Ron,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with both of you actually. The book is a good
read and I am amazed that such work was accomplished in the early 1900's just by
personal interviews, letters and such. Of course, it cannot be taken as a sole
source of info, but its a good place to start none-the-less.
Ron, you mentioned that you found many errors in this book. Do you have these
documented and would you be willing to share them with the group. I think that
might be helpful to others and myself as well. Note that without this book, you
may have never found these errors you mentioned.
Thanks,
-Troy
Jcbarbra(a)cs.com wrote:
Ron--
I disagree with you about the above book. Of course, it is based mostly on
family traditions, and probably some of it is incorrect, as are the
genealogies that people pass on today, because many people make assumptions
with nothing to back them up but hunches. But the section on my
family--Alexander, Reynolds, David, etc. is mostly correct, and led me to
find much more info on those people and their desendents. Any book is only a
secondary source which should be verified and proven by primary info, but
considering the time period and the fact that this author had to do his
research mostly by mail, with no computers or other modern helps, I think he
did a remarkable job, and I am very greatful to him.
Barbra Chambers