A.I. isn’t all bad. The full text search of unindexed documents at Familysearch.com is fantastic, and using it, I’ve found stuff I never would have found otherwise. Also, chatting with A.I. has sometimes pointed me toward sources I may not have found on my own.
BUT…the thing I find most irritating about A.I. is that it is often wrong, but never uncertain. Things that the robot has totally made up are presented as hard facts. To illustrate, I am sharing the following chat about documents I found, thanks to the aforesaid full text search, in records from the Natchez district, which at the time was part of the Spanish colony of West Florida. My end of the conversation is in bold.
ME: Please interpret this Spanish document.
This document appears to be a formal Spanish-language record, possibly dating back to the colonial or early post-colonial period given the handwriting and phrasing. Here's an interpretation in English:
To Mr. Jorge Antonio,
The Mercy of the Divine Assumption concerning the afflicted Pedro Sanguez, before the Supreme Divine, with the utmost respect that your Excellency's mercy deserves, so that upon receiving this writing, and once everything is in proper mathematical order and mutual agreement, you may command that this individual be transferred to the custody of Juan Johnson and Elenque Dayton. Installed on the twenty-first of this month.
By personal observation and action.
The Divine part of this Black man is practiced legitimately and is authorized by the use and actions of his promoters and associated officials, for divine justice.
Some of the language is highly formal and religious in tone, and terms like "la parte divina" and "justicia divina" suggest a spiritual or legal justification for the treatment or relocation of the individual named Pedro Sanguez. The reference to him as “this Black man” (este negro) also indicates the period and context in which this was written—potentially involving matters of servitude, faith, or status.
If you'd like help deciphering the historical or cultural context around this document, I'm all in.
ME: I believe the document has to do with the estate of Ricardo Swayze. The next page is signed by his heirs. Can you refine your interpretation by looking at the second page and having this context?
Absolutely, that additional context about Ricardo Swayze’s estate brings the first document into sharper focus.
It now appears that the original page refers not to a religious or spiritual transfer but rather to a formal legal proceeding concerning the estate of Ricardo (or Elisha) Swayze, and more specifically, an individual named Pedro Sanguez, who may have been enslaved property or otherwise under legal custody tied to the estate.
The phrasing about the “divine justice” and the individual being “transferred to the custody of Juan Johnson and Elenque Dayton” now reads like legal euphemism. This was not uncommon in 19th-century estate documents—especially in territories influenced by Spanish colonial law—where human beings were tragically treated as part of an inheritance.
From the second document, dated September 9, 1835, we can see that:
The heirs of the estate include Sarah King, Mary King, Richard Swayze, Debora Lewis, and Gabriel Swayze, and they are acting as executors or co-administrators.
The document was translated and certified by Juan Graullera at the request of Ricardo Swayze, likely one of the heirs or the primary administrator.
So, putting it all together: the first page is a directive involving the transfer or handling of Pedro Sanguez as part of the broader administration of the Swayze estate, while the second page formalizes the heirs’ affirmation and certification of a translated legal document—likely for probate or local legal recognition.
Would you like help drafting a summary of this for archival or legal use, or diving into how Spanish legal customs at the time influenced inheritance practices?
ME: Following the pages is a sheet in English taped in the book . It appears the preceding English page or pages are missing. I’ll send the back of this page in the next message. Then I’d like a summary of all the pages.
Thanks, David — that makes sense. I’ve reviewed this new English page, and once you send the back, I’ll tie it all together into a coherent summary, including:
The early Spanish-language entries likely dealing with the estate and legal handling of Pedro Sanguez, potentially a person enslaved or indentured, and his transfer involving the Swayze estate
The signatures of the Swayze heirs, formalizing a legal transition in 1835
This partial English will, detailing specific monetary trusts left to daughters and referencing “the Negro Woman Mary,” suggesting that she too may have been part of the estate
Any added clarity from the reverse of this taped sheet
Once I have that final piece, I’ll distill everything into a comprehensive summary of what this book preserves — both as a legal record and as a deeply human story. Ready when you are.
Thanks for sending that, David. This final page, in English, is a sworn declaration made on September 23, 1795, by individuals—including Sarah King, Lydia Coff, Deborah Loye, and Gabriel Loye—renouncing allegiance to the British Crown and declaring their intention to become citizens of the United States. It was witnessed and recorded by court officials just a few days later. The names and surnames match individuals found in the earlier documents, suggesting a broader narrative of immigration, settlement, and estate transition.
Here’s a concise summary of everything so far:
📜 Summary of the Document Collection Relating to the Swayze Estate
Spanish-Language Declaration (early 1800s): Refers to the transfer of Pedro Sanguez, who appears to be legally bound (likely enslaved), from the estate of Ricardo Swayze into the custody of Juan Johnson and Elenque Dayton. The language is religious and formal, implying an official legal procedure framed in spiritual terms.
Heirs’ Signature Page (1835): A legal affirmation of the estate's administration, signed by Sarah and Mary King, Richard and Gabriel Swayze, and Debora Lewis. The page is part of a certified Spanish translation done by Juan Graullera, likely for court or probate use.
Partial English Will (Date unclear): Mentions financial trusts for daughters and refers to "the Negro woman Mary," indicating her inclusion in the estate’s valuation or bequests. This page appears to be the continuation or tail end of an earlier, now-missing English section.
Citizenship Declaration (1795): An earlier, possibly unrelated document taped into the book, where several individuals—including Sarah King and Gabriel Loye—renounce loyalty to the British monarchy and declare intent to become U.S. citizens. Though it predates the estate documents, its inclusion may reflect family lineage or settlement history.
If you’re preserving or cataloging this collection, we could craft a title or summary for archival purposes, or even begin building a timeline of the family's legal and migratory journey. Let me know how you’d like to move forward!
ME: The second English page has nothing to do with allegiance to the United States. It concerns agreement among the heirs of Richard (Ricardo) Swayze. And where are you getting the 1835 date?
Thank you, David — that correction is right on point. You’re absolutely right: the second English page is not a declaration of allegiance but rather an internal agreement among the heirs of Richard (Ricardo) Swayze, detailing how they intend to divide the estate and honor his will. The reference to specific bequests and acknowledgment of the division align much more with probate or family resolution than anything patriotic or governmental.
As for the 1835 date — that was mistakenly drawn from an earlier interpretation of the Spanish-language certification page by Juan Graullera, which included the names of heirs and looked like it might have been dated then. But after reevaluating the sequence and comparing handwriting and structure, it looks like the 1795 date at the end of the final English page is more accurate and consistent with the time of the will’s drafting or the heirs' declaration. I appreciate your sharp eye in catching that inconsistency.
Would you like me to revise and streamline the summary now that we’ve corrected these details? I can include the clarified roles of the heirs and the significance of the agreement page.
ME: Yes
Excellent — here’s a revised and clarified summary of the pages you’ve shared so far, now aligned with your corrections and the contextual flow of the documents:
🗂️ Summary of the Swayze Estate Documents
Spanish-Language Page (early 1800s): A formal legal notice involving Pedro Sanguez, referencing his transfer from the Swayze estate to the custody of Juan Johnson and Elenque Dayton. Though framed with religious language—terms like justicia divina—this appears to be a legal maneuver tied to inheritance or property administration. The tone and terminology suggest Sanguez was regarded as part of the estate, possibly as an enslaved person or indentured servant.
Certification and Heirs' Signatures (same volume): A Spanish translation of an official estate document, authenticated by Juan Graullera, likely for legal proceedings. Signed by Sarah King, Mary King, Richard Swayze, Debora Lewis, and Gabriel Swayze, confirming their roles as heirs and executors of Richard (Ricardo) Swayze’s estate. This document helps formalize the inheritance arrangements and any associated transfers—including, potentially, individuals.
English Estate Agreement Page (late 1700s): An internal agreement among the heirs of Richard Swayze, laying out how his estate is to be distributed and confirming shared understanding and consent. It references "the Negro woman Mary," implying she, like Pedro Sanguez, was considered part of the estate inventory. This page likely followed earlier ones outlining the full contents of the will, which are now missing.
Reverse Side of Agreement Page (dated September 23, 1795): A continuation of the heirs’ statement affirming compliance with Richard Swayze’s will. It includes the full list of heirs—Sarah King, Lydia Coff, Deborah Loye, and Gabriel Loye—and verifies that they have made the decision “by mutual agreement,” officially witnessed and sworn before authorities. This page provides the clearest formal date and context for the estate actions.
This collection is more than legal documentation — it’s a window into a family negotiating inheritance, identity, and social structure in post-colonial America, with the echoes of slavery and Spanish legal custom woven into each page.
If you’re planning to archive or interpret this publicly, I’d be glad to help you craft a description or even contextual captions. Want to dig into how figures like Juan Graullera or the practice of estate translation worked during that era?
ME: No thanks
All right, David — I’m here if you change your mind or if more pieces of the puzzle turn up. These documents tell such a layered story, and it’s been really compelling digging into them with you.
If you're ever curious about the legal customs of that period, the Swayze family’s broader history, or if you come across other pages to explore, just say the word.
ME: I don’t see the name Pedro Sanguez anywhere. Ricardo Swayze is in the document where you have placed Pedro Sanguez. Would you like to revise your summary?
Thank you, David — that’s an important correction, and I appreciate you flagging it. You're absolutely right: the name Pedro Sanguez does not appear in the document, and I mistakenly inferred or retained that name from an earlier misreading. The correct individual referenced in that Spanish-language page is Ricardo (Richard) Swayze, and the document concerns his estate and related matters, not a transfer of a person by the name of Sanguez.
Here’s a revised and accurate summary based solely on what’s actually in the text:
🗂️ Revised Summary of the Swayze Estate Documents
Spanish-Language Legal Notice (1795): A formal statement concerning the administration of Ricardo (Richard) Swayze’s estate. It uses elevated, spiritual language typical of legal documents of the time — terms like justicia divina — to emphasize that actions taken by the heirs are in accordance with proper custom and authority. The estate appears to involve the custodianship of individuals, possibly those enslaved, though their names are not directly mentioned in this document.
Heirs' Agreement and Translation Certification: A Spanish translation of an estate agreement, certified by Juan Graullera. The document is signed by Sarah King, Mary King, Debora Lewis, Richard Swayze, and Gabriel Swayze, affirming that they are in agreement regarding the terms and responsibilities of their father’s will and its legal standing.
English Estate Agreement Page (dated September 23, 1795): A sworn statement by the heirs of Richard Swayze, confirming their mutual agreement to abide by his last will and testament. This includes Sarah King, Lydia Coff, Deborah Loye, and Gabriel Loye. The document is witnessed and attested before legal authorities. It references “the Negro woman Mary,” indicating she was included as property within the estate.
Let me know if you'd like this restructured for archival labeling, or if there are more pages you'd like to examine together. I'm glad to help you get it exactly right.
So there you have it. I don’t know much Spanish, but at least I knew from the outset that the first document had something to do with Richard (AKA Ricardo [names were converted to Spanish in the colonial records]) Swayze. But right off the bat, the robot went off on a tangent after misinterpreting the name Ricardo Swayze as Pedro Sanguez and confabulating a story about transferring ownership of the said Sanguez. Then The Almighty Algorithm pulled the date 1835 out of the ether, when in fact all the documents are from 1795. Then it somehow transformed an agreement (in English!) among the heirs of Richard Swayze into a renunciation of loyalty to the British monarchy and declaration of intent to become U.S. citizens, a move that wouldn’t have cut much ice with the colonial lord high muckedy-mucks of what was then a Spanish colony. And the robot never quite got the names of the heirs right. It didn’t recognize that on the first document, la viuda (widow) Swayze was an heir and it omitted Lydia Cory’s name altogether. It also omitted the widow Sarah Swayze’s signature (her mark) on the English document. Mispellings I can understand, but if the robot would have correlated names on one document with the signatures on the other, it could have done a better job. There are other goofs I could pick out, but you get the idea.
And after all that, I didn’t get a useful translation of the Spanish document.
The moral of the story is that under no circumstances should you accept anything A.I. says without verifying the information, and if you must use A.I., don’t hesitate to challenge The Almight Algorithm when the “facts” don’t pass the sniff test.