Re: Chauncy Clothier 1813 NY
-
In reply to:
Re: Chauncy Clothier 1813 NY
1/16/02
Hi, Cynthia, we probably have a lot of similar material.
For a summary of my old book, go to:
www.clothiers.org
It is mostly reproduced from other people's work.
Want to trade copies? my e-mail is [email protected]
Chauncey, you say? Apparently our common ancestor goes one back, to Artemas, who was Chauncey's dad, as I remember. I am from western New York, where Chauncey was born. I think it is pronounced "chance ee", like in the old actor, Charlie Chan.
Once I was going to get really big into genealogy. Until I found that I was not alone and in fact other researchers were doing much better work! Now, it is all going to come together via electronic communication. Genealogy HAS to go electronic. Because, even in our small Clothier family, babies are being born faster than researchers can document ancestors. In other words, genealogy is doomed to always be lagging further and further behind. Look at the messages in these forums: there are millions of Americans, I'll bet, who have no records beyond their grandparents!
Aside: I have been most intrigued by the recent realization that we males have been wrong, all these centuries, by tracking the male side of the descent. Science now knows that only the female egg contains the permanent, common human characteristics. And when a woman has only boys, her lineage is dead ended! Only the line that has had girls, continually, can claim pure descent from the original "Eve" genes. It's God and nature's incredible way of seeing that humans dont diverge into wierd sub-species,(despite the male transgressions), yet allowing temporary (generational) differences in the minor stuff, like eye, hair, etc. Somewhere in the world there is one woman who is closest to Eve. But in we males, some of "Adam's" genes are long gone and there cant be another.
- - John