|Posted By:||Charles Ward|
|Subject:||Re: Mary COX (c1740-1816), wife of Thomas WALLING/WALLEN, was not a Cherokee|
|Post Date:||February 24, 2008 at 21:06:17|
|Forum:||Wallen Family Genealogy Forum|
I will also add, just so there is no misunderstanding, that I wish to stress I am not interested in a search of the "records" which you reference. There are too many questions remaining about these "records" which the general public can't access and simple questions about the records cannot and apparently will not be answered. However, I did feel that anyone that might write to have the records searched should be made aware there was a cost involved, a fact that was neglected with your initial posting. They also have a right to know what the records consist of, their nature, when they actually date from (meaning when they were compiled), the sources(s) of the records, etc. Again, this information has not been forthcoming.
Standards apply in genealogical and historical research. Primary sources are preferred when conducting either. As such, I always strive to use primary or near-contemporary sources. That is the manner in which the parentage and ancestry of Mary Cox, wife of Thomas Walling, has been ascertained. Unfortunately, all researchers don't adhere to these standards.
Anyone can claim their great-grandmother was an "Indian princess" or that so and so was a "full blood Shawnee," but that doesn't make it so. Regardless of the fact that a beloved aunt, uncle, or grandparent makes such a statement, regarding individuals who lived long before them, one must look at the contemporary records, from the lifetimes of the people for whom these claims were made. All too often such claims are found to be utterly false and the product of myths that grew up, sometimes totally innocently. Today, we have people who may follow a "fad" whereby claiming Native ancestry is fashionable.
I prefer a higher standard for genealogical research.