Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Hi Darlene
I told Kent Forbis you are a very conscientious genelogist. And you just proved it.
I personally never had a reason to think one way or the other and had been working from some old correspondence. I myself have disagreed with the Jacob theory for reasons already stated elsewhere on the forum.
Kent Forbis pointed out one census record in which I had mis-counted someone as in but who had already got married and was in his own list, John W., leaving the space for Harrison. For me this threw out all the previous speculation,i.e.,son or nephew, even though I have high respect for these older "sources." It was a different time and way of doing things and very difficult to sort out rearrange plug-in, etc. For me the "controversy" was good because it finally produced someone who would take up the cause with facts, data, documentation, instead of mere statements such as "I have" or "they say", and so forth.
So, Kent is correct, and as he said about me, "You were right in the first place." So he and I are agreed by both facts and tradition and not by tradition only, because we know there developed two traditions about Harrison a LONG time ago.
By the way, can you change your GEDCOM to show Anna Maria Barbara KAMM (KAMP/KAMPF)as the wife of John George, numero UNO?
Have you been accessing my Polsgrove webpage?
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~polsgrove
Thanks for the opportunity to clear the air.
John
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/polsgrove/messages/147.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|