Oh? Where did he say anything about "comments"?It was your link. Click on it.
It might be, except that she was named. Your assumption was that she wasn't.Given that she was married, and that we're talking about the 19th century, the reasonable assumption is that her husband was the head of the household.
Which "answers" are those? You've gone out into the weeds; do you even remember what the "claim" was?But even if that wasn't the case, the questions asked in the census don't provide the purported answers that are claimed.
Was that so hard?Fair enough -- I missed that.
Find someone who claimed they lied. Lots of people believe things about their families which aren't true. Doesn't have to go back that many generations, either.So ... any theory as to why someone in the Warren family lied about it in 2006 in a family newsletter?
Again, which "claims" are these? His claims were that she was mentioned by name and that she was listed as "white." According to all of your info on census-taking of the day, yes, they could "possibly" have done so.I mean the claimed results from early census questions that couldn't possibly provide the information that the author claims he gleaned from them.
Yeah. They should be digging up 46 year-old stories about what Romney did as a kid instead, right?It's beyond sad. It's a pathetic attempt to swiftboat a dedicated public servant who's infinitely brighter than that dimwit Scott Brown.