To Err is Human – You Can’t Always Believe What You Read

The first element of the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is to conduct reasonably exhaustive research – “emphasizing original records providing participants’ information – for all evidence that might answer a genealogist’s question about an identity, relationship, event, or situation” – Board For Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, Second Edition (Nashville, Tennessee: Ancestry, 2019), 2.

To reach a conclusion that meets the GPS, genealogists must rely on original sources, or as close to the original as possible. The reason – information can sometimes get lost in translation. Researchers sometimes make mistakes while transcribing, abstracting, or extracting a document.

Recently during the course of research to determine the identity of an ancestor’s father, I found the following extract of a deed in which the research subject was a party (this extract can be found on multiple sites online) –

Russell County, Virginia Deed book #2 p336; 01 August 1790

“This indenture made the first day of August One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety between Ericus

Smith and Rosanna, his wife, Andrew Smith and Rachel, his wife, Joseph Hatfield and Rachael, his wife, his

son Ephraim and Mary, his wife of Russell County, Commonwealth of Virginia, of the one part and Ely Smith

of said county of the other part … in consideration of One Hundred Pounds current money to them in hand

paid by the said Ely … sell unto the said Ely Smith a certain tract or parcel of land containing ninety-four acres

being part of a tract of two hundred acres and being in the New Garden in the said Russell County.”

My research objective was to determine and document the father of Ephraim Hatfield. If the extract is true to what is found in the county deed book, the deed provides solid direct evidence that Ephraim’s father was Joseph Hatfield. As genealogists do, I set out to find the deed recorded by the county clerk. The following is my extract of the deed from the county’s deed book –

Ericus Smith et al. to Ely Smith, Warranty Deed

Russell County, Virginia

Deed Book 2, 336-38

Drawn 21 August 1790; recorded August Court 1797

This in Indenture of Bargain and Sale of [land]

made the twenty first day of August one thou

- sand seven hundred and ninety Between

Ericus Smith and Rosanna his wife Andrew

Smith and Rachel his wife Ephraim Hatf

ield and Mary his wife Joseph Hatfield and

Rachel his wife of Russell County and Co

mmonwealth of Virginia of he one part . . .

Not only is the date off by twenty days, at no point do the words “his son Ephraim” appear in the recorded deed, or the deed involving the same parties that appears on the following pages. And as is always good research practice, I located the court’s order book in which the order to record the deed is found. At no point does it state that Ephraim Hatfield was Joseph Hatfield’s son. Although this evidence is disappointing in that it does not provide the direct evidence anticipated, the transaction does provide evidence of a possible familial relationship between Joseph and Ephraim, and subsequent research does confirm the two are father and son.

I encountered a similar situation with another recent project. There are many abstract reference books used by genealogists as a starting point for research, myself included. If feasible, it’s important to locate the referenced material.

My ancestor Frederick Trent was a party to a deed in 1807. Frederick’s entry found on p. 310 of a commonly used reference book provides the following –

[Deed Book No. 1. 1800-1809]

p. 310

Frederick Trent and Elizabeth his wife to Tyron Gibson, 1807; p. 245-6.

My abstract of the deed found in the original deed book reads –

Trent to Gibson, Warranty Deed

            Tazewell County, Virginia

            Drawn July 1807; recorded 26 January 1808

            County Courthouse, Tazewell

 p.345

FREDERICK TRENT and wife LYDIA of Tazewell County for the sum of four hundred dollars to TYRON GIBSON of said county by warranty deed a certain tract or parcel of land lying in said county on the waters of the upper north fork of Clinch River known by the name of the Cove.

p. 346

Which said land was granted to ALSE MANN assigne [sic] of JONATHAN PRATER from the Commonwealth by virtue of patent 9 June 1796

“Beginning at a white oak and [?] by a small branch thence 22E47 poles to a sugar sapling on a bluff 51W28 poles to a white oak and sugar sapling on the side of a ridge 50E31 poles to an Elm on a Rocky point by a hollow N65 E 204 poles to a poplar and dogwood sapling a the foot of a ridge N10 W100 poles to a double [?] and Chestnut oak on the northside of a ridge S60 W 212 poles along said ridge to the beginning.”

            Test: JOHN TRENT                                                      FREDERICK TRENT 

                    WILLIAM YOUNG                                               LYDIA TRENT 

                    JACOB COBURN

                    JESSE YOUNG

As evidenced, there are discrepancies between the two sources. One, the page numbers differ. Two, and more critical, is Frederick’s wife’s name. Additional research confirms her name as Lydia.

To err is human. A genealogist’s due diligence is to conduct reasonably exhaustive research as a preventative – to prevent a mistake from being repeated for years to come.