Standardization for Tennessee with British Colonial America for events between February 10, 1763 and

LegacyUser

Collin White said: I have been referred to this forum after making an inquiry about proper standardization for a recent change made to two records. Birth information was added to these two records, indicating a location in Tennessee in 1770 and 1771. Both of these dates fall before July 4, 1776. Therefore, the United States had not yet come into existence politically. However, the locations are currently being standardized as "...,Tennessee, United States".

I had previously noticed that "British Colonial America" had been used for the 13 original colonies for dates prior to July 4, 1776, and figured this would be the appropriate standardization for Tennessee as well. A double-check of the relevant history revealed that Tennessee came under full British control after the French and Indian War, before which point it was disputed between Britain and France. February 10, 1763 is the date of the signing of the 1763 Treaty of Paris, so it would seem to me that locations in Tennessee (and several other nearby states) should have an standardization option for British Colonial America, which would be applicable for events occurring between February 10, 1763 (inclusive), and July 4, 1776 (exclusive). However, no such option is currently available. Could you add additional standardization options for locations in Tennessee followed by British Colonial America for events between February 10, 1763 (inclusive) and July 4, 1776 (exclusive)? Note: this would also be applicable to most other states east of the Mississippi River that are not among the original 13.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Tennessee history is somewhat complex, but it was definitely not among the 13 colonies as a separate colony. Here is an outline of what became Tennessee by time period:

English Province of Carolina, 1663–1707
French colony of Louisiane, 1699–1763
British Province of Carolina, 1707–1712
British Province of North Carolina, 1712–1776
French and Indian War, 1754–1763
British Indian Reserve, 1763–1783
American Revolutionary War, April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783
State of North Carolina since 1776
Territory South of the River Ohio, 1790–1796
State of Tennessee becomes 16th State admitted to the United States of America on June 1, 1796

Other notable items of historic interest:

* The Watauga Association (sometimes referred to as the Republic of Watauga) was a semi-autonomous government created in 1772.
* North Carolina annexed the Watauga settlement area, by then known as the Washington District, in November 1776. Within a year, the area was placed under a county government, becoming Washington County, North Carolina, in November 1777.
* State of Franklin -- Created in 1784. The extra-legal state existed for only about four and a half years, ostensibly as a republic, after which North Carolina re-assumed full control of the area. (It was founded with the intent of becoming the fourteenth state of the new United States.)
* The Territory South of the River Ohio, more commonly known as the Southwest Territory, was an organized incorporated territory of the United States that existed from May 26, 1790, until June 1, 1796, when it was admitted to the United States as the State of Tennessee.

Although settlers in the Watauga Association considered themselves to be British citizens, the association was never a formal British Colony.

If anything, the area was part of (North) Carolina, British Colonial America, although never recognized by that designation.

The FamilySearch Wiki article does not help a lot in establishing standard naming conventions prior to Tennessee being admitted to the Union. https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Tenn...

The standards folks are going to have to help with this problem, so maybe one of them can help us out in understanding what, if anything, has been done to standardize place names for the area that eventually became the State of Tennessee.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I originally posted a summation of the history of the area, but did not like its length. Subsequently, I edited the original post into what you now see above.

LegacyUser

Collin White said: I got an e-mail with your original post, so I was able to read it. Sounds complicated, but clearly "United States" would not be the correct standardization for the time frame I am dealing with. I also did come across some comments by some Canadians suggesting that the term "British Colonial America" be replaced by "British North America". That change could avoid the problem of the new standardization being too narrowly interpreted (such as to the original 13 colonies, an interpretation which, as you pointed out above, would exclude Tennessee). On the other hand, if we interpret "British Colonial America" broadly, then the change to "British North America" could potentially have an effect on standardization for Belize, but that could be overcome by the use of the term "British Honduras", and is not my problem.

I am hoping the standardization team will sort this out, so I can appropriately standardize the events in question without the anachronism of "United States". It still appears to me as though "British Colonial America" could work, but it would be imperfect, as some researchers could interpret it too narrowly. Perhaps the change suggested by the Canadians would be the best way forward. While it would require significant changes to standardization already in existence, it would simultaneously address their concerns and avoid our potential problem of narrow interpretation.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I agree that for the most part, British Colonial America should work, except for the period of time when the area was claimed by both the French and the British.

The question is which part of British Colonial America needs to be specified... I think I might add significant notes or discussions on those paersons' pages where this problem exists.

Of course, before and after the revolution there was unorganized territory as the frontier was push westward. Tennessee is particularly problematical, but I suspect the same holds true for Kentucky or any other area that became a state after the revolution. In those cases, do we list "Cherokee Nation" as a location -- or any of the six nations (that were eventually forcibly and illegally removed by Andrew Jackson) had clearly established boundaries.

LegacyUser

Collin White said: I was only intending this new notation for dates starting with February 10, 1763 (1763 Treaty of Paris) but before July 4, 1776. As for more specific locations within "British Colonial America" or "British North America", that is a completely different question, which, as you have just pointed out, is quite complicated, especially when claims by the various native peoples are considered.

It does help when a researcher is able to easily identify the specific location in question, but sometimes changes in place names make that more difficult (such in modern-day western Poland, which used to belong to Germany). If older place names are to be used in standardization, some sort of key or something similar to Meyers' Gazetteer is needed to correlate the old names to the modern names.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Tongue in cheek slightly, because I've said this before, but if you want the correct political names, then "British Colonial America" or "British North America" are not correct for pre-1776.

"British North America refers to the former territories of the British Empire in mainland North America. The term was first used informally in 1783, but it was uncommon before the Report on the Affairs of British North America (1839), called the Durham Report. These territories today form modern-day Canada and the Pacific Northwest of the United States" - quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...

And I can find no justification for "British Colonial America" as a political body - certainly not pre-1776. It's a description, that's all. One could just as easily refer to "The Thirteen Colonies". That Wikipedia link describes The Thirteen Colonies as "each one administered separately", so I'd actually terminate the place-name with (say) "Virginia Colony", in the same way that I refer to "Adelaide, Province of South Australia" prior to 1901 and the date of federation of Australia, after which it becomes "Adelaide, South Australia, Australia".

Then again, you could actually decide you were going to go with descriptions, not political entities, in which case you can call it what you like!

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Generally speaking, and this is very loose in this situation, a person is always "safe" in using the political designation(s) at the time of the event(s). In this particular situation, the problem is compounded by the fact that this was, where Europe was concerned, generally unclaimed territory, with the exception of those entities that had a somewhat "loose" claim over it (as noted by time period).

In short, there was no fully identified political division and even when there was, North Carolina attempted to use the area to pay off debts to the new Nation that was attempting to recover from the very costly revolution.

Standardizing the place is the real challenge and only the standards folks can help us there. I wish them well, but neither United States, or British Colonial America work. It is just uncharted territory in which some settlements will eventually become what will be known as Tennessee.

I'm thankful we are not restricted in what we put in a place name and so we can use a description, rather than a specific political subdivision. Only the "standard" becomes a headache.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "this was, where Europe was concerned, generally unclaimed territory"
Ah, yes.... Not something I'd considered, I must admit! (Probably have to go back way beyond the Norman Conquest to find that in the British Isles - disputed territory, yes - though that's not quite the same thing).

I agree that in such a case as "unclaimed territory", then a description is about the best that can be done. Actually, it seems to me that "North America" is as good as any for "unclaimed territory".

(I'm putting "unclaimed territory" in quotes because it seems to me that, from other viewpoints, you might dispute the "unclaimed" bit - or even that claiming territory makes sense to your civilisation).

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: This discussion points out again the importance of understanding the use of the word "standardization" in Family Tree.

If the person was "standardizing" the place names by adding "Tennessee, United States" to the white Display Text box, that was just wrong and that is also not what it means to standardized a place name in Family Tree. The white Display Text box should contain the most appropriate historical name for the time period. I'll let the three of you continue to debate that since I have no idea what that would be.

To standardize in Family Tree just means to set the green box to the proper map location so searching and matching works. Whoever added the birth information that Collin referred to needs to be instructed that all of Tom's suggestions work just fine (except for British Indian Reserve) to set a map location and accordingly should be used for the proper time periods:









As long as the green box, which no one should ever need to look, at gives the proper map location, the real goal is to have the white box as historically accurate as possible and the dual place name entry of Family Tree gives us the tool to do that.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The last standard is actually in error. "Territory South of the River Ohio" is not limited to Tennessee, but also takes in what is now Kentucky. Tennessee was never declared to be a territory in the same sense as the Oregon Territory.

This needs to be addressed by the standards team.

Regardless, when one is matching a standard with an event, one needs to be aware of the territory covered by the standard. A good example is Louisiana, New France, which territory does not cover the eastern part of Tennessee (where the early settlements took place) at all, but because Louisiana, New France largely covered the Mississippi River Valley (later ceded by France to the United States) portions of what became Tennessee fell under that jurisdiction.

The actual name of the place is not as much a matter of debate, but one of clarification. The list I produced came from Wikipedia and I claim no superior knowledge on the topic. I have early Kentucky people and my wife has some early Tennessee people, but each area presents its own set of problems.

To Gordon, thank you for showing that there are Standards associated (for the most part) with the Wikipedia list. I should probably go into FamilySearch Wiki and provide some additional background, similar to the list found in Wikipedia.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Can we get someone from the Standards Team to let us know what is being considered, or do we need to send this to the Standards support folks?

LegacyUser

Dan Reeves said: Sorry for our delay in responding to this issue!

We've discussed this as an Authorities Team (the team doing the research behind place standards used in FamilySearch Places).

We suggest using the following standards for territory that eventually became Tennessee:

1629 - 1712 Carolina, British North America (inclusive of both "English Province..." and British Province) https://familysearch.org/research/pla...

1712-1776 North Carolina, British Colonial America
https://familysearch.org/research/pla...

1776-1790 North Carolina, United States
https://familysearch.org/research/pla...

1790-1796 Southwest Territory, United States
https://familysearch.org/research/pla...

1796- Tennessee, United States
https://familysearch.org/research/pla...

We try to define historic place standards - particularly those that cover larger areas: provinces, counties, territories, etc. - in broader, more inclusive terms.
This means that we try to avoid excessive detail (i.e. distinguishing between English Province of Carolina vs. British Province of Carolina). We do wish to know all of these variant names, but we tend to group them into a larger, inclusive standard.

We are very interested in describing these types of detail at the lowest level - villages, towns, etc.

LegacyUser

Dan Reeves said: If you know of specific towns, villages, churches, etc. that need to be described within these predecessors to Tennessee, please let us know by emailing
placefeedback@familysearch.org

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Re "1629 - 1712 Carolina, British North America" - did you really mean to type the "North" bit, given that the "next" one is qualified by "British Colonial America"? And the standard that you link to is indeed "1629 - 1712 Carolina, British Colonial America".

As far as "British Colonial America", I note that it's in the Standards tool as a Colony, existing "1607-Present". I would feel far happier if it were described not as a "Colony" (because it wasn't) but as an "Informal Description" - or perhaps "Group of colonies".

LegacyUser

Dan Reeves said: Yes, good catch! I meant to type "British Colonial America." That's what I get for trying to type quickly.
I like your suggestion to change the type description of British Colonial America. I will look through our available place types and find a better descriptor.
Thank you!

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: I don't understand how the types in https://familysearch.org/research/pla... are generated but they include a "Country-Like". If some variant on "Description" for BCA won't work, then "Country-Like" sounds good to me.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "That's what I get for trying to type quickly" - c.f. Ferengi Rule of Acquisition number ?? - "No good deed goes unpunished"... Just thought I'd ensure a Friday mention for Star Trek here. :-)

LegacyUser

Dan Reeves said: "Country-Like" is technically a "type group" and not a type. It allows users to generate a filter that includes a lot of types - in this case entities that are labelled kingdom, republic, empire, dictatorship would all be included in the "Country-Like" type group.

I chose to use the type "Overseas Territory" for British Colonial America.

LegacyUser

Collin White said: My requests for specific standardization for the two locations in question that led to the original inquiry were rejected. In the notification e-mail I received, there was an inquiry as to the source of the information. No sources are currently attached to either record, and in both cases, pressing the FamilySearch button failed to produce any hits.

In an effort to identify the researcher who entered the information in the first place (to potentially message him/her with an inquiry), I checked the change logs of the two affected records. While there is an indication that the information in question may have been merged in to one of the records in question, there is a mention below that including the same information that indicates the information originated with FamilySearch itself in May 2012. The other record's change log also points to FamilySearch in May 2012. This does not make sense, given the language of the notification e-mail.

I had noticed issues with the change logs in the past, where in a couple rare cases they would incorrectly attribute changes to me. However, I also noticed that the change logs do not go back beyond May 2012, suggesting that the birth information in question could have been added at some point prior to some major change (I was not yet on FamilySearch at that time, so I am not sure what was happening then) and FamilySearch simply copied that information across said major change. In either event, and with no reason statements appearing in these entries in the change logs, it unfortunately appears I will not be able to track down the original source of this information and/or original reasoning behind it, nor are there currently any sources to back it up.

I have adjusted the standardization on both records to read "North Carolina, British Colonial America" for the time being, as suggested in the e-mail I received, and included notice of the issues raised by your team in my reason statements.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Re "Country-Like" - OK
Re "Overseas Territory" for British Colonial America. In lieu of anything better, it'll have to do if you can't add a type but I still think that you need something more appropriate, not least because the term "British Overseas Territory" has a very specific meaning. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...).

It makes little sense to be so exact in some areas (e.g. changing the end nodes for English places from "England" to "England, United Kingdom" in 1801) but then using a term like "British Colonial America" without making it clear that this is just a geographic area / informal description / landmass / group of colonies, etc. and not a specific jurisdiction / political entity. It's only BCA that needs its type changing in the context of this discussion.

LegacyUser

Caren Lynn Flack said: Ugh! There are enough mysteries with genealogy/family history. I want to get as close to the actual place an event occurs. I find that indexers are sometimes not placing exact place names as they index which is okay except for when I have French, Italian, and German to decipher. My father always said if wishes were horses everyone would ride; I wish I could speak every language I come across, I wish I could index, I wish everyone did everything correctly, I wish I were perfect. But even more important, having started genealogy in the 1970s before computers, I'm thankful for all the modern day conveniences and people who spend their valuable time making my search easier and as complete as possible. When I get very frustrated I try to remember back when all my work was done by hand (I still have the original family group and pedigree charts). So I apologize if I've upset anyone.