Civil War Research Log

[Discipulus]

This is how the pro's do it folks! Thoroughly and organized.

 

[lupaglupa]

It's a nice list with helpful reminders. But I'd need a LOT more space for "result!"

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

This is how the pro's do it folks! Thoroughly and organized.

It is a start, but there are hundreds of other places to look. It all depends on the project.

 

[Discipulus]

It is a start, but there are hundreds of other places to look. It all depends on the project.

Can you please explain further? I would be interested in hundreds of Civil War sources for genealogy! I have been doing this for three decades, and I can't name more than a few dozen and that is for the real fruitful individuals.

In any case, I believe the author intended to provide the basic foundation from where the researcher gets the clues that permit further research.

 

[lupaglupa]

Can you please explain further? I would be interested in hundreds of Civil War sources for genealogy! I have been doing this for three decades, and I can't name more than a few dozen and that is for the real fruitful individuals.

In any case, I believe the author intended to provide the basic foundation from where the researcher gets the clues that permit further research.

I have used hundreds of sources in looking at the Civil War experiences of the six men in my direct line who fought. Not all are what you would call genealogy specific - many are history books and articles in journals. I have over 150 sources ready to be footnoted if I ever get to the writing stage! So, for the sites that give you genealogical information on specific men, that's more limited. But when you start to look at what was happening around them - the battles they fought in, the camps they were confined in, the politics that influenced their leaders - it gets to be a long list.

 

[Michael C. Hardy]

Can you please explain further? I would be interested in hundreds of Civil War sources for genealogy! I have been doing this for three decades, and I can't name more than a few dozen and that is for the real fruitful individuals.

In any case, I believe the author intended to provide the basic foundation from where the researcher gets the clues that permit further research.

When I am working on a regimental or battlefield history, I go through everything I can. Every family history or genealogical or historical society book or newsletter can have war-time letters, diaries, or reminisces. Just as numerous are family history folders in local libraries. County histories can have little tidbits as well. There are United Confederate Veteran records (along with their precursors). Newspapers are a great source, which is on your list. Church histories are often underutilized, as are masonic records, bar association records, and court records in general. There is also Confederate Veteran magazine, the Southern Historical Society Papers, Southern Bivouac, The Land we Love, Rebellion Record, Battles and Leaders, MOLLUS, and the Supplement to the Official Records. And, there are United Daughters of the Confederacy records as well. Sometimes, these can be found in published form, i.e., the UDC ladies went out and interviewed a veteran or the veteran filled out questioner and sent it to the UDC and they published it. At other times, they are simply in a file box in some archive. I'm sure I'm leaving something out, but these are the things I look for when I am starting a new book project.

 

[Discipulus]

I have used hundreds of sources in looking at the Civil War experiences of the six men in my direct line who fought. Not all are what you would call genealogy specific - many are history books and articles in journals.

The importance of history books, journals, periodicals, etc. in genealogy must NEVER be discounted. They are imperative to interpreting facts about the lives of our ancestors! Indispensable! However, as genealogy goes they almost never provide anything factual about our ancestors as individuals. They are not "sources." It would be a mistake to read in a history book that "the people of Jonesville hung a horsethief," at the same time your ancestor Bill Bob was living there, then turn around and in your genealogy about Bill Bob write "he took part in the hanging of a horsethief." Nope, nope, nope, missing a step there -- proving your ancestor was in the group. For all we know he might have been against the hanging, or had the flu that day. Not a fact until you provide it.

No, unless someone can show me differently, my experience is generally speaking to get to "'hundreds' of 'sources'" in genealogy, you would have to count each individual edition of a newspaper as a source; Each individual citation in a voluminous set of memoirs; Each different day in a journal, etc. Absurd.

Now granted, were I to write a published book on my ancestor, then every single book or publication or media I lay my hands on requires listing as a source at the end. (Some scholars have begun dividing up their Bibliography into categories -- primary, secondary, etc.) That is pro forma and could easily number into the hundreds!

But that is clearly different than doing genealogy, and not what the author of the log was doing. She was saying for genealogy "If you want to research your ACW ancestor, here are the fundamental sources laid out in an organized way."

 

[lupaglupa]

@Discipulus I mostly agree with your comments - but will say that I have found specific references to my ancestors in books and diaries so it's not always true that one doesn't. In general though, for me these works provide the framing device for my family story. I don't know, for instance, what my ancestor who was confined in the Elmira prison camp personally experienced. I have a few clues based on his records. So I don't write "JB was hungry and cold." I write "Many of the prisoners were hungry and cold. Diarist Anthony Kiely said..."

Is that genealogy? Technically, I suppose not. But as @Michael C. Hardy said, it depends on the project. When I enter data into my family tree, I only put in verified facts. When I work on a family story (the current one is my third) I add historical information for context. To say, for instance "David moved to Chicago in 1873 and died there of typhoid fever three years later" is pretty boring. But when you add information about why people moved to a rapidly growing city and why so many people died of typhoid fever in a city built on a swamp and how David's house was only one block from the edge of the great Chicago fire - those facts come alive.

Do we need to quibble over whether counting 'newspapers' as a potential source means one type of source as opposed to dozens or hundreds because of the many different papers? Not really. The point, I think, is to never feel you've exhausted your resources when you get to the end of a list of potential sites. There's always something more out there - provided you have the time and desire to find it.

 

[JerryD]

Can you please explain further? I would be interested in hundreds of Civil War sources for genealogy! I have been doing this for three decades, and I can't name more than a few dozen and that is for the real fruitful individuals.

In any case, I believe the author intended to provide the basic foundation from where the researcher gets the clues that permit further research.

Well, it really depends on what you by "it'. You didnt make clear you were talking about just genealogy. But just off the top of my head, there are lots of collections of personal papers held by various institutions. For example, the Maryland Historical Society has a lot of Civil War papers and correspondence from various people. A lot of universities as well. I sometimes do transcription work for documents in the possession of the Smithsonian Institute where pdf's of documents need to be reviewed and typed out to make them more accessible to researchers.

And I find your example of the hanging as unpersuasive, since the newspaper account or a diary, or a letter may mention your ancestor as who actually did participate in the hanging, so your example, to work assumes you know what the sources says before you even read it.

 

[Biscoitos]

It is a start, but there are hundreds of other places to look. It all depends on the project.

It is a start, but there are hundreds of other places to look. It all depends on the project.

Tell it like it is, Bro !

 

[Discipulus]

@Discipulus I mostly agree with your comments - but will say that I have found specific references to my ancestors in books and diaries so it's not always true that one doesn't. In general though, for me these works provide the framing device for my family story. I don't know, for instance, what my ancestor who was confined in the Elmira prison camp personally experienced. I have a few clues based on his records. So I don't write "JB was hungry and cold." I write "Many of the prisoners were hungry and cold. Diarist Anthony Kiely said..."

Is that genealogy? Technically, I suppose not. But as @Michael C. Hardy said, it depends on the project. When I enter data into my family tree, I only put in verified facts. When I work on a family story (the current one is my third) I add historical information for context. To say, for instance "David moved to Chicago in 1873 and died there of typhoid fever three years later" is pretty boring. But when you add information about why people moved to a rapidly growing city and why so many people died of typhoid fever in a city built on a swamp and how David's house was only one block from the edge of the great Chicago fire - those facts come alive.

Do we need to quibble over whether counting 'newspapers' as a potential source means one type of source as opposed to dozens or hundreds because of the many different papers? Not really. The point, I think, is to never feel you've exhausted your resources when you get to the end of a list of potential sites. There's always something more out there - provided you have the time and desire to find it.

We are in agreement. I thought I said the same as you, I suppose just not as articulately. HOWEVER. . . .

The subject, if I might bring the discussion back around to it, is the log I posted. To say "good start, but hundreds of other sources" can be taken as an insult. In genealogy, there are not "hundreds" of other sources that can tell you facts about your individual ancestor! All genealogists wish there were!!! That is what the author of the log was listing -- the list of fundamental locations for facts about your individual ancestors.

Would the author of the log recommend reading relevant history publications to learn more? Absolutely. But in genealogy, those are almost never "sources" that give you facts about your individual ancestor.

What if I turn my genealogy into a narrative as you are doing? That is different. Then, as you said above, you are including what you learned from the history books, and they become "sources" to your narrative, but not to the genealogy. The genealogy is only interested in the facts about the individual.

I am sure to most reading this, I am splitting hairs. But as a genealogist, I have to deal with this constantly, almost daily. I work to keep my product within the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) where most hobbyists don't. What is a "source" for genealogy? A history book that describes what life was like for the citizens where your ancestor lived is not a source. It speaks in generalities, not what is specific to that individual. But it would be a source for a narrative were you to convert your genealogy into one.

I am repeating myself. Please forgive me. I have exhausted this.

I hope we can all agree that the log is a good start to a thorough and organized approach to researching your ACW ancestor. Exhaustive? Of course not. I don't think the author of the log would agree to that either.