Person talk:Bazaleel Maxwell (2)

Alleged son David [4 June 2012]

To the editor that says he had a son John [presumably "David" was meant Q 09:22, 4 June 2012 (EDT)] dying in Tazewell County, could you please cite the information that this theory comes from? I havent looked at it myself, but in the 'definitive' Maxwell genealogy book (the 1999 one, not the much older one) which I own David is not mentioned as a son. Its not that I completely disbelieve it, but I would like to see who advances this theory and what their proof is.--DMaxwell 22:12, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

What the note says is that Bazaleel APPARENTLY had son David, wife Elizabeth, son James. It also says that evidence is needed to support that connection. Had there been evidence that I could have pointed to, I'd have laid it out rather than saying it was needed.

There are a few lineages on Ancestry that give this connection. There was definitely such a David Maxwell in Tazewell County, definitely had a wife Elizabeth and son James, per probate records. Since he died before Bazaleel, those who have identified him as a son of Bazaleel (2) are consistent with available facts. Proving that he's a son of Bazaleel (2) is another matter. Q 07:55, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Ok but that sounds more like a guess than a source of the possibility. Note that I am not asking for you to prove it, but I wanted to see if the theory has been advanced in sourced material. If it just the private research of a few people on Ancestry.com (which, as we know is quite fallible) then I would note the possibility in a note at the bottom of David's page, not linked as though it were proved. I intend to add and source the entire line going back to John over the next couple of months, so dont think I am being a hypocrite with source usage.

Note that I am starting a Maxwell project to re-investigate the descendants of John Maxwell (1690-1786), and I will remember this David to see if the connection is plausible.--DMaxwell 08:06, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

WeRelate is somewhat unique in its emphasis on sourcing of information. Few other sites site provide built in mechanisms for indicating sources of things like DOB's and DOD's etc. One thing that I don't think WeRelate (or any other) site does well is provide a mechanism for showing why we think that "B" is in fact the son of "A". There are many lineages on WeRelate that I believe have a mix of chldren of a couple, some of whom proably are their children, some of whom may not be their children. Currently, we can not easily make such distinctions. One possibility would be to allow users to set a switch that would in someway highlight the levels of confidence in a particular parent child relationship. Such a switch might "colorize" the entry, making the ones generally accepted in a black font, those generally unaccepted in a red font, and those for which their is little certainty one way or another, in a grey font. Or something along those lines. But at this stage in WeRelate's evolution that's probably overly complex and better ground work would be needed. In the meantime, the developer's time is probably better spent on other matters.

From what I know, the suggested link between David and Bazaleel is possible. Depends a bit on when Bazaleel died. David's estate was probated in 1794, Bazaleel's in 1799. Presumablly Bazaleel wrote his will closer to 1799 than 1794, and therefore would not have mentioned son David. I too would like to see if this connection is plausible, probable, or ultimate proven/disproven. I'll look forward to seeing your work on this line.

I might add that I struggled a bit for including him in the child list at all. My main reason for doing so, at some risk to adding confusion, as because if I didn't add him in, then I'd probably never find him again on WeRelate, and so never be able to return to the problem. From my perspective I'd like to add this David Maxwell to someone's child list somewhere----but which list should he be attached to? The only lineages I've found for him attach him to Bazaleel (2). Apart from the fact that he's not numbered among the accepted children of Bazaleel (2), its certainly possible that he coul be. , so that's where I put him for now, with the intent of working further on the David Maxwell of Tazewell County.

I should probably also add that my approach in genealogy is to work specific surnames in detail within the their geographic locality. That is, I'm not so much interested in the descendants of say Bazaleel (2), as I am in finding out how this particular David Maxwell in Tazewell County relates to the many lines of Maxwell's that we know of. He's the child of someone, Bazaleel (2) seems a good guess, but we want to work that further. Pinpointing Bazaleel's DOD might help with that. Looking at other records for persons by the name of "David Maxwell" in this area would also help. Q 08:41, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Like I said, the approach I have been doing in the case of lineages and one that has been approved of by other members is putting a clickable link in the notes. The connection is noted without it being linked as 'official'. I would oppose 'confidence' level or colored parentage because then all the bogus/fake/lies about the lineages of some New England colonists - by far the worst - would creep back on the site that way. What they really are are guesses. The obviously fake ones I delete with much prejudice. In this case, it isnt the same thing of course, but we shouldnt mislead people. I dont think we'll ever know Bezaleel's date of death, since so many records in that area were lost in the civil war. All we have left is his will and estate probate. My cousin who wrote the Maxwell book doesnt seem to have looked very deep into the Maxwell line, and maybe she didnt know about this David, but for the moment I go with her work.--DMaxwell 08:48, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

What was the date of his will? Do you have an electronic transcript of the will?Q

To show what I mean, here is an example:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Augustine_Walker_%281%29

I originally deleted the unproven 'parentage' given for Augustine Walker because its pretty easily disproved based on dates. Another user objected, so as a compromise we came up with what you see at the bottom in the notes.--DMaxwell 08:54, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

I'm not hard over on including David in the child list. Itpe, and convenient for me, but not essential. We have at least two David Maxwell's in the area, perhaps three. One was in the militia during Dunmore's War, and appears in assignment chains dating to about the same time (1774). He might be the David who died in 1794. The other appears to be somewhat later, marrying the daughter of Eli Moorhead (Muirhead) after 1804. Probably not the same person as appears in assignment chains, or died in 1794.

I now have enough "hooks" in place for this David Maxwell, that he'll get pulled up one way or another when the Maxwell's of the area are being examined. I'm not hard over about including him in Basaleel's child list, so if you'd like to delete him, and make an appropriate note, it would be fine by me. Q 09:22, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Unfortunately, I dont have a transcript. This is one of the major flaw in Peggy Arnold's work. She tells us that X is the son of X, but does show us why, doesnt usually transcribe anything. She just gives the date of his will, and to make it worse, she accepts the old 1910's Maxwell genealogy book that has many errors in it (for instance, claiming that John Maxwell the immigrant is the son of a 'John Maxwell of Calderwood'. Proof? Zero. John Maxwell doesnt appear in records before he lands in Pennsylvania.). A reworking of my (and thus, Bazaleel's) Maxwell line is on my project list after I have finished my work on the Scott family.

I'll make a note on David's page when I get around to the family of Bazaleel. I have a number of other lines Im working on first, though.--DMaxwell 09:28, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

That is the problem with most genealogies published in America or elsewhere. Limited or no documentation to substantiate anything. It takes a fair bit of work to do that, and most folks just want to get to the fun part. They might be right, they might not be right, but we'll probably never know why they thought they were right. Sometimes we can backfill and substantiate correct reasoning. But incorrect reasoning is not substantiatable---and when we can't find the substantiating evidence, we are left with "maybe there's something out there that they based this on, and I just haven't found it yet." At a minimum, though, works that don't document their sources fall a bit short of being considered "definitive".

I know that:

• the David who died 1794 is about the right age to be a child of Bazaleel 2,
• that his death in 1794 is consistent with his absence from the will of Bazaleel dying 1799,
• that there are several Gaps in the birth sequence in Bazaleel's child list into which David could easily be fit
• that there are other Maxwells to whom he might be attached, but that the genealogists who have considered him (that I've come across) only attach him to Bazaleel.

Perhaps diligent searching will eventually reveal his relationship to the other Maxwells. The genealogy of the Maxwell family seems to have been very heavily trampled over (cf, Maxwell's History and Genealogy), with many clear points of confusion. Disentangling the various lines, and rearticulating them to show correct, provable relationships, is like many lineages, something of a challenge. Q 10:05, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Thats true, but I dont think its enough to cause doubt on the whole thing. She is going by the list of children in the will. There are other unrelated Maxwell lines in Virginia at the same time that David might also come from. That also wouldnt excuse guessing - which is one of the major problems in genealogy today - too many trees, spreading error and even downright lies, and which WeRelate is supposed to fix.

I wouldnt say Maxwell genealogy has been trampled. I'd say that it hasnt been looked at hard enough. She based alot of her work on an old bad book that ought to never be used as a source. My great-grandfather William Henry Maxwell made the same mistake and alot of Peggy Arnold's work was based on his work done in the early 70s.

My biggest problem with the book isnt Bezaleel/Bazeleel, but with John Maxwell of KY (d 1802). But thats a whole other story and probably the major question on my future Maxwell update (I might make it a piece in the American Genealogist, or a small book).--DMaxwell 10:23, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

As a rule, I value the work of past genealogists, even those that fail to show "how they know what they know". Works like Maxwell's History have many deficits, but they none the less provide much valuable information. If you're sensitive to the cues to error and confusion, then they can be used judiciously. Backfilling the needed confirming information is, I think, a major opportunity on WeRelate---one uniquely fostered by its "one-person, one-card" rule. I also don't look askance at all of those undocumented lineages on places like Ancestry. Those, too, have their utility, and represent the work of sometimes hundreds of people, finding information of interest to them (such as transcripts) which they make available to others for their use. I use those lineages as a map to see where others have been, and what they've found....knowing full well that some, perhaps many, of them have been to the wrong places, and drawn bad conclusions. Its all grist for the mill. Q 10:39, 4 June 2012 (EDT)