Citing Georgia Archives collection found on Ancestry

Hello spcchap.

You’re catching on fast. EE would make just a couple of tweaks (see red) and then move or delete one point (in green).

"Georgia, U.S., Civil War Correspondence, 1861-1865," database with images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 7 September 2022) > Incoming > Simmons, David W.–Spalding, Thomas > image 213, George A. Smith to Adjutant General Henry C. Wayne, 17 January 1861; citing Defense - Adjutant General - Incoming Correspondence, 1861-1865, identifier 022-01-017, at the Georgia State Archives, Morrow.

Tweak 1:

If our citation sends our reader to the home page at Ancestry (or any other provider), it needs to tell them how to go from there to get to the exact document. At Ancestry, that “path” is shown on a banner above the image.  In this specific case, I could locate the entry by using the exact name in the query box; but with most databases, whatever the name, the name would be common enough that there would be multiple hits to different people.

Tweak 2:

This addresses the issue you raised in your second question.

Move or delete:

Where does Ancestry cite this identifier?  On the landing page for the collection, it only gives us the archives and the name of the collection within that archives.  On the image of the folder itself, we see: 022-01-017/ Folder 3964.  But whatever is penned onto the original and depicted in the image is not data that Ancestry is “citing.”  It’s data on the original that we’re eyeballing for ourselves.

Now the issue becomes this: Do we want to cite the folder?  Usually, yes.  We cite the full file (or folder) and then cite the specific item within the folder where a specific piece of information appears. 

"Georgia, U.S., Civil War Correspondence, 1861-1865," database with images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 7 September 2022) > Incoming > Simmons, David W.–Spalding, Thomas > images 213–18, “022-01-017, Folder 3964, Smith, George A.,” specifically: letter of Smith to Adjutant General Henry C. Wayne, 17 January 1861; citing Defense - Adjutant General - Incoming Correspondence, 1861-1865, Georgia State Archives, Morrow.

In answer to your questions:

Q1 –

The folder number is part of the organizational system of the Georgia State Archives. If you were there on the premises, locating the document through their scheme, it would be essential. For a citation to its image at Ancestry, it is not essential. That said, including it could be valuable preparedness for future contingencies.

Q2 –

You wrote “It doesn’t tell someone what the real source is (a letter from someone to the Adjutant General, as opposed to a letter between a soldier and his mother.”  You are right. As a rule, when we cite a letter to or from a government official, the person’s official position is cited.

Q3 –

You say “Obviously this entry would go under Correspondence.”  Hmhh. Would this not conflict with your other proposed category “Government Documents”? It fits under both proposed categories.  I might also ask whether you plan to break down “Government Documents” by the ID of the government, as in

Georgia, State of

Agency A

Collection Name

Collection Name

Agency B

Collection Name

Collection Name

South Carolina, State of

Agency A

Collection Name

Collection Name

Agency B

Collection Name

Collection Name

United States

Agency A

Collection Name

Collection Name

Agency B

Collection Name

Collection Name

You also ask: Would it not be easier to arrange these by sender name?  For example:  Smith, George A. to Henry C. Wayne? 

As a rule, a source list cites to the collection, not the individual document, because thorough work in government records will usually involve many, many documents. The source list would rapidly get out of hand.

If, as you seem to imply, you are preparing a research report for a client, then—within the limited scope of a single block of research—listing individual documents would not be burdensome and it would, as you say, emphasize your use of original documents.

Side Issue:

I notice your reference to “Primary Sources” and “Secondary Sources.”  If you are working as a genealogist or for genealogists, please do review EE 2.12 and 2.14. Because the ambiguous terms primary source and secondary source do not define a source with the clarity that genealogists need (2.12), this field uses the more precise terms discussed at 2.14:

Sources are either original records, derivatives, or a narrative combination of both.

Information is either primary, secondary, or unknown.

Evidence is either direct, indirect, or negative.

With this collection, you are using original records, from which any individual statement might be based on the letter writer's primary (firsthand) or secondary (secondhand) knowledge.