Those of us who have studied the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), have taken classes, read articles, and such, know that any new evidence uncovered should only support your work if your previous work met the GPS.
The five parts of the GPS are:
- Reasonably exhaustive research
- Full and complete source citations
- Analysis and correlation of evidence
- Resolution of conflicts
- Written report of findings
I was recently revisiting some work I had done for one of my renewals for the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG), which identified the father of Angeline (Higdon) Mitchell. I was planning to work on the next generation back: proving the parents of Thomas Carroll Mitchell. In reviewing my old work, I thought I’d look at my Ancestry tree and the hints there.
I don’t often pay attention to the hints. At this point, they tend to be things I know, or found in another way that someone has reposted to their tree and is now being served up to me as a new hint. I find hints to be a lot of noise a lot of the time. However, just like the point in Tom Jones’s “Perils of Source Snobbery” article, dismissing all hints out of hand, I would have missed another piece of evidence on my Angeline project.
A newspaper had been digitized between the time I did that work on Angeline and a few weeks ago when I looked at the hints. On Newspapers.com, a newspaper titled The Audrain County Oracle, has been digitized. I have never heard of this newspaper. Back when I worked on Angeline, this newspaper was not digitized online. I remember visiting the archives in Columbia, Missouri, looking for newspaper articles about Thomas and Angeline, and only finding a few small death notices. Not the large obituary now available on Newspapers.com.
I had two mysteries. What was Angeline’s maiden name (who was her father) and when did she and Thomas marry?
Based on some clues such as their appearance in the 1850 census together as a couple, but having no children in the home yet, and that the box for “married within the year” was not checked, I estimated that they married in 1848 or 1849. Also, I determined that her maiden name was Higdon and that her father was Joseph Higdon through indirect evidence. The point of this post, though, is not to walk you through all of that, but really just to tell you I did a complete case study that earned me my renewal from BCG two renewals ago.
A few weeks ago, I was looking at hints for Thomas, and found this obscure newspaper now digitized:
So, the answer was right there. I’m not sure where this newspaper was hiding when I visited the archives. BUT, it did what they say it was supposed to do if your work followed the GPS: it only adds more evidence to your conclusion. This just proves that I got it right. It wasn’t a gnarly, complicated case like some you read about in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly (NGSQ), but it makes the point.
Now, it gives me a year and PLACE of marriage. Back when I worked on this, I searched so many counties looking for their marriage record. I do not recall if I looked in Fayette, Tennessee. But, guess what!?! I have my old research logs. I will next be checking those to see and will be looking for a record with this new information!
Isn’t genealogy fun?
