Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Peter Brownlow Childress b 2/8/1864 son of James Monroe Childress and
Martha A Bowman. Peter B. married Hester Ann Wilson and their children were
Lawrence and Hugh. I note that Peter died at Jellico TN which is on the TN
KY line. The other side of the line is Whitley Co Ky.
Peter "Grant" Childress was the 2nd child and oldest son of Robert Lindsay
"RL" Childress, my g-grandfather. His mother was a Mozingo but not Sarah.
Her headstone say M.E. Childress.
Joseph Childress
tndrjay(a)earthlink.net
> [Original Message]
> From: Mark and Gary <london2005(a)Charter.net>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 6/25/2004 11:38:08 PM
> Subject: [Childress-L] Peter BrownLow & Peter Grant Childress?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pshown [mailto:pshown@ccdi.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:44 AM
> To: CHILDRESS-admin(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Peter BrownLow & Peter Grant Childress?
>
>
>
> Can someone answer a question for me?
>
> I seem to have these two people mixed up.
>
> Peter Grant Childress and Peter Brownlow Childress.
>
> I know they are grandsons of Peter C. Childress and Elisabeth Meadows.
>
> One is the son of Robert L. and Sarah Mozingo and the other is the son
> of James M. and Martha Bowman. If I am not correct someone set me
> straight please.
>
> My problem is this:
>
> I have Hester Anne Wilson married to Peter Grant and I believe that is
> wrong.
>
> Does anyone have anything on these two Peter Childress' born about 1865
> in Campbell Co. TN?
>
> Also there is a Brownlow Childress age 55 with wife Anne age 60 in the
> Whitley Co. KY Census;
>
> is this the same Peter Brownlow Childress son of James M. and Martha?
>
> Thank You
>
> Pam
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender
> by
> reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
> without
> copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
>
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
-----Original Message-----
From: pshown [mailto:pshown@ccdi.net]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:44 AM
To: CHILDRESS-admin(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Peter BrownLow & Peter Grant Childress?
Can someone answer a question for me?
I seem to have these two people mixed up.
Peter Grant Childress and Peter Brownlow Childress.
I know they are grandsons of Peter C. Childress and Elisabeth Meadows.
One is the son of Robert L. and Sarah Mozingo and the other is the son
of James M. and Martha Bowman. If I am not correct someone set me
straight please.
My problem is this:
I have Hester Anne Wilson married to Peter Grant and I believe that is
wrong.
Does anyone have anything on these two Peter Childress' born about 1865
in Campbell Co. TN?
Also there is a Brownlow Childress age 55 with wife Anne age 60 in the
Whitley Co. KY Census;
is this the same Peter Brownlow Childress son of James M. and Martha?
Thank You
Pam
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender
by
reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments
without
copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
Dear List,
The following is from James W. Ely, Jr. and Theodore Brown Jr. editors, Legal Papers of Andrew Jackson, Univ. TN Press, 1987.
page 212. "On November 13, 1801, the Mero District grand jury returned a true bill upon the indictment of Childress, a 'Hatter' who resided in Sumner County, for the murder the previous September of one John Regan (Document I). The defendant pleaded not gullty on November 16. When the case went to trial two days later, a jury returned a verdict finding Childress not guilty of murder, but guilty of 'the felonious slaying' of the deceased (Document II). On November 19, Childress appeared before Jackson and Judge White for sentencing and entered a plea of benefit of clergy. Jackson and White granted the plea and sentenced the defendant to be branded on the left hand with the letter M (Document III)."
Document I is the Indictment of Joel Childress, found on page 214 of Ely and Brown.
Document II is a Minute Book Entry in the Mero District Superior Court for November 18, 1801, found on page 215.
Document III is a Minute Book Entry in the Mero District Superior Court for November 19 1801, also found on page 215.
Benefilt of clergy is an ancient custom holdover from English Law which was effectively eliminated in TN in 1829. It was used to mitigate the harsh English criminal laws in England and remained in use during the colonial era for a few capital crimes such as larceny and manslaughter in the colonies.
While it is not 100% certain that this Joel is Sarah's father, I have seen no evidence of another Joel Childress in that county at that time. If it was her father, then we need look no futher for an explanation as to why she never seemed to know anything about her ancestry. It was not something to be talked about and delved into at great length.
The importance of this for us, if it is the Joel we have examined and argued about at length, is that there is now a possible additional clue to help us bridge the time gap between age 12 in Surry Co NC and his marriage to Sarah's mother. How and where did he become a "hatter"?
Con
Hello, I sent portions of the following email out to someone who had posted information on Rootsweb about Abraham Childress who married Susanna Lax December 18, 1781, in Halifax Co. VA. The message came back to me stating the email address was no longer valid. I am copying it for this site with the hope that someone subscribing to the site might have some guidance to offer as I search for parentage for my Fleming Childress (1781/1845).
*I am a descendent of a Fleming (also spelled Flemon in some records) Childress of Halifax Co. VA. I spent quite sometime years ago researching his parental background with "little to none" success. I am diving back in. I have found more references to the family in Halifax County this time than several years ago. For some time, I have been looking at the name "Abraham Childress" in Halifax County. I recently began searching for a copy of a Will or estate settlement which might be located in that county for him.
This is my known information:
#1 My ancestor was FLEMING CHILDRESS, b @ 1781 (birthplace unknown) d 28 Nov 1845, Spencer Co. IN(aged 64 years) . He is buried in the Richardson Cemetery,Spencer Co. IN.
#2 Fleming Childress married #1 to Nancy Pugh 29 Nov 1803, Campbell Co. VA. She died prior to 1808. Estate settlement in Halifax Co. naming him as administrator. Bondsman is Thomas Boyd, his father-in-law from his second marriage.
# 3 Fleming Childress married #2 to Elizabeth (Betsy) Boyd 25 Jan 1808, Halifax Co.VA.
#4 Martha A.Childress, my ancestor, was born 15 Sept 1813, Halifax Co. VA (tombstone Scherer Cem. Daviess Co. KY; applications marriage certificates several children)
#5 The Fleming Childress family was located in Halifax Co. VA until 1839, when they moved from Virginia to Spencer Co. IN. They had a family of 9 children: 4 sons and 5 daughters. (biographical sketch, son, Thomas J. Childress "History of Daviess Co. KY".
#6 It appears that the Childress family was living in the Virgilina area of Halifax Co., which appears to be right on the North Carolina line.
I noted that information on RootsWeb indicates Abraham Childress married Susanna LAX 18 Dec 1781 in Halifax Co. VA. I recently had found a record which I thought indicated that he had married Sarah "Childress" on that date in that county. I want to be certain that I am looking at the same person.
I am wondering if my Fleming Childress, b @ 1781 could be a son of Abraham Childress. It is possible that Abraham Childress could have been married previously. It is also possible that Fleming Childress just turned 64 years old not too long before his death 28th Nov 1845. If that is true, he certainly could be a son of this Abraham Childress and Susanna Lax Childress.
I would appreciate any ideas on this (or any further information anyone may have). I just feel that somehow, my Fleming Childress descends from the Philamon Childress located early in Henrico Co. I base that on his name as I have been told that Fleming is a variation of the name.
Thank you.
M Garrison
INJACK,
While this is a nice try at spin it doesn't cut it logically.. In
particular, you said
More than likely the people that first put the stone up was the same group
that are now, The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Or the precursor to this
group
No, I clearly said the people who put up the stone, and not any group to
who they might or might not have belonged.
and they drew the names of the veterans from the faulty roster list (thus
Mr.
Childust never existed,) . If he had, he would shown up on other official
records.
An assumption on your part -- and you know what they say about the word
assume.
That when the government started supplying headstones to any group or
relative that requested them,around the turn of the century.
Here is where you dug yourself a hole. How do you know that the request
for this particular stone was not based on that of a relative who believed
that their name was Childust -- not knowing of course that some one in the
future would know better. Then again, maybe there were some personal
effects which either have not been preserved or went back to the relatives
which identified him as D. M. Childust and this was the basis for the name.
The point is you do not know and there is no way for you to know with 100%
certainty. It is the height of arrogance for any of us to assume that we
know and that those living in the past didn't. We have no way of knowing
what information they had that did not get passed down to us. Rather than
run the risk of stealing someone's identity, it is only prudent to not to
try to correct the past.
If a replacement stone is to be done it should contain exactly the same
information plus information identifying the new stone as a replacement
along with the date on which it was placed. It should contain nothing
more. No one, including relatives, has the moral right to do otherwise.
Publish as a written record your beliefs or revisions, but don't be so
arrogant to believe that your thoughts need to be set in stone. That is
usually, by convention, is left for others to decide
Con
> [Original Message]
> From: <INJACK1(a)aol.com>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 6/11/2004 2:42:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Childress-L] letters4
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2004 1:55:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> cchldrss(a)mindspring.com writes:
> The only people who have the right to change the inscription on any
> tombstone are the people who put up the stone. One must assume that what
> is there is what they intended
> More than likely the people that first put the stone up was the same
group
> that are now, The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Or the precursor to this
group
> and they drew the names of the veterans from the faulty roster list (thus
Mr.
> Childust never existed,) . If he had, he would shown up on other
official
> records. That when the government started supplying headstones to any
group or
> relative that requested them,around the turn of the century. This is not
a
> historic monument so to speak but rather a cheap government military
headstone.
> Anyone who has gotten off their computor and did any real genealogy work,
and
> tramped a few graveyard can testify that a government head stone is not
exactly
> a "historic marker" of great note or importance.
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
Well I haven't. There are still some inportant things to be said. See my
response to INJACK.
Con
> [Original Message]
> From: Mark and Gary <london2005(a)charter.net>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 6/11/2004 3:04:32 PM
> Subject: [Childress-L] letters4
>
> INJACK
> You just don't get it.
> I give up.
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: INJACK1(a)aol.com [mailto:INJACK1@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:42 PM
> To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [Childress-L] letters4
>
> In a message dated 6/11/2004 1:55:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> cchldrss(a)mindspring.com writes:
> The only people who have the right to change the inscription on any
> tombstone are the people who put up the stone. One must assume that
> what
> is there is what they intended
> More than likely the people that first put the stone up was the same
> group
> that are now, The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Or the precursor to this
> group
> and they drew the names of the veterans from the faulty roster list
> (thus Mr.
> Childust never existed,) . If he had, he would shown up on other
> offical
> records. That when the government started supplying headstones to any
> group or
> relative that requested them,around the turn of the century. This is
> not a
> historic monument so to speak but rather a cheap government military
> headstone.
> Anyone who has gotten off their computor and did any real genealogy
> work, and
> tramped a few graveyard can testify that a government head stone is not
> exactly
> a "historic marker" of great note or importance.
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
AMEN TO THAT!!!
Roberta Louise Childers
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Evans" <bevans(a)coutsfamily.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Childress-L] Tombstones
> Move it to the foot of the grave, put in the new, and add the info to the
> official records. Now, let's get back to genealogy!
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>
>
You go Jack!!
----- Original Message -----
From: <INJACK1(a)aol.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Childress-L] letters4
> In a message dated 6/11/2004 1:55:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> cchldrss(a)mindspring.com writes:
> The only people who have the right to change the inscription on any
> tombstone are the people who put up the stone. One must assume that what
> is there is what they intended
> More than likely the people that first put the stone up was the same group
> that are now, The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Or the precursor to this
group
> and they drew the names of the veterans from the faulty roster list (thus
Mr.
> Childust never existed,) . If he had, he would shown up on other offical
> records. That when the government started supplying headstones to any
group or
> relative that requested them,around the turn of the century. This is not
a
> historic monument so to speak but rather a cheap government military
headstone.
> Anyone who has gotten off their computor and did any real genealogy work,
and
> tramped a few graveyard can testify that a government head stone is not
exactly
> a "historic marker" of great note or importance.
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>
>
In a message dated 6/11/2004 1:55:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cchldrss(a)mindspring.com writes:
The only people who have the right to change the inscription on any
tombstone are the people who put up the stone. One must assume that what
is there is what they intended
More than likely the people that first put the stone up was the same group
that are now, The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Or the precursor to this group
and they drew the names of the veterans from the faulty roster list (thus Mr.
Childust never existed,) . If he had, he would shown up on other offical
records. That when the government started supplying headstones to any group or
relative that requested them,around the turn of the century. This is not a
historic monument so to speak but rather a cheap government military headstone.
Anyone who has gotten off their computor and did any real genealogy work, and
tramped a few graveyard can testify that a government head stone is not exactly
a "historic marker" of great note or importance.
The only people who have the right to change the inscription on any
tombstone are the people who put up the stone. One must assume that what
is there is what they intended. Not even later descendants have the right
to change the inscription. The world is full of revisionists, be they
historians or genealogists. Since we only know the past dimly from what
little has been left us, any argument which claims to know what was true in
the past is automatically suspect. The best we will ever be able to do is
to make our best informed guess, which likely is wrong in some unknown way.
Now, let's take personalities and factions out of this and do the right
thing. Mark and Gary are basically correct in their arguments. Don't try
to correct the past. You can't.
Con
> [Original Message]
> From: Mark and Gary <london2005(a)charter.net>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 6/10/2004 10:54:26 PM
> Subject: [Childress-L] letters4
>
>
> Jerry Childress wrote:
> I don't see a problem with what the Sons of Confederate Vets are doing.
> The old head stone will remain at the grave. This means all the
> information will be there.
>
> My comment:
> The old headstones have deteriorated to the point of needing
> replacement, barely readable, and while they will be left at the grave,
> the policy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans was never to replace
> them. In a few years they will be completely unreadable. You are
> correct that all the information will be there for a short period of
> time. Then what.
>
> Jerry Childress wrote:
> For those worried about the old head stones, they will fade away no
> matter what the Sons do.
>
> My comment:
> Historians want to preserve what is written on the gravestone, not the
> stone itself. Even if the headstone is a replacement dating from the
> 20th Century, the inscription is "original historical data" even though
> the physical stone is not.
>
> Jerry Childress wrote:
> If the information was wrong on one of my families graves, I would want
> it corrected.
>
> My comment:
> Who is to say that the old record is "wrong" and the new record is
> "right". That is the BIG issue. The person doing the work must become an
> expert on every Civil War grave in the cemetery and accurately determine
> that person's identity. That is not likely to be error free. So instead
> of the grave marker being "C. Shapman" the new marker might be changed
> to "Chapman" or "Shipmen".
>
> Importantly, individual identities are being assigned to what were
> effectively unknown soldiers. "D.M. Childust" is being given a new
> identity, Lieutenant David Childress even if new evidence comes to light
> that contradicts that. For example, what if a record such as a deed for
> purchasing land emerges that shows Lieutenant David Childress was alive
> after the supposed death date. What if we find out that D.M. Childust
> had a father D.M. Childust Senior or a son D.M. Junior. Any of whom may
> be in the grave. What if the "M" in the name is his mother's maiden
> name, like "Medcalf" and all the children in the family carried this
> middle name. Lieutenant David M. Childress might have brothers Donald
> Medcalf Childress, or Daniel Medcalf Childress and they all may have
> served in the military from the same County and State. Any of them could
> be D.M.Childust. What if there is another family in the area with
> similar names...in Amherst County, Virginia there were at least 8 "John"
> Childresses all alive at the same time...very confusing. Wouldn't it be
> nice to have more records...so why are people so eager to see destroyed
> those few records that exist for everybody in the cemetery.
>
> Yet people on this list are encouraging Al Medcalf, Sons of Confederate
> Veterans to continue....yikes.... double yikes., if you haven't seen by
> now how many different ways this research can be put together....how
> complex these intertwined records are.... what am I to make of
> researchers who would discard for eternity....historical records.
>
> There is an altered gravestone of Robert Childress of Kanawha County,
> West Virginia that includes researched data and was placed on the old
> grave several decades ago and claims the interred person is a well
> documented Revolutionary War veteran. The only trouble is the real
> Robert Childress, Revolutionary War veteran, created a death inventory
> record in Franklin County, Virginia as did his wife.....ooops. It will
> be a hell of an undertaking trying to undo the error of the person who
> amended that Kanawha headstone....and because the original inscription
> wasn't preserved we don't know if that original inscription perhaps said
> "R. Childress" and might be "Richard" instead of "Robert". You can't
> un-ring the bell. Thanks but no thanks to anybody who wants to update
> grave inscriptions AND NOT PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL WORDS for future
> researchers.
>
> In early colonial Virginia Courthouse records were taken outside and
> burned in great bonfires because they had no more value to anyone. Just
> because one person doesn't value the old evidence doesn't mean somebody
> in the future will feel the same. Even relatives should be thwarted
> from changing headstones.....some want to create a record that lets them
> join some organization like SAR, DAR, Sons of Confederate Veterans.
>
> Genealogy 101 should teach everyone not to destroy any evidence.
> Unfortunately the person revising the headstones at Greenwood Cemetery
> is not a trained historian. He is an overworked, underpaid volunteer who
> wants to contribute something...and in the process effectively
> vandalizes the cemetery. The correct procedure should be to publish the
> corrected information on a separate document, such as publishing an
> article in a historical journal for example, but never ever encourage
> the destruction of the original historical document.
>
> What little money the Greenwood Cemetery custodian has to preserve the
> text of the original stone was not being used to do what it
> purported.... to preserve the text of the original stone. There is
> funding provided by agencies, individuals and charities for historical
> preservation. The cemetery accessed this money under the pretense of
> preserving the monuments.
>
> At the same time the custodian claims he isn't touching the old stone.
> The original stone will remain on the grave, but the custodian from the
> Sons of Confederate Veterans says no money is available to preserve it.
> The custodian can't have it both ways, accessing funding for historical
> preservation but then claiming that no money exists to preserve the
> gravemarkers.
>
> It is an act of deception to use the money that is needed to preserve
> that original text and use it to alter the ultimate replacement stone to
> a non-historical record, a modern text based on modern research. The
> original historical headstone inscription may last a few more years, but
> the new altered headstone may last 100 years. The claim that they were
> preserving historical records with this headstone replacement is a
> blatant falsehood.
>
> And it is not apparent that even the new records will be any more error
> free than the old record. The new headstones on some 67 graves or more
> will be a "best guess" or "seems reasonable conclusion" as of today.
> And any evidence, that emerges in the future, about who is buried in the
> grave will not be utilized after the original records are lost to
> researchers.
>
> "D.M.Childust" becomes Lieutenant David Childress not Daniel or Donald,
> not David Senior or David Junior... no matter what records emerge in the
> future. It may be right but then again how often have any of us changed
> our research....and the entire cemetery was locking in this new research
> on a number of Civil War graves.
>
> I have contacted a number of local authorities, politicians, civic
> leaders, historical societies, and newspapers and they seem to be taking
> the situation seriously. They have options, and I expect that now that
> they are alerted, they will want to preserve the original data one way
> or another.
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
Barbara,
This is genealogy! It's trying to preserve original records for all
genealogists now and in the future.
Shirley Richison Fields
SRF Consulting, Inc.
Ph: 317-209-9637
Fax: 317-209-9637
Mobile: 317-513-1272
Email: richison(a)indy.rr.com
Web: home.indy.rr.com/richison
I find some probable errors in this letter that needs correcting. The
founder of the Childress List with roots web is Mark Childress. Mark is a
research attorney and is dedicated to Childress research like no one I have
ever known. His Brother Gary is the founder of the Childress DNA project
and probably knows more about DNA from the Childress prospective that
anyone. If Patrick Childress has a Childress Family Web site, please ask
him to post the address so it can be reached.
The only problem I see with placing a revised stone on any grave is being
sure the info is correct. In Knox County TN there is a cemetery where my
ggg-grandparents are interred. The stone has their last name as Childers. I
know it is incorrect, Mark and Gary know it incorrect (they are distant
cousins), but none of us are considering replacing this historic marker.
Why can't the records be footnoted at the cemetery and leave it be.
J Childress
Joseph Childress
tndrjay(a)earthlink.net
> [Original Message]
> From: Jerry & Kathryn childress <kacjc(a)msn.com>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Date: 6/10/2004 3:07:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [Childress-L] letters4
>
> I don't see a problem with what the Sons of Confederate Vets are doing.
The old head stone will remain at the grave. This means all the
information will be there. For those worried about the old head stones,
they will fade away no matter what the Sons do. If the information was
wrong on one of my families graves, I would want it corrected.
>
> Jerry Childress
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: INJACK1(a)aol.com<mailto:INJACK1@aol.com>
> To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com<mailto:CHILDRESS-L@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:02 AM
> Subject: [Childress-L] letters4
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TSM773(a)aol.com<mailto:TSM773@aol.com> [mailto:TSM773@aol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:12 AM
> To: Cain(a)aol.com<mailto:Cain@aol.com>;
keubank(a)tecinfo.com<mailto:keubank@tecinfo.com>;
Ogden974(a)aol.com<mailto:Ogden974@aol.com>; Al Medcalf
> Cc: Joanbill(a)gra.midco.net<mailto:Joanbill@gra.midco.net>
> Subject: Greenwood Confederate Cemetery in Barnesville, Ga.
>
> Hi All,
> I'm sorry to send this a group email but I don't have much time and I
> NEED your help.
> Two brothers, Mark and Gary Childress are trying to stop the work we
> are doing on the Confederate cemetery. I had notified a Childress
> family member that we had Lt. D. M. Childress of the 34th Miss. buried
> here and that his name is mispelled on his old headstone. They didn't
> know what had happened to him or where he is buried. The man I notified
> was thankful and supporting . They evidently have some sort of
> Childress family email group and he put it on there. Mark and Gary went
> ballistic and have called me everything but a "child of God". They say
> that I am destroying the old records, which I am not as I explained to
> them that we are moving the old stones down to be footstones with the
> full inscriptions visible. All other members of the Childress family
> have been gracious and supportive including a lady in Texas who is the
> closest living relatine of Lt. Childress. According to Patrick
> Childress who runs the Childress family website , the male members of
> the Childress family have done DNA tests and Gary and Mark are not even
> related to Lt. Childress !!!
> Gary has now contacted the Mayor of Barnesville with an email that
> really degrades me and the work we have been doing. I have to meet with
> Mayor Bell at the cemetery sometime today. Gary is asking the Mayor
> that we be made to remove all 47 of the new stones that we have
> installed. Mr.Ogden and Cain that means I would have to remove
> Pvt.Ogden's stone and Pvt. Griffin's stone.
> I need a big favor from yall since you are relatives of the men buried
> here. It will only take a few minutes. Please email Barnesville City
> Hall at nsappington(a)mindspring.com<mailto:nsappington@mindspring.com>
> Put the email attention of Mayor Bell and City Manager Kenny Roberts .
> Please explain that you are relatives of soldiers here and approve of
> what we are doing.
> If you would like to see emails from the Childress family in support
> of our efforts please advise me and I will forward them to you. They
> are at my work email address.
> Mr. Norwood and Kathy, I have Sgt. Black and Pvt. Duckworth's stones
> at my house and will get them installed when I have their complete row
> if I am not stopped on this project.
> Please help and Thank you.
>
> Al Medcalf
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net<mailto:London2005@Charter.net>
>
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
London2005(a)Charter.net
I don't see a problem with what the Sons of Confederate Vets are doing. The old head stone will remain at the grave. This means all the information will be there. For those worried about the old head stones, they will fade away no matter what the Sons do. If the information was wrong on one of my families graves, I would want it corrected.
Jerry Childress
----- Original Message -----
From: INJACK1(a)aol.com<mailto:INJACK1@aol.com>
To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com<mailto:CHILDRESS-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: [Childress-L] letters4
-----Original Message-----
From: TSM773(a)aol.com<mailto:TSM773@aol.com> [mailto:TSM773@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:12 AM
To: Cain(a)aol.com<mailto:Cain@aol.com>; keubank(a)tecinfo.com<mailto:keubank@tecinfo.com>; Ogden974(a)aol.com<mailto:Ogden974@aol.com>; Al Medcalf
Cc: Joanbill(a)gra.midco.net<mailto:Joanbill@gra.midco.net>
Subject: Greenwood Confederate Cemetery in Barnesville, Ga.
Hi All,
I'm sorry to send this a group email but I don't have much time and I
NEED your help.
Two brothers, Mark and Gary Childress are trying to stop the work we
are doing on the Confederate cemetery. I had notified a Childress
family member that we had Lt. D. M. Childress of the 34th Miss. buried
here and that his name is mispelled on his old headstone. They didn't
know what had happened to him or where he is buried. The man I notified
was thankful and supporting . They evidently have some sort of
Childress family email group and he put it on there. Mark and Gary went
ballistic and have called me everything but a "child of God". They say
that I am destroying the old records, which I am not as I explained to
them that we are moving the old stones down to be footstones with the
full inscriptions visible. All other members of the Childress family
have been gracious and supportive including a lady in Texas who is the
closest living relatine of Lt. Childress. According to Patrick
Childress who runs the Childress family website , the male members of
the Childress family have done DNA tests and Gary and Mark are not even
related to Lt. Childress !!!
Gary has now contacted the Mayor of Barnesville with an email that
really degrades me and the work we have been doing. I have to meet with
Mayor Bell at the cemetery sometime today. Gary is asking the Mayor
that we be made to remove all 47 of the new stones that we have
installed. Mr.Ogden and Cain that means I would have to remove
Pvt.Ogden's stone and Pvt. Griffin's stone.
I need a big favor from yall since you are relatives of the men buried
here. It will only take a few minutes. Please email Barnesville City
Hall at nsappington(a)mindspring.com<mailto:nsappington@mindspring.com>
Put the email attention of Mayor Bell and City Manager Kenny Roberts .
Please explain that you are relatives of soldiers here and approve of
what we are doing.
If you would like to see emails from the Childress family in support
of our efforts please advise me and I will forward them to you. They
are at my work email address.
Mr. Norwood and Kathy, I have Sgt. Black and Pvt. Duckworth's stones
at my house and will get them installed when I have their complete row
if I am not stopped on this project.
Please help and Thank you.
Al Medcalf
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
London2005(a)Charter.net<mailto:London2005@Charter.net>
In the interest of genealogy ONLY, I ask you, Jack .......... would you
go to that roster that has "Childust", mark through it, and then write
"Childress" with pen and ink?
I appreciate your research on The War Of Northern Aggression (another
argument there) and have looked forward to your attendance at our yearly
meeting and have asked you to each one (Independence, MO this year). I
also appreciate the endeavor of Al and his unit to help PRESERVE the
cemetery and markers But I think you and Al are wrong on this. Old
records, and these tombstones are records, should be preserved. Make
addendum's or corrections of some sort, but don't try to rewrite history
in this manner. Where would it stop?
Bill Trott
Pasadena, TX
INJACK1(a)aol.com wrote:
>Al's right though no more said!
>
>
>==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
>Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
>NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
>London2005(a)Charter.net
>
>
>
>
If the tombstone needs replacing, make room on the new one for the old
information and the information they feel needs to be replaced. Unless they plan on
putting down a small marker? The old tombstones are a part of history, yes,
and I agree with Mark and Gary that the original wording needs to be kept for
future generations to understand where we came from. I don't know, maybe I am a
little nuts? Kathy
No, Kathy, you are not a little nuts. All of you, just imagine if someone
decided that whatever record you have used was wrong and then just
subjectively made corrections to it. Where does that leave the original
source when the original has been replaced with "new & improved"
information?
Leave the original alone in place. Add as footnotes to all the records
whatever you believe but note that it is an opinion and not the original
record.
Shirley Richison Fields
SRF Consulting, Inc.
Ph: 317-209-9637
Fax: 317-209-9637
Mobile: 317-513-1272
Email: richison(a)indy.rr.com
Web: home.indy.rr.com/richison
-----Original Message-----
From: Southerncatladi(a)aol.com [mailto:Southerncatladi@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:20 PM
To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: [Childress-L] Tombstones
If the tombstone needs replacing, make room on the new one for the old
information and the information they feel needs to be replaced. Unless they
plan on
putting down a small marker? The old tombstones are a part of history, yes,
and I agree with Mark and Gary that the original wording needs to be kept
for
future generations to understand where we came from. I don't know, maybe I
am a
little nuts? Kathy
==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
London2005(a)Charter.net
Also said that they should preserve the original headstone some way.
Perhaps placing it inside to avoid further damage from the elements.
Placing it at the foot of the grave is not a brilliant idea. Weather will
soon deteriorate it to the point it would be unreadable and literally
useless. Oh, well, simple logic should never replace faulty thinking
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark and Gary" <london2005(a)Charter.net>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:53 PM
Subject: RE: [Childress-L] to add
> Hello Ron,
> You write:
> "some type of addendum should be placed with that document indicating
> that the author "Thinks" that the name should be spelled (whatever)"
>
>
> My comment:
> I presented that option to Al Medcalf and he said... "As far as having
> the extra inscription put on the stones I am afraid we do not have the
> resources to do that."
>
> That's when it became apparent that the text of the old headstones was
> not going to be preserved.
> Gary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron [mailto:ron.childress@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 5:06 PM
> To: CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [Childress-L] to add
>
> Then some type of addendum should be placed with that document
> indicating
> that the author "Thinks" that the name should be spelled (whatever)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <INJACK1(a)aol.com>
> To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:25 PM
> Subject: [Childress-L] to add
>
>
> > Ah, but there in the problem is that , there are several primary
> sources
> of
> > the orginal roster, at the state of Mississippi Archives. All but
> one
> lists
> > D.M. Childress as the 2nd Lt. that one, a rather poor barely legible
> > document, does list D.M. Childust as 2nd Lt. An obvious mistake to
> anyone
> once the
> > other rosters are studied.
> >
> >
> > ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> > Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> > NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> > London2005(a)Charter.net
> >
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>
>
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>
I don't disagree with you in that regard, nor am I suggesting that. Perhaps
protecting the original headstone from complete ruin could be an option. It
will surely be destroyed by the elements in the future.
----- Original Message -----
From: <INJACK1(a)aol.com>
To: <CHILDRESS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Childress-L] to add
> We are talking of orginal rosters written in pencil and faded from the
> 1860's I doubt the author is around to correct his grammer 1
>
>
> ==== CHILDRESS Mailing List ====
> Contact List Owners Mark or Gary Childress at
> NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS
> London2005(a)Charter.net
>