is experience, it doesn't improve you.
[snip]
Austin W. Spencer
Genjunkie
>
> The point is that *this* original document never did reside in what
you would
> call archives.
This was one document. Again, its existence is no reason to lead a
bunch
of gullible Usenet denizens to believe that the best original
materials are
in private hands. They are not.
The archive was not actually a repository of original documents;
> it was a repository of official transcripts. Even though archives
may receive
> original holographic manuscripts long after their creation, an
archive of deeds
> normally consists of just such an assemblage of transcripts
You are writing in unintelligible generalizations. There are certainly
many
kinds of "archives." You may "archive" your emails but i seriously
doubt there is anything there for posterity. Since this is a genealogy
group, it is reasonable to assume that the word "archives" refers to
historical manuscripts and materials.
> >
> The distinction is in fact not that hard and fast. Some libraries
double as
> archives. Some archives maintain adjunct libraries. I would
designate a library
> as primarily a collection of secondary literature. [snip ad nauseum
hairsplitting]
I think I covered that above.
> > I am intrigued by the idea of these phantom "private archives." I
hope someone
> > will furnish an example.
>
> How about a society library that receives bible records, printed
biography
> collections, donors' working notes (including any originals they
might have
> acquired during their research), microfilmed originals, and the
like?
Like the many I belong to, to which anyone at all might belong for a
fee
of a few dollars? We can start with the VA Historical Society. They
have a
web site, check their membership criteria. Name some others. We all
need to know where these SUPER DOUBLE SECRET members only
repositories are aside from in your mind. You may name some "pedigree"
type of groups, but their records tend to be 1920s-1960s tattered
onionskin bound editions of Aunt Edna's citationless "research." No?
Prove me wrong.
>
> It seems to me that you so associate "archives" with state-level
management
Not in the least. In a genealogy group I associate the word "archives"
with archives of historical documents. There are college and
university
archives, privately funded (but publically accessible) archives such
as
the various historical societies, etc.
as
> to make it unnecessarily difficult to conceive of any other
institution
> managing an archive. Therefore, all "archives" are "public." I
suspect that any
> member of your local historical society, or perhaps even the
librarian at your
> nearest university, would beg to differ.
Nonsense. I never said that. You are the first to say that. Libraries
have
stacks and various collections. Generally the archives within a
library houses
the original documents. Any copies are clerk's copies made more or
less
contemporary with the original. You sound like a typical sort who has
spent a great deal more time online that doing real research among
original materials.
>
> > As it is, it would take a lifetime to read all the
> > plantation records housed in, say, the NC archives. Estates
records naming
> > slavesand detailing every possession, beautiful plats and maps of
private
> > property, letters describing gala pre-1850 functions, letters back
and forth
> > between plantation owners and their children, and depositions from
people
> > discussing all manner of details of life 1680--1920 or so. I think
the "private
> > archives" is another little romantic hocus pocus element that nice
(but
> > inexperienced) researchers toss in the mix to add excitement.
>
> If this is experience, it doesn't improve you.
Your crowning glory, the ad hominem attatck.
Here is a clue for you and Cheryl and Linda
Scheimann and all the other Usenet experts:
If you insist on taking an authoritative tone and
pontificating about things you possess
inadequate knowledge of, on occasion an
honest-to-God real researcher is going to
stumble upon your idiocy and call you out.
Stick with what you know.
There must be something aside from plunging
perfectly civil discourse into an abyss of gradeschool
level nose thumbing.
[snip]
Austin W. Spencer
news:<bngti1$10gd55$1...@ID-211945.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Which was also posted by "Genjunkie" to alt.genealogy.methods and by
"Mary"
<ros...@email.com> to soc.genealogy.misc, in the "Re: African Roots
lost at
NC - help?" thread, within a few minutes...
> "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinW...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:a2afd708.0310...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The point is that *this* original document never did reside in what you would
> > call archives.
>
> This was one document. Again, its existence is no reason to lead a bunch
> of gullible Usenet denizens to believe that the best original materials are
> in private hands. They are not.
It is no less foolish to presume that the best originals are in public
hands
than in private. The custodial history of a record set influences its
reliability; it does not determine it.
> > The archive was not actually a repository of original documents;
> > it was a repository of official transcripts. Even though archives may receive
> > original holographic manuscripts long after their creation, an archive of
> > deeds normally consists of just such an assemblage of transcripts
>
> You are writing in unintelligible generalizations. There are certainly many
> kinds of "archives." You may "archive" your emails but i seriously
> doubt there is anything there for posterity. Since this is a genealogy
> group, it is reasonable to assume that the word "archives" refers to
> historical manuscripts and materials.
I cannot object to this definition of an archive. It is in making out
"original" and "public" to be conjoined twins that you needlessly
oversimplify the research process.
> > The distinction is in fact not that hard and fast. Some libraries double as
> > archives. Some archives maintain adjunct libraries. I would designate a
> > library as primarily a collection of secondary literature. [snip ad nauseum
> hairsplitting]
>
> I think I covered that above.
Rho...@newsguy.com was not that discriminating. When I said, "certain
kinds
of archives contain little more than an uncommonly full collection of
transcripts," he/she/it cut me off with: "I call these libraries."
This made
it sound as though any transcribed material was simply "not archival,"
even
though in many cases -- e. g., in most deeds! -- the transcript is the
closest survival to the original. Yes, such hairsplitting is boring
after a
while, but I didn't start this round, and that is what you snipped.
But since you are so eager to take his/her/its part -- and Mary to
take
yours, as I've demonstrated above -- what assurance do I have that
your
concern is sui generis?
> > > I am intrigued by the idea of these phantom "private archives." I hope
> > > someone will furnish an example.
> >
> > How about a society library that receives bible records, printed biography
> > collections, donors' working notes (including any originals they might have
> > acquired during their research), microfilmed originals, and the like?
>
> Like the many I belong to, to which anyone at all might belong for a fee
> of a few dollars? We can start with the VA Historical Society. They have a
> web site, check their membership criteria. Name some others. We all
> need to know where these SUPER DOUBLE SECRET members only
> repositories are aside from in your mind. You may name some "pedigree"
> type of groups, but their records tend to be 1920s-1960s tattered
> onionskin bound editions of Aunt Edna's citationless "research." No?
> Prove me wrong.
I was loath to name names because I believe that on the whole these
organizations do good work. We can start with the New England Historic
Genealogical Society, which says that its manuscript collections are
"available to members" and by implication closed to others:
<http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rs0/libraries/manuscripts/?page_id=656&attrib1=1&seq_num=103>
Or the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, which does not
permit
non-members to personally examine items in its manuscript collections.
Non-
members must instead use the Society's own research service:
<http://www.nygbs.org/info/library.html>
<http://www.nygbs.org/info/search.html>
The public could access even the "closed" collections by enlisting a
professional researcher who belongs to the organization. Few private
access
restrictions are too imposing to overcome without a fee. But this sets
private repositories at a disadvantage to public ones that do not
charge
for access. Although this is inherently a cost-incurring business, it
is up
to each of us to decide which costs we can afford on an annual basis.
And the
main thing that distinguishes public from private, in my view, is that
public
respositories do not assess their fees selectively.
As for the lineage societies, their application papers have comparable
value
with secondary publications of similar date and standards: as sources
of
clues and leads. It takes a great leap to write *all* of them off on
account
of Aunt Edna's ineptitude by contemporary standards.
> > It seems to me that you so associate "archives" with state-level
> > management
>
> Not in the least. In a genealogy group I associate the word "archives"
> with archives of historical documents. There are college and university
> archives, privately funded (but publically accessible) archives such as
> the various historical societies, etc.
This was not clear from your and Rhodes's emphasis on the state-level
collections. Pity the Usenet denizen who might initially have
suspected that
university and historical-society archives are "not public" simply
because
they are privately funded -- and because, as a rule, they generally
impose
more demanding access requirements.
> > as
> > to make it unnecessarily difficult to conceive of any other institution
> > managing an archive. Therefore, all "archives" are "public." I suspect that
> > any member of your local historical society, or perhaps even the librarian at
> > your nearest university, would beg to differ.
>
> Nonsense. I never said that. You are the first to say that. Libraries have
> stacks and various collections. Generally the archives within a library houses
> the original documents. Any copies are clerk's copies made more or less
> contemporary with the original.
This is another reason why I would have preferred clarity from the
start on
what you count as a public archive. If you never said it, you also
never
denied it; it was wide open.
By the way, I find it interesting that "Genjunkie" takes criticism of
Rhodes
so *personally*.
[snip]
> > If this is experience, it doesn't improve you.
>
> Your crowning glory, the ad hominem attatck.
I suppose a case could have been made for ignoring all the ad hominems
that
Rhodes hurled at me.
> Here is a clue for you and Cheryl and Linda
> Scheimann and all the other Usenet experts:
>
> If you insist on taking an authoritative tone and
> pontificating about things you possess
> inadequate knowledge of, on occasion an
> honest-to-God real researcher is going to
> stumble upon your idiocy and call you out.
>
> Stick with what you know.
>
> There must be something aside from plunging
> perfectly civil discourse into an abyss of gradeschool
> level nose thumbing.
>
> [snip]
Any umbrage I take at this completely condescending advice is beside
the
point.
Austin W. Spencer
Genjunkie
> It is no less foolish to presume that the best originals are in
public
> hand than in private. The custodial history of a record set
influences its
> reliability; it does not determine it.
The "best originals?" Would these be the "prettiest?" What an odd
construct. What is true is that the vast majority of the original
documents
are in public or private repositories that are open to the public. It
cannot
be foolish to presume what is true, now can it?
> I cannot object to this definition of an archive. It is in making
out
> "original" and "public" to be conjoined twins that you needlessly
> oversimplify the research process.
Nice try. Anyone rereading the thread can see that the only place this
happened is in your mind.
> > > I am intrigued by the idea of these phantom "private archives."
I hope
> > > someone will furnish an example.
> >
> I was loath to name names because I believe that on the whole these
> organizations do good work. We can start with the New England
Historic
> Genealogical Society
Yes, let's do! go here and you will see that for a mere $30 (students)
and
$60 (individuals) one may have membership and access for a full year.
Therefore the materials are open to the public.
http://www.newenglandancestors.org/rs3/membership/levels/
>Or the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society
Excellent! Go here, and you will see that the yearly membership
fee is $60 and permits full access to all archival materials:
Which means that the materials are open to the public.
>Although this is inherently a cost-incurring business, it
> is up to each of us to decide which costs we can afford on an annual
basis.
> And the main thing that distinguishes public from private, in my
view, is that
>public respositories do not assess their fees selectively.
This is beside the point. The discussion is
about whether or not most original materials pertinent to African
American genealogy are in private hands inaccessible to the public or
in
public or private hands and fully accessible to the public. The two
examples you gave are absolutely open to anyone who has $30 to
$60. So the original poster does not need to go groveling politely to
some imaginary descendant of slave holders to find out about his
family. Linda's statement was inaccurate to the point of being
ludicrous, and your supporting it just shows your incredible
ignorance about valid genealogical research in addition to
nauseating arrogance.
> By the way, I find it interesting that "Genjunkie" takes criticism
of
> Rhodes so *personally*.
None of this is personal. I just do not suffer fools gladly,
and do not savor the sight of you, Linda, and Cheryl giving
absolutely false information in authoritative voices to people
who ask your advice. If you don't know, for God's sake
learn to say that you don't.
Robert Heiling
> "Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> wrote in message
> news:<bngti1$10gd55$1...@ID-211945.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
> Which was also posted by "Genjunkie" to alt.genealogy.methods and by
> "Mary" <ros...@email.com> to soc.genealogy.misc, in the "Re: African Roots
> lost at NC - help?" thread, within a few minutes...
Yes, that's right. An analysis of headers and other information shows that they are one & the same
person posting from the NC Road Runner service. These are typical of posts by anonymous trolls.
Please save your energy! You are dealing with a Troll.
Bob
Singhals
> Never underestimate what is housed in your state archives. The
> ignorance on this topic astounds me. It is no wonder few state
> legislatures adequately fund state archives.
>
There you go again. You have been blasted lucky in the
states you're researching. Emphatically, not all states
have such vast collections. One should never overstate
one's case, either.
I guarantee you no slave-plantation records exist in the
Wisconsin state archives because Wisconsin wasn't a slave
state. None exist in the WV state archives, because the
placed burned to the ground in 1918 or so, destroying
everything. I doubt they exist in any of the states west of
the Rockies and only a few of those between the Mississippi
and the Rockies.
I finally figured out that you're using "archives" in the
dictionary sense; the rest of us are using it in the
vernacular. Note that the strict definition of an archives
precludes the inclusion of any document not created by the
government it archives -- which would exclude the plantation
records, which were and are the private records of the
plantation owner, dead or alive.
Cheryl
Genjunkie
"Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3F9C6A38...@comcast.net...
The last refuge of an idiot.
Care to weigh in on the relevent issues, Bobby? Or do you know nothing
more than Austin and the other "experts" about conducting real
genealogical
research?
Hmmm?
Genjunkie
"Singhals" <Sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F9C7AE8...@erols.com...
> Genjunkie wrote:
>
> > Never underestimate what is housed in your state archives. The
> > ignorance on this topic astounds me. It is no wonder few state
> > legislatures adequately fund state archives.
> >
>
> There you go again. You have been blasted lucky in the
> states you're researching. Emphatically, not all states
> have such vast collections. One should never overstate
> one's case, either.
Cheryl. We were talking about researching African American
roots in NORTH CAROLINA. That was the specific topic the original
poster asked about. Linda Scheimann gave an idiotic answer about
most of the records being in "plantation records" owned by private
families that the original poster must approach with great
consideration. I corrected her, and you chimed in saying that my
suggestion that fully most original records pertaining to African
Americans in the pre-Civil War US are accessible to the public was
making the research too easy. You are wrong, Austin is wrong, and
Linda did nothing more than offer bad advice to the unwary and insult
the intelligence of those of us who know better.
Again, when you do not know, say that you do not know.
You, Austin, Linda, and Heiling have made horse's asses of yourselves.
Meanwhile, the original poster and the others have received a lessons
in both conducting African American research in North Carolina, and in
about how much good most of you puffed up Usenet "experts" can help
the unsuspecting.
The vast majority of records pertaining to NC African roots is NOT in
private hands and accessible to the public only by virtue of the good
graces of the "families" of the slave owners.
>
> I guarantee you no slave-plantation records exist in the
> Wisconsin state archives because Wisconsin wasn't a slave
> state. None exist in the WV state archives, because the
> placed burned to the ground in 1918 or so, destroying
> everything. I doubt they exist in any of the states west of
> the Rockies and only a few of those between the Mississippi
> and the Rockies.
>
> I finally figured out that you're using "archives" in the
> dictionary sense; the rest of us are using it in the
> vernacular. Note that the strict definition of an archives
> precludes the inclusion of any document not created by the
> government it archives -- which would exclude the plantation
> records, which were and are the private records of the
> plantation owner, dead or alive.
>
>
> Cheryl
*Sigh.*
Right. Note the original subject line and forgive me for getting my
definitions from the dictionary.
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9C6A38...@comcast.net...
> > "Austin W. Spencer" wrote:
> >
> > > "Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<bngti1$10gd55$1...@ID-211945.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >
> > > Which was also posted by "Genjunkie" to alt.genealogy.methods and
> by
> > > "Mary" <ros...@email.com> to soc.genealogy.misc, in the "Re:
> African Roots
> > > lost at NC - help?" thread, within a few minutes...
> >
> > Yes, that's right. An analysis of headers and other information
> shows that they are one & the same
> > person posting from the NC Road Runner service. These are typical of
> posts by anonymous trolls.
> > Please save your energy! You are dealing with a Troll.
>
> The last refuge of an idiot.
Exactly! and precisely my point. Anonymous trolling by "Mary"
<ros...@email.com> or "Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> has no
legitimate role in this NG.
> Care to weigh in on the relevent issues, Bobby?
I just did. Anonymous trolling has been turned into an issue here by your
irresponsible actions.
> Or do you know nothing
> more than Austin and the other "experts" about conducting real
> genealogical
> research?
>
> Hmmm?
You have yet to establish any credentials for speaking out on any issue
here and are unlikely to ever establish such at your current rate of
progress. Anonymities (especially troublesome Trolls) have NO credentials!
Bob
Genjunkie
>
> You have yet to establish any credentials for speaking out on any
issue
> here and are unlikely to ever establish such at your current rate of
> progress.
I don't need to "establish credentials," you blithering idiot.
>Anonymities (especially troublesome Trolls) have NO credentials!
>
There is nothing anonymous about me. And the only thing that troubles
you is that you have not the first clue regarding valid genealogical
research, yet you are just dying to maintain your imaginary status
in a group that is not your private club. Now then, discuss the topics
at
hand or pipe down, you stuffy old bonehead. Off-topic posts might just
get
you into trouble, you know. Comcast frowns upon that.
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9C8110...@comcast.net...
> >
> > You have yet to establish any credentials for speaking out on any
> issue
> > here and are unlikely to ever establish such at your current rate of
> > progress.
>
> I don't need to "establish credentials,"
It's clearly not of concern to you.
> you blithering idiot.
That sounds rather like an ad hominem comment.
> >Anonymities (especially troublesome Trolls) have NO credentials!
>
> There is nothing anonymous about me.
"Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> sounds rather anonymous to me, or
does it appear in someones tree?
> And the only thing that troubles
> you is that you have not the first clue regarding valid genealogical
> research, yet you are just dying to maintain your imaginary status
> in a group that is not your private club.
"Private club"?? That's Mary Anonymous's line.
> Now then, discuss the topics
> at
> hand or pipe down, you stuffy old bonehead.
Ad hominem?
> Off-topic posts might just
> get
> you into trouble, you know. Comcast frowns upon that.
Report me then.
Bob
Genjunkie
> >
> > I don't need to "establish credentials,"
>
> It's clearly not of concern to you.
Well, you could say that. Or ... you could say that
I have no interest in evealing personal information to a
nasty old man who has been trying to find out personal
information about me ever since I joined this discussion
group.
>
> > you blithering idiot.
>
> That sounds rather like an ad hominem comment.
And you sound rather like a blithering idiot when you use
grade school terms like "troll" for anyone with whom you disagree.
Grow up. Join the discussion of genealogical research or opt out.
But do not think you can suppress the discussion others are having.
That is not the way Usenet works.
>
> > >Anonymities (especially troublesome Trolls) have NO credentials!
> >
> > There is nothing anonymous about me.
>
> "Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> sounds rather anonymous to
me, or
> does it appear in someones tree?
Now, now, gramps. Look around. Lots of folks use catchy little
handles like that. It keeps them from being harassed in real life
by people like you.
> > Now then, discuss the topics
> > at
> > hand or pipe down, you stuffy old bonehead.
>
> Ad hominem?
Think so? Polly want a cracker? If it talks like a stuffy old bonehead
and posts like a stuffy old bonehead, chances are it is a stuffy old
bonehead.
This is a discussion group that is open to the world, Bobby. If you
get this
bent over every poster you can't best in the most elementary debate,
you
are headed for trouble.
>
> > Off-topic posts might just
> > get
> > you into trouble, you know. Comcast frowns upon that.
>
> Report me then.
>
> Bob
>
Oh, please. I'm all for free speech.
But I am going to have to ask you to stop prying into my
personal life, you old stalker. It is dangerous to give out
real life information on the Internet, haven't you heard? Try to
do as I do and limit your initiation of discussions to the topic at
hand. If you have anything to offer.
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9CA444...@comcast.net...
> > >
> > > I don't need to "establish credentials,"
> > It's clearly not of concern to you.
>
> Well, you could say that. Or ... you could say that
> I have no interest in evealing personal information
"personal information"? like age, marital status, home address, SSN, bank
account#'s etc.
> to a
> nasty old man who has been trying to find out personal
> information about me ever since I joined this discussion
> group.
You have a different definition of "personal information" than the rest
of the world has. Haven't you noticed that you are virtually the only one
on this thread who is not posting with a full name? That's not "personal
information"!
> > > you blithering idiot.
> > That sounds rather like an ad hominem comment.
>
> And you sound rather like a blithering idiot when you use
> grade school terms like "troll" for anyone with whom you disagree.
"troll" is the standard term that is used to describe the type of
trouble-making behavior you have displayed ever since you started posting
with your contemptible insults directed at Dr. Leverich. I didn't invent
the word and am merely using it appropriately.
> Grow up. Join the discussion of genealogical research or opt out.
> But do not think you can suppress the discussion others are having.
> That is not the way Usenet works.
> >
> > > >Anonymities (especially troublesome Trolls) have NO credentials!
> > > There is nothing anonymous about me.
> > "Genjunkie" <ancestra...@usa.com> sounds rather anonymous to
> > me, or does it appear in someones tree?
>
> Now, now, gramps.
That would be funny if it weren't so insultingly ageist, but you have no
idea what my age is.
> Look around. Lots of folks use catchy little
> handles like that. It keeps them from being harassed in real life
> by people like you.
Sounds a bit paranoid. Are they all out to get you?
> > > Now then, discuss the topics at
> > > hand or pipe down, you stuffy old bonehead.
> >
> > Ad hominem?
>
> Think so? Polly want a cracker? If it talks like a stuffy old bonehead
> and posts like a stuffy old bonehead, chances are it is a stuffy old
> bonehead.
> This is a discussion group that is open to the world, Bobby. If you
> get this
> bent over every poster you can't best in the most elementary debate,
> you are headed for trouble.
> >
> > > Off-topic posts might just get
> > > you into trouble, you know. Comcast frowns upon that.
> >
> > Report me then.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> Oh, please. I'm all for free speech.
Then why bring it up?
> But I am going to have to ask you to stop prying into my
> personal life, you old stalker.
What in the world are you blabbering about?
> It is dangerous to give out
> real life information on the Internet, haven't you heard?
Who's been doing that?
> Try to
> do as I do and limit your initiation of discussions to the topic at
> hand. If you have anything to offer.
That's my question for you.
Bob
Genjunkie
>
> You have a different definition of "personal information" than the
rest
> of the world has. Haven't you noticed that you are virtually the
only one
> on this thread who is not posting with a full name? That's not
"personal
> information"!
Perhaps, but you are beginning to creep me out. I am asking you for a
second
time to cease and desist trying to find out information that would
tell you my
precise location and other information that might endanger me. I am
here
discussing research. That is all you need to know.There are laws
against stalking
in Oregon and North Carolina, you know.
Anyone reading all of my comments and all of yours over the past few
weeks
can clearly see that I am discussing genealogy and you are taking a
nasty
and inappropriate interest in my personal details. There are an awful
lot
of you hostile and strange types there in Portland, aren't there?
Rho...@newsguy.com
>
[bunch of obnoxious stuff snipped]
Can you please take it to email? This is a genealogy
group, and your little vendetta is wasting bandwidth.
Robert Heiling
> In article <3F9D509F...@comcast.net>, Robert Heiling
> >
> [bunch of obnoxious stuff snipped]
I assume you mean all the name-calling.
> Can you please take it to email? This is a genealogy
> group, and your little vendetta is wasting bandwidth.
I have absolutely no interest in exchanging email with that person.
Bob
Robert Heiling
> "Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9D509F...@comcast.net...
> <snip> I am here
> discussing research. That is all you need to know.
You are here hurling nasty insults at people on every thread you have
been involved in.
> There are laws against stalking
> in Oregon and North Carolina, you know.
stalking???
> Anyone reading all of my comments and all of yours over the past few
> weeks can clearly see that I am discussing genealogy and you are taking
> a
> nasty and inappropriate interest in my personal details.
Nope. You've got that all backwards too.
> There are an awful lot
> of you hostile and strange types there in Portland, aren't there?
To the best of my knowledge, it's a beautiful city and a nice place to
live.
Bob
Sherry
@ID-211945.news.uni-berlin.de:
<snip>
> Perhaps, but you are beginning to creep me out. I am asking you for a
> second
> time to cease and desist trying to find out information that would
> tell you my
> precise location and other information that might endanger me. I am
> here
> discussing research. That is all you need to know.There are laws
> against stalking
> in Oregon and North Carolina, you know.
Is someone a little paranoid here? I've missed the whole thread
(fortunately), but if you don't want to reveal your name, just don't
reveal your name. There's no sense in getting freaky about it. In the
few messages I did read, I didn't see anyone trying to pry anything out
of you.
Sherry
(who doesn't give out her last name on news groups for her own reasons
but that doesn't make me any less of a genealogist)
Genjunkie
"Sherry" <she...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942177349CCCTa...@130.133.1.4...
> (who doesn't give out her last name on news groups for her own
reasons
> but that doesn't make me any less of a genealogist)
Good point, Sherry. Maybe Bob can learn something here.
Liz
>
> "Robert Heiling" <rob...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3F9D509F...@comcast.net...
> >
> > You have a different definition of "personal information" than the
> rest
> > of the world has. Haven't you noticed that you are virtually the
> only one
> > on this thread who is not posting with a full name? That's not
> "personal
> > information"!
>
> Perhaps, but you are beginning to creep me out. I am asking you for a
> second
> time to cease and desist trying to find out information that would
> tell you my
> precise location and other information that might endanger me. I am
> here
> discussing research. That is all you need to know.There are laws
> against stalking
> in Oregon and North Carolina, you know.
Once again you demonstrate a complete ignorance of Usenet and Internet
practise.
It is quite acceptable when a person begins posting under more than one
alias in various newsgroups, or otherwise behaves in a trolling manner,
to perform such checks as are possible to establish whether these names
are indeed being used by one individual and via which ISP. You
definitely did not like Robert exposing your double identities.
>
> Anyone reading all of my comments and all of yours over the past few
> weeks
> can clearly see that I am discussing genealogy and you are taking a
> nasty
> and inappropriate interest in my personal details. There are an awful
> lot
> of you hostile and strange types there in Portland, aren't there?
Robert has used the headers etc on your messages to establish that you
like to pretend to be different people in the newsgroups. That is *not*
as you would have us believe, either 'inappropriate' or 'stalking'.
I, personally, do not have such a strict view as Robert on people using
their full names in newsgroups but I do very much object to people using
multiple identities .... it's been known to lead to people pretending to
agree with themselves in order to reinforce an argument ... silly and
deceptive. Not that uyou would get away with it for long as your
slapdash and paranoid style would give you away.
As with your attacks on Dr Leverich you are now trying to blacken the
character of a fine and knowledgeable long-time contributor to
alt.genealogy .... Robert and I do not always agree but he is neither a
dirty old man or a stalker and the quicker you learn that the better.
Oh, and signing people who disagree with you up to porn sites is deeply
juvenile, by the way.
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Mary
"Liz" <pan...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3F9D7A...@dircon.co.uk...
> I, personally, do not have such a strict view as Robert on people
using
> their full names in newsgroups but I do very much object to people
using
> multiple identities ....
Here is a clue for you, Liz. I don't care what you think.
>
> As with your attacks on Dr Leverich you are now trying to blacken
the
> character of a fine and knowledgeable long-time contributor to
> alt.genealogy ....
Quite the drama queen, eh, Elizabeth?
>
> Oh, and signing people who disagree with you up to porn sites is
deeply
> juvenile, by the way.
Now this is funny. You princesses will stop at nothing to maintain
your imaginary control over an open forum! LOL!
I'll tell you what I have told your good Buddy Bob:
Mind your own business, discuss genealogy here if you
like, and do not try to interfere with others who are doing
just that.
My comments from now on will be limited to the topic
at hand.
You melodramatic idiots may do as you like.
Rho...@newsguy.com
>
>Once again you demonstrate a complete ignorance of Usenet and Internet
>practise.
Why don't you shut up unless you have something to say
about the topic of genealogical research you pompous ass.
I'm not the only one this is getting old with.
I'm not above complaining to your provider AND Heilings.
Liz
> Why don't you shut up unless you have something to say
> about the topic of genealogical research you pompous ass.
> I'm not the only one this is getting old with.
>
> I'm not above complaining to your provider AND Heilings.
On what grounds?
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Rho...@newsguy.com
Posting off-topic, harrassing those who are trying to
have on-topic discussions, and interfering with the
smooth exchange of on-topic information.
>
Take a look at your Internet Service Provider's [dircon (Netscaliber)]'s
Acceptible Use Policy here:
http://www.netscalibur.co.uk/legal_notices/AUP.pdf
To quote a small section for your convenience:
"4. What constitutes UNACCEPTABLE USE ?
Interfering with the Internet use of an individual or group
An action intended to violate the privace of others
Activities which cause any individual annoyance, inconvenience, or needless
anxiety."
Mary is posting on topic and being harrassed by you and Heiling. That
is what the record shows. She had a right to complain about sgm as it has not
worked well for over a year. She had a right to form a new group. She has a
right to her opinion just as you and Heiling do. SHE is posting about research.
Now shut up unless you are doing the same. I'm sick of hearing from all partied
involved.
Liz
>
> In article <3F9D92...@dircon.co.uk>, Liz says...
> >
> >Rho...@newsguy.com wrote:
> >
> >> Why don't you shut up unless you have something to say
> >> about the topic of genealogical research you pompous ass.
> >> I'm not the only one this is getting old with.
> >>
> >> I'm not above complaining to your provider AND Heilings.
> >
> >On what grounds?
> >
> >Liz (Greenwich UK)
>
> Posting off-topic, harrassing those who are trying to
> have on-topic discussions, and interfering with the
> smooth exchange of on-topic information.
Dear Rhodes@newsguy (who is also a brand new poster who has only ever
posted in this thread.)
I suspect that you have emerged as the paramilitary wing of
Mary/Genjunkie's Multiple Personality Disorder ....
You see, Mary Genjunkie is always insisting on unmoderated freedom in
newsgroups, isn't she? So she needs you to try and police those who say
anything she dislikes. And Reality Check to actually perform illegal
actions on her behalf. Cunning, hey?
I'm afraid you *all* need to grow up. If you throw a hissy fit every
time someone posts off-topic you will need stronger medication.
> >
> Take a look at your Internet Service Provider's [dircon (Netscaliber)]'s
> Acceptible Use Policy here:
>
> http://www.netscalibur.co.uk/legal_notices/AUP.pdf
>
> To quote a small section for your convenience:
>
> "4. What constitutes UNACCEPTABLE USE ?
Very selective extracts ....
>
> Interfering with the Internet use of an individual or group
Nope. Youall(!) have been chided, not interfered with ....
>
> An action intended to violate the privace of others
Like Reality Check, you mean?
>
> Activities which cause any individual annoyance, inconvenience, or needless
> anxiety."
Well, frankly I don't care if you are all anxious. Like most ISPs mine
comes down very heavily against forged headers and addresses. Does
yours?
>
> Mary is posting on topic and being harrassed by you and Heiling. That
> is what the record shows. She had a right to complain about sgm as it has not
> worked well for over a year. She had a right to form a new group. She has a
> right to her opinion just as you and Heiling do. SHE is posting about research.
> Now shut up unless you are doing the same. I'm sick of hearing from all partied
> involved.
Re-read the thread. Who first started the personal attacks? Who is
posting under multiple aliases? Who has a real mouth on her which is not
consistent with gaining a reputation for serious research. And who
insists on cross-posting her new newsgroup to alt.genealogy anyway?
I am also sick of hearing from all parties since all parties are the
same dim bulb ....
Liz (Greenwich UK)
Rhodes's Evil Twin
>
>>
>Dear Rhodes@newsguy (who is also a brand new poster who has only ever
>posted in this thread.)
Drat! Foiled again! We all know what THAT means, don't we?
>
>I suspect that you have emerged as the paramilitary wing of
>Mary/Genjunkie's Multiple Personality Disorder ....
No! Well now if someone as *cough* astute as YOU suspects
something ... curses! I'm found out!
Pssst ... here's another bombshell for you ... everyone
who posts from directcon is really YOU. We can all tell
because, after all, they are all posting in a GENEALOGY
GROUP, now AREN'T THEY?
>
>You see, Mary Genjunkie is always insisting on unmoderated freedom in
>newsgroups, isn't she? So she needs you to try and police those who say
>anything she dislikes. And Reality Check to actually perform illegal
>actions on her behalf. Cunning, hey?
You have way too much time on your hands. Try to understand
that not every poster is a dried up old dolt on the dole with
just as much time as you have to make a career of Internet
groups.
>
>I'm afraid you *all* need to grow up. If you throw a hissy fit every
>time someone posts off-topic you will need stronger medication.
Ouch! *Zing!* You brute you!
Since I know it took a lot out of you thinking up such a wicked
comeback, I'm going to toss you yet another clue:
OT is fine. You and your shriveled cronies trying to intimidate
anyone from posting to any free and open discussion groups is not.
For every action there is an equal (if opposite) reaction.
Very simple.
Now then, back to genealogy. Much more interesting than the halfwitted
simperings of control freak crones.
As for you-- well, you will do what you need to and so will I.
Nothing wrong with that.