I deleted a sentence the other day because I realized I had gone farther than the records allowed. The sentence fit nicely with the story I was putting together, and based on everything I knew about the family, it even sounded reasonable. But when I looked at it again, I realized I was telling the reader what that person felt, even though I had no record that actually said so.
That is surprisingly easy to do when we write about people who can no longer correct us. We collect enough records to know where an ancestor lived, what kind of work he did, who he married, how many children he had, and perhaps something about the problems the family faced. Then we start connecting those facts into a life story. Somewhere along the way, it can become tempting to explain why someone made a decision or what that person must have been thinking.
Maybe a family left Virginia and headed west after several difficult years. The records can show when they left, where they went, what property they sold, who traveled with them, and where they settled. Historical records can tell us what was happening in the area at the time. But unless something survives in a letter, diary, newspaper account, court testimony, or another source that records the person’s own explanation, I cannot really say what was going through someone’s mind when the family left.
I can say what happened. I can explain what was happening around them. I can point to reasons that may have influenced the decision. What I cannot do is climb inside someone’s thoughts just because one explanation sounds likely.
I think this becomes more important the longer we work with the same family. After spending hours with someone’s records, that person begins to seem familiar. You recognize the children’s names without looking them up. You know when the family moved and which neighbors kept appearing beside them. You have read the probate papers and followed the land transactions. After a while, it can almost seem as though you know the person, even though you have never heard that person’s voice or sat across a table from them.
That familiarity can make an assumption feel stronger than it really is.
I have thought about that while working with my own Moneymaker family in Virginia. It is possible to follow people through records and build a fairly detailed view of their lives. The land, the families living nearby, marriages, deaths, moves, court activity, and other records begin filling in the years. But even with all of that information, there are parts of those people I will probably never know. I can understand something about the world in which they lived without pretending I know every reason behind the choices they made.
I actually think the story is better when we leave some of that uncertainty in place. There is nothing wrong with saying, “The records do not tell us why.” Those words separate what we know from what we think may have happened, and they leave room for another record to show up someday and change what we understand.
Family stories make this even more interesting. A story may have been repeated for generations and still contain pieces that have changed along the way. One person remembers a reason for a move. Someone else remembers the same event differently. A later generation combines the two versions, and before long, the story sounds certain because everyone has heard it so many times. That does not mean family stories should be ignored. They can contain excellent clues. They just need to be checked the same way we check anything else.
There is also the temptation to make our ancestors make sense to us. If someone left home at a young age, we want to know why. If two brothers stopped living near each other, we may start looking for a disagreement. If a widow remarried quickly, it can be tempting to attach an emotion or motive to the decision. But people lived within circumstances we may only partly understand. Money, work, family duty, illness, law, distance, religion, and other pressures could all shape a choice.
Historical context helps us understand what choices may have been available. It does not always tell us which consideration was most important to the person making the decision.
That is something I want to keep in mind whenever I write about a family. I want the people to sound like people, not like a list of census entries and certificates. At the same time, making them human does not require inventing conversations or feelings. Sometimes the facts themselves already carry plenty of weight.
A widow appears as head of household after her husband’s death, with children still listed in her home in later records. A farmer loses land and later appears to be working for wages. Several children leave the same county within a few years of one another. An older parent moves into the home of a daughter. A son becomes guardian of younger siblings. None of those facts need an invented sentence telling us exactly how everyone felt. The records already show change, responsibility, loss, movement, and family ties.
If you write about your own ancestors, you have probably faced this without thinking much about it. You want the story to read well. You do not want it to sound like a report filled with dates. So you begin adding the parts that connect one event to another. That is where I think the wording deserves extra attention.
There is a difference between writing, “After his father died, John moved to Ohio,” and writing, “Heartbroken after his father’s death, John decided he needed a new beginning in Ohio.” The first sentence tells us what the records can support if they establish both events and their order. The second gives John an emotion and a reason unless something survives that tells us he actually felt that way.
The second version may sound better. It may even be true. But that does not mean we know it.
Sometimes careful wording solves the issue. We can say that a move happened soon after a death without claiming the death caused it. We can say a family arrived during a period when work was expanding without claiming employment was definitely the reason they came. We can say the records suggest a relationship without turning that suggestion into certainty.
That still gives us room to write something people want to read. It simply keeps the line between evidence and interpretation where the reader can see it.
I think there is another reason to be careful. Once we write a family story, somebody else may repeat it. A relative may copy it into a tree. A future researcher may find it years later and assume we knew something they do not. One small guess can slowly become an accepted family fact because nobody remembers where it started.
We have all seen this happen in genealogy. A date appears on dozens of online trees, but nobody seems to know where it came from. A middle name gets repeated until everyone accepts it. A family connection moves from one tree to another without a record ever being found. Written family stories can travel the same way.
That puts some responsibility on the person doing the writing. We may be creating the version of the story that someone else inherits.
Maybe that is the question I should ask more often: If the person I am writing about could sit beside me and read what I wrote, which parts would they correct?
They might correct a date. They might tell me I misunderstood why they moved or who they trusted. I might find out that something I thought was important meant very little to them, while an ordinary detail I barely noticed was a large part of their life.
Most of the people we research will never get the chance to correct us. So the best I can do is stay close to the evidence. Write what the records support. Explain the world around them. Be clear when something is uncertain. Leave room for what I do not know.
I still want their stories to be interesting. I still want someone who has never cared much about genealogy to read one and realize these were real people living real lives. I just do not want to make the story stronger by quietly turning an ancestor into the person I imagine they were.
I may never know whether they would agree with every detail.
But I would like to think they would recognize themselves.
Learn More
