With
planning “reasonably exhaustive” research, according to the criteria for
thorough research in Mastering
Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones¹, does not have to be thoroughly
exhausting. In Chapter 3 Dr. Jones explains and makes plain the first element
of the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), “thorough (“reasonably exhaustive”)
searches in sources that might help answer a research question”.²
Homework: Measuring My Research
The
homework for this chapter asks us to evaluate a research report against the
criteria for thorough research. It becomes increasingly difficult to complete
these assignments with the goal of sharing them online as I feel I am walking a
fine line between sharing my thoughts and sharing too much of the book’s content.
I also tend to overthink things and worry ahead, traits I have thoughtfully
handed down to all three of my children. For this public homework assignment I
will be taking another look at my great, great grandfather, William Henry
Brainard. Does my research yet live up to the “reasonably exhaustive” goal?
The
original challenge I had with William was mentioned in Not Who We
Thought We Were,
the catalyst for which is found on page 150 of Vol. II of the Brainerd-Brainard
Genealogy, “William Henry Brainerd of Mystic, Conn., had his name changed to
Brainerd from Shailer. He m. Harriet E. Lamb, of Groton, Conn. He was son of
Henry and Elizabeth (Cushman) Shailer, 2ch.”³ This conflicting evidence for William’s name and parentage led me to
form the following research
questions.
Who were
the parents of William Henry Brainard, who married Harriet E. Lamb 19 February
1879 in Stonington, Connecticut? Where and when was he born?
Let’s
see if my research meets the six
criteria for “reasonably exhaustive”
as laid out in Mastering Genealogical
Proof.
1. Two
or more independent “Evidence items in agreement”4 for birth place, time & parents:
For
the year of William’s birth, several
sources provide independent evidence all
reporting that he was born in 1853. These include the 1860 and 1870 censuses
for Colchester, Connecticut5 and the 1880 census for Groton,
Connecticut.6 Also providing evidence of his birth in 1853 is his
1879 Groton marriage record to Harriet E. Lamb.7
Two sources have information providing evidence in agreement for
William’s birth in Stafford Springs, Connecticut. These are the 1879 Groton
marriage record and his 1902 death record.8
Two
evidence items
identify William’s parents as Henry and Elizabeth (Cushman) Shailer. One is the
mention in the Brainard genealogy. The other is a later book, Genealogy & Record of the Shailer,
Shaler, Shailor, Shaylor family : ...lineage and narrative based upon computerized,
detailed, but incomplete records as of February 15, 1997 9 Are you judging this book by its title?
You should be. It gives a clue as to whether or not these two works might be
reporting information provided by the same person or work. Is the later
Shailer genealogy based in part or in whole on the previous Brainard work? Is
the earlier Brainard work based in part or in whole on any of the works cited
in the Shailer genealogy? In fact several items in the Shailer genealogy are
dated before the date of publication of the Brainard one. These two items of
evidence cannot be included as part of a “reasonably exhaustive” criteria until
all of the sources cited within the two genealogies have been investigated.
2. Did I
check all of the sources a competent genealogist would view and analyze?10
No
I
already know that I need to check the sources listed in the Shailer and Brainard
genealogies, so the simple answer is no. There is more to do. When I added Stafford
Springs and a possible new identity for William, it was necessary to research
the new potential sources for a new surname and locality. This needs to happen
whenever we begin a new research project. After we have crafted our
genealogical research question, our first steps
involve researching the time and place of the question as well as the surname
or surnames involved. Dr. Jones gives suggestions for this step as well as a table
on page 25.
Google
Tip:
Want to speed your research for a locality? It is possible to search multiple
websites for results for a specific search term. Here are a few examples
[please don’t limit to the following sites]:
- "New
Hampshire" AND "land records" site:familysearch.org OR
site:ancestry.com OR site:worldcat.org OR site:americanancestors.org
OR site:godfrey.org OR site:cyndislist.com
- Libbey
AND Portsmouth AND “New Hampshire” site:genealogybank.org OR site:newspapers.com OR site: site:chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/titles/ OR site:newspaperarchive.com
- (Shailer
OR Shailor) AND genealogy AND Connecticut site:archive.org OR site: books.google.com OR site:worldcat.org
OR site:jstor.org
Add
as many sites as needed separated by ‘OR’ and as many search items as desired,
separated by ‘AND’. Although many sites are searchable in this matter, not all
are. Use google searches to research the records for the time, locality and
surname; together and individually.
3.
Do I have any primary information?
No.
The
answer to this question is no, I do not. Even though I have a great two page 1874
affidavit by William describing the events leading up to his birth, this does
not count as primary. He would only know what was told to him. Primary
information for William’s birth would need to be reported by someone who witnessed
the event, i.e. his mother or someone else in the room. In other words, not even
William could provide this and to date Elizabeth and Henry remain shrouded in
mystery.
4.
Do I have at least one original
record? Yes or no.
The
two genealogies are both authored works, so are not original. The census
records are digital images of originals,
but are used as original. The marriage record is a microfilm of the original, but is also used as original. The same goes
for the microfilm image of the 1874 name change, image of the original. Do you
notice a pattern here? I have all digital or microfilm images of original
records. It would be worth a trip to Connecticut to look at the originals. One
reason for this would be to see if there were any later additions or
corrections to the marriage record [done after the imaging was completed]. Another
reason for a trip to Connecticut would be to look through the divorce papers,
the group in which I found William’s name change petition. I am still wondering
if Henry and Elizabeth ever divorced. That is why I looked in the divorce
papers. The notation at the beginning of the film indicated that the papers
were NOT filed in any order, date or name or otherwise. It would be smart to
look at this record group again for evidence of a divorce.
5.
Have I replace authored works or
derivative records with originals if available? If primary information is
findable, get it. Don’t settle for secondary.11 No
Accuracy
depends on eyewitness information recorded soon after an event took place. The primary informant for William’s birth time
and place would be, most commonly, his mother. It could also be a birth
attendant or another family member if we had evidence that they were present
for the birth. I don’t think it likely that I will find primary information
giving evidence of William’s birth and parentage. There are more records to
examine including church records and several indexes for vital records
available at the Connecticut State Library. These are also on my ‘to do’ list.
As
previously discussed I have two authored
works whose sources need to be researched and analyzed. I have a photo of
the grave [original record with
secondary information], but I haven’t looked at the cemetery record. I do
have digital images of William’s death record as well as of the coroner’s
report. The death record contains secondary information providing direct
evidence that William’s mother was Elizabeth Cushman. The father’s name is
blank.
6. Have
I tracked down all findable sources that relevant sources and indexes suggest?12 No
Hopefully
it has become clear by now that I have not conducted a “reasonably exhaustive”
search for William’s birth and parents. I don’t have enough proof to make an
accurate statement answering my research question. There are also a couple of
pieces of conflicting evidence to continue to try to resolve.
Where
do I go from here? It’s time
to make a new plan for filling in the holes in my research, the first step of
which will be identifying the sources I have not yet examined. Then, it’s off
to Connecticut!
¹Thomas
W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, Virginia: National
Genealogical Society, 2013).
²Jones, Mastering
Genealogical Proof, 8.³Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof, 23-32.
3Lucy Abigail Brainard,
The Genealogy of the Brainerd-Brainard
Family in America 1649-1908, 7 vols. (Hartford, Connecticut, 1908), II: Miscellaneous
Records: 150; digital images, Google
Books (http://books.google.com :
accessed 13 March 2014).
⁴Jones, Mastering
Genealogical Proof, 23-24.
5
1860
U.S. census, New London Co., Conn., pop. sch., Colchester, sheet 66, dwell. 480,
fam. 560, William Barnard. 1870 U.S. census, New London Co., Conn., pop. sch., Colchester,
sheet 30, dwell. 201, fam. 226, William H. Branard.
61880 U.S. census, New
London Co., Conn., pop. sch., Groton, ED 2-101, sheet 18, dwell. 134, fam. 182,
William Brainard.
7Groton, New London
County, Connecticut, Records of Births, Marriages, Deaths, 1876-1895, v. 5, FHL
microfilm 1306249, item 5: 314-315.
8Groton, New London
County, Connecticut, Records of Births, Marriages, Deaths, 1896-1910, FHL
microfilm 1309869, items 2-4: 54.
9Lawrence L. Shailer, Genealogy
& Record of the Shailer, Shaler, Shailor, Shaylor family : ...lineage and
narrative based upon computerized, detailed, but incomplete records as of
February 15, 1997 (Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, 1997), 101; digital images, Family Search (http://familysearch.org
: accessed 14 March 2014).
10Jones, Mastering
Genealogical Proof, 24.
11Jones, Mastering
Genealogical Proof, 24-26.
12Ibid., 26.
Let's Remember!
[Book available from the publisher,
