Evaluating Records and Sources: The Fictitious Mackay Family: Vital Records

 All right , let's pick up where we left off yesterday. We have the fictitious family of James Thomas Mackay and Elizabeth "Betsy" Callahan.

James Thomas Mackay was born in Berkeley Co., SC on 12 Mar 1754 and died 8 Jun 1836 in Jefferson Co., IN

[1] Birth records may be hard to come by in 1754. But a family bible is online for a Mackay family from Winchester Co., Virginia:

Matthew McKAY - born 5 Jan 1728 - died 16 May 1783; Rachel SHELBY, his wife, born 27 Jun 1730 - died 4 Mar 1779. Married 9 Feb 1749.                                                                                                           Matthew, son, born 11 Nov  1751; married Alice Baum 23 Jan 1774. James, son, born [smudged] Mar /May [hard to resd] 1754; Jane. dau., born 30 July 1756 - died  8 Aug 1756; Nancy - born 1 Aug 1758; Racheil - born [smudged] 1760.

Could this be James Thomas? Possibly. The year fits, but the day and month aren't clear. The mother's maiden name is Shelby, James named a son Shelby. Worth saving? Yes, at least until the family group can be verified. By the way, find a copy of that Mackay family book. It could answer many of your research questions!!

You find some posted marriage records for James and Betsy on several family trees with the correct date - all with source citations!!!

England Marriages 1770-1899: James T. McKay & Eliz. Calihan                                                                    New England  Marriages 1700-1800: Jas. Mackee & Betsy Callahan                                                              South Carolina Presbyterian Church Records: James Macay & Elisabeth Callahan                                Virginia Tidewater Marriages before 1800: J.T. Makay & Elizabeth Callahan

Any keepers? We know the couple was not in England or New England. The Tidewater region of Virginia is too far east. Mackay and Callahan are likely Scots, Scots-Irish and/or Irish and members of the Presbyterian Church. Spelling may be a shade off, but that South Carolina record could easily be them.

If you know where a couple was living at the time of their marriage - or any other event - ignore records from places you know they wouldn't or couldn't be, especially in colonial/revolutionary times. The same line of reasoning applies later on. Marriage in a nearby town or bordering county? Yes, but not a great distance away! Just because names and dates match doesn't mean the wrong place is okay/ You need the trifecta: correct people. date and place!