Lessons Learned from the Q: December 2025

Bolton, “Vital Records of the Town of Shirley, Massachusetts,” Polly Baldwin birth entry 29 December 1831; FamilySearch, DGI7011261,

I don’t read the National Genealogy Society Quarterly (Q) as often or as rigorously as I should, but I do like to see how other authors deal with organization, negative evidence, tick mark censuses and less than stellar sources. Since I want to improve my weaknesses in my writing, it’s a good place to start.

Using Diane MacLean Boumenot’s article, “Family Ties Identify Parents for Edward Baldwin of Townsend, Massachusetts and Amity, New York,” I identified some lessons learned that I thought I would share with you.[1] Maybe they are areas where you have concerns as well.

Her first paragraph and its footnote taught me my first lessons.

RELATIONSHIPS PRIOR TO 1880
I like how she handled the implied relationships in the 1860 census. Not until the 1880 US census are relationships to the head of household identified. “[He]… lived with a woman of similar age and two girls….” I tend to use the words “apparent” or “likely.” I think stating the facts allows the reader to make their own conclusion. She then goes on to state that one of the two girls identified the man and woman as parents in her death certificate.[2] I am a little more literal and didn’t think the line between the girl in the 1860 census and the woman in the death certificate was drawn as obviously as I would have liked, but she does make the connection later on in the article. But, that’s a lesson, too.

Take a look at that first footnote. She does a short analysis of the 1860 census entry and finds it wanting in many regards. I usually do that analysis in the body of the work and will probably continue to do so, but this is a good alternative. I do not believe, however, this is a good alternative for a portfolio. I try to stick to the rule: If the narrative is important enough to tell your readers, then it is important enough to put in the body of the work. This might be a space saver technique of the Q.

HAND DRAWN LINEAGE
I find that I have to draw the lineage that the author is describing in narrative; otherwise, I get lost. Interestingly, she gives us the answer to the research question up front (which I like) and then proceeds to provide the evidence to support it. I drew it out on a pice of paper and referred to it as I read the article, making sure I was looking at the right person in the right generation. In the conclusion she introduced us to more family members, but by then they seemed more ancillary and not critical to the research question.

ANALYSIS OF AUTHORED WORKS
My families live in the land of direct evidence, mostly parish records, but for those of you who have to deal with authored works where the originals are no longer extantt, Ms. Boumenot offers a great example.[3]

Polly’s birth is found in a compiled record of many different sources into a single volume “Town Records of Shirley, Massachusetts…” by Bolton (See image above.). The original sources are no longer available. Bolton explains that this particular entry is from the doctor’s records and the individuals mentioned may not have resided in Shirley. That makes sense–the doctor probably traveled to wherever the patient was. Ms. Boumenot quotes this qualification in the body of the article, making it very clear that the place of residence of the Baldwin family is not a conflict with the Doctor’s records.

Could Ms. Beoumenot have just had a “source within a source” in the footnote? Yes, but putting it in a footnote would have diminished the impact of evidence that was critical to solving the conflict. Besides, it was interesting reading that I might have otherwise missed. Her inclusion also addressed the veracity of the information. While it could still be wrong, with a lack of other verifying records, citing the information came from doctor’s records makes this a stronger resolution of what could have been perceived as a weak source.

SYLLOGISMS: IF THIS, THEN THAT
I get verbose when writing about when person 1 and person 2 are siblings, and we know the parents of sibling 2, therefore, we know the parents of sibling 1. Unfortunately, that may not be true, as the mother may differ, but Ms. Boumenot handles this well.

The paragraph starts with “Catherine Baldwin Hunt’s death certificate…” and presents a classic paragraph organization for a genealogical proof:[4]

• Opening sentence, usually the topical sentence for the paragraph;
• Content supporting the assertion;
• Concluding sentence based on the information provided.[5]

Ms. Boumenot’s concluding sentence is “Catherine’s links to the Spauldings, also link Edward, her established brother, to them.” I like this succinct language. This wording does not say the Catherine’s mother is the mother of Edward, but rather puts Edward firmly in the family without overstating the evidence.

If you want to know more about syllogisms read Thomas W. Jones’s Mastering Genealogical Proof.[6]

This was a good exercise for me. Diane MacLean Boumenot, CG offered an excellent example to study and her permission to use the snips I did. If I would do one of these a month, I think my writing would improve. What about you? What do you study?

Happy Hunting!

Jill

What I have done since my last post: I received the draft of my first family book Scandinavian Legacy, and I am working on the content of the second, my maternal Ostfriesens. I am a little ahead of my editor but I am sure she will put me “behind” shortly.

[1] Diane Maclean Boumenot, CG, “Family Ties Identify Parents for Edward Baldwin of Townsend, Massachusetts and Amity, New York,” National Genealogical Quarterly, 113 (December 2025) 245-264. Boumenot is the recently appointed editor of the NGSQ.
[2] Ibid., p. 245.
[3] Ibid., p. 249.
[4] Ibid., p. 260.
[5] I learned this structure from a lecture at the (probable) NGS conference in Cincinnati presented by Warren Bittner.
[6] Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Geneaoogical Proof, (Arlington, VA: National Genealogical Society, 2013) 89.