Clinton Slayton

Member for
19 years 5 months 2 days
Find a Grave ID

Bio

Note: do not use the e-mail address on my cycling jersey, use the one above on this page.

I am part of a network of researchers called the Slaton Slatton Slayden Family Project (since 1985). My wife Julia O'Hara Mitchel Slayton and I have used DNA to show that all Slaton/Slatton family lines do not share a common progenitor, after suspecting that they did not using pre-DNA genealogy. There are three "paper" (large and traceable) lines : Arthur & Rachel Slayden of VA, another line from three or four men (brothers?) who moved NC SC. There is also the "Northern" line from a Mass. Thomas.
Y-DNA is different haplogroup for all three lines.

If you are posting TREES showing an ultimate ancestor William Slatton/Sladding marrying Mary RODES, Arthur Slayden marrying Rachel MUIRFIELD, or either of these as sons of John Sladding, you are promulgating guesses. No wife/marriage is known for William, and Rachel is the only name we have for Arthur's spouse, and their ancestors are not (yet) known. The desire to provide answers overwhelmed the judgment of one person (not me) , and this guesswork has compromised thousands of Ancestry Trees and FamilySearch PIDs.


There are over 30 variants for this surname, so your family member may not be buried under the spelling you expect.

yDNA is publicly viewable at Family Tree DNA:
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/sssfp-ydna
They are also accessible through the Guild of One Name Studies.
This shows that descendants of John, George and Major Slaton/Slatton do not share a common ancestor with Arthur (& Rachel) or the Thomas Slayton of Mass. patriline.

We have SPOKT.com websites. We posted all research at RootsWeb WorldConnect before the GEDCOM software there failed. We used to use F A G heavily but do not like the changes there since association with Ancestry.com. We cannot connect all of the graves because, while key ancestors can be conjectured or identified, their burial sites are not known. Please do not confuse LINKS and other family material posted on Find A Grave as PROOF of actual research.

Simply transcribing records from cemetery books, death certificates and stones in order to create thousands of memorials does not constitute a contribution to anything unless the typists are willing to allow genealogical researchers to manage these memorials. All of these sources are secondary and notoriously inaccurate. There are no prizes for dying with hundreds of thousands of memorials to your "credit," if descendants and researchers cannot correct the MANY errors made in survey books and provide additional helpful notes. Anyone can OCR a survey book, but knowing who these people were and why they are where they are (and whether they really ARE there) is the ONLY function F A G can provide for future users, not "grave registration," which is a faulty concept. Those of us who go into the graveyards know this.

Even worse, those who have done no research are creating entries of UNKNOWN burial memorials from books with unproven lineage information for gravesites, giving the impression that there is a proven line back to these (not found) memorials, or are requesting or creating "links" based on acceptance of posted trees. I consider both extremely poor practices that are against F A G guidelines and not genealogy. This non-information is now "shared" over Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.com and WikiTree.com.

I have photographed several cemeteries completely, do not be shy about asking for transfers if I have one of yours who is not one of mine. In an effort to correct a cemetery mixup, I now manage over 500 graves in Liberty United, DeKalb co AL, that I do not want!

I sometimes cite Find A Grave as proof for burial records but there is too much misinformation here and markers do not necessarily indicate burial (I have an uncle with three memorials, probably nothing but a uniform was ever buried). Fundamental research is the only answer.

Note: do not use the e-mail address on my cycling jersey, use the one above on this page.

I am part of a network of researchers called the Slaton Slatton Slayden Family Project (since 1985). My wife Julia O'Hara Mitchel Slayton and I have used DNA to show that all Slaton/Slatton family lines do not share a common progenitor, after suspecting that they did not using pre-DNA genealogy. There are three "paper" (large and traceable) lines : Arthur & Rachel Slayden of VA, another line from three or four men (brothers?) who moved NC SC. There is also the "Northern" line from a Mass. Thomas.
Y-DNA is different haplogroup for all three lines.

If you are posting TREES showing an ultimate ancestor William Slatton/Sladding marrying Mary RODES, Arthur Slayden marrying Rachel MUIRFIELD, or either of these as sons of John Sladding, you are promulgating guesses. No wife/marriage is known for William, and Rachel is the only name we have for Arthur's spouse, and their ancestors are not (yet) known. The desire to provide answers overwhelmed the judgment of one person (not me) , and this guesswork has compromised thousands of Ancestry Trees and FamilySearch PIDs.


There are over 30 variants for this surname, so your family member may not be buried under the spelling you expect.

yDNA is publicly viewable at Family Tree DNA:
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/sssfp-ydna
They are also accessible through the Guild of One Name Studies.
This shows that descendants of John, George and Major Slaton/Slatton do not share a common ancestor with Arthur (& Rachel) or the Thomas Slayton of Mass. patriline.

We have SPOKT.com websites. We posted all research at RootsWeb WorldConnect before the GEDCOM software there failed. We used to use F A G heavily but do not like the changes there since association with Ancestry.com. We cannot connect all of the graves because, while key ancestors can be conjectured or identified, their burial sites are not known. Please do not confuse LINKS and other family material posted on Find A Grave as PROOF of actual research.

Simply transcribing records from cemetery books, death certificates and stones in order to create thousands of memorials does not constitute a contribution to anything unless the typists are willing to allow genealogical researchers to manage these memorials. All of these sources are secondary and notoriously inaccurate. There are no prizes for dying with hundreds of thousands of memorials to your "credit," if descendants and researchers cannot correct the MANY errors made in survey books and provide additional helpful notes. Anyone can OCR a survey book, but knowing who these people were and why they are where they are (and whether they really ARE there) is the ONLY function F A G can provide for future users, not "grave registration," which is a faulty concept. Those of us who go into the graveyards know this.

Even worse, those who have done no research are creating entries of UNKNOWN burial memorials from books with unproven lineage information for gravesites, giving the impression that there is a proven line back to these (not found) memorials, or are requesting or creating "links" based on acceptance of posted trees. I consider both extremely poor practices that are against F A G guidelines and not genealogy. This non-information is now "shared" over Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.com and WikiTree.com.

I have photographed several cemeteries completely, do not be shy about asking for transfers if I have one of yours who is not one of mine. In an effort to correct a cemetery mixup, I now manage over 500 graves in Liberty United, DeKalb co AL, that I do not want!

I sometimes cite Find A Grave as proof for burial records but there is too much misinformation here and markers do not necessarily indicate burial (I have an uncle with three memorials, probably nothing but a uniform was ever buried). Fundamental research is the only answer.

Search memorial contributions by Clinton Slayton

Advertisement