...no not that one! "Adoption", genealogically speaking. By that what I mean is an "adoption" that can put a knothole in your family tree. Let me give an example from my own experience. There is a family debate as to whether my Great-Grandfather is adopted or not. George Grimsley was born 27 Oct 1867, Emporia, KS to John Smith Grimsley and Katherine (Drake) Grimsley. I have found numerous references to his birth, including the almost definitive Cutler's History of Kansas and Kansans, which says John and Kate "had" one son. I know that's kind of vague, but with John and Kate being pillars of the communities of Lyon County, KS (active in local politics, Postmaster, co-founder of Agnes, KS, co-founder of the Agnes Cemetery, John's father William being among the first settlers in Kansas) you would think that something as significant as John's only son being adopted would be noted somewhere. So, I lean towards Gearge being a son by birth.
I can see where and how those that support the adoption theory get their legs to stand on. As far as I know, and I have tried quite a few times, no one has been able to find a hard and fast birth record that states unequivically that George is John's son by birth. Understandable since birth ciertificates were a new "invention" about that time frame and not many communities used them yet. And then there is the circumstantial evidence: only one child when most Grimsley families had many children, John's father William had nineteen (I list 21, but another topic for another time). George was born not only ten years after John and Kate married, but on the exact date of John and Kate's 10 year anniversary 27 Oct 1867...what are the chances of that happening?
Life was hard during those times, especially when families were pushing the new frontier. Even though John and Kate were well-to-do for those times life still had to be tough, comparatively speaking. Did Kate have several still-births or miscarriages before George finally arrived? Or how about this one: family rumor for decades is that George was a Grimsley, born to a different Grimsley family and taken in by John and Kate since they had no children of their own. My own father knew nothing of this and I did ask my grandfather about it shortly before he passed away and he himself was unsure whether his father adopted or not. So where does this leave me?
I still consider myself a Grimsley, of course. Even if it is proved that George was adopted. But if that is proven so, have I been barking up the wrong tree? And how would I know? And does it really matter? Not to me it doesn't. The Grimsley lineage is a long and proud one.
Any and all comments, suggestions, questions are welcome.