I received a reply to a similar request in another thread. I decided to post that response here as well. This helps explain the reason from my original letter in this thread.
Jim Culver

-------------------------
Hello Nathanael or Calvin. Thanks for writing,

I was around the Internet doing research about 15 years ago when the Nathaniel Culver/Margaret Burroughs parental assertion first appeared. I saw it take off from one person's innuendo to hundreds of amateur genealogists taking it as fact and disseminating it across Ancestry.com and the Internet in general. My position is: If there are ABSOLUTELY NO records to support a connection, it is probably incorrect.

Personally, I was the recipient of a LOT of the hard-earned research you mentioned by two particular ladies (both now deceased)and a gentlemen (he has stopped answering too), all in their late 80's who wanted to pass their research along to a Culver researcher who cared about keeping it accurate as they did.

One of the ladies would lecture me in monthly 10 page letters about the importance of verifying information as she did for many years. She abhorred the concept of the Internet and lazy research. I suppose I got that from her.

I have the books by Fredrick Lathrop Culver, Valerie Dyer-Giorgi, and the excellent work by Lorena Martin Spillers. Only Mrs. Spillers writes about my John Culver of Somerset line. The other two descend from Edward.

I would love to believe that our two lines are connected, but without proof I decline to say anything other than what Mrs. Spillers said:(quotation at the bottom of this note).

I realized when I wrote them that my letters and efforts to get this corrected would be difficult and perhaps even fruitless. However, the overall response was much better than I expected. Most people realize that they just copied someone's work to find their roots and have no particular pride of authorship. They corrected their records, or said they did.

Bad information on the Internet is like attempting to put out a wildfire, somewhere between difficult and impossible. But I had to try.

In dozen's of those genealogies you mentioned, I see little details (even typos), that indicate someone else copied my research verbatim. I don't mind that. My only objections is that my research is never complete, and if I find a serious error in my research, I have no way of correcting all the copies out there.

Perhaps I was just a tiny bit incensed that those people copied someone else's research instead of mine.

It is difficult to judge the tone of your letters, other than you disapprove of me attempting to get these errors corrected. Personally, I applaud anyone who attempts to do so.

Good Luck in your research.
Regards,
Jim Culver of Gholson, TX

-------------------------------------------------
1786 Nathan (1746-1828)Had a Visitor
Source: Lorena Martin Spillers book - Some Descendants of John Culver of Somerset Maryland - 1963.

In 1786, before he moved to Georgia, Nathan had a visitor, John Culver (1758-?), a 28 year old relative from Sussex County, New Jersey who came to live for the summer. That summer John met Sarah Bailey the daughter of George and Frances Bailey of Somerset County. The story goes that the Bailey family planned to move to North Carolina in 1786 and that John went with them. Sarah and John were married in North Carolina. In 1796 they moved to Sevier County, Tennessee. John died 23 November 1836 and is buried in Bedford County, Tennessee. Sarah died 23 October 1843. There is a plaque in at the Bedford County Court House honoring Revolutionary War soldiers. John's name is listed.

The question about this John Culver is how he was related to Nathan. John's lineage leads to Edward Colver (1610-1685), but how are these families connected. John's father was John Culver (about 1729-?) and his mother was Abigail Crassman. His grandfather was John Culver (about 1704-1733) and his grandmother was Freelove Lamb.