CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

1869 Braidwood colonial by-election

By-election in New South Wales, Australia

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 11, 2021
Entity authorityQ98454791 ↗
Source-derived summary

A by-election was held for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly electorate of Braidwood on 20 September 1869 because of the resignation of Joshua Josephson to accept an appointment as a judge of the District Court.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “1869 Braidwood colonial by-election” as by-election in New South Wales, Australia. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1869—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Braidwood, colonial and by-election can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as by-election in New South Wales, Australia. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 11, 2021. The linked authority identifier is Q98454791. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1869.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1869 Braidwood colonial by-election”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1869 Braidwood colonial by-election primary sources, 1869 Braidwood colonial by-election archive and Braidwood research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1869 Braidwood colonial by-election”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1869 Braidwood colonial by-election” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.