Problems with Hinshaw by Linda Sparks Starr April 2005 Those of you familiar with Hinshaw's compilation of the Quaker records know Douglas Summers Brown was given due credit for transcribing many of the Virginia Meetings. She donated all her papers to the Jones Memorial Library in Lynchburg. These are difficult to access (limited research hours, only pencil and paper allowed for note taking, etc.) About five years ago, Suzanne Johnston approached the library board and then the department in Salt Lake City in charge of microfilming, patiently explaining to each the benefits to everyone if at least some of the Jones library holdings were microfilmed. The short story is they also filmed the papers Juliet Fauntleroy donated to the library. Both are wonderful collections and are now easy to access. Most of you know the original Quaker records, located at Haverford or Swathmore College in Philadelphia, have been microfilmed. Film of various meetings are available in several places including the LDS Church and Library of Virginia. However, it appears one of the more important to us, Cedar Creek Meeting, is not included in the LDS holdings. We are looking into this, and hopefully it's a simple error of omission when cataloging the films. Cedar Creek records in other repositories appear to be transcriptions or abstracts, and not the originals themselves. Mary Stewart suggests looking closely at the Library of Virginia catalog under "Society of Friends". The Brock Collection lists some Cedar Creek items. She also suggests a little known collection of abstracts by Mary Marshall Brewer: "Quaker Records of Cedar Creek Monthly Meeting, Virginia, 1739-1793." There is also the standard work by J. P. Bell: "Our Quaker Friends of Ye Olden Time" which includes Cedar Creek and South River Meetings. Most of us have thought Wade Hinshaw's six volume set of Quaker records were true, but frustratingly brief abstracts of the most relevant records from Quaker meetings. Most of us are guilty of using his work in lieu of the microfilmed copies of the records themselves. And for the most part, his work may still be useful. But, I'm sorry to say, we can no longer consider this work totally reliable. I will explain. Recently a descendant of Benjamin Johnson "of Hanover County" and Mary Moorman, [daughter of Thomas and Rachel (Clark)] who married in 1748 (according to the minutes of the Camp Creek Meeting), had his DNA tested. He did the test, even though everyone was in agreement with Dr. Lorand, Hinshaw's work, etc. that this Benjamin was the son of John and Elizabeth (Massie) Johnson. Much to his amazement, and then dismay as the implications sunk in, his DNA proves this Benjamin is NOT related to John and Elizabeth. He wrote Suzanne Johnston, asking how this could be / what happened? She set to work, going over the transcriptions of Quaker records from microfilm she is working on, then turned to the Brown papers when she couldn't find this Benjamin in meeting records prior to his marriage. Quoting Suzanne: I was very surprised to find that as she [Ms. Brown] went through the original records, she was working from charts which had been prepared by Lorand Johnson. Her marginal notes referred several times to Chart #1, Chart #5 etc. There were also notes along the way from Hinshaw, where he had directed her to a specific family chart when she raised questions about who is this? Think about that a moment. Ms. Brown is transcribing records, while at the same time, referring to family relation charts made by Dr. Lorand Johnson. I'm sure some of you are wondering what the big deal is? Well, the deal is, the true transcription of the Quaker meeting records was altered to fit the theories of Lorand Johnson. We had already discovered Hinshaw records the name of John Johnson's wife as "Lucretia", while the original entries show her name to be "Elizabeth". "Lucretia" as John Johnson's wife makes a better case for a connection to Lord Shaftsbury than does "Elizabeth". How many other alterations are there? We know about one, but there is a strong probability there were many other "corrections" made along the way. And possibly other families (Clark, Moorman) are involved too. The bottom line is, IF your lineage is based on Hinshaw's records, you need to verify each and every generation against the original microfilm copies. At least this no longer involves a research trip to Philadelphia. While we are discussing the John and "Elizabeth" (Massie) Johnson line, I should add John's brother Benjamin (who married Margery Massie) is NOT the Benjamin, son of Edward, born 1702. Benjamin and Margery had too many children before his death for him to be born in 1702; also he was doing things in the Quaker records only an older man would be entrusted with doing. What Suzanne learned is a clear warning for all of us to heed one of the basic rules of genealogy: ALWAYS go to the original source. Now a big thanks to Mary Stewart for providing the website listing the current Standards For Sound Genealogical Research, as recommended by the National Genealogical Society: http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/comstandsound.htm In my opinion these should be taped to every genealogist's filing cabinet: "Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently- a.. record the source for each item of information they collect. b.. test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence. c.. seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions. d.. use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records, or as contributions to the critical analysis of the evidence discussed in them. e.. state something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others. f.. limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible. g.. avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information. h.. state carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work. i.. recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment. j.. consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached. (c) 1997, 2002 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice."