Comments on Margaret (Moore) Emerson. Who married James the regulator Emerson?

+1 vote
96 views

On 18 Feb 2020 Juliet (Adams) Wills wrote on Moore-43834:

Fellow Wikitree Descendants of this profile: I have been adding documents to the profile for James and wife Margaret Moore Emerson of Chatham, NC, from FamilySearch microfilm, Geni, and website genealogies. There is conflicting data for James' wife Margaret Moore, who was added as his wife Oct 2018. James "The Regulator" Emerson's Estate records of Chatham County listed death year as 1786 and wife listed was a Margaret. But the Margaret Moore attached as wife from Lincoln, NC, had a marriage record with a James Emerson year as 1791, CLEARLY NOT wife of James "The Regulator" who had already died. The Wikitree Margaret Moore Emerson profile matches the Geni.com profile which has the marriage bond attached that I transferred here which Wikitree system immediately highlighted the error problem of the aforementioned dates. Per FamilySearch Family Tree this same Margaret Moore 1769–1849 of Lincoln, NC ( https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L2VY-8PF ) married a different James Emerson, 1752–1802, birth and death date not that of James "the Regulator" Emerson. Margaret Moore, Wife of James "The Regulator" Emerson left a will in Chatham, NC, undated, per microfilm record but the preceding will probated March 1812, which year 1812 was used for her death year on genealogy files. CLEARLY the Margaret Moore who married 1791 Lincoln, NC, was not the wife of James "The Regulator" Emerson nor mother of his listed sons on his profile. Margaret Moore Emerson wife of James "The Regulator," at FamilySearch, https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LKQ8-N9C is correct as well as Find A Grave Memorial. I can't verify the accuracy of her ancestral Moore generations on FamilySearch which doesn't list primary source records. Managers of these two profiles please resolve this issue. Thanks much for this consideration.

WikiTree profile: Margaret Emerson
in Genealogy Help by Cynthia Curtis G2G Crew (310 points)

1 Answer

+3 votes
Hi Cynthia, family trees are not a reliable source. Much better to locate appropriate sources.
by Marion Poole G2G Astronaut (1.0m points)
Hi Marion, Family Trees may be a reliable source if the family historian has added primary source records to their tree to support the facts therein stated and should not be immediately dismissed as useless. Using FamilySearch Family Trees to view primary source records attached, if any, can be utilized for further research or attached to other existing websites. Use of FamilySearch digitized microfilm is also an exceptional resource although tedious work is involved to extract the appropriate historical county record images from the LDS Historical Digitized Collection relevant to one's research.
If the family tree has primary sources then they are what should be quoted not the tree. Surely it is a waste of time referring someone to a tree only to have to then go to another page. I use ‘trees’ as a hint or stepping stone.
Many times adding all the primary source records and confusing dates from FamilySearch onto G2G isn't feasible at all, too numerous when they are already outlined with just a "click." The issues here were two different families and much data and records to analyze to transfer all to G2G. If you can help on the issues please do so with a simple "click."  If not, Thanks anyway!

Related questions

0 votes
1 answer
+7 votes
1 answer
49 views asked Jul 22 in Photos by Paul Emerson G2G Crew (370 points)
+3 votes
3 answers
+1 vote
1 answer
+5 votes
3 answers
130 views asked Aug 5, 2018 in Photos by Glenn Kittredge G2G3 (3.7k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...