Talk:John Brockman (soldier)

References

Murray W. Brockman, personal correspondence of family traditional lore

Personal correspondence is not considered a reliable source: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability ("articles ... should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher"). Tearlach 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As it stands right now, this article may not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia because of verifiability and notability issues. Personally, I'd like to see as many articles on soldiers of the American Revolution as possible, but the sources listed here are mostly genealogy-related and thus borderline reliable. I'd hate to see the article deleted because of that reason. If someone can dig up some more reliable published sources, particularly on his regiment of North Carolina militia, that would really help. —Kevin Myers 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The are several sources in the North Carolina Achives on this soldier. The above users need to do a little more reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall O (talk • contribs) 08:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's you who needs to do the reading. We've pointed out the guidelines that you need to read so that you understand why this article has problems. Had you done this reading you would have come across instructions like, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." But "several sources in the North Carolina Archives" doesn't pass muster, because most archival material is not "published" and is not a secondary source. As one WikiProject advises, "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable." People who read this article have no idea if Colonel Brockman is notable enough for an encyclopedia article because you haven't cited sources that show that he is. If you want to make sure that this article is never deleted, it's up to you to provide published, reliable, secondary sources about the subject. —Kevin Myers 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, Just noted your issues now. It is high time the references were updated and I have done more reading on this soldier since the article first came together. Randall O is correct that there are a few citations to back up this particular soldier. He was in the North Carolina Militia. The Daugters of the American Revolution have receipts from him giving some 1500 pounds currency to the cause. There are a few books that are more formally distributed to libraries that are not listed here that could be. It will take me a week or so to make the edits. Sandwich Eater (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I added what I could at the moment. This includes a volume present in many libararies and moving the Historical Commision receipt to the sources section. I am unclear what the additional records are that indicate he was a colonel as shown on the headstone. I recall that I contacted the DAR about this as they retain him in their records, but I am not sure if they got back to me. I will have to have a look at my correspondence. He is reputed to have served as a Colonel. My impression is that Militia colonels are sometimes honorary in the South at that time. I expanded some discussion about that. Sandwich Eater (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The only searchable version of DAR records of North Carolina militiamen on Google Books, Roster of Soldiers from North Carolina in the American Revolution, appears not to list anyone named "Brockman". Normally I'd suspect that this meant he was a private soldier during the war and later became known as "Colonel Brockman", but given his age that seems unlikely. And also there's the tombstone: you'd think "Brockman's Regiment" would turn up in some third-party source on the war, but I haven't seen it yet.

The book you listed, Orange County Virginia families by William Everett Brockman, doesn't quite fit the bill of reliable sources because it's a self-published book -- if you notice, the publisher's name is the same as the author's. It doesn't help that his name is also "Brockman", because he may not be a disinterested third party. In my experience, genealogy hobbyists tend to exaggerate, even if unintentionally, the military accomplishments of their ancestors. So what this article really needs is some sourcing from non-genealogical works. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I found my email from the DAR. HEre is what it says:

BROCKMAN, John
Birth: VA Circa 1 Aug 1737
Service: NC
Rank: PS
Death: SC Before (ante) 13 Feb 1801
Patriot Pensioned: No Widow Pensioned: No
Children Pensioned: No Heirs Pensioned: No
Spouse: (1) Amelia Martin

I believe that your thought must be correct that 'PS' stands for private soldier. I also agree whole heartedly that anything like a Brockman's Regiment of regular army would have shown up in several references, the fall of Charleston for example being a fairly big deal under General Lincoln. It would be easy to track what general the colonel reported to, et cetera. My conclusion is that North Carolina Militia is completely different from regular army. A bit of research on the North Carolina Militia supports that. Here is an excellent and well referenced work by James Whisker: http://www.kingsownpatriots.org/NCM.html. If you take a moment to read that article you'll find that in 1715 all free men in North Carolina were required to serve in the Militia. Within 15 years the militia law was widely ignored. The militia were, therefore, a sort of rag tag home guard with more senior men in the community serving as 'colonels', and from this the southern colonel tradition likely grew. If you continue reading that article, the militia got much more organized due to the French Indian Wars. The Militia Act of 1759 increased fines for desertion and insubordination and allowed the Governor, with the consent of the legislature, to send the militia to the aid of South Carolina and Virginia to fight against the Cherokees.

Note "Officers in the various units had to come from the same county as the enlisted militiamen". How many available colonels were in Caswell County? On 3 November 1766 the provincial legislature passed a new militia act. All freemen and servants between sixteen and sixty years of age were *obligated* to serve, with no exemptions noted, but no mention of any kind was made of slaves.

Whisker Continues...

"The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 provided "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the State . . . ." It also denounced the practice of maintaining armies in time of peace and of allowing the military to subordinate the civil authority. The provisional government enacted a temporary militia law, which was followed by a permanent law enacted by the state legislature.(357) Until 1868 each North Carolina county was divided into one or more militia districts, with each unit being commanded by a captain, who was usually a county official, such as deputy sheriff or justice of the peace. They were required to enroll all able-bodied males between 18 and 60, with attendance at quarterly musters being mandatory. Free blacks were also required to attend militia musters, although they were rarely accorded the right to keep and bear arms.(358) The Committee of Safety ordered that the local authorities confiscate the arms belonging to the Tories and issue these to militia or members of the army.(359) The militia officers who were willing to swear allegiance to the new nation were retained in rank.(360)"

In conclusion I think that the DAR record for this soldier is accurate. He was probably a district captain or 'colonel' of the relatively disorganized county militia, which would seem to be in keeping with his age and the fact that he seems to have funded a unit. It seems improbably that he was a colonel in the regular army or there would be far more references to him. Sandwich Eater (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Based on what we know about him from these limited sources, he doesn't quite qualify as notable according to the Wikipedia guideline. But perhaps he has been covered in some published, non-genealogical sources yet to be consulted. This article on the Hillsborough District militia, which was apparently the militia Brockman was connected with, lists some sources that may have some reference to him. He's not listed in the comprehensive Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, however, which casts doubts on how significant his militia service was. Some third-party published source is still needed, if it exists. —Kevin Myers 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For starters I will contact the DAR and ask what reference they are using when one sends them the inquiry. That should be one easy means to find a 3rd party reference for this soldier. I know that DAR was involved with raising that headstone in the first place, as I have seen pamphlets and so forth from the event of its raising. Thanks for the note on Hillsborough.

As a side note I also noted that there is a wikipedia entry for Hillsborough. I am looking into Hillsborough references now... Sandwich Eater (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I agree that a secondary source noting the service of this soldier would vastly improve the article. But I think it is comparable to many of the soldier stubs in wikipedia - note John Armstrong (Carolina). As the user points out above, there are multiple references to Brockman in the state archives. As you correctly point out, most of that is likely to be primary sources, or limited production/self published secondary sources. Given a bit of time I think a secondary source will be found, if for no other reason than the volunteers at DAR must have a secondary source available to them when they answer soldier search requests! Sandwich Eater (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the DAR uses a compilation of primary sources, rather than an actual secondary source, which of course makes sense for their purposes, since the common soldier's service record is not likely to have been mentioned in secondary sources. The difference between John Armstrong of North Carolina and John Brockman is that Armstrong is mentioned in pretty much every book on the Revolutionary War in North Carolina. The article on him is not sourced yet, but it will be a routine matter to do so when someone gets around to it, because he was clearly an important officer in North Carolina. It took me about 15 seconds to confirm Armstrong's service record in published secondary sources, but we're still working on Brockman's.... —Kevin Myers 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I agree. And the secondary source rule is important in Wikipedia. But I think we should give it a bit of time. The 2500 pound donation in and of itself is a fairly strong record, and seems to be recorded in secondary sources. The monument is a fairly strong source too - essentially a secondary source published by DAR. I note that a monument is used as a source for Benjamin Cleveland - a much more noteable figure of the NC militia. I'd like to see what the DAR comes back with regarding this soldier. Sandwich Eater (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JbrocknmanJrHeadstone.jpg

Image:JbrocknmanJrHeadstone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Issue Resolved. Sandwich Eater (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JbrocknmanJrHeadstone.jpg

Image:JbrocknmanJrHeadstone.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rev War search

I searched J.D. Lewis's database of Revolutionary War service records and could not find a John Brockman or the named unit. I also searched the DAR database. He was patriot and provided Patriotic Service. He was not a soldier in any unit.

BROCKMAN, JOHN

Ancestor #: A014750

Notice: PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED WITH AT LEAST ONE PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED PAPER - SEE ANCESTOR’S FULL RECORD (WHY?)

Service: NORTH CAROLINA Rank(s): PATRIOTIC SERVICE

Birth: 5-8-1735 ORANGE CO VIRGINIA

Death: 1-31-1801 LAURENS DIST SOUTH CAROLINA

Service Source: HAUN, NC REV ARMY ACCTS, BOOK C, PART 14, P 1892

Service Description: 1) FURNISHED SUNDRIES AND CASH FOR THE MILITIA

I added the books as inline references and added another reference cited on the Find a Grave site. All of the North Carolina militia regiments and brigades are now in Wikipedia and I did not come across John Brockman. I removed the templates for original sources since the books are now cited inline.

18:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC) User:G._Moore